It hurts! It hurts! Please hit it again!!!!!! I.e. a scholarly review of government regulatory policy

Recently Herman Cain drew fire for a comment about the black community. He said, “Black voters "have been brainwashed into not being open-minded, not even considering a conservative point of view." I do not have any insight into the black community but Mr. Cain I believe you. You see I live in West Virginia, and I am a union member.  I worked with a man who was brilliant at work, did some amazing things and I as a newbie apprentice was extremely fortunate to learn from him, but when politics came up that was another story!  This gentleman would rail against open borders immigration, and over regulation, hated over taxation, strenuously resisted gun control and even insisted on a strong anti-crime position. Also Republicans hated the little guy. When it was pointed out that he supported the Republican position on every issue (with the exception of Iraq, which he adamantly opposed) the response would be some thinly veiled comparison between Bush and Hitler or Bush and Satan.

Like wise West Virginians are not socialists. I know this by observation and anecdotal experience but I sure as the Devil (Satan not Bush) cannot prove it based on the voting record of our beloved Senators Byrd and Rockefeller.  Sen. Byrd may be a legend in WV politics and served in the Senate for half a century but, save his support of the National Guard and the 167^th air base, nothing in his voting record for the last 10-15 years at least would have won him a Senate seat if his name was anything but Robert C Byrd. Likewise Sen. Rockefeller, who used to send my mother Christmas cards when she headed up the Jefferson County Dem committee, who says things like    There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, "Out. Off. End. Goodbye." It'd be a big favor to political discourse, our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future.  Of course we want the Senate to decide what news we can listen to, no problem there. More disturbingly is the reluctance to take on the EPA in any effectual way. Our state is largely dependant on coal for its economy, in fact 63% of WV jobs are coal related, and the best Sen. Rockefeller can do is support a temporary measure to limit the EPA’s ability to regulate green house gases for two years (i.e. through his reelection). Meanwhile even as the President goes about promoting his phony jobs bill the EPA is rewriting the stream buffer zone rules which his own administration admits will directly or indirectly cost 7,000 coal miners their jobs.

(ww.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2785775/posts)

I could go on indefinitely about the tyranny of the EPA, but it is but one example of the job killing liberty crushing regulatory dictatorial power of the current Governmental philosophy, all under the auspices of the hoax that is global warming. (some time I will do a whole post on that, in the mean time I recommend Climategate by Brain Sussman as the best of many works on the subject of the climate change hoax)  I could also go on to talk about the destruction of the government’s frequent regulatory wrecking ball like incursions to the financial and housing markets, or the choke hold the Obama care regulations will put on industry and business as a whole.

No one is suggesting unregulation, but without substantial easing of the over regulation our economy will stay bogged down in the quagmire of government red tape.  The important point is to learn what each of our candidates will do about it.

Herman Cain: The federal government has amassed incredible amounts of control through its ability to regulate everything from emissions to food to businesses. Certainly, some regulation is necessary to protect American consumers and taxpayers, but excessive regulation has driven up the price of the goods and services we want, need and desire.

According to the Heritage Foundation, burdensome regulations have increased at an alarming rate. In 2010 alone, Washington forced 43 major new regulations on us. The cost of complying with these additional measures is more than $26.5 billion, which according to Heritage, is “far more than any other year for which records are available.” Experts anticipate that with health care “deform,” financial regulatory “deform” and other liberal agenda items, next year’s regulatory costs will skyrocket farther.

We pay for regulations with every bite of food we eat, with every drop of gasoline we put in our cars and with every good or service we obtain. While we might not immediately recognize the impact of such drastic regulations, they are laced tightly in the cost of everything we buy. In fact, the Small Business Administration estimates that complying with regulation costs around $1.75 trillion annually, which is actually twice as much as all revenue from individual income taxes last year.

Alleviating the burdens of cumbersome regulation would be an immediate boost for our weakened economy. It would signal to businesses and investors that the government intends to maintain conditions that allow for them to thrive, not to bog them down with additional costs they must inevitably pass on to their consumers. No one is arguing for lead-based paint in toys for kids or unsafe food. We just want reasonable regulations that cut down on bureaucracy and help businesses succeed. And ultimately, the free market, aided in part by the watchful eyes of investors and consumers, will regulate itself.

http://www.hermancain.com/the-issues

Newt Gingrich: Remove obstacles to job creation imposed by destructive and ineffective regulations, programs and bureaucracies. Steps include: Repealing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which did nothing to prevent the financial crisis and is holding companies back from making new investments in the U.S; Repealing the Community Reinvestment Act, the abuse of which helped cause the financial crisis; Repealing the Dodd-Frank Law which is killing small independent banks, crippling loans to small businesses and crippling home sales; Breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, moving their smaller successors off government guarantees and into the free market; Replacing the Environmental Protection Agency with an Environmental Solutions Agency that works collaboratively with local government and industry to achieve better results; and Modernizing the Food and Drug Administration  to get lifesaving medicines and technologies to patients faster.

http://www.newt.org/solutions/jobs-economy

Newt’s ideas are sound and he has a pretty good record. While I would prefer the abolition of the EPA Newt’s replace idea takes us a big step in the right direction

Ron Paul:

Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear “experts” wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation. In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.

It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient. It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating. They are making their best guesses when formulating rules. It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow. Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void. For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.

The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates. Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats. They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe. How many scams have “It’s perfectly legal” as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible?

Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested. It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement. Many feel that just because their children are getting good grades at a government school, they are getting a good education. After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test. But, this does not guarantee educational excellence. Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life.

Is your drinking water safe, just because the government says it is? Is the internet going to magically become safer for your children if the government approves regulations on it? I would caution any parent against believing this would be the case. Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence.

These principles explain why the free market works so much better than a centrally planned economy. With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes “what can I get away with,” and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes. The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged.

 Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it.

Most of my post has focused on the environmental regulation, but I’ve chosen to

Include this well written post from Rep Paul as it shows a very strong inclination and belief in free markets and a fear of what the government will do when it tries to “help”

Plus he takes a swipe at public education and I like always that!

Michelle Bachmann: The president could also turn back some of the 132 regulations put in place in the last two years, many of which will cost our economy $100 million or more,” the Minnesota 6th District congresswoman said in her own post-State of the Union speech.

A spokesman from Bachmann’s Washington office said the statistics come from a recent study from the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center.

In the study, author Susan Dudley wrote that during the first two years of Obama’s presidency, “the federal government issued 132 economically significant regulations (defined as having impacts of $100 million or more per year). That averages out to 66 major regulations per year, which is dramatically higher than the averages issued by President Clinton (47 per year) or President Bush (48 per year).”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-bachmann-targets-132-new-regulations-costing-billions-created-first-2-years-obama

Rep Bachmann’s voting record supports her statements whole heartedly.

Rick Parry: Rick Perry’s support for low taxes, reasonable regulations, a predictable civil litigation system and an educated workforce has produced a job climate consistently ranked the best in the nation. http://www.rickperry.org/issues/jobs/

Perry’s record in Texas is pretty darned good as well primarily shown in the amount of disapproval he rates from environmental groups and a good record of job creation

Rick Santorum: The first thing nearly every executive will tell you, from sole proprietors to CEOs of international conglomerates: the existing federal regulatory structure in untenable.  From the enactment of the boondoggle of ObamaCare to the CO₂ regulations of the EPA, President Obama has single-handedly placed weight after weight on our job market and economy as a whole - and Rick Santorum would immediately repeal the regulatory alphabet soup implemented by the Obama Administration.  This also means ensuring that government agencies stay within their intended framework, most notably the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that has diverted from its purpose of protecting the rights of workers to doing the political work of President Obama's staunches union allies. Furthermore, while legislation pending before Congress is a start, Rick Santorum believes we need to streamline the patent process to unclog the patent backlog and encourage innovation in America.  And likewise, to ensure America remains the global beacon of biotechnology, we must reform the transparency of the Food and Drug Administration's approval process so entrepreneurs and investors alike can have surety in the process.  Finally, Rick Santorum believes that each new federal law and reauthorization of existing laws should be simpler and limit the ability of federal agencies to expand upon the law through regulation

As a Senator Santorum’s record was very good on these issues and he now has released his ful economic plan which warrants a look. http://www.ricksantorum.com/news/2011/07/courage-fight-american-jobs

Mitt Romney: Candidate Romney wants lower taxes and less regulation, he says carbon is not a pollutant and the EPA has no authority to regulate it, Gov. Romney supported legislation regulating green house gases in Mass. The purpose of 310 CMR 7.29 is to control emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO₂), mercury (Hg), carbon monoxide (CO),carbon dioxide (CO₂) and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) (together “pollutants“) from affected facilities in Massachusetts. 310 CMR 7.29 accomplishes this by establishing output-based emission rates for NOx, SO₂ and CO₂ and establishing a cap on CO₂ and Hg emissions from affected facilities.

Further Romney-care buried Mass under the same crushing regulations as will Obama care. Of course states can do that constitutionally, the governor argues correctly but he still won’t admit they shouldn’t.

I’d like to link to the page on his website that details his ideas as I’ve tried to with the others, but I can’t get past the donations page, I don’t know if it’s a problem with my computer or his site.

Of the 8 candidates profiled all have good campaign positions on this issue and 6 have good voting records to support their positions. Herman Cain has no voting record but I see no reason to doubt his belief in the free market. Like on most issues Mitt Romney has “evolved” his position on regulation and in the end the question comes down to rather we believe Gov. Romney or Candidate Romney, and that makes me hesitant to fully endorse his regulatory position.

This may be the strongest issue for our candidates top to bottom, and any of them will give us hope that we can return to building our economy as soon as the Obama administration is swept away by an election tsunami in 2012.

Thanks for sticking with me through along post, until next time keep on the firing line!

. 

The Perry Plan, a pleasant surprise

While I have been working on a blog about the evils of overregulation as well as a church event here at home which featured a dynamic Christian young lady named Becki Hedrick whose music and ministry are so good that I am going to throw in an unsolicited and gratuitous plug for her website http://www.beckihedrick.com/  it seems that Rick Perry has released his economic plan and it is good, so good that rather than simply adding a comment to last weeks I’ll take a few extra minutes to review it properly.

First of all Perry’s plan eliminates the death tax permanently, that is point positive number one.

Perry’s plan calls for a 20% flat tax on both business and personal income with a very streamlined set of deductions, including mortgage and charitable deductions. The flat rates are optional but the power of the government to use the IRS as a behavior modifying force would be sorely curtailed and perhaps killed.

Lastly and this is necessary to move the tax plan to my upper echelon, a 2/3 majority would be necessary to raise taxes, this would eliminate any gratuitous raise in taxes by one party.

I am moving the Perry Plan all the way up to number two on my list, right behind Cain’s 999. My first reason to still put Cain at number one is that I think the benefit of a 9% business tax override the drag of a 9% sales tax 5fold, as well as a 9% flat tax which ensures that everyone pays a little but no one pays too much. Perry’s plan, as does Newt’s, makes the flat rate optional so I really don’t know how that will cause those who currently do not pay to pay anything and while I hate the over burden and oppressiveness of our current system I do believe in supporting the constitutional functions of government. The one big advantage to Perry’s plan is that it is far easier to implement than Cain’s as it would not require a constitutional amendment, and that almost vaults it to number one for me.

Perry’s plan would eventually lower spending to 18% of GDP which is similar to the Clinton years and while it would still allow for a bloated safety net and too big of a government presence it would be a burden our economy could handle.

Perry’s website which I linked to last time has details

Until next time, keep on the firing line

Battling the Tax Beast

Last time we looked at the first of the evil triad of over taxation, over regulation and currency manipulation in general terms. This week we will get specific and study the positions of the top tier Republican candidates. The good news is none of these guys (or gals) would even consider proposing a $500,000,000,000.00 tax increase and calling it a jobs bill and any Republican candidate would support the Bush tax rates at the minimum. However,  I don’t  in 2012 our goal should be to find the candidate less terrible, we should demand the best of the best and I believe if we ever have a chance to fundamentally change how taxes are levied this its year, thanks to the tea party is it.

“The tax code has become the new version of slavery and the IRS the overseers”

Herman Cain

One candidate who gets it is Herman Cain. Cain’s 9-9-9 plan introduces a revolutionary train of thought. The plan involves eliminating the current tax code and replacing it with a 3 part tax system a 9% flat tax rate, a 9% flat corporate rate and a 9% sales tax. The two theories of tax reform are flat tax (most proposals put this at 15-18%) or a fair tax i.e. sales tax of around 23%. The Cain plan will broaden the tax base make American cooperate rates currently among the highest in the world among the lowest. Would, in theory at least, be a tax cut too all American’s the lowest current bracket being 10%. (I know many people pay less then they get in refunds, but is that really fair? To use an Obamaism). The real beauty of the Cain plan to me is that it does away with the government’s ability to control through taxation and credit. We would pay a relatively small bill and be done with it. At first I was a little hesitant to give whole hearted endorsement as you will be introducing a new tax source in the sales tax.  How do we know that the 9-9-9 does not become 15-15-15? The protection against this is that it would take a 2/3 majority to raise taxes, given how hard it is to get 60 senators to agree on a controversial measure we will be assured that a tax increase will only happen at a truly necessary moment. In the new day of American tax attitude the 9-9-9 plan has the power to eliminate a huge percentage of the ill begotten power of the Federal Government and will eliminate most of the 430 billion dollars that the government uses to regulate and enforce the current tax code. Best of all it drives a steak through the heart of the death tax vampire once and for all. Herman Cain’s website gives a great summary of the plan at http://www.hermancain.com/999plan.

“

“I lean toward a flat tax. But I want to make it real flat, like zero.” --Ron Paul

On most subjects I have been critical of Ron Paul, consider it the difference between a conservative and a libertarian. When it comes to a bold stand and revolutionary thought on tax and spend policy Rep. Paul is as cutting edge as were Jefferson and Madison and their contemporaries. To appreciate Ron Paul’s position on the personal income tax a few relative points should be made. First America did not always have an income tax, it was not implemented until 1913, (by the way several fundamental changes to our republic were made in 1913, many of which were harmful to the cause of liberty how ironic if in 2012-2013 we would make a fundamental push back to advance liberty once again), secondly remember that the progressive income tax is not an American idea, it is Marxist “2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. “This is plank #2 in the Manifesto of the communist party and one of a disturbing number of similarities to modern liberalism. (Read for yourself http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)

Ron Paul’s argument for the complete abolition of the income tax is made wonderfully in an article reprinted at a Ron Paul supporter site http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/taxes/  in addition Paul is in favor o abolishing capital gains which usually results in a double taxation of money, first when it is earned second after it has been invested., this would benefit both business and individuals

Ron Paul does not propose an alternate form of taxation. As he points out a third of revenue comes from personal income taxes and he would see the government shrink by one third. The only fly in the Ron Paul ointment is that a big part of his down sizing of government would be in defense and foreign relations and these are the only parts of the Federal government that I don’t support radical down sizing of.

For my tax plan, I take a page out of one of my great economists that I admire, Ronald Reagan.  And under my tax plan I want to adopt the Reagan tax plan. It brought the economic miracle of the 1980s. Why not go with what works? I want to reinstitute the Reagan tax model from the 1980s.”—Michelle Bachmann.

Rep. Bachman like most of our candidates does see both the social and economic benefits of lowering the tax rates and limiting regulation, but even “Ronaldus Magnus” (to steal a line from Rush) did not completely abolish the progressive system, still he took it from a top rate of 70% to 28%. It has since climbed back to 35%. While any plan based on Reagan is good I feel that we should look forward not back. Bachman would reduce the number of tax brackets and lower a lot of rates and would be a good plan…just not the best. http://www.michelebachmann.com/issues/americanjobsrightnow/ is an overview of the whole of her plan.

 I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate." Newt Gingrich

The best part of the Gingrich plan is the elimination of the capitol gains tax, and he would oppose any tax increases. For a guy who opposed the Paul Ryan budget plan on the grounds of social engineering he supports allowing the government to continue to control business, as he wants to modify the tax code to urge businesses to invest in research and

Development, but I would prefer the idea of taxing them less and letting them make up their own minds on research and development. Again though Newt’s plan has many good points, it would give an optional flat tax rate of 15%, and would head us into a “good place”,  here and now we can do better.

http://www.newt.org/solutions/jobs-economy

And for the record, I don't believe cutting taxes is the same thing as spending. A spending cap is meant to stop runaway spending, not runaway tax relief. Rick Perry 2/6/7

Very important point made by the Texas governor, it’s not the governments money! Rick Perry as governor has something of a mixed tax record, even if we eliminate his legilslative votes before leaving the Democrat party. I think the best we can honestly expect from Perry is little or no tax increases. The majority of Perry’s plan involves energy production and I am on board with that! But it’s for another week. http://www.rickperry.org/issues/jobs/ also though I am hard pressed to link to a ny times article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/us/26tttaxes.html?pagewanted=all Perry’s own site gives little detail so we must look elsewhere.

 I’m for not taking more people’s money when they die. Rick Santorum 7/3/6

I like Rick Santorum always have, his tax proposals are not yet released in detail however and all we really know is that he doesn’t like Herman Cain’s plan. From his statements and interviews he seems most interested in cutting business taxes to spur economic growth which is good. He rightly points out that as long as American business is overtaxed they will continue to move jobs overseas. He also has indicated that he does not wish to lower the top income tax rates to as low as 25%, as that would cut revenue too much. I think taking more than a quarter of any man’s income is too much. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/transcript/help-wanted-rick-santorum-talks-taxes

And then you go on to say how are we going to bring down taxation, because we have the highest tax rate, next to Japan, in the world. That's -- that hurts our economy.  Mitt Romney

Romney would lower the corporate tax rate to 25%, which is helpful, as the top rate in now 35% and second highest in the world, and he supports the Bush tax rates, as well as being in the death to the death tax crowd. I don’t like his proposal to remove the interest and dividends tax only from those earning under $200k. The last thing I want is to add another graded tax scale to our tax code. Overall Romney’s plan is acceptable but is neither bold nor revolutionary. I would link directly to his plan but that involves a 160 page book, so here is an overview at http://www.mittromney.com/jobs with links to download the full plan or a summary.

It is within the Republican Party that actual ideas are debated and solutions put forth. Here we have a wonderful array of ideas of how to limit taxation and grow the economy. I have listed them from my first choice down. I think only Herman Cain’s plan at this point provides the power to fundamentally change the mechanizations of government and end the Marxist oppression of the IRS. If you think Marxist is too strong a word follow that Marx link and see if I’m wrong.

Until next time keep in the firing line.

The economic axis of evil

Over taxation, oppressive regulation and currency manipulation, these are the foes as we battle to put the economy back on track. The truth is all these issues form a tangled web of economic impediments and any legitimate jobs plan will need to address them all.

This is where our noble field is strongest. As the old military cliché says, let us first know our enemy. I remember as a kid sitting in school (the thought of which still gives me nightmares) hearing one teacher or the other say, “The American revolution was more about taxes and economics than it was freedom.” I thought “bummer” that just sounds so much less noble. Like wise I used to despise the thought that people voted with their wallets instead of consciences. What the founding fathers knew and teacher did not, and I have learned in the last 10-15 years, is that the power to tax is the power to control, and that freedom and taxation are now and have always been inseparable. One of the most fundamental questions in beginning a discussion of taxation is: “what is the purpose of taxes?” is it A) to raise revenue to fund the necessary functions of government or B) to encourage and discourage certain behaviors and equalize income disparity. Conservatives tend to be in the A category, though you will still find that many do support the progressive tax scale and the use of income levels to determine tax reward and “punishment” i.e. Mitt Romney’s eliminating capital gains on people who’s income is under $200,000, so if you’re living in Mitt’s America and you have made 175,000 in November, you remove your goods and services from the market place between Thanksgiving and New Year. I actually think this whole thing is populism (a political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people) and I do not support the merits of progressive taxation on either practical or ethical grounds. Contrast this to President Obama and his diatribe against the millionaires and billionaires, whom he defines as an income level of 250k, nigh unto 40% of total taxes, are paid by 1% of taxpayers. These evil SOB’s aren’t paying their fair share you see. The top 10% pay well over half of the tax bill and those whose income is above 62K which is half the country pay a whopping 96.93% of taxes. The rest of the country the other 66 million people pay 3% of the taxes. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html

To clear up one more thing Obama’s argument that Warren Buffet’s secretary pays a higher rate than he does, Buffet’s success is in investments which are taxed as capital gains not income. Capital gains are taxed at 15% so the secretary has to make in excess of 34,500 which is the 25% bracket. Of course no liberal will ever say “Dang that poor woman’s taxes are too high” they say capital gains are suddenly too low, It matters not that investment drives business and thus jobs. To be populist for one moment, its you that will be screwed if capital gains goes up when you sell your home or property, i.e. when you retire and want to move into a smaller place after the kids have grown. Any value added to your home from the time you purchase it until the time you sell is what is taxed by capital gains. We the mob cry out for the government to take the sword of taxation and smite the rich but in the end it is our throat that is cut, for once the rich are smitten where must that sword go next?

The dirty little secret for those who believe in the plan a view of taxation is that raising rates seldom increases revenue to government. While that may sound counterintuitive it is nonetheless true. Pres. Obama knows it too, in one of the few real question asked in the 2008 campaign then Sen. Obama said even though lowering capital gains increases revenue its about fairness. He said so in the Democratic debate in April of 2008. Also remember the famous exchange with Joe the Plumber, “We have to spread the wealth around”. Of course the purpose of lowering taxes, especially business and capital gains is to spur investment and economic growth, the huge bump in revenue associated is an unintended consequence of a broader tax base.

Perhaps the most fundamental issue about taxation is shown in one phrase the President has used from time to time, when he refers to tax breaks as “expenses”. Why this is so disturbing is that the underlying idea has to be that the income of each American belongs to government and that it is up to government to decide what you get to keep. I say we the people decide what we allow the government to have and they must budget accordingly. As a farmer I see the estate tax as the most alarming example of this government arrogance.

So as we battle the dragon in our effort to rescue the fair maiden (a.k.a. the free enterprise system) which of our gallant princes (or princess) has the battle plan and the raw nerve to stand courageous in this fierce battle? Let’s examine each in the harsh light of scrutiny and see who shall be Free Enterprise’s champion.

We shall do so next time.

Keep on the firing line

Taking a stand, Maloney for governor

I want to take a break from the GOP presidential race for a moment and offer my endorsement to Bill Maloney in the WV gubernatorial special election on Tuesday.

In a state where Democrats have been in the majority since time began, (1863 in WV terms) and where to be fair the Dem. Party is not so extreme as they tend to be on a national level, it is encouraging and telling that the governor’s race to fill the void left by Joe Manchin is so close just 2 days before votes are to be cast. Remember, this is the state where the legendary Robert C Byrd occupied the US Senate seat for 50 years. I can guarantee that those who wish to name every public building after the man would never have supported a new comer with the same voting record as Sen. Byrd compiled in the past 10-20 years. West Virginia politics has been dominated by a Democrat cabal as much as has Detroit Michigan, albeit a more benign one. Of course when West Virginians make that hour and a half drive from the eastern panhandle to Washington DC they become socialist hacks willing to sell out every principle and freedom of the voters who sent them there. As proof I offer the voting record of Sen. Jay Rockefeller.

So how do we challenge this cabal? Conventional wisdom is to choose candidates who are “Democratish” and maybe offer the voter a cookie or two more than the opponent. If you will forgive me the narcissism of quoting myself, this is my view of that philosophy.
            Oh for a man of the mushy middle! How my heart yearns for one who can lay aside such divisive concepts as principle and constitutionality and just be civil. What hope is there but for a man willing to smile and compromise as the liberals erode freedom? Where is the leader who will extend a hand to the president and ignore the knives thrust into his, or her, back?

            Are not these the ones who have inspired us throughout history? Was Scotland not unified behind William Wallace’s message of moderate civility?  Was Samuel Adams not famous for his lack of extremist rhetoric? Didn’t Thomas Payne inspire a nation by seeking common ground with the British? Was not the purpose of the first tea party an attempt to compromise with the British on tax policy?  Surely no one like Patrick Henry would have used the inciting words liberty and death in the same sentence. Certainly Abraham Lincoln saved the republic by embracing the slave owners with the stirring refrain “why can’t we all just get along”. Didn’t Reagan inspire the nation by…? I think you get my point. To quote Braveheart’s Wallace “men do not follow titles [or moderates] they follow courage.”   

(5/4/11)

Men of courage are men of consequence and Maloney distinguished himself from a strong Republican primary field with an uncompromising conservative message and a willingness to take a strong stand on moral and social issues as well as economic ones.

This is why I think our little race here in our little state deserves much more attention then it has gotten nationally. Win or loose Maloney has moved conservatism forward in our state and Lord willing will continue to do so as Governor.  

Maloney, like Christine O’Donnell, is up against a steep challenge but I believe its better to fight on principle and loose than to fight on expedience and win. Mike Castle might have won in Delaware but if he did all we would have had was a Republican who often sided with the Dems and gave them bipartisan cover for there far left agenda. Like wise even though the Manchin administration was largely successful and popular in WV in a day where a Democratic President seeks to destroy the coal industry through regulations that are beyond oppressive and where Obama care seeks to redefine the very meaning of individual liberty, we need the courage of conviction of a man like Maloney.

For more info:  http://www.maloneyforwv.com/

Agree or not, don’t forget to vote, men died all over the world to give you that right.

Until next time, keep on the firing line.

Not so fast with the front runner stuff

As of right now you get the impression that it’s all settled between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination, not so fast, at the same point in 2008 Rudi Giuliani was the front runner trailed closely by Fred Thompson with John McCain an afterthought.  Perhaps we would have been better if McCain had remained an afterthought, but I digress. The point is, I do not accept that we have to limit our choices to the candidates that the press gives us as front runners.

I have quarrels with Rick Perry, though I have not ruled him out as my choice, I have very serious problems with Mitt Romney as well and I’ll be darned if I will let some God-awful pollster tell me rather I have to choose one of these two or not!

First of all I do not yet have a satisfactory answer from Mitt on Romney-care. He has said correctly that the constitution allows states to screw up the health care system and force odorous mandates on its citizens but does not make the same allowance for the Federal Government. Somehow I find little comfort in the fact that Romney’s only basis for undoing the piece of legislation that transforms America into a land of the formerly free is a technicality? Romney still defends Romney care and if only he had gotten more of what he wanted it would have worked. I’m sorry but that doesn’t do it for me. Romney won’t even denounce the individual mandate which in my humble opinion is the third most immoral thing in the government today, right behind abortion and the death tax. Reagan said about socialized medicine, “   "behind it will come other government programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Norman Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism.", "We are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."  I don’t sense that type of commitment from the Romney camp, and it will take a slew of convincing before Mitt Romney will get my primary vote.

Gov. Perry also has some ‘splainin’ to do. How dare you Mr. Governor mandate that my little girl get vaccinated against STD’s? Now he has admitted that the decision to mandate HPV vaccinations in Texas was a mistake, duh! There are things I would go to jail rather than do and this vaccine would have been one of them had I lived in Texas and had the program been implemented. Michelle Bachman was right to call him out on this but in truth I don’t care who profited the important point and the one Gov. Perry has not answered to my satisfaction is  why Gov. Perry believes that government has such a big role to play in what parents do and do not do.

It disturbs me greatly that Gov. Romney seems to have the strongly held views that please his electoral target audience. We need true conservatives not men who will campaign like Reagan and govern like Clinton. This troubles me and before I concede that Romney is viable I want proof of sincerity.

I am also concerned about the Perry position on immigration, specifically the in state tuition policy he supported in Texas. I think it certainly warrants debates as to rather in state tuition rates being extended to the children of  illegal immigrants signifies a support of lawlessness, and if it bespeaks an overall weakness on the broader issue of border security but what infuriates me is the response to criticism that the Governor has decided to pursue. if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they've been brought there by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart. “  further the governor has implied that people who have a problem with this position are uncomfortable with people with different sounding names. So if we disagree with Rick Perry we are hate filled bigots. Governor you were much closer to getting my vote before these asinine comments!

Remember many people voted for McCain because they believed the media twist that he was the only one that could defeat Hillary. Please do not let the media make this decision based on polls and experts claims of electability .my advice keep studying the candidates and choose the one you believe will save this country! We will keep doing that here.

Until next time, Keep on the firing line.

The most important campaign issue no one talks about

I have friends who believe it’s all over, that America has fallen too far into the cesspool of moral decay, that Divine judgment must ensue and that our government is no longer free and that it is too late to do any thing about it. Perhaps some day it would make a fascinating article to explain why I disagree, not that we have wondered from the straight and narrow, but that it’s too late to turn around.  Still even a fool can see that our government has grown far beyond its intended constitutional bounds. Even though we have the most remarkable republic in human history it is important to note that the worst most egregious errors in our history have tended to spring from Judicial Fiat rather than democratic process. In recent years this has been aggravated by the effectiveness of the liberals to block a number of conservative appointees. Most famous was the appointment of Robert Bork by the great Ronald Reagan. Who can forget the mean spirited, hate filled and factually challenged rant by the late Ted Kennedy, “   Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.

The “Liberal Lion” may have been a party hack with no regard for the truth, but he was not dumb. He understood that liberalism cannot win elections it cannot long be maintained through standard legislative process. Its mandates must be imposed by an activist court and its unconstitutional precepts must be upheld by sympathetic adjudicator. Meanwhile Republicans tend to “want to honor the traditions of the Senate” and support even the most radical nominees as a recognition of the will of the people through the election process. In principle I agree with the GOP but in application if only one side blocks nominees than their slant will be dominate in the court for years to come.

When the Republican senate finally grew the nerve to do something about this and proposed a “nuclear option” ending the ability of the left to block President Bush’s nominations to the appeals court, in rode the maverick John McCain to the lefts rescue agreeing with his “gang of 14” to stop the nuclear option in exchange for votes on less than half of the nominations in question. This trend cannot continue, either the libs must be forced to play by the same rules or we have to play by theirs.

This is a critical time, in all the levels of the courts but especially in the Supreme Court where currentky there are 4 rock solid constructionist judges (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito)  dyed iin the wool liberals (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagen, Sotomayor) and one straw blown in the wind in Anthony Kennedy who was a poor substitute for Robert Bork. Further all federal judgeships have an impact on the government of our country and the rights of its citizens. If the trend continues Gay marriage and abortion will continue to be rights while praying at a graduation or hanging the 10 commandments will be criminalized, and government will continue to grow unchecked. However much we like a candidates policies, poor judicial appointments will negate everything else.

Mitt Romney: as with all things the actions of Gov. Romney do not always match the words of candidate Romney. While talking a great game about the dangers of activist judges, 27 of the 36 Massachusetts appointees by Romney were either Democrats or independents including two activist homosexuals. Of course state issues and Federal are not identical and on Gov. Romney’s defense his main concern was the prosecution of crime and that not being soft on the same were his key criteria. Further political party certainly should not be a consideration, it is however one more reason to be very very cautious before throwing support behind Mitt.

Rick Perry: Perry also has a record, which over all is reasonably good, but though some controversy exists over his selection of self described moderate Xavier Rodriguez over conservative Stephen Wayne Smith, who eventually prevailed in the ensuing election. My concern over this is, as when George Bush made the questionable selection of Harriet Meyers as the best woman available rather than the best justice available, was Perry pandering to Latino voters or was Rodriguez really a best choice. Overall though Perry’s record is better than Romney’s.

The rest of the candidates have no record, so we have to rely on stated positions. Here is a list of quotes compiled by:    nla.org/Blogs/blogs/public/archive/2011/06/29/unlike-obama-republican-candidates-would-appoint-impartial-judges.aspx

Michelle Bachmann: “I do not believe the judges should be legislating from the bench. As President of the United States, I would not appoint judges who are activists.” (June 27, 2011).

Herman Cain: “A justice must issue rulings based on the Constitution, not on any political leanings or desires to legislate from the bench.” (February 22, 2011).

Newt Gingrich: “I believe that the justices who believe that their personal view outweighs the voters of their state, the governor and the legislature of their state are fundamentally acting outside the American system.  I think the American system was one of a balance of power.  I think this whole modern – it starts with the Warren Court in 1958, 1959, this whole modern notion of judicial supremacy is false, and I think that that’s going to be one of the major issues in 2012 and beyond is whether you want judges dictating the nature of American or you want judges who accept the law and who have respect for the legislative and executive branches.” (May 25, 2011).

Gary Johnson: “Judges should be appointed who will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning. Any court decision that does not follow this original meaning of the Constitution should be revisited.” (Unknown Date)

).

Ron Paul: “The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. As a society, we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, and pay closer attention to the judicial nomination procedure. It's time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.” (October 5, 2004).

Rick Santorum: “[E]xtreme liberal judges [are] destroying traditional morality, creating a new moral code and prohibiting any dissent…The Supreme Court has become the supreme branch of the government, imposing its unrestrained will on all of the people…The only way to restore this republic our founders envisioned is to elevate honorable jurists like Samuel Alito who want to replace the hubris of this court with humility and respect for the common sense of the American people.” (July 9, 2006).

Until nest time, keep on the firing line