The hardest thing about being conservative is dealing with the fantasies of the Left. Keynesianism should be buried with a stake through its heart. $850 Billion in direct spending coupled with a Trillion dollars in debt every year for the last four years should show that government spending does not increase the economy.
Since Obama has been reelected, attention is now being turned to the fiscal cliff. Harry Reid wants higher tax rates on everyone making over $250k, Chuck Schumer doesn't want to fix the tax code, (so that he can still give his friends the perks they paid him for) and Speaker Boehner says that he doesn't want higher tax rates. Seems like a recipe for stalemate. But in addition to the tax increases that are coming, we also have the results of Obamacare being implemented. The number of companies that are going to be forced to lay off workers is only going to be matched by the rise in prices that those companies that don't lay off workers are going to have to impose. It's entirely possible that you will see your hours cut to 28 a week and an increase in prices all at the same time.
So how about this - Let Boehner go along with the tax increase on the wealthy, but with a caveat: If the unemployment rate goes about 8.2%, the Bush tax cuts are fully reinstated and made permanent. Obama has been touting his "Summer of recovery" for the last three years, and unemployment has finally fallen below 8%. If his economic model is so wonderful, by historic standards we should be really rocketing up in GDP by now (bad base line is an easy way to show rapid growth).
Would have the advantage of saying to Obama, have it your way, which would remove the cudgel of class warfare, while at the same time making a bet that his economics don't work.
Friday, November 09, 2012
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Boy Was I Wrong
Wow, just wow. The fundamentals dictated that no President could possibly overcome all that was going on in this country. The economy, 23 million unemployed, Benghazi and the rest of the Middle East, the coming fiscal cliff all should have led to a complete dismissal of The One. The fact that Mitt was competent even if not inspiring should have given hope that the USS Economy could finally be steered out of the shallow waters and once again prowling the oceans at full speed.
Instead, we get more of the same. Which was really the biggest reason I thought that Obama would lose. When people went to vote, would they ask themselves if this is as good as it gets, or can it be better? Unfortunately, it seems to be that they think that this is as good as it gets. And with his reelection, I guess this is as good as it gets.
But there are some fundamentals that can be learned from this election. First, go negative early and often. Keep hammering your opponent even if it's not the truth. The low information voter seems to be especially susceptible to the first message that hits him or her. Do not allow any accusation to go unchallenged. What would have happened if Mitt had responded to Obama, "Mr. President, you said that I was against government assistance to the auto companies. You either retract it right now or show yourself for the liar that you really are." Pretty disrespectful, but certainly merited. In fact, probably the most iconic moments of irony had to be Bill Clinton asking if we really wanted a President who lied to us. Apparently so.
Structurally, the Libertarian Party has to go. Republicans are going to have to work to include them, since they are a drain on votes for their candidates. If you add the 29k votes for Cox to Denny's total, Denny wins. Same with Rick Hill, who only needed half the Libertarian candidate's votes to win. Republicans can try and ostracize the Libertarian Party, but that's just like wrestling with a pig, the pig likes it and you get dirty. It wouldn't take that much to bring libertarians into the party, since both agree on the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility. The problem is always the social conservative movement of the Republicans. Not to say that they aren't vital and valid, but you are never going to get anywhere with a libertarian by arguing that his principles on limited government have to be sacrificed in the name of a war on drugs or whatever. At the same time, libertarians have to be made abundantly clear that pulling votes from Republicans just elects Democrats. So, while the Libertarian may feel the Republican is not pure enough, he gets the Democrat elected who is completely antithetical to his beliefs. Half a loaf and all that.
Going forward, we have to address the concerns of the low information voter instead of ignoring them. The Democrats took full advantage of these people in order to get elected. Who are they? The ones who believe that Mitt Romney was going to take abortion away, or only cared about the rich. Now, Romney never really addressed abortion because the reality is that the big problem was the economy. If he had just asked the rhetorical question "If we allowed abortion on demand until the fetus graduates from High School or turned 18, which ever occurred later, how would that change the economy?" it would have pointed out the absurdity of the whole issue. But it certainly turned a lot of women voters. Second, Mitt should have addressed the rich issue by pointing out that right now if you implemented Obama's tax increases, you would fund the deficit, not the debt for about four days. The problem is the spending, not the taxes.
The whole rich versus poor thing is a fools errand. We become forced to fight on the battleground of their choosing. We should be pointing out instead that government is the problem. What if Mitt had been saying that Obama wants to bankrupt Social Security in order to keep paying Planned Parenthood, or that Medicare payments were reduced to the point that no doctor will take Medicare because of the low reimbursement rates in order to transfer "green money" to Obama's political contributers.
In fact, the Republicans miss the biggest easy target that the Democrats can never successfully defend. Every year, Sen. Coburn comes out with a list of government waste. Why are we raising taxes when we have so much waste? Most people would agree that it is better to get rid of government waste than to raise taxes, but Republicans just don't seem as interested in presenting the issue. Using a modified version of Malthus, doubling of the size of government results in an exponential growth in government failures and mismanagement. That is where the Republicans need to concentrate. Democrats would be running from fire to fire trying to put out the stupid stuff that the government does.
Yesterday was a loss. Today is the first day of the new fight. Let's fight smart.
Instead, we get more of the same. Which was really the biggest reason I thought that Obama would lose. When people went to vote, would they ask themselves if this is as good as it gets, or can it be better? Unfortunately, it seems to be that they think that this is as good as it gets. And with his reelection, I guess this is as good as it gets.
But there are some fundamentals that can be learned from this election. First, go negative early and often. Keep hammering your opponent even if it's not the truth. The low information voter seems to be especially susceptible to the first message that hits him or her. Do not allow any accusation to go unchallenged. What would have happened if Mitt had responded to Obama, "Mr. President, you said that I was against government assistance to the auto companies. You either retract it right now or show yourself for the liar that you really are." Pretty disrespectful, but certainly merited. In fact, probably the most iconic moments of irony had to be Bill Clinton asking if we really wanted a President who lied to us. Apparently so.
Structurally, the Libertarian Party has to go. Republicans are going to have to work to include them, since they are a drain on votes for their candidates. If you add the 29k votes for Cox to Denny's total, Denny wins. Same with Rick Hill, who only needed half the Libertarian candidate's votes to win. Republicans can try and ostracize the Libertarian Party, but that's just like wrestling with a pig, the pig likes it and you get dirty. It wouldn't take that much to bring libertarians into the party, since both agree on the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility. The problem is always the social conservative movement of the Republicans. Not to say that they aren't vital and valid, but you are never going to get anywhere with a libertarian by arguing that his principles on limited government have to be sacrificed in the name of a war on drugs or whatever. At the same time, libertarians have to be made abundantly clear that pulling votes from Republicans just elects Democrats. So, while the Libertarian may feel the Republican is not pure enough, he gets the Democrat elected who is completely antithetical to his beliefs. Half a loaf and all that.
Going forward, we have to address the concerns of the low information voter instead of ignoring them. The Democrats took full advantage of these people in order to get elected. Who are they? The ones who believe that Mitt Romney was going to take abortion away, or only cared about the rich. Now, Romney never really addressed abortion because the reality is that the big problem was the economy. If he had just asked the rhetorical question "If we allowed abortion on demand until the fetus graduates from High School or turned 18, which ever occurred later, how would that change the economy?" it would have pointed out the absurdity of the whole issue. But it certainly turned a lot of women voters. Second, Mitt should have addressed the rich issue by pointing out that right now if you implemented Obama's tax increases, you would fund the deficit, not the debt for about four days. The problem is the spending, not the taxes.
The whole rich versus poor thing is a fools errand. We become forced to fight on the battleground of their choosing. We should be pointing out instead that government is the problem. What if Mitt had been saying that Obama wants to bankrupt Social Security in order to keep paying Planned Parenthood, or that Medicare payments were reduced to the point that no doctor will take Medicare because of the low reimbursement rates in order to transfer "green money" to Obama's political contributers.
In fact, the Republicans miss the biggest easy target that the Democrats can never successfully defend. Every year, Sen. Coburn comes out with a list of government waste. Why are we raising taxes when we have so much waste? Most people would agree that it is better to get rid of government waste than to raise taxes, but Republicans just don't seem as interested in presenting the issue. Using a modified version of Malthus, doubling of the size of government results in an exponential growth in government failures and mismanagement. That is where the Republicans need to concentrate. Democrats would be running from fire to fire trying to put out the stupid stuff that the government does.
Yesterday was a loss. Today is the first day of the new fight. Let's fight smart.
Monday, November 05, 2012
What if . . ?
What if contrary to all the energy, Obama is able to steal enough votes in Ohio win,what will happen after the election? It's clear that the Republicans are going to keep the House and may take the Senate. If they do, we will have an ideologue in the White House who has said that he is willing to work with anybody. Sure he hasn't shown it yet, but he's saving it for his second term, I'm sure. You know, when he will have more freedom, like with Putin.
The one advantage for keeping Obama is that he can immediately start working on the "fiscal cliff" that is looming on the first of January. I predict that he will tell the Republicans that they have to cave because "I won" just like last time. Only this time, there is not going to be any pretense of civility between the two sides. Republicans are going to hold fast to their no tax pledge and with good reason. Remember, Obama has more of a habit of conceding than seeing something through to the end. While Republicans will be excoriated for their failure to compromise, they have some things going for them. First, while Congress is held in low esteem, everyone of them will probably have won with more than 50% of their home district support. As in, "Screw Congress, but I love my congresscritter."
Assuming we run over the cliff, the economy is going to shut down. Anyone with money will be parking it offshore in some form of stable currency like whatever Somalia uses. But it's the principle of the thinkg to Obama. He would rather see the economy tank, 720,000 people losing their jobs and riots in the street than give up on his punitive tax on the so called wealthy. Remember, it's not about reducing the deficit or increasing revenue to the government. This is all about class warfare baby. If it wasn't, why would Obama have agreed to an extension of the Bush tax cuts back in 2010?
There will be a surfeit of new regulations designed to punish the few remaining businesses that failed to have the good sense to contribute significantly to his re-election. Not that it will matter, except to all the Obamavilles that will spring up and be required to put a catalytic converter over their fire barrels.
But it's not all bad news. Because there will be no limits on what Obama will attempt to do by executive fiat, the 2012 elections will probably result in the complete and utter destruction of the Democratic Party. My forecast is that there may be fewer than 50 Democrats combined in Congress after the election. Hmmm, isn't Max coming up for re-election then?
But you don't have to worry. The assumptions built into the polling models are just enough wrong that they end result will be 53-47 Romney with over 300 electoral votes. If in this highly energized year you don't understand that the Democrat turnout will be matched by Republicans, it will be the independents who will provide the necessary energy to propel the first Mormon President. When Romney leads among them by 22%, Obama doesn't have a chance.
And Nate Silver is going to have some explaining to do over at 538.
The one advantage for keeping Obama is that he can immediately start working on the "fiscal cliff" that is looming on the first of January. I predict that he will tell the Republicans that they have to cave because "I won" just like last time. Only this time, there is not going to be any pretense of civility between the two sides. Republicans are going to hold fast to their no tax pledge and with good reason. Remember, Obama has more of a habit of conceding than seeing something through to the end. While Republicans will be excoriated for their failure to compromise, they have some things going for them. First, while Congress is held in low esteem, everyone of them will probably have won with more than 50% of their home district support. As in, "Screw Congress, but I love my congresscritter."
Assuming we run over the cliff, the economy is going to shut down. Anyone with money will be parking it offshore in some form of stable currency like whatever Somalia uses. But it's the principle of the thinkg to Obama. He would rather see the economy tank, 720,000 people losing their jobs and riots in the street than give up on his punitive tax on the so called wealthy. Remember, it's not about reducing the deficit or increasing revenue to the government. This is all about class warfare baby. If it wasn't, why would Obama have agreed to an extension of the Bush tax cuts back in 2010?
There will be a surfeit of new regulations designed to punish the few remaining businesses that failed to have the good sense to contribute significantly to his re-election. Not that it will matter, except to all the Obamavilles that will spring up and be required to put a catalytic converter over their fire barrels.
But it's not all bad news. Because there will be no limits on what Obama will attempt to do by executive fiat, the 2012 elections will probably result in the complete and utter destruction of the Democratic Party. My forecast is that there may be fewer than 50 Democrats combined in Congress after the election. Hmmm, isn't Max coming up for re-election then?
But you don't have to worry. The assumptions built into the polling models are just enough wrong that they end result will be 53-47 Romney with over 300 electoral votes. If in this highly energized year you don't understand that the Democrat turnout will be matched by Republicans, it will be the independents who will provide the necessary energy to propel the first Mormon President. When Romney leads among them by 22%, Obama doesn't have a chance.
And Nate Silver is going to have some explaining to do over at 538.
Friday, November 02, 2012
Why We Need Tester to Leave
Harry Reid has just declared that he will not work with Mitt Romney when he becomes President. I suppose this is meant to be payback for Mitch McConnell's comment that he wanted Obama to fail. Now the reality is that is not exactly what McConnell said back in 2010 (or well into the fiasco of Democratic control of the executive and legislative branches of government). McConnell wanted him to change, and if he didn't change, then he would fail. And lo and behold! Obama didn't change. Hence his impending failure at the ballot box (absent sufficient vote stealing of course.)
But the easiest way to keep Reid from obstructing the people's will is to boot Tester and replace him with Rehberg, then do the thing that Reid had threatened - do away with the filibuster.
For the sake of this great nation, we cannot allow Tester to continue to support Harry Reid.
But the easiest way to keep Reid from obstructing the people's will is to boot Tester and replace him with Rehberg, then do the thing that Reid had threatened - do away with the filibuster.
For the sake of this great nation, we cannot allow Tester to continue to support Harry Reid.
Thursday, November 01, 2012
That's got to leave a mark!
The Las Vegas Review Journal has decided not to endorse Obama. From the article:
Read the whole thing.
This administration is an embarrassment on foreign policy and incompetent at best on the economy - though a more careful analysis shows what can only be a perverse and willful attempt to destroy our prosperity. Back in January 2008, Barack Obama told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that under his cap-and-trade plan, "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them." He added, "Under my plan ... electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." It was also in 2008 that Mr. Obama's future Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, famously said it would be necessary to "figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" - $9 a gallon.
Yet the president now claims he's in favor of oil development and pipelines, taking credit for increased oil production on private lands where he's powerless to block it, after he halted the Keystone XL Pipeline and oversaw a 50 percent reduction in oil leases on public lands.
These behaviors go far beyond "spin." They amount to a pack of lies. To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation's economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie "Dr. Strangelove," would be disastrous.
Candidate Obama said if he couldn't fix the economy in four years, his would be a one-term presidency.
Read the whole thing.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
Talk About Timely
I posted about Greens bearing gifts below and today the Hill is reporting that the rats are scrambling to get off the ship. My, my, my. What do we have here?
As of Sept. 30, LCV (League of Conservation Voters, otherwise known as shills for Tester) had donated $410,000 of the nearly $417,000 in the Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund’s PAC, which is responsible for the TV ad. LCV is backing Tester, in part, for his vote against a measure that would have blocked implementation of Obama administration air emissions rules.So, the Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund raises $7k on their own, but they have help from Big Brother in the form of $410k? But we know that money would never impact the good folks at HAL Fund. In fact, I am sure that they are happy to be demonstrating their independence. As the article says:
When contacted about the ad, Joe Splinter, treasurer for the Hunters and Anglers PAC and an associate with Washington, D.C.-based Hilltop Public Solutions, declined to comment.Whoops, maybe not.
To My Libertarian Friends
Beware of Greens bearing gifts. No, that's not a typo, I mean the Green lobby helping the Libertarian cause should raise some concerns for us. I consider myself to be a small "l" libertarian, in that I believe in the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility, the same principles as the Republican Party even if they don't always follow them. But I have really taken a disliking to the big government approach of the so called Green Movement, and their encroachment on property rights and the expansion of government power through regulations. Want to exercise your dominion over your property? Not if the the Greens disapprove. You have to have permits, reviews, approval from the proper authority before you can do anything. And their lust for power and control just keeps growing.
So, why would the Green Movement suddenly decide that they want to help Libertarian Senate Candidate Dan Cox? You can watch their video here. Are the Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership fund really interested in the principles of limited government and property rights? If you go into who the leadership is, you find some telling points:
I will admit, that I have been encouraging my Democratic friends to vote Gary Johnson instead of Obama because Montana is so thoroughly in Romney's camp that their votes won't make a difference. It will help the cause of libertarianism if we get more of a presence through the ballot box and increase the likelihood that a Libertarian will be included in future Presidential debates. But the idea that Democrats are trying to convince us to vote for a Libertarian Senate candidate in order to retain control, and doing so underhandedly just ticks me off. Why can't they have the decency and integrity to say exactly who they are and why they are trying to distract us? Probably because they have neither integrity nor decency.
Shame on them, and shame on us if we fall for these types of tricks. While Denny may not be the ideal candidate for a Libertarian, Tester definitely is not the one we want.
Vote for liberty and property rights. Rehberg, not the puppet Cox!
So, why would the Green Movement suddenly decide that they want to help Libertarian Senate Candidate Dan Cox? You can watch their video here. Are the Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership fund really interested in the principles of limited government and property rights? If you go into who the leadership is, you find some telling points:
Montana Hunters and Anglers” is run by Members of President Obama’s Campaign Leadership Team in Montana and Political Operatives with Close Ties to Sen. Tester and Sen. Baucus.
Montana Hunters and Anglers President, Land Tawney
Member of Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/mtsportsmen/)
Member of Senator Tester’s Montana Sportsmen’s Advisory Panel (http://tester.senate.gov/Newsroom/pr_021011_sportsmen.cfm)
Montana Hunters and Anglers Secretary, Kendall Van Dyke
Member of Montana Sportsmen for Obama Committee (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/mtsportsmen/)
An elected Democrat State Senator from Billings (http://kendallvandyk.com/)
Montana Hunters and Anglers Treasurer, Barrett Kaiser
Former staffer to Sen. Max Baucus
Former consultant to Sen. Tester’s 2006 campaign (http://www.hilltoppublicsolutions.com/about/team_barrett.html)
Donor to Senator Tester (http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/)
Montana Hunters and Anglers Treasurer, Beau WrightNow it's possible that these good Democrats have suddenly become small government activists and are interested only in preserving property rights. But a simpler explanation is that they are trying to siphon votes from Rehberg in order to maintain Democratic control of the Senate.
Democrat activist and long time Tester supporter
http://bigskydemocrats.org/meetus
http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2006/05/28/490/
http://bigskydemocrats.org/
Montana Hunters and Anglers Director, George Cooper
Donor to Senator Tester (http://w5.melissadata.com/lookups/Fec.asp?cyear=2012&cident=C00412304)
Lobbyist for Forbes, Cauthen and Williams (The Forbes is Jeff Forbes, former Chief of Staff to Sen. Max Baucus)
Montana Hunters and Anglers Donor, Robin T Nichols
Donor to Montana Hunters and Anglers: total contributions $5,000
Donor to Tester: total contributions $2,500 (http://tinyurl.com/67xavm3)
I will admit, that I have been encouraging my Democratic friends to vote Gary Johnson instead of Obama because Montana is so thoroughly in Romney's camp that their votes won't make a difference. It will help the cause of libertarianism if we get more of a presence through the ballot box and increase the likelihood that a Libertarian will be included in future Presidential debates. But the idea that Democrats are trying to convince us to vote for a Libertarian Senate candidate in order to retain control, and doing so underhandedly just ticks me off. Why can't they have the decency and integrity to say exactly who they are and why they are trying to distract us? Probably because they have neither integrity nor decency.
Shame on them, and shame on us if we fall for these types of tricks. While Denny may not be the ideal candidate for a Libertarian, Tester definitely is not the one we want.
Vote for liberty and property rights. Rehberg, not the puppet Cox!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)