The one who alerted me to Sarah Palin in July of '07, now works with a group of Blogs advocating for her to run for President in 2012. Here is my exchange with him. which relates concerns for The future of The Republican Party
Howard Richman was a Blogger for Huckabee: Jews 4 Huckabee. I ordered the book on economics that he wrote with his father and son, linked here: Trading Away Our Future: How to Fix Our Government-Driven Trade Deficits and Faulty Tax System Before it's Too Late
I am certain that a lot of his motivation about Huckabee was their belief that The Fair Tax was the best prescription for the economy and the society. I share that belief and believe that the current economic difficulties which have become so acute since the book was written only make the need for The Fair Tax more urgent. You will see below how this might be particularly relevant if Sarah Palin is to make a run. I tried both to get Huckabee to exploit the Richmans and their book in his campaign, and to call the attention of The McCain campaign to The Fair Tax, both to no apparent avail. Anyway, besides honing her expression of foreign policy, Sarah Palin would do well to take up the cause of The Fair Tax. Besides the fact that I think The Fair Tax is expedient for America, there is a substantial and relatively vocal constituency in The Republican Party that she should begin to tickle as soon as possible. These were enthusiasts that Huckabee garnered beyond the on-so-publicized evangelical constituency. She needs to build economic and foreign policy alliances.
I will post soon enough what I believe are the urgent necessities for The Republican Party to restore itself. For one, they should not dismiss social conservative principles which are critical to American principle generally, and the huge constituency that is animated by them and crucial to Republican success. If Republicans dismiss them, they will likely retreat to the sidelines from which they came after Roe. Wade and from which they came to snatch The Republican Party from decades in the legislative wilderness.
But beyond that, The Republican Party must resolutely and obviously distance themselves from any actual or apparent association with the subsidy or legislative support of corporate or money interests. I have no problem with money or corporations, only the same problem I have with most other government subsidization and regulation: it’s usually more counter-productive than productive and it’s against the spirit of the now beleaguered Constitution of the US.
A few things make such ostentatious action particularly fortuitous, right now:
1) The Republican Party has been traditionally identified with such and the corruption that became apparent along with the profligate spending during the Bush administration, has resulted in two consecutive electoral spankings.
2) I oppose(d) it because it is unconstitutional, but McCain-Feingold added another obstacle (one suspects that money like water finds its way to follow political gravity) to corporate/big money inducement, which long provided Republicans with a financing advantage. (recall that George W. Bush once jokingly-many didn’t take it as a joke-referred to a moneyed audience as “my base.” Such money had already been forcibly routed through parties and PAC’S (“soft money”). What I favor is not big business specifically but the freedom of everyone. And, so should The Republican Party.
3) Not unexpectedly, much of such money was funneled to Democrats this year in expectation of a Democratic victory. The money and the attendant bribing will follow the power. Favor can be more assertive to corporate interest by Democrats: regulation actually favors established money, suppressing potential competition, and thus innovation and entrepreneurial expansion. Democrats also effectively solicited small donorship over the Internet, largely with their rhetorical (and becoming ironic) appeal to the “little guy.” I recall this talk among laborers in my youth in Detroit. All of this resulted in a huge funding advantage this cycle for Democrats generally and Barack Obama specifically. Let Democrats become the party of the big corporations; an electoral minority. I can’t wait to see Republicans be the party of the aspiring minority.
All of this can be addressed by endorsement and implementation of The Fair Tax.
1) The Fair Tax would expand opportunity among the less-moneyed and powerful by a) provoking a “massive” (this adjective can only be an understatement, not an overstatement 0 it would be many trillions of dollars) infusion of capital and work into the American economy, b) entirely untaxing the poor and reducing middle-class taxation with its “prebate” of taxes to everyone of taxation to the poverty level, b) effectively expanding taxation of upper incomes, particularly of extravagance, by enacting a substantial tax on previously untaxed “business expenses.” For small businesses, this would be more than counter-balanced by the elimination of business and capital gains taxes: they would no longer “write off” entertainment, office, and vehicles lumped under “business expenses. But on the other hand, they would pay capital gains no income taxes on their person or business.
2) The huge and often extravagant deductions that large businesses take would now be taxed like other expenditures. What this will accomplish is not only taxing large businesses at the same rate of everyone else, but encouraging prudence in determining what expenses are actually necessary for maximizing business generally and not just profit.
3) I’m generally a free-trader. But, I also appreciate Huckabee’s call for “free but fair trade.” Seek out foreign markets and products. But, don’t just give away our markets to other nations while sitting quietly while they apply tariffs to our products in their markets. I don’t think its too mush to ask equity for the access to lucrative American markets. And here again is a political appeal to both exporter and labor constituencies.
Huckabee could possibly be a candidate for 2012, which might leave me of a divided mind. I think Huckabee is more fully equipped, right now. I would hope that he and Sarah could devise away to collaborate. I said that Howard Richman’s support for Huckabee was largely due to The Fair Tax. But this closing post at Jews 4 Huckabee early this month suggest that he might also have been favorably disposed to social conservative ideals, Sarah Palin’s forceful history with corporations and corruption, or both:
Dear Readers,
Thank you for reading this Blog. Now that the election is over, I am suspending posting until such time as Governor Huckabee again runs for national office. I originally planned to suspend this Blog if Huckabee was not chosen for VP, but decided to keep it open when Palin was chosen. If you want to continue to follow my posts about the economy, I suggest you read the Blog that I share with my father and son: Also, it couldn’t hurt to have a “Jews 4 Sarah” site, either.
Here are links to the old Jews For Huckabee site and the economic one where Howard Richman works with his son and father:
http://jews4huckabee.blogspot.com/
http://tradeandtaxes.blogspot.com
Showing posts with label Huckabee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Huckabee. Show all posts
Monday, December 1, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
McCain's VP Pick: Romney, Huckabee...?
The Politico has reported a planned meeting with McCain in Missouri of Huckabee and Romney just before the convention and after NcCain’s projected announcement of a running-mate. Actually, I’m pretty weary of all the speculation and supposed eagerness about McCain’s VP pick. Obviously, I’m a big Huckabee fan and would personally think the country would be better off with him poised as an advisor and presumptive heir. And, I also think Huckabee would animate what is as large and vital constituency as either party has: not only for voting themselves but for providing essential campaign elbow grease.
But, I’m also well-aware of the buzz out there for Mitt Romney, which I only marginally understand. To me, Romney is neither philosophically clear nor, partially consequentially, reliable. Actually, I wouldn’t speculate that either will be the pick. And, I wouldn’t terribly blame McCain for passing on Huckabee, even though I think he is manifestly the best candidate, both for the general election campaign and the future of the country. But, the facts are these:
Huckabee and Romney both have large activist Republican followings. However, and if “hate” is too strong a word it is only partially and marginally so, Romney’s supporters hate Huckabee and Huckabee supporters don’t like Romney. That includes me. It has nothing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with Romney’s words and actions. Romney strikes me as plainly philosophically ambiguous (and that’s the last thing that McCain needs) and apparently quite politically malleable. Even if he’s entirely genuine is his most recent manifestation (as Dick Morris says: his flip-flop-flip, from A to B and back again) that displays an ambiguous mind and a late embrace of what has been clear as a bell to me for forty years. And, he’s supposed to be this economic genius. Well precisely, he’s proven at the micro-success of individual companies and investors. As for the prosperity of the macro-economy in general and all Americans, I have seen nothing from him. Huckabee on the other hand advocated for The Fair Tax, which would open up both a great capital infusion into the economy and multiply opportunities for everyone. That’s another thing that doesn’t excite me about Romney: he is a caricature of a rich man for the rich that the Democrats will pummel, and they are to some small degree right about that. Heck, they are already trying to portray McCain as an out-of-touch rich man!
But as for Huckabee, there are both LDS people who are (unjustifiably but honestly, I think) distrustful of him, and economic conservatives who bought the phony and unjust “Huckabee’s a liberal” political smears and/or smart at his mere mention of concern for “Main Street” or average people and attention to Democrat-dominated Demographic groups, which are ironically the people that we must sell on conservatism. Obviously, many people on both sides of the Democrat-Republican divide prefer a more conventional blood- hatred: the kind in which both decency and Republicans lose. I think Huckabee can himself, address those populations, and should be charged to do so. But, that may be too complicated for McCain and his advisors.
If Huckabee and Romney are off the table, I’d probably favor Pawlenty.
But, I’m also well-aware of the buzz out there for Mitt Romney, which I only marginally understand. To me, Romney is neither philosophically clear nor, partially consequentially, reliable. Actually, I wouldn’t speculate that either will be the pick. And, I wouldn’t terribly blame McCain for passing on Huckabee, even though I think he is manifestly the best candidate, both for the general election campaign and the future of the country. But, the facts are these:
Huckabee and Romney both have large activist Republican followings. However, and if “hate” is too strong a word it is only partially and marginally so, Romney’s supporters hate Huckabee and Huckabee supporters don’t like Romney. That includes me. It has nothing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with Romney’s words and actions. Romney strikes me as plainly philosophically ambiguous (and that’s the last thing that McCain needs) and apparently quite politically malleable. Even if he’s entirely genuine is his most recent manifestation (as Dick Morris says: his flip-flop-flip, from A to B and back again) that displays an ambiguous mind and a late embrace of what has been clear as a bell to me for forty years. And, he’s supposed to be this economic genius. Well precisely, he’s proven at the micro-success of individual companies and investors. As for the prosperity of the macro-economy in general and all Americans, I have seen nothing from him. Huckabee on the other hand advocated for The Fair Tax, which would open up both a great capital infusion into the economy and multiply opportunities for everyone. That’s another thing that doesn’t excite me about Romney: he is a caricature of a rich man for the rich that the Democrats will pummel, and they are to some small degree right about that. Heck, they are already trying to portray McCain as an out-of-touch rich man!
But as for Huckabee, there are both LDS people who are (unjustifiably but honestly, I think) distrustful of him, and economic conservatives who bought the phony and unjust “Huckabee’s a liberal” political smears and/or smart at his mere mention of concern for “Main Street” or average people and attention to Democrat-dominated Demographic groups, which are ironically the people that we must sell on conservatism. Obviously, many people on both sides of the Democrat-Republican divide prefer a more conventional blood- hatred: the kind in which both decency and Republicans lose. I think Huckabee can himself, address those populations, and should be charged to do so. But, that may be too complicated for McCain and his advisors.
If Huckabee and Romney are off the table, I’d probably favor Pawlenty.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Howard Richman's Analysis of Bernanke's Monetary Track and The Fair Tax Advocated by Huckabee
At his Blog, http://jews4huckabee.blogspot.com , Howard Richman, coauthor of the recent book, “Trading Away Our Future,” comments on another analysis of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s monetary stewardship, including discussion of the merits of The Fair Tax:
Friday, June 27, 2008
Gay Marriage And Considering Nuance
I wrote most of this last week, but was distracted with other things. I have intended for weeks and really months, now, to change the approach of the discussion on my Blog, on which I have been VERY inactive recently. Of course, I spent most of the last year advocating for Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign and defending him against what I’m certain were ill-founded and often disingenuous criticisms. I think I have been to a great extent letting the air out and recuperating from the campaign, occasionally posting on why it is critical for America’s future in almost all respects, for conservatives to support John McCain despite his occasional philosophical infidelities.
And, in the past few weeks I have begun a program of physical and occupational therapy to deal with the weaknesses and impediments that have accrued over my 15 years with multiple sclerosis. But, I want to write about the matter of the “legalization” in California of gay marriage beginning last week, Tuesday June 17. I enclose “legalization” in quotes because judges don’t make law; they interpret them and all too often MISinterpret them. This situation was foisted upon the California people via a capricious and presumptuous ruling by the California Supreme Court, defying the expressed will of the people, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
I think it is apt for me to write about this for a few reasons which are paradigmatic of some overall concerns of mine:
1) In fact, I do think homosexual marriage is a bad idea, for the health of both the society and the homosexual individuals themselves, but that is not my primary concern or frankly not even in play in this question.
2) Of serious concern is the judicial presumption over the will of the people that was expressed in the political process, when there is no issue of basic constitutional principle. And actually, the passivity of the people in rolling over and accepting it for no better reason that I can discern than that some very foolish people in media tell them that they are obligated to, may be an even greater concern.
3) This is also an issue like some others on which I do not have the conventional reflex of many people who consider themselves “conservative.” In fact, I was and am an enthusiastic supporter of Mike Huckabee who himself, quite expectedly supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I DO NOT. Oh, I understand that a legal case can and undoubtedly will be pressed for other states to recognize these marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution. That would be a misapplication of that provision. And, the proper course to confront it would not be an amendment to the US Constitution, but for an unwilling state to simply refuse to submit to any such ruling: as someone once said, “Just say ‘No!’”. Frankly, after over 34 years of quivering under a contrived judicial edict that supposedly commands national accession to unrestricted abortion, it’s long past time for a state to stand up and say, “Enough! The Constitution is not an all-purpose medium for any outrageous dictum, and The United States has no kings, certainly not incognito as judges!”
Addressing this last matter first, consider two things: a) the federal government and certainly the US Constitution have no jurisdiction over marriage and should not. And to introduce such a matter to the US Constitution would severely diminish the integrity of that document. And b) to cede the authority of amending the US Constitutional to define marriage the way you like it, today, is to cede the authority of a US Constitutional amendment to define it any other way, tomorrow. Take a step back: Do you really dismiss the possibility that popular consensus might change?
The US Constitution should have nothing to say about what constitutes a marriage. Honestly, I’m anything but enthusiastic about even a state government establishment of marriage. We see marriage as an institution before God, not the state. And that confusion diminishes marriage. The worst part of our marriage convention as when a minister says, “And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of…” WAIT A MINUTE! The state? If a marriage is an oath only before a state, it could be no surprise that people might take it lightly. Breaking your vows won’t even earn you a citation! And, who knows how a changing and sliding people might one day define marriage?
But, I do grant the authority of a sovereign state to determine its own social practices how it chooses…by a democratic political process, NOT by the arbitrary impulse of judges. So, it is for Californians to decide if they will amend their constitution. And, in my state, I would not support gay marriage. As things stand, the preferred route would be to impeach some judges.
When I launch into this new effort I will in addition to describing my experience and contemplation of MS for the consideration of sufferers and their friends and families also discuss my thoughts on many social, political, philosophical, and theological aspects of life. I have an atypical inclination to engage such abstract thoughts. And I often consider such fine distinctions as those expressed above. I am quite aware that most discussions, particularly political ones do not and cannot engage such nuance.
For example, when Huckabee says he supports constitutional amendments on marriage and human life, I consider that that the shorthand is that he supports a TRADITIONAL definition of marriage and thinks abortion is unconstitutional and I agree. I WOULD support a constitutional amendment clarifying the sanctity of human life. But, the amendment process is such that if it could genuinely be accomplished, the social problem would have already been solved. If such a majority was so explicit in its opposition to abortion, they would probably have already acted to stop it. As of today, many will record their opposition to abortion. But, few will pause to do very much about it.
But, often the nuances of issues merit consideration, short attention spans and sound-byte mass-communications, notwithstanding. To break them down to a more bite-sized offering presents a daunting task. But, it is my great fortune and privilege that I haven’t too much more pressing to do.
And, in the past few weeks I have begun a program of physical and occupational therapy to deal with the weaknesses and impediments that have accrued over my 15 years with multiple sclerosis. But, I want to write about the matter of the “legalization” in California of gay marriage beginning last week, Tuesday June 17. I enclose “legalization” in quotes because judges don’t make law; they interpret them and all too often MISinterpret them. This situation was foisted upon the California people via a capricious and presumptuous ruling by the California Supreme Court, defying the expressed will of the people, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
I think it is apt for me to write about this for a few reasons which are paradigmatic of some overall concerns of mine:
1) In fact, I do think homosexual marriage is a bad idea, for the health of both the society and the homosexual individuals themselves, but that is not my primary concern or frankly not even in play in this question.
2) Of serious concern is the judicial presumption over the will of the people that was expressed in the political process, when there is no issue of basic constitutional principle. And actually, the passivity of the people in rolling over and accepting it for no better reason that I can discern than that some very foolish people in media tell them that they are obligated to, may be an even greater concern.
3) This is also an issue like some others on which I do not have the conventional reflex of many people who consider themselves “conservative.” In fact, I was and am an enthusiastic supporter of Mike Huckabee who himself, quite expectedly supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I DO NOT. Oh, I understand that a legal case can and undoubtedly will be pressed for other states to recognize these marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution. That would be a misapplication of that provision. And, the proper course to confront it would not be an amendment to the US Constitution, but for an unwilling state to simply refuse to submit to any such ruling: as someone once said, “Just say ‘No!’”. Frankly, after over 34 years of quivering under a contrived judicial edict that supposedly commands national accession to unrestricted abortion, it’s long past time for a state to stand up and say, “Enough! The Constitution is not an all-purpose medium for any outrageous dictum, and The United States has no kings, certainly not incognito as judges!”
Addressing this last matter first, consider two things: a) the federal government and certainly the US Constitution have no jurisdiction over marriage and should not. And to introduce such a matter to the US Constitution would severely diminish the integrity of that document. And b) to cede the authority of amending the US Constitutional to define marriage the way you like it, today, is to cede the authority of a US Constitutional amendment to define it any other way, tomorrow. Take a step back: Do you really dismiss the possibility that popular consensus might change?
The US Constitution should have nothing to say about what constitutes a marriage. Honestly, I’m anything but enthusiastic about even a state government establishment of marriage. We see marriage as an institution before God, not the state. And that confusion diminishes marriage. The worst part of our marriage convention as when a minister says, “And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of…” WAIT A MINUTE! The state? If a marriage is an oath only before a state, it could be no surprise that people might take it lightly. Breaking your vows won’t even earn you a citation! And, who knows how a changing and sliding people might one day define marriage?
But, I do grant the authority of a sovereign state to determine its own social practices how it chooses…by a democratic political process, NOT by the arbitrary impulse of judges. So, it is for Californians to decide if they will amend their constitution. And, in my state, I would not support gay marriage. As things stand, the preferred route would be to impeach some judges.
When I launch into this new effort I will in addition to describing my experience and contemplation of MS for the consideration of sufferers and their friends and families also discuss my thoughts on many social, political, philosophical, and theological aspects of life. I have an atypical inclination to engage such abstract thoughts. And I often consider such fine distinctions as those expressed above. I am quite aware that most discussions, particularly political ones do not and cannot engage such nuance.
For example, when Huckabee says he supports constitutional amendments on marriage and human life, I consider that that the shorthand is that he supports a TRADITIONAL definition of marriage and thinks abortion is unconstitutional and I agree. I WOULD support a constitutional amendment clarifying the sanctity of human life. But, the amendment process is such that if it could genuinely be accomplished, the social problem would have already been solved. If such a majority was so explicit in its opposition to abortion, they would probably have already acted to stop it. As of today, many will record their opposition to abortion. But, few will pause to do very much about it.
But, often the nuances of issues merit consideration, short attention spans and sound-byte mass-communications, notwithstanding. To break them down to a more bite-sized offering presents a daunting task. But, it is my great fortune and privilege that I haven’t too much more pressing to do.
I wrote most of this last week, but was distracted with other things. I have intended for weeks and really months, now, to change the approach of the discussion on my Blog, on which I have been VERY inactive recently. Of course, I spent most of the last year advocating for Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign and defending him against what I’m certain were ill-founded and often disingenuous criticisms. I think I have been to a great extent letting the air out and recuperating from the campaign, occasionally posting on why it is critical for America’s future in almost all respects, for conservatives to support John McCain despite his occasional philosophical infidelities.
And, in the past few weeks I have begun a program of physical and occupational therapy to deal with the weaknesses and impediments that have accrued over my 15 years with multiple sclerosis. But, I want to write about the matter of the “legalization” in California of gay marriage beginning last week, Tuesday June 17. I enclose “legalization” in quotes because judges don’t make law; they interpret them and all too often MISinterpret them. This situation was foisted upon the California people via a capricious and presumptuous ruling by the California Supreme Court, defying the expressed will of the people, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
I think it is apt for me to write about this for a few reasons which are paradigmatic of some overall concerns of mine:
1) In fact, I do think homosexual marriage is a bad idea, for the health of both the society and the homosexual individuals themselves, but that is not my primary concern or frankly not even in play in this question.
2) Of serious concern is the judicial presumption over the will of the people that was expressed in the political process, when there is no issue of basic constitutional principle. And actually, the passivity of the people in rolling over and accepting it for no better reason that I can discern than that some very foolish people in media tell them that they are obligated to, may be an even greater concern.
3) This is also an issue like some others on which I do not have the conventional reflex of many people who consider themselves “conservative.” In fact, I was and am an enthusiastic supporter of Mike Huckabee who himself, quite expectedly supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I DO NOT. Oh, I understand that a legal case can and undoubtedly will be pressed for other states to recognize these marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution. That would be a misapplication of that provision. And, the proper course to confront it would not be an amendment to the US Constitution, but for an unwilling state to simply refuse to submit to any such ruling: as someone once said, “Just say ‘No!’”. Frankly, after over 34 years of quivering under a contrived judicial edict that supposedly commands national accession to unrestricted abortion, it’s long past time for a state to stand up and say, “Enough! The Constitution is not an all-purpose medium for any outrageous dictum, and The United States has no kings, certainly not incognito as judges!”
Addressing this last matter first, consider two things: a) the federal government and certainly the US Constitution have no jurisdiction over marriage and should not. And to introduce such a matter to the US Constitution would severely diminish the integrity of that document. And b) to cede the authority of amending the US Constitutional to define marriage the way you like it, today, is to cede the authority of a US Constitutional amendment to define it any other way, tomorrow. Take a step back: Do you really dismiss the possibility that popular consensus might change?
The US Constitution should have nothing to say about what constitutes a marriage. Honestly, I’m anything but enthusiastic about even a state government establishment of marriage. We see marriage as an institution before God, not the state. And that confusion diminishes marriage. The worst part of our marriage convention as when a minister says, “And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of…” WAIT A MINUTE! The state? If a marriage is an oath only before a state, it could be no surprise that people might take it lightly. Breaking your vows won’t even earn you a citation! And, who knows how a changing and sliding people might one day define marriage?
But, I do grant the authority of a sovereign state to determine its own social practices how it chooses…by a democratic political process, NOT by the arbitrary impulse of judges. So, it is for Californians to decide if they will amend their constitution. And, in my state, I would not support gay marriage. As things stand, the preferred route would be to impeach some judges.
When I launch into this new effort I will in addition to describing my experience and contemplation of MS for the consideration of sufferers and their friends and families also discuss my thoughts on many social, political, philosophical, and theological aspects of life. I have an atypical inclination to engage such abstract thoughts. And I often consider such fine distinctions as those expressed above. I am quite aware that most discussions, particularly political ones do not and cannot engage such nuance.
For example, when Huckabee says he supports constitutional amendments on marriage and human life, I consider that that the shorthand is that he supports a TRADITIONAL definition of marriage and thinks abortion is unconstitutional and I agree. I WOULD support a constitutional amendment clarifying the sanctity of human life. But, the amendment process is such that if it could genuinely be accomplished, the social problem would have already been solved. If such a majority was so explicit in its opposition to abortion, they would probably have already acted to stop it. As of today, many will record their opposition to abortion. But, few will pause to do very much about it.
But, often the nuances of issues merit consideration, short attention spans and sound-byte mass-communications, notwithstanding. To break them down to a more bite-sized offering presents a daunting task. But, it is my great fortune and privilege that I haven’t too much more pressing to do.
And, in the past few weeks I have begun a program of physical and occupational therapy to deal with the weaknesses and impediments that have accrued over my 15 years with multiple sclerosis. But, I want to write about the matter of the “legalization” in California of gay marriage beginning last week, Tuesday June 17. I enclose “legalization” in quotes because judges don’t make law; they interpret them and all too often MISinterpret them. This situation was foisted upon the California people via a capricious and presumptuous ruling by the California Supreme Court, defying the expressed will of the people, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
I think it is apt for me to write about this for a few reasons which are paradigmatic of some overall concerns of mine:
1) In fact, I do think homosexual marriage is a bad idea, for the health of both the society and the homosexual individuals themselves, but that is not my primary concern or frankly not even in play in this question.
2) Of serious concern is the judicial presumption over the will of the people that was expressed in the political process, when there is no issue of basic constitutional principle. And actually, the passivity of the people in rolling over and accepting it for no better reason that I can discern than that some very foolish people in media tell them that they are obligated to, may be an even greater concern.
3) This is also an issue like some others on which I do not have the conventional reflex of many people who consider themselves “conservative.” In fact, I was and am an enthusiastic supporter of Mike Huckabee who himself, quite expectedly supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I DO NOT. Oh, I understand that a legal case can and undoubtedly will be pressed for other states to recognize these marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution. That would be a misapplication of that provision. And, the proper course to confront it would not be an amendment to the US Constitution, but for an unwilling state to simply refuse to submit to any such ruling: as someone once said, “Just say ‘No!’”. Frankly, after over 34 years of quivering under a contrived judicial edict that supposedly commands national accession to unrestricted abortion, it’s long past time for a state to stand up and say, “Enough! The Constitution is not an all-purpose medium for any outrageous dictum, and The United States has no kings, certainly not incognito as judges!”
Addressing this last matter first, consider two things: a) the federal government and certainly the US Constitution have no jurisdiction over marriage and should not. And to introduce such a matter to the US Constitution would severely diminish the integrity of that document. And b) to cede the authority of amending the US Constitutional to define marriage the way you like it, today, is to cede the authority of a US Constitutional amendment to define it any other way, tomorrow. Take a step back: Do you really dismiss the possibility that popular consensus might change?
The US Constitution should have nothing to say about what constitutes a marriage. Honestly, I’m anything but enthusiastic about even a state government establishment of marriage. We see marriage as an institution before God, not the state. And that confusion diminishes marriage. The worst part of our marriage convention as when a minister says, “And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of…” WAIT A MINUTE! The state? If a marriage is an oath only before a state, it could be no surprise that people might take it lightly. Breaking your vows won’t even earn you a citation! And, who knows how a changing and sliding people might one day define marriage?
But, I do grant the authority of a sovereign state to determine its own social practices how it chooses…by a democratic political process, NOT by the arbitrary impulse of judges. So, it is for Californians to decide if they will amend their constitution. And, in my state, I would not support gay marriage. As things stand, the preferred route would be to impeach some judges.
When I launch into this new effort I will in addition to describing my experience and contemplation of MS for the consideration of sufferers and their friends and families also discuss my thoughts on many social, political, philosophical, and theological aspects of life. I have an atypical inclination to engage such abstract thoughts. And I often consider such fine distinctions as those expressed above. I am quite aware that most discussions, particularly political ones do not and cannot engage such nuance.
For example, when Huckabee says he supports constitutional amendments on marriage and human life, I consider that that the shorthand is that he supports a TRADITIONAL definition of marriage and thinks abortion is unconstitutional and I agree. I WOULD support a constitutional amendment clarifying the sanctity of human life. But, the amendment process is such that if it could genuinely be accomplished, the social problem would have already been solved. If such a majority was so explicit in its opposition to abortion, they would probably have already acted to stop it. As of today, many will record their opposition to abortion. But, few will pause to do very much about it.
But, often the nuances of issues merit consideration, short attention spans and sound-byte mass-communications, notwithstanding. To break them down to a more bite-sized offering presents a daunting task. But, it is my great fortune and privilege that I haven’t too much more pressing to do.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Published Shot At Fair Tax Finds Only Air
Minnesota’s http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_9436854 posted an article by Paul Mulshine of The Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey on Saturday. It correctly pointed up the impending entitlement crisis and then missed the point in asserting that The Fair Tax that Huckabee supports will not fix it, calling it, “the real bridge to nowhere.” Here is the article and the response I left at the site.
So there's your real bridge to nowhere
By Paul Mulshine
Article Last Updated: 05/31/2008 04:24:03 PM CDT
Want to know what I never want to hear about again? The bridge to nowhere, that's what. Throughout this primary election season, which limps to a merciful end Tuesday, I have heard politicians pontificating about how they oppose building that bridge in Alaska.
I would much prefer to hear the pols talk about the one issue that looms above all others in terms of importance. Try to guess what it is. It's not the Iraq war. It's not the price of gas. It's not abortion, guns or gay marriage.
Give up? The biggest issue facing the next president of the United States is that the country is broke. Or at least it would be if it were a business. The accumulated debt of the United States exceeds its revenue by so much that if it were a corporation, the federal government would be in bankruptcy court.
You won't hear about this from politicians for one simple reason: Most of that debt is for programs promised to current and future retirees. Social Security and Medicare are too popular to cut. But they're too expensive to fund. So politicians ignore the problem.
Accountants worry about it, however. If you understand numbers, as Sheila Weinberg does, then you understand that the country is on its way to becoming a banana republic, a place where you need a knapsack just to carry currency. In Latin America years ago, I once visited such a country. I needed an inch-thick pile of bills just to buy breakfast, and breakfast cost only 75 cents in American money.
I don't want my kids to inherit such an economy. Weinberg feels the same about her kids. That's why she got involved with the Institute for Truth in Accounting, an Illinois-based group that would like to see government at all levels adopt "accrual accounting" as the heart of its budget process.
In traditional government accounting, politicians can promise endless future benefits while paying only a tiny portion upfront. But in accrual accounting, the pols would have to put aside enough money in a trust fund immediately to cover future promises.
If the U.S. had followed that system, the trust fund for Social Security and Medicare would need an immediate infusion of $54 trillion, Weinberg said. That's a lot of dough.
We ran up this debt because pols of both parties voted for popular programs without raising taxes to cover them. A classic was that prescription drug program adopted in the first term of the Bush administration.
"When they passed the prescription drug program, they should have sent a bill for $25,000 to every American," says Weinberg. "They should have asked, 'Do you want that? Then you need to send a check for $25,000 to start funding it.' "
Instead, the pols just added another $8 trillion in unfunded liability to a Medicare system that was already in the red.
But imagine for a second that the pols faced this problem honestly and decided to raise revenue to pay for their promises. How much would taxes have to rise?
The Congressional Budget Office was recently asked that question by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin who is one of the few politicians willing to talk about the problem. In a letter to Ryan last month, the CBO said the income tax would have to more than double to offset entitlement expenses. That would mean the tax rate on income now in the 25 percent bracket — where many middle-class Americans find themselves — would rise to a staggering 63 percent. The top rate would have to rise from 35 percent to 83 percent.
To look at it another way, consider this in terms of GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee's so-called "fair tax," a national sales tax of about 23 percent. Candidate Huckabee proposed that tax as a substitute for the income tax. But to balance the budget honestly, a President Huckabee would need to impose that big sales tax while also keeping the income tax.
Try to imagine Huckabee — or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain, for that matter — proposing such a huge tax hike. That's about as likely as any one of them proposing that we end Social Security and Medicare.
This is one area where the true spirit of bipartisanship reigns supreme. Both parties want to pass this problem to the next generation. So there's your real bridge to nowhere. And every young person in America is going to have to cross it.
Paul Mulshine is a columnist for the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. His e-mail address is pmulshine@hotmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would describe myself as primarily pro-life, in that I think that the establishment and adoption of disrespect for the foundational respect for life signals the onset of a progressive decline of civil society. However, it is quite correct that the onslaught of entitlement liabilities that are now at hand, represent imminent economic calamity. And, I am amazed at how little (in fact none, that I can see) attention is being paid to this matter in this election season. It doesn't take a genius to see this tsunami, the leading curl of which we are now perched directly below. Any serious candidate must be aware of the crisis that the new president will face.
I assume that a Democratic president will just blame Bush for it to justify the necessity to do all three short-term supposed solutions: dramatically raise taxes, cut and/or ration benefits, and hyper-inflate the dollar, al of which in the big picture will actually exacerbate the problem and probably be followed by a more dramatic socialization of the economy. This would be called "soaking the wealthy corporations, but in fact will be a bon to established corporations, imposing taxes and regulations that they can afford, but potential competition cannot. That is what socialism is: the alliance of big business and government.
McCain probably sees this impending threat, but knows it would be politically treacherous to talk about. But at least he is assertive about the urgent need to curtail extravagant spending, which is why Tom Coburn, the most conservative US Senator supports him enthusiastically, despite McCain's other conservative incoherencies. And, so do I, though I assertively opposed McCain in 2000 and voted 3rd party in 2000 and 2004.
And, The Fair Tax is the only way to ease, even if it doesn't totally avert the crisis. And, not because a calculation of revenue based on current economic activity will solve the problem. In fact, the very suggestion is absurd: other things being equal, the change is supposed to be revenue neutral. But, it is expected that other things will not be equal: the change will bring a surge in revenue from both new economic activity and previously untaxed activity.
Is The Fair Tax the complete solution to the problem? It probably will not, because the problem is so unbelievably huge. Bit in fact, it is an essential start to addressing the problem: if The Fair Tax doesn't "cure" it, no other possible course will even make a tiny ding in the problem.
So there's your real bridge to nowhere
By Paul Mulshine
Article Last Updated: 05/31/2008 04:24:03 PM CDT
Want to know what I never want to hear about again? The bridge to nowhere, that's what. Throughout this primary election season, which limps to a merciful end Tuesday, I have heard politicians pontificating about how they oppose building that bridge in Alaska.
I would much prefer to hear the pols talk about the one issue that looms above all others in terms of importance. Try to guess what it is. It's not the Iraq war. It's not the price of gas. It's not abortion, guns or gay marriage.
Give up? The biggest issue facing the next president of the United States is that the country is broke. Or at least it would be if it were a business. The accumulated debt of the United States exceeds its revenue by so much that if it were a corporation, the federal government would be in bankruptcy court.
You won't hear about this from politicians for one simple reason: Most of that debt is for programs promised to current and future retirees. Social Security and Medicare are too popular to cut. But they're too expensive to fund. So politicians ignore the problem.
Accountants worry about it, however. If you understand numbers, as Sheila Weinberg does, then you understand that the country is on its way to becoming a banana republic, a place where you need a knapsack just to carry currency. In Latin America years ago, I once visited such a country. I needed an inch-thick pile of bills just to buy breakfast, and breakfast cost only 75 cents in American money.
I don't want my kids to inherit such an economy. Weinberg feels the same about her kids. That's why she got involved with the Institute for Truth in Accounting, an Illinois-based group that would like to see government at all levels adopt "accrual accounting" as the heart of its budget process.
In traditional government accounting, politicians can promise endless future benefits while paying only a tiny portion upfront. But in accrual accounting, the pols would have to put aside enough money in a trust fund immediately to cover future promises.
If the U.S. had followed that system, the trust fund for Social Security and Medicare would need an immediate infusion of $54 trillion, Weinberg said. That's a lot of dough.
We ran up this debt because pols of both parties voted for popular programs without raising taxes to cover them. A classic was that prescription drug program adopted in the first term of the Bush administration.
"When they passed the prescription drug program, they should have sent a bill for $25,000 to every American," says Weinberg. "They should have asked, 'Do you want that? Then you need to send a check for $25,000 to start funding it.' "
Instead, the pols just added another $8 trillion in unfunded liability to a Medicare system that was already in the red.
But imagine for a second that the pols faced this problem honestly and decided to raise revenue to pay for their promises. How much would taxes have to rise?
The Congressional Budget Office was recently asked that question by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin who is one of the few politicians willing to talk about the problem. In a letter to Ryan last month, the CBO said the income tax would have to more than double to offset entitlement expenses. That would mean the tax rate on income now in the 25 percent bracket — where many middle-class Americans find themselves — would rise to a staggering 63 percent. The top rate would have to rise from 35 percent to 83 percent.
To look at it another way, consider this in terms of GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee's so-called "fair tax," a national sales tax of about 23 percent. Candidate Huckabee proposed that tax as a substitute for the income tax. But to balance the budget honestly, a President Huckabee would need to impose that big sales tax while also keeping the income tax.
Try to imagine Huckabee — or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain, for that matter — proposing such a huge tax hike. That's about as likely as any one of them proposing that we end Social Security and Medicare.
This is one area where the true spirit of bipartisanship reigns supreme. Both parties want to pass this problem to the next generation. So there's your real bridge to nowhere. And every young person in America is going to have to cross it.
Paul Mulshine is a columnist for the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. His e-mail address is pmulshine@hotmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would describe myself as primarily pro-life, in that I think that the establishment and adoption of disrespect for the foundational respect for life signals the onset of a progressive decline of civil society. However, it is quite correct that the onslaught of entitlement liabilities that are now at hand, represent imminent economic calamity. And, I am amazed at how little (in fact none, that I can see) attention is being paid to this matter in this election season. It doesn't take a genius to see this tsunami, the leading curl of which we are now perched directly below. Any serious candidate must be aware of the crisis that the new president will face.
I assume that a Democratic president will just blame Bush for it to justify the necessity to do all three short-term supposed solutions: dramatically raise taxes, cut and/or ration benefits, and hyper-inflate the dollar, al of which in the big picture will actually exacerbate the problem and probably be followed by a more dramatic socialization of the economy. This would be called "soaking the wealthy corporations, but in fact will be a bon to established corporations, imposing taxes and regulations that they can afford, but potential competition cannot. That is what socialism is: the alliance of big business and government.
McCain probably sees this impending threat, but knows it would be politically treacherous to talk about. But at least he is assertive about the urgent need to curtail extravagant spending, which is why Tom Coburn, the most conservative US Senator supports him enthusiastically, despite McCain's other conservative incoherencies. And, so do I, though I assertively opposed McCain in 2000 and voted 3rd party in 2000 and 2004.
And, The Fair Tax is the only way to ease, even if it doesn't totally avert the crisis. And, not because a calculation of revenue based on current economic activity will solve the problem. In fact, the very suggestion is absurd: other things being equal, the change is supposed to be revenue neutral. But, it is expected that other things will not be equal: the change will bring a surge in revenue from both new economic activity and previously untaxed activity.
Is The Fair Tax the complete solution to the problem? It probably will not, because the problem is so unbelievably huge. Bit in fact, it is an essential start to addressing the problem: if The Fair Tax doesn't "cure" it, no other possible course will even make a tiny ding in the problem.
Published Shot At Fair Tax Finds Only Air
Minnesota’s http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_9436854 posted an article by Paul Mulshine of The Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey on Saturday. It correctly pointed up the impending entitlement crisis and then missed the point in asserting that The Fair Tax that Huckabee supports will not fix it, calling it, “the real bridge to nowhere.” Here is the article and the response I left at the site.
So there's your real bridge to nowhere
By Paul Mulshine
Article Last Updated: 05/31/2008 04:24:03 PM CDT
Want to know what I never want to hear about again? The bridge to nowhere, that's what. Throughout this primary election season, which limps to a merciful end Tuesday, I have heard politicians pontificating about how they oppose building that bridge in Alaska.
I would much prefer to hear the pols talk about the one issue that looms above all others in terms of importance. Try to guess what it is. It's not the Iraq war. It's not the price of gas. It's not abortion, guns or gay marriage.
Give up? The biggest issue facing the next president of the United States is that the country is broke. Or at least it would be if it were a business. The accumulated debt of the United States exceeds its revenue by so much that if it were a corporation, the federal government would be in bankruptcy court.
You won't hear about this from politicians for one simple reason: Most of that debt is for programs promised to current and future retirees. Social Security and Medicare are too popular to cut. But they're too expensive to fund. So politicians ignore the problem.
Accountants worry about it, however. If you understand numbers, as Sheila Weinberg does, then you understand that the country is on its way to becoming a banana republic, a place where you need a knapsack just to carry currency. In Latin America years ago, I once visited such a country. I needed an inch-thick pile of bills just to buy breakfast, and breakfast cost only 75 cents in American money.
I don't want my kids to inherit such an economy. Weinberg feels the same about her kids. That's why she got involved with the Institute for Truth in Accounting, an Illinois-based group that would like to see government at all levels adopt "accrual accounting" as the heart of its budget process.
In traditional government accounting, politicians can promise endless future benefits while paying only a tiny portion upfront. But in accrual accounting, the pols would have to put aside enough money in a trust fund immediately to cover future promises.
If the U.S. had followed that system, the trust fund for Social Security and Medicare would need an immediate infusion of $54 trillion, Weinberg said. That's a lot of dough.
We ran up this debt because pols of both parties voted for popular programs without raising taxes to cover them. A classic was that prescription drug program adopted in the first term of the Bush administration.
"When they passed the prescription drug program, they should have sent a bill for $25,000 to every American," says Weinberg. "They should have asked, 'Do you want that? Then you need to send a check for $25,000 to start funding it.' "
Instead, the pols just added another $8 trillion in unfunded liability to a Medicare system that was already in the red.
But imagine for a second that the pols faced this problem honestly and decided to raise revenue to pay for their promises. How much would taxes have to rise?
The Congressional Budget Office was recently asked that question by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin who is one of the few politicians willing to talk about the problem. In a letter to Ryan last month, the CBO said the income tax would have to more than double to offset entitlement expenses. That would mean the tax rate on income now in the 25 percent bracket — where many middle-class Americans find themselves — would rise to a staggering 63 percent. The top rate would have to rise from 35 percent to 83 percent.
To look at it another way, consider this in terms of GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee's so-called "fair tax," a national sales tax of about 23 percent. Candidate Huckabee proposed that tax as a substitute for the income tax. But to balance the budget honestly, a President Huckabee would need to impose that big sales tax while also keeping the income tax.
Try to imagine Huckabee — or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain, for that matter — proposing such a huge tax hike. That's about as likely as any one of them proposing that we end Social Security and Medicare.
This is one area where the true spirit of bipartisanship reigns supreme. Both parties want to pass this problem to the next generation. So there's your real bridge to nowhere. And every young person in America is going to have to cross it.
Paul Mulshine is a columnist for the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. His e-mail address is pmulshine@hotmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would describe myself as primarily pro-life, in that I think that the establishment and adoption of disrespect for the foundational respect for life signals the onset of a progressive decline of civil society. However, it is quite correct that the onslaught of entitlement liabilities that are now at hand, represent imminent economic calamity. And, I am amazed at how little (in fact none, that I can see) attention is being paid to this matter in this election season. It doesn't take a genius to see this tsunami, the leading curl of which we are now perched directly below. Any serious candidate must be aware of the crisis that the new president will face.
I assume that a Democratic president will just blame Bush for it to justify the necessity to do all three short-term supposed solutions: dramatically raise taxes, cut and/or ration benefits, and hyper-inflate the dollar, al of which in the big picture will actually exaccerbate the problem and probably be followed by a more dramatic socialization of the economy. This would be called "soaking the wealthy corporations, but in fact will be a bon to established corporations, imposing taxes and regulations that they can afford, but potential competition cannot. That is what socialism is: the alliance of big business and government.
McCain probably sees this impending threat, but knows it would be politically treacherous to talk about. But at least he is assertive about the urgent need to curtail extravagant spending, which is why Tom Coburn, the most conservative US Senator supports him enthusiastically, despite McCain's other conservative incoherencies. And, so do I, though I assertively opposed McCain in 2000 and voted 3rd party in 2000 and 2004.
And, The Fair Tax is the only way to ease, even if it doesn't totally avert the crisis. And, not because a calculation of revenue based on current economic activity will solve the problem. In fact, the very suggestion is absurd: other things being equal, the change is supposed to be revenue neutral. But, it is expected that other things will not be equal: the change will bring a surge in revenue from both new economic activity and previously untaxed activity.
Is The Fair Tax the complete solution to the problem? It probably will not, because the problem is so unbelievably huge. Bit in fact, it is an essential start to addressing the problem: if The Fair Tax doesn't "cure" it, no other possible course will even make a tiny ding in the problem.
So there's your real bridge to nowhere
By Paul Mulshine
Article Last Updated: 05/31/2008 04:24:03 PM CDT
Want to know what I never want to hear about again? The bridge to nowhere, that's what. Throughout this primary election season, which limps to a merciful end Tuesday, I have heard politicians pontificating about how they oppose building that bridge in Alaska.
I would much prefer to hear the pols talk about the one issue that looms above all others in terms of importance. Try to guess what it is. It's not the Iraq war. It's not the price of gas. It's not abortion, guns or gay marriage.
Give up? The biggest issue facing the next president of the United States is that the country is broke. Or at least it would be if it were a business. The accumulated debt of the United States exceeds its revenue by so much that if it were a corporation, the federal government would be in bankruptcy court.
You won't hear about this from politicians for one simple reason: Most of that debt is for programs promised to current and future retirees. Social Security and Medicare are too popular to cut. But they're too expensive to fund. So politicians ignore the problem.
Accountants worry about it, however. If you understand numbers, as Sheila Weinberg does, then you understand that the country is on its way to becoming a banana republic, a place where you need a knapsack just to carry currency. In Latin America years ago, I once visited such a country. I needed an inch-thick pile of bills just to buy breakfast, and breakfast cost only 75 cents in American money.
I don't want my kids to inherit such an economy. Weinberg feels the same about her kids. That's why she got involved with the Institute for Truth in Accounting, an Illinois-based group that would like to see government at all levels adopt "accrual accounting" as the heart of its budget process.
In traditional government accounting, politicians can promise endless future benefits while paying only a tiny portion upfront. But in accrual accounting, the pols would have to put aside enough money in a trust fund immediately to cover future promises.
If the U.S. had followed that system, the trust fund for Social Security and Medicare would need an immediate infusion of $54 trillion, Weinberg said. That's a lot of dough.
We ran up this debt because pols of both parties voted for popular programs without raising taxes to cover them. A classic was that prescription drug program adopted in the first term of the Bush administration.
"When they passed the prescription drug program, they should have sent a bill for $25,000 to every American," says Weinberg. "They should have asked, 'Do you want that? Then you need to send a check for $25,000 to start funding it.' "
Instead, the pols just added another $8 trillion in unfunded liability to a Medicare system that was already in the red.
But imagine for a second that the pols faced this problem honestly and decided to raise revenue to pay for their promises. How much would taxes have to rise?
The Congressional Budget Office was recently asked that question by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin who is one of the few politicians willing to talk about the problem. In a letter to Ryan last month, the CBO said the income tax would have to more than double to offset entitlement expenses. That would mean the tax rate on income now in the 25 percent bracket — where many middle-class Americans find themselves — would rise to a staggering 63 percent. The top rate would have to rise from 35 percent to 83 percent.
To look at it another way, consider this in terms of GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee's so-called "fair tax," a national sales tax of about 23 percent. Candidate Huckabee proposed that tax as a substitute for the income tax. But to balance the budget honestly, a President Huckabee would need to impose that big sales tax while also keeping the income tax.
Try to imagine Huckabee — or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain, for that matter — proposing such a huge tax hike. That's about as likely as any one of them proposing that we end Social Security and Medicare.
This is one area where the true spirit of bipartisanship reigns supreme. Both parties want to pass this problem to the next generation. So there's your real bridge to nowhere. And every young person in America is going to have to cross it.
Paul Mulshine is a columnist for the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. His e-mail address is pmulshine@hotmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would describe myself as primarily pro-life, in that I think that the establishment and adoption of disrespect for the foundational respect for life signals the onset of a progressive decline of civil society. However, it is quite correct that the onslaught of entitlement liabilities that are now at hand, represent imminent economic calamity. And, I am amazed at how little (in fact none, that I can see) attention is being paid to this matter in this election season. It doesn't take a genius to see this tsunami, the leading curl of which we are now perched directly below. Any serious candidate must be aware of the crisis that the new president will face.
I assume that a Democratic president will just blame Bush for it to justify the necessity to do all three short-term supposed solutions: dramatically raise taxes, cut and/or ration benefits, and hyper-inflate the dollar, al of which in the big picture will actually exaccerbate the problem and probably be followed by a more dramatic socialization of the economy. This would be called "soaking the wealthy corporations, but in fact will be a bon to established corporations, imposing taxes and regulations that they can afford, but potential competition cannot. That is what socialism is: the alliance of big business and government.
McCain probably sees this impending threat, but knows it would be politically treacherous to talk about. But at least he is assertive about the urgent need to curtail extravagant spending, which is why Tom Coburn, the most conservative US Senator supports him enthusiastically, despite McCain's other conservative incoherencies. And, so do I, though I assertively opposed McCain in 2000 and voted 3rd party in 2000 and 2004.
And, The Fair Tax is the only way to ease, even if it doesn't totally avert the crisis. And, not because a calculation of revenue based on current economic activity will solve the problem. In fact, the very suggestion is absurd: other things being equal, the change is supposed to be revenue neutral. But, it is expected that other things will not be equal: the change will bring a surge in revenue from both new economic activity and previously untaxed activity.
Is The Fair Tax the complete solution to the problem? It probably will not, because the problem is so unbelievably huge. Bit in fact, it is an essential start to addressing the problem: if The Fair Tax doesn't "cure" it, no other possible course will even make a tiny ding in the problem.
Published Shot At Fair Tax Finds Only Air
Minnesota’s http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_9436854 posted an article by Paul Mulshine of The Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey on Saturday. It correctly pointed up the impending entitlement crisis and then missed the point in asserting that The Fair Tax that Huckabee supports will not fix it, calling it, “the real bridge to nowhere.” Here is the article and the response I left at the site.
So there's your real bridge to nowhere
By Paul Mulshine
Article Last Updated: 05/31/2008 04:24:03 PM CDT
Want to know what I never want to hear about again? The bridge to nowhere, that's what. Throughout this primary election season, which limps to a merciful end Tuesday, I have heard politicians pontificating about how they oppose building that bridge in Alaska.
I would much prefer to hear the pols talk about the one issue that looms above all others in terms of importance. Try to guess what it is. It's not the Iraq war. It's not the price of gas. It's not abortion, guns or gay marriage.
Give up? The biggest issue facing the next president of the United States is that the country is broke. Or at least it would be if it were a business. The accumulated debt of the United States exceeds its revenue by so much that if it were a corporation, the federal government would be in bankruptcy court.
You won't hear about this from politicians for one simple reason: Most of that debt is for programs promised to current and future retirees. Social Security and Medicare are too popular to cut. But they're too expensive to fund. So politicians ignore the problem.
Accountants worry about it, however. If you understand numbers, as Sheila Weinberg does, then you understand that the country is on its way to becoming a banana republic, a place where you need a knapsack just to carry currency. In Latin America years ago, I once visited such a country. I needed an inch-thick pile of bills just to buy breakfast, and breakfast cost only 75 cents in American money.
I don't want my kids to inherit such an economy. Weinberg feels the same about her kids. That's why she got involved with the Institute for Truth in Accounting, an Illinois-based group that would like to see government at all levels adopt "accrual accounting" as the heart of its budget process.
In traditional government accounting, politicians can promise endless future benefits while paying only a tiny portion upfront. But in accrual accounting, the pols would have to put aside enough money in a trust fund immediately to cover future promises.
If the U.S. had followed that system, the trust fund for Social Security and Medicare would need an immediate infusion of $54 trillion, Weinberg said. That's a lot of dough.
We ran up this debt because pols of both parties voted for popular programs without raising taxes to cover them. A classic was that prescription drug program adopted in the first term of the Bush administration.
"When they passed the prescription drug program, they should have sent a bill for $25,000 to every American," says Weinberg. "They should have asked, 'Do you want that? Then you need to send a check for $25,000 to start funding it.' "
Instead, the pols just added another $8 trillion in unfunded liability to a Medicare system that was already in the red.
But imagine for a second that the pols faced this problem honestly and decided to raise revenue to pay for their promises. How much would taxes have to rise?
The Congressional Budget Office was recently asked that question by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin who is one of the few politicians willing to talk about the problem. In a letter to Ryan last month, the CBO said the income tax would have to more than double to offset entitlement expenses. That would mean the tax rate on income now in the 25 percent bracket — where many middle-class Americans find themselves — would rise to a staggering 63 percent. The top rate would have to rise from 35 percent to 83 percent.
To look at it another way, consider this in terms of GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee's so-called "fair tax," a national sales tax of about 23 percent. Candidate Huckabee proposed that tax as a substitute for the income tax. But to balance the budget honestly, a President Huckabee would need to impose that big sales tax while also keeping the income tax.
Try to imagine Huckabee — or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain, for that matter — proposing such a huge tax hike. That's about as likely as any one of them proposing that we end Social Security and Medicare.
This is one area where the true spirit of bipartisanship reigns supreme. Both parties want to pass this problem to the next generation. So there's your real bridge to nowhere. And every young person in America is going to have to cross it.
Paul Mulshine is a columnist for the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. His e-mail address is pmulshine@hotmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would describe myself as primarily pro-life, in that I think that the establishment and adoption of disrespect for the foundational respect for life signals the onset of a progressive decline of civil society. However, it is quite correct that the onslaught of entitlement liabilities that are now at hand, represent imminent economic calamity. And, I am amazed at how little (in fact none, that I can see) attention is being paid to this matter in this election season. It doesn't take a genius to see this tsunami, the leading curl of which we are now perched directly below. Any serious candidate must be aware of the crisis that the new president will face.
I assume that a Democratic president will just blame Bush for it to justify the necessity to do all three short-term supposed solutions: dramatically raise taxes, cut and/or ration benefits, and hyper-inflate the dollar, al of which in the big picture will actually exaccerbate the problem and probably be followed by a more dramatic socialization of the economy. This would be called "soaking the wealthy corporations, but in fact will be a bon to established corporations, imposing taxes and regulations that they can afford, but potential competition cannot. That is what socialism is: the alliance of big business and government.
McCain probably sees this impending threat, but knows it would be politically treacherous to talk about. But at least he is assertive about the urgent need to curtail extravagant spending, which is why Tom Coburn, the most conservative US Senator supports him enthusiastically, despite McCain's other conservative incoherencies. And so do I, though I assertively opposed McCain in 2000 and voted 3rd party in 2000 and 2004.
And, The Fair Tax is the only way to ease, even if it doesn't totally avert the crisis. And, not because a calculation of revenue based on current economic activity will solve the problem. In fact, the very suggestion is absurd: other things being equal, the change is supposed to be revenue neutral. But, it is expected that other things will not be equal: the change will bring a surge in revenue from both new economic activity and previously untaxed activity.
Is The Fair Tax the complete solution to the problem? It probably will not, because the problem is so unbelievably huge. Bit in fact, it is an essential start to addressing the problem: if The Fair Tax doesn't "cure" it, no other possible course will even make a tiny ding in the problem.
So there's your real bridge to nowhere
By Paul Mulshine
Article Last Updated: 05/31/2008 04:24:03 PM CDT
Want to know what I never want to hear about again? The bridge to nowhere, that's what. Throughout this primary election season, which limps to a merciful end Tuesday, I have heard politicians pontificating about how they oppose building that bridge in Alaska.
I would much prefer to hear the pols talk about the one issue that looms above all others in terms of importance. Try to guess what it is. It's not the Iraq war. It's not the price of gas. It's not abortion, guns or gay marriage.
Give up? The biggest issue facing the next president of the United States is that the country is broke. Or at least it would be if it were a business. The accumulated debt of the United States exceeds its revenue by so much that if it were a corporation, the federal government would be in bankruptcy court.
You won't hear about this from politicians for one simple reason: Most of that debt is for programs promised to current and future retirees. Social Security and Medicare are too popular to cut. But they're too expensive to fund. So politicians ignore the problem.
Accountants worry about it, however. If you understand numbers, as Sheila Weinberg does, then you understand that the country is on its way to becoming a banana republic, a place where you need a knapsack just to carry currency. In Latin America years ago, I once visited such a country. I needed an inch-thick pile of bills just to buy breakfast, and breakfast cost only 75 cents in American money.
I don't want my kids to inherit such an economy. Weinberg feels the same about her kids. That's why she got involved with the Institute for Truth in Accounting, an Illinois-based group that would like to see government at all levels adopt "accrual accounting" as the heart of its budget process.
In traditional government accounting, politicians can promise endless future benefits while paying only a tiny portion upfront. But in accrual accounting, the pols would have to put aside enough money in a trust fund immediately to cover future promises.
If the U.S. had followed that system, the trust fund for Social Security and Medicare would need an immediate infusion of $54 trillion, Weinberg said. That's a lot of dough.
We ran up this debt because pols of both parties voted for popular programs without raising taxes to cover them. A classic was that prescription drug program adopted in the first term of the Bush administration.
"When they passed the prescription drug program, they should have sent a bill for $25,000 to every American," says Weinberg. "They should have asked, 'Do you want that? Then you need to send a check for $25,000 to start funding it.' "
Instead, the pols just added another $8 trillion in unfunded liability to a Medicare system that was already in the red.
But imagine for a second that the pols faced this problem honestly and decided to raise revenue to pay for their promises. How much would taxes have to rise?
The Congressional Budget Office was recently asked that question by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin who is one of the few politicians willing to talk about the problem. In a letter to Ryan last month, the CBO said the income tax would have to more than double to offset entitlement expenses. That would mean the tax rate on income now in the 25 percent bracket — where many middle-class Americans find themselves — would rise to a staggering 63 percent. The top rate would have to rise from 35 percent to 83 percent.
To look at it another way, consider this in terms of GOP presidential contender Mike Huckabee's so-called "fair tax," a national sales tax of about 23 percent. Candidate Huckabee proposed that tax as a substitute for the income tax. But to balance the budget honestly, a President Huckabee would need to impose that big sales tax while also keeping the income tax.
Try to imagine Huckabee — or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain, for that matter — proposing such a huge tax hike. That's about as likely as any one of them proposing that we end Social Security and Medicare.
This is one area where the true spirit of bipartisanship reigns supreme. Both parties want to pass this problem to the next generation. So there's your real bridge to nowhere. And every young person in America is going to have to cross it.
Paul Mulshine is a columnist for the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. His e-mail address is pmulshine@hotmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would describe myself as primarily pro-life, in that I think that the establishment and adoption of disrespect for the foundational respect for life signals the onset of a progressive decline of civil society. However, it is quite correct that the onslaught of entitlement liabilities that are now at hand, represent imminent economic calamity. And, I am amazed at how little (in fact none, that I can see) attention is being paid to this matter in this election season. It doesn't take a genius to see this tsunami, the leading curl of which we are now perched directly below. Any serious candidate must be aware of the crisis that the new president will face.
I assume that a Democratic president will just blame Bush for it to justify the necessity to do all three short-term supposed solutions: dramatically raise taxes, cut and/or ration benefits, and hyper-inflate the dollar, al of which in the big picture will actually exaccerbate the problem and probably be followed by a more dramatic socialization of the economy. This would be called "soaking the wealthy corporations, but in fact will be a bon to established corporations, imposing taxes and regulations that they can afford, but potential competition cannot. That is what socialism is: the alliance of big business and government.
McCain probably sees this impending threat, but knows it would be politically treacherous to talk about. But at least he is assertive about the urgent need to curtail extravagant spending, which is why Tom Coburn, the most conservative US Senator supports him enthusiastically, despite McCain's other conservative incoherencies. And so do I, though I assertively opposed McCain in 2000 and voted 3rd party in 2000 and 2004.
And, The Fair Tax is the only way to ease, even if it doesn't totally avert the crisis. And, not because a calculation of revenue based on current economic activity will solve the problem. In fact, the very suggestion is absurd: other things being equal, the change is supposed to be revenue neutral. But, it is expected that other things will not be equal: the change will bring a surge in revenue from both new economic activity and previously untaxed activity.
Is The Fair Tax the complete solution to the problem? It probably will not, because the problem is so unbelievably huge. Bit in fact, it is an essential start to addressing the problem: if The Fair Tax doesn't "cure" it, no other possible course will even make a tiny ding in the problem.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
A Conservative Tells Why For America, John McCain Must Win
Let me say at the beginning that my primary concern is that John McCain and neither of the Democratic possibilities is elected the 44th president of The United States. There are many specific grounds for that concern, but there are a handful of matters that I consider not merely a question of satisfying my personal sentiments or beautifully representing conservative ideological principle, which I do think is important: I believe that clearly portraying the truth has its own power, beyond simply the power of rhetoric promulgating fear or anger. A few matters literally pose a matter of the survival of defining critical elements of American society, particularly given a relatively cooperative Congress. I will discuss these few issues, but first I want to try to establish my own conservative bona fides.
I acknowledge that there are some who will call my conservatism into question based on the mere fact that I was a supporter of Mike Huckabee. Some have embraced the argument, made mostly for personal and political reasons, that Huckabee had decided liberal tendencies. And some are reflexively repulsed by the mere fact that Huckabee expressed interest in Main Street as much as Wall Street citizens, and dared to speak with constituencies that have traditionally been dominated by Democrats, like minorities, labor unions, and educrats. But much as history may tell you otherwise, to speak with and express interest in people does not directly translate into endorsement of the policy interests that that group as a whole has traditionally supported. I am the son of a Christian pastor and the grandson of a Christian missionary. Some of you will be familiar with the idea that there is a distinction between engaging cultures with alien ideas and syncretizing your message to alien beliefs. Huckabee is not only philosophically a conservative, but he was more consistent about conservative and constitutional principle than any other candidate, save Ron Paul, with whom there were other questions. In addition, I think Huckabee was right that The Republican Party is in for a long vacation from power, if we will not even show the interest to speak with these populations. Unsurprisingly, what is a virtuous effort is also a practical advantage.
I was a delegate to Republican State Conventions in the 1990’s. But, I became exhausted with Republican compromise on conservative principle by 2000, and abandoned the Republican effort. As a matter of fact, one of the things that Republicans have dramatically failed at in the past 8 years is also one of those few critical reasons why McCain must win. Republicans completely lost their way on the expansion of federal spending and government. And as often as I disagree with his perceptions on specific issues, John McCain is especially strong on restraining non-essential government spending and growth. As just one of many examples, McCain opposed the Medicare expansion that Bush proposed and signed.
I have said before, that of the 14 candidates for the Republican nomination in 2000, McCain was my least favorite and George W. Bush was next. Honestly, I now think that ordering was a mistake. Bush was not as heterodox on as many things as McCain, but I think that’s because Bush was not as assertive about ANYTHING, and he was more politically compliant. McCain is not so. And, I disagree with him on most of the catalog of his conservative deviations: McCain-Feingold (blatantly unconstitutional), drilling in ANWR (2000 acre drilling footprint in a desolate area of a 19 million acre park), global warming (no scientific evidence or temperature history has countered the appearance that this has every earmark of being an unjustified mass-culture proliferated panic), etc…
But pretty plainly, had McCain been president, the steepest expansion of the federal government since the 60’s Johnson administration would have never happened. Unlike Bush’s, McCain’s veto pen would not have been holstered for six years. If he were not talked out of it, McCain might have forbidden the waterboarding that disclosed terrorist activities. But, that’s over anyway, since every terrorist knows that waterboarding is no real physical danger. And, McCain would not have been slack on the war on terror. No, I wish McCain were now finishing his second term, the federal government was a lot smaller, and Bush had found another job.
But as it is, the spending flood is in more urgent need of stifling with massive (frankly a feeble word) entitlement liabilities upon us. McCain is pro-life (his stem-cell confusion is now irrelevant. We don’t need embryonic stem cells) And, the balance of the federal judiciary is such that a Democratic president spells social disaster, and McCain is the right choice for a Republican win, this year.
I acknowledge that there are some who will call my conservatism into question based on the mere fact that I was a supporter of Mike Huckabee. Some have embraced the argument, made mostly for personal and political reasons, that Huckabee had decided liberal tendencies. And some are reflexively repulsed by the mere fact that Huckabee expressed interest in Main Street as much as Wall Street citizens, and dared to speak with constituencies that have traditionally been dominated by Democrats, like minorities, labor unions, and educrats. But much as history may tell you otherwise, to speak with and express interest in people does not directly translate into endorsement of the policy interests that that group as a whole has traditionally supported. I am the son of a Christian pastor and the grandson of a Christian missionary. Some of you will be familiar with the idea that there is a distinction between engaging cultures with alien ideas and syncretizing your message to alien beliefs. Huckabee is not only philosophically a conservative, but he was more consistent about conservative and constitutional principle than any other candidate, save Ron Paul, with whom there were other questions. In addition, I think Huckabee was right that The Republican Party is in for a long vacation from power, if we will not even show the interest to speak with these populations. Unsurprisingly, what is a virtuous effort is also a practical advantage.
I was a delegate to Republican State Conventions in the 1990’s. But, I became exhausted with Republican compromise on conservative principle by 2000, and abandoned the Republican effort. As a matter of fact, one of the things that Republicans have dramatically failed at in the past 8 years is also one of those few critical reasons why McCain must win. Republicans completely lost their way on the expansion of federal spending and government. And as often as I disagree with his perceptions on specific issues, John McCain is especially strong on restraining non-essential government spending and growth. As just one of many examples, McCain opposed the Medicare expansion that Bush proposed and signed.
I have said before, that of the 14 candidates for the Republican nomination in 2000, McCain was my least favorite and George W. Bush was next. Honestly, I now think that ordering was a mistake. Bush was not as heterodox on as many things as McCain, but I think that’s because Bush was not as assertive about ANYTHING, and he was more politically compliant. McCain is not so. And, I disagree with him on most of the catalog of his conservative deviations: McCain-Feingold (blatantly unconstitutional), drilling in ANWR (2000 acre drilling footprint in a desolate area of a 19 million acre park), global warming (no scientific evidence or temperature history has countered the appearance that this has every earmark of being an unjustified mass-culture proliferated panic), etc…
But pretty plainly, had McCain been president, the steepest expansion of the federal government since the 60’s Johnson administration would have never happened. Unlike Bush’s, McCain’s veto pen would not have been holstered for six years. If he were not talked out of it, McCain might have forbidden the waterboarding that disclosed terrorist activities. But, that’s over anyway, since every terrorist knows that waterboarding is no real physical danger. And, McCain would not have been slack on the war on terror. No, I wish McCain were now finishing his second term, the federal government was a lot smaller, and Bush had found another job.
But as it is, the spending flood is in more urgent need of stifling with massive (frankly a feeble word) entitlement liabilities upon us. McCain is pro-life (his stem-cell confusion is now irrelevant. We don’t need embryonic stem cells) And, the balance of the federal judiciary is such that a Democratic president spells social disaster, and McCain is the right choice for a Republican win, this year.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
On Huckabee And Conservatives, Dennis Prager And The Fair Tax, And John McCain's Economy Comments
I still have not been posting regularly, though I have been cruising other Blogs. There is much on my mind that I want to get into. But alas, current considerations come to the front.
First of all, I’ll just mention John McCain’s discussion of the economy, yesterday. I still hold out hope that he might be drawn to the cause of The Fair Tax, the economic promise of which I now consider critical. But John McCain expressed once again, his fervor for constraining spending, which must attend any changes or qualifications in our tax system. McCain’s repeated vow to veto earmarks (“I’ll veto them and make the authors famous…”) Is a first step, but essential and paradigmatic of his resolve that must be applied relative to considerations of government and taxes and spending.
As for taxes, McCain proposed a simpler filing method as option for individuals to the detailed filing of exemptions and deductions. Frankly, as often as I disagree with McCain, his resolve on a few things like this and winning against Islamic fundamentalism almost makes me cry.
Also, I had a Blog exchange about Huckabee, who announced HuckPAC today, and opinion among conservative Bloggers. And, Dennis Prager had segments on his radio program with Georgia Rep. John Linder about The Fair Tax and actor/writer Ben Stein about his movie which opens Friday: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” I will see the movie and expect that I will comment. But, today I will write about Prager’s embrace and discussion of The Fair Tax. I will send him a letter about some questions that he asked and why The Fair Tax is more important than just being a good idea, which I will post after the Blog exchange.
As part of today’s post, Adam Graham at Huckabee Alliance wrote:
…John Hawkins of Right Wing News did a poll of the right side of the blogosphere. You’ll recall a recent poll showed Huckabee an 18-15% favorite for the VP Spot in a national poll over Mitt Romney. Hawkins right-of center sample of bloggers chose Mitt Romney. This isn’t a huge deal because it’s within the margin of error nationally. However, Huckabee didn’t even show up with the minimum amount of votes to qualify for standing (5 points) and topped the list of least desired Vice-Presidential candidates. Here are the results in Reverse order from #15-#1:
15) Tom Ridge: Former Governor, Pennsylvania (5.0)
14) Tommy Franks: Former General (5.0)
13) Tim Pawlenty: Governor, Minnesota (5.5)
12) Rudy Giuliani: Former Mayor, New York (7.0)
11) Newt Gingrich: Former Congressman, Georgia (7.5)
10) Elizabeth Dole: Senator, North Carolina (7.5)
9) Mel Martinez: Senator, Florida (10.0) Condi Rice: Secretary of State (16.5)
7) Christie Todd Whitman: Former Governor, New Jersey (19.5)
6) Joe Lieberman: Senator, Connecticut (19.5)
5) Charlie Crist: Governor, Florida (20.0)
4) Colin Powell: Former Secretary of State (23.0)
3) Jeb Bush: Former Governor, Florida (23.5)
2) Lindsey Graham: Senator, South Carolina (26.5)
1) Mike Huckabee: Former Governor, Arkansas (42)
First of all, I don’t know what Tommy Franks did get on somebody’s naughty list. However, among elite conservative bloggers, a McCain-Huckabee ticket would be worse than a ticket with a pro-choicer on it (McCain-Ridge/McCain-Giuliani/McCain-Rice/McCain-Whitman, McCain-Powell), a Democrat (also pro-choice) (McCain-Lieberman), an illegible candidate (McCain-Martinez), and McCain’s co-leader in pushing for amnesty while attacking all amnesty opponents as bigots (McCain-Graham.) It’s shocking, really. Let’s no longer call this group, the rightosphere, let us call them instead the out-of-touchosphere. If there’s a been a reason for good cultural conservative to start and build strong blogs, this is exhibit A.
Larry
This year was very informative for me as a lifelong philosophical conservative, with all the "conservative" criticism of Huckabee. I zeroed in on three elements that inspired that animosity against Huckabee. Firstly, the establishment political commenters, writers and organizers were just culturally uncomfortable with Huckabee's unblushing profession of evangelical faith. A lot of the standard criticisms were cited, but I think at bottom this was just a little gauche in the circles they travel in. Note that many of them embraced the Mormon Romney, whose dogma was even more different. But, he was more duly modest about it, never saying pop-culturally uncouth (never mind that it is very appropriate) things like "My faith not only informs me, it defines me." For example, it animates his respect for life, the poor, justice, freedom, creation...all quite legitimate, as long as God has nothing to do with it.
Secondly, high-dollar economic conservatives didn't like The Fair Tax, which would tax the extravagances usually written off as "business expenses. For example, think of the tax on a corporate jet. When I was a salesman, we and our guests ate very well: it was all "written off."
But, in the case of most of these Bloggers, I think it was just a visceral reaction, confirmed by other critics, against Huckabee's gracious consideration of typically un-Republican issues and populations: what became referred to (largely erroneously) as Huckabee's "populism." He talked about "Main Street." and environmental stewardship, got union endorsements, affirmed the concerns of minorities, etc. In the minds of these people, all of this squared with charges, sincere and political, of "liberalism," which of course made many conservatives' skin crawl.
Dennis Prager:
I’m glad to see you firming up on support for The Fair Tax. I want address three things with regard to your discussion today. First and briefly, as you have before, you questioned why it is named “The Fair Tax.” The answer explains both why it is fair and why many wealthy individuals and traders tend to oppose it. Warren Buffett recently challenged corporate officers that he would give a million dollars if they could prove that they paid taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. Last I heard, there were no takers. Right now, the very wealthy have teams of experts to “write off” every luxury as a “business expense. Heck, salesman of corporations and clients and prospective clients always eat and drink very well. Why not? It’s all “written off.” Now, think of a 23% sales tax on items like jets and yachts and such: EVERYTHING that was heretofore a “write off,” would be taxed at 23% under The Fair Tax. Corporate officers would rather pay their teams of tax preparers and keep their “write offs” than have tax free businesses and capital gains and have to pay 23% on every extravagance. As I say, “people accustomed to privilege aren’t real excited about fairness.”
Secondly and most importantly, The Fair Tax is no longer just a good idea. The economic activity that its implementation would provoke is the only way I can see that America may meet the tsunami of entitlement liability that it has taken on that is now upon us, and hopefully without calamitous tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation, which is taxation by another name. Strangely, there is not enough focus on this. But hyper-inflation and probably both huge tax increases and benefit cuts are inevitable if something dramatic is not done: watch the value of your reserves and investments evaporate.
Thirdly, you asked about what would be problems with The Fair Tax. In short, there will be problems, but they are relatively negligible compared to the current system. My biggest concern has been that, especially in the Internet age, there will be great appeal to saving taxes on expensive items by trying to ship items into the US from tax-free offshore sources. Linder says things will be taxed when brought into the country, and they should be to keep American enterprise on an equal footing. But monitoring smuggling across our borders, and appraising and assessing all items shipped in, which will have to included elaborate scanning and invasion of packages, will be no small endeavor. But the crime of tax-evading smuggling raises the question of other even internal tax-evasion. For one thing, barter will expand dramatically. But goods will also be sold on the street in an expanded “black-market. Think for example, of tax-free jewelry and electronics: a 23% saving will be a huge inducement to this kind of dealing.
Yes, all of these will be HUGE considerations. But, at least, this tax-evasion will be stark and indisputable crime. Under the current system, the “crime” is usually very gray and technical, and conviction involves elaborate and expensive prosecution. Deductions and exemptions are claimed and accepted or denied, and adjudicated in long trials. In truth, we may (and I hope we) find that much more of our commerce and especially our government function should be reigned in to state and local jurisdictions. Wouldn’t you rather see local police and courts restraining and prosecuting the crooks on the street?
First of all, I’ll just mention John McCain’s discussion of the economy, yesterday. I still hold out hope that he might be drawn to the cause of The Fair Tax, the economic promise of which I now consider critical. But John McCain expressed once again, his fervor for constraining spending, which must attend any changes or qualifications in our tax system. McCain’s repeated vow to veto earmarks (“I’ll veto them and make the authors famous…”) Is a first step, but essential and paradigmatic of his resolve that must be applied relative to considerations of government and taxes and spending.
As for taxes, McCain proposed a simpler filing method as option for individuals to the detailed filing of exemptions and deductions. Frankly, as often as I disagree with McCain, his resolve on a few things like this and winning against Islamic fundamentalism almost makes me cry.
Also, I had a Blog exchange about Huckabee, who announced HuckPAC today, and opinion among conservative Bloggers. And, Dennis Prager had segments on his radio program with Georgia Rep. John Linder about The Fair Tax and actor/writer Ben Stein about his movie which opens Friday: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” I will see the movie and expect that I will comment. But, today I will write about Prager’s embrace and discussion of The Fair Tax. I will send him a letter about some questions that he asked and why The Fair Tax is more important than just being a good idea, which I will post after the Blog exchange.
As part of today’s post, Adam Graham at Huckabee Alliance wrote:
…John Hawkins of Right Wing News did a poll of the right side of the blogosphere. You’ll recall a recent poll showed Huckabee an 18-15% favorite for the VP Spot in a national poll over Mitt Romney. Hawkins right-of center sample of bloggers chose Mitt Romney. This isn’t a huge deal because it’s within the margin of error nationally. However, Huckabee didn’t even show up with the minimum amount of votes to qualify for standing (5 points) and topped the list of least desired Vice-Presidential candidates. Here are the results in Reverse order from #15-#1:
15) Tom Ridge: Former Governor, Pennsylvania (5.0)
14) Tommy Franks: Former General (5.0)
13) Tim Pawlenty: Governor, Minnesota (5.5)
12) Rudy Giuliani: Former Mayor, New York (7.0)
11) Newt Gingrich: Former Congressman, Georgia (7.5)
10) Elizabeth Dole: Senator, North Carolina (7.5)
9) Mel Martinez: Senator, Florida (10.0) Condi Rice: Secretary of State (16.5)
7) Christie Todd Whitman: Former Governor, New Jersey (19.5)
6) Joe Lieberman: Senator, Connecticut (19.5)
5) Charlie Crist: Governor, Florida (20.0)
4) Colin Powell: Former Secretary of State (23.0)
3) Jeb Bush: Former Governor, Florida (23.5)
2) Lindsey Graham: Senator, South Carolina (26.5)
1) Mike Huckabee: Former Governor, Arkansas (42)
First of all, I don’t know what Tommy Franks did get on somebody’s naughty list. However, among elite conservative bloggers, a McCain-Huckabee ticket would be worse than a ticket with a pro-choicer on it (McCain-Ridge/McCain-Giuliani/McCain-Rice/McCain-Whitman, McCain-Powell), a Democrat (also pro-choice) (McCain-Lieberman), an illegible candidate (McCain-Martinez), and McCain’s co-leader in pushing for amnesty while attacking all amnesty opponents as bigots (McCain-Graham.) It’s shocking, really. Let’s no longer call this group, the rightosphere, let us call them instead the out-of-touchosphere. If there’s a been a reason for good cultural conservative to start and build strong blogs, this is exhibit A.
Larry
This year was very informative for me as a lifelong philosophical conservative, with all the "conservative" criticism of Huckabee. I zeroed in on three elements that inspired that animosity against Huckabee. Firstly, the establishment political commenters, writers and organizers were just culturally uncomfortable with Huckabee's unblushing profession of evangelical faith. A lot of the standard criticisms were cited, but I think at bottom this was just a little gauche in the circles they travel in. Note that many of them embraced the Mormon Romney, whose dogma was even more different. But, he was more duly modest about it, never saying pop-culturally uncouth (never mind that it is very appropriate) things like "My faith not only informs me, it defines me." For example, it animates his respect for life, the poor, justice, freedom, creation...all quite legitimate, as long as God has nothing to do with it.
Secondly, high-dollar economic conservatives didn't like The Fair Tax, which would tax the extravagances usually written off as "business expenses. For example, think of the tax on a corporate jet. When I was a salesman, we and our guests ate very well: it was all "written off."
But, in the case of most of these Bloggers, I think it was just a visceral reaction, confirmed by other critics, against Huckabee's gracious consideration of typically un-Republican issues and populations: what became referred to (largely erroneously) as Huckabee's "populism." He talked about "Main Street." and environmental stewardship, got union endorsements, affirmed the concerns of minorities, etc. In the minds of these people, all of this squared with charges, sincere and political, of "liberalism," which of course made many conservatives' skin crawl.
Dennis Prager:
I’m glad to see you firming up on support for The Fair Tax. I want address three things with regard to your discussion today. First and briefly, as you have before, you questioned why it is named “The Fair Tax.” The answer explains both why it is fair and why many wealthy individuals and traders tend to oppose it. Warren Buffett recently challenged corporate officers that he would give a million dollars if they could prove that they paid taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. Last I heard, there were no takers. Right now, the very wealthy have teams of experts to “write off” every luxury as a “business expense. Heck, salesman of corporations and clients and prospective clients always eat and drink very well. Why not? It’s all “written off.” Now, think of a 23% sales tax on items like jets and yachts and such: EVERYTHING that was heretofore a “write off,” would be taxed at 23% under The Fair Tax. Corporate officers would rather pay their teams of tax preparers and keep their “write offs” than have tax free businesses and capital gains and have to pay 23% on every extravagance. As I say, “people accustomed to privilege aren’t real excited about fairness.”
Secondly and most importantly, The Fair Tax is no longer just a good idea. The economic activity that its implementation would provoke is the only way I can see that America may meet the tsunami of entitlement liability that it has taken on that is now upon us, and hopefully without calamitous tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation, which is taxation by another name. Strangely, there is not enough focus on this. But hyper-inflation and probably both huge tax increases and benefit cuts are inevitable if something dramatic is not done: watch the value of your reserves and investments evaporate.
Thirdly, you asked about what would be problems with The Fair Tax. In short, there will be problems, but they are relatively negligible compared to the current system. My biggest concern has been that, especially in the Internet age, there will be great appeal to saving taxes on expensive items by trying to ship items into the US from tax-free offshore sources. Linder says things will be taxed when brought into the country, and they should be to keep American enterprise on an equal footing. But monitoring smuggling across our borders, and appraising and assessing all items shipped in, which will have to included elaborate scanning and invasion of packages, will be no small endeavor. But the crime of tax-evading smuggling raises the question of other even internal tax-evasion. For one thing, barter will expand dramatically. But goods will also be sold on the street in an expanded “black-market. Think for example, of tax-free jewelry and electronics: a 23% saving will be a huge inducement to this kind of dealing.
Yes, all of these will be HUGE considerations. But, at least, this tax-evasion will be stark and indisputable crime. Under the current system, the “crime” is usually very gray and technical, and conviction involves elaborate and expensive prosecution. Deductions and exemptions are claimed and accepted or denied, and adjudicated in long trials. In truth, we may (and I hope we) find that much more of our commerce and especially our government function should be reigned in to state and local jurisdictions. Wouldn’t you rather see local police and courts restraining and prosecuting the crooks on the street?
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Support The Fair Tax And Sign This Fair Tax Petition...PLEASE!
Support The Fair Tax And Sign This Fair Tax Petition...PLEASE!
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=changedc
I want to start writing some personal thoughts about my own situation and things I have strong convictions about. But, one thing I have talked and will talk about is The Fair Tax. Mike Huckabee made that a significant issue in his campaign. Many Huckabee supporters got involved in the Republican political process, for the first time. And, in my precinct, that of everyone else I talked to, and my subsequent Senatorial District Convention, there were Fair Tax Resolutions, and I’m sure the issue will appear at the state convention. Mike Huckabee was correct that it presents a huge simplification, balance across income of the federal tax system, and also taxes heretofore “underground” elements of the American economy like drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal aliens, and miscellaneous criminals who do not file, but do and must buy things. And, he also correctly and consistently stated that The Fair Tax would bring a great surge of investment and economic activity to The United States.
However, he should have more starkly linked that surge of economic activity to the fast-closing crisis of America’s inability to meet the mountain of entitlement liability that the federal government has taken on. Only such a dramatic change as The Fair Tax poses any possibility of meeting these liabilities without a titanic and, frankly crippling combination of tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation. Unless we move with great dispatch to promote economic expansion and the consequent revenue increase, probably all of these band-aids will be applied, and soon. And yes, they will be crippling, bringing great economic and physical suffering, as shortsighted liberal solutions almost inherently do. I’m sending/posting this because today I received an email from The Fair Tax organization, encouraging me to send the message below to encourage others to sign a Fair Tax petition to be presented to Congress, as I have:
If you haven’t any questions about how The Fair Tax would work or about possible problems, email me and I’ll tell you the potential problems I see. But simply put, those problems are infinitely smaller than the ones we now face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
With April 15th drawing near the folks at Americans for Fair Taxation (FairTax.org) are gathering 100,000 names for a "Pass the FairTax" petition to send a powerful message to Congress this Tax Day.
I just signed the petition at www.changedc.org and would encourage you to do the same.
The FairTax petition makes a powerful statement to Congress: It says there is a better way than the current income tax system with its 67,500 pages of cumbersome tax rules and regulations for which individuals and businesses spend $265 billion annually on filing and compliance. It's called the FairTax and it promises to unleash the American economy especially during these difficult times, and unshackle us, the American taxpayers, from yearly nightmare that is April 15th.
If you're not already familiar with the FairTax, here are the basics:
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:
• A progressive national retail sales tax.
• A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
• Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
• Repeal of the 16th Amendment through companion legislation.
Just imagine...bringing home your entire paycheck AND never having to file a tax return again! It's not a dream. It's called the FairTax, and you can help make it a reality.
If this sounds interesting, you can learn more at www.fairtax.org, and sign the "Pass the FairTax" petition there as well
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=changedc
I want to start writing some personal thoughts about my own situation and things I have strong convictions about. But, one thing I have talked and will talk about is The Fair Tax. Mike Huckabee made that a significant issue in his campaign. Many Huckabee supporters got involved in the Republican political process, for the first time. And, in my precinct, that of everyone else I talked to, and my subsequent Senatorial District Convention, there were Fair Tax Resolutions, and I’m sure the issue will appear at the state convention. Mike Huckabee was correct that it presents a huge simplification, balance across income of the federal tax system, and also taxes heretofore “underground” elements of the American economy like drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal aliens, and miscellaneous criminals who do not file, but do and must buy things. And, he also correctly and consistently stated that The Fair Tax would bring a great surge of investment and economic activity to The United States.
However, he should have more starkly linked that surge of economic activity to the fast-closing crisis of America’s inability to meet the mountain of entitlement liability that the federal government has taken on. Only such a dramatic change as The Fair Tax poses any possibility of meeting these liabilities without a titanic and, frankly crippling combination of tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation. Unless we move with great dispatch to promote economic expansion and the consequent revenue increase, probably all of these band-aids will be applied, and soon. And yes, they will be crippling, bringing great economic and physical suffering, as shortsighted liberal solutions almost inherently do. I’m sending/posting this because today I received an email from The Fair Tax organization, encouraging me to send the message below to encourage others to sign a Fair Tax petition to be presented to Congress, as I have:
If you haven’t any questions about how The Fair Tax would work or about possible problems, email me and I’ll tell you the potential problems I see. But simply put, those problems are infinitely smaller than the ones we now face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
With April 15th drawing near the folks at Americans for Fair Taxation (FairTax.org) are gathering 100,000 names for a "Pass the FairTax" petition to send a powerful message to Congress this Tax Day.
I just signed the petition at www.changedc.org and would encourage you to do the same.
The FairTax petition makes a powerful statement to Congress: It says there is a better way than the current income tax system with its 67,500 pages of cumbersome tax rules and regulations for which individuals and businesses spend $265 billion annually on filing and compliance. It's called the FairTax and it promises to unleash the American economy especially during these difficult times, and unshackle us, the American taxpayers, from yearly nightmare that is April 15th.
If you're not already familiar with the FairTax, here are the basics:
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:
• A progressive national retail sales tax.
• A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
• Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
• Repeal of the 16th Amendment through companion legislation.
Just imagine...bringing home your entire paycheck AND never having to file a tax return again! It's not a dream. It's called the FairTax, and you can help make it a reality.
If this sounds interesting, you can learn more at www.fairtax.org, and sign the "Pass the FairTax" petition there as well
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Support The Fait Tax And Sign This Fair Tax Petition...PLEASE!
Support The Fait Tax And Sign This Fair Tax Petition...PLEASE!
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=changedc
I want to start writing some personal thoughts about my own situation and things I have strong convictions about. But, one thing I have talked and will talk about is The Fair Tax. Mike Huckabee made that a significant issue in his campaign. Many Huckabee supporters got involved in the Republican political process, for the first time. And, in my precinct, that of everyone else I talked to, and my subsequent Senatorial District Convention, there were Fair Tax Resolutions, and I’m sure the issue will appear at the state convention. Mike Huckabee was correct that it presents a huge simplification, balance across income of the federal tax system, and also taxes heretofore “underground” elements of the American economy like drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal aliens, and miscellaneous criminals who do not file, but do and must buy things. And, he also correctly and consistently stated that The Fair Tax would bring a great surge of investment and economic activity to The United States.
However, he should have more starkly linked that surge of economic activity to the fast-closing crisis of America’s inability to meet the mountain of entitlement liability that the federal government has taken on. Only such a dramatic change as The Fair Tax poses any possibility of meeting these liabilities without a titanic and, frankly crippling combination of tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation. Unless we move with great dispatch to promote economic expansion and the consequent revenue increase, probably all of these band-aids will be applied, and soon. And yes, they will be crippling, bringing great economic and physical suffering, as shortsighted liberal solutions almost inherently do. I’m sending/posting this because today I received an email from The Fair Tax organization, encouraging me to send the message below to encourage others to sign a Fair Tax petition to be presented to Congress, as I have:
If you haven’t any questions about how The Fair Tax would work or about possible problems, email me and I’ll tell you the potential problems I see. But simply put, those problems are infinitely smaller than the ones we now face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
With April 15th drawing near the folks at Americans for Fair Taxation (FairTax.org) are gathering 100,000 names for a "Pass the FairTax" petition to send a powerful message to Congress this Tax Day.
I just signed the petition at www.changedc.org and would encourage you to do the same.
The FairTax petition makes a powerful statement to Congress: It says there is a better way than the current income tax system with its 67,500 pages of cumbersome tax rules and regulations for which individuals and businesses spend $265 billion annually on filing and compliance. It's called the FairTax and it promises to unleash the American economy especially during these difficult times, and unshackle us, the American taxpayers, from yearly nightmare that is April 15th.
If you're not already familiar with the FairTax, here are the basics:
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:
• A progressive national retail sales tax.
• A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
• Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
• Repeal of the 16th Amendment through companion legislation.
Just imagine...bringing home your entire paycheck AND never having to file a tax return again! It's not a dream. It's called the FairTax, and you can help make it a reality.
If this sounds interesting, you can learn more at www.fairtax.org, and sign the "Pass the FairTax" petition there as well
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=changedc
I want to start writing some personal thoughts about my own situation and things I have strong convictions about. But, one thing I have talked and will talk about is The Fair Tax. Mike Huckabee made that a significant issue in his campaign. Many Huckabee supporters got involved in the Republican political process, for the first time. And, in my precinct, that of everyone else I talked to, and my subsequent Senatorial District Convention, there were Fair Tax Resolutions, and I’m sure the issue will appear at the state convention. Mike Huckabee was correct that it presents a huge simplification, balance across income of the federal tax system, and also taxes heretofore “underground” elements of the American economy like drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal aliens, and miscellaneous criminals who do not file, but do and must buy things. And, he also correctly and consistently stated that The Fair Tax would bring a great surge of investment and economic activity to The United States.
However, he should have more starkly linked that surge of economic activity to the fast-closing crisis of America’s inability to meet the mountain of entitlement liability that the federal government has taken on. Only such a dramatic change as The Fair Tax poses any possibility of meeting these liabilities without a titanic and, frankly crippling combination of tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation. Unless we move with great dispatch to promote economic expansion and the consequent revenue increase, probably all of these band-aids will be applied, and soon. And yes, they will be crippling, bringing great economic and physical suffering, as shortsighted liberal solutions almost inherently do. I’m sending/posting this because today I received an email from The Fair Tax organization, encouraging me to send the message below to encourage others to sign a Fair Tax petition to be presented to Congress, as I have:
If you haven’t any questions about how The Fair Tax would work or about possible problems, email me and I’ll tell you the potential problems I see. But simply put, those problems are infinitely smaller than the ones we now face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
With April 15th drawing near the folks at Americans for Fair Taxation (FairTax.org) are gathering 100,000 names for a "Pass the FairTax" petition to send a powerful message to Congress this Tax Day.
I just signed the petition at www.changedc.org and would encourage you to do the same.
The FairTax petition makes a powerful statement to Congress: It says there is a better way than the current income tax system with its 67,500 pages of cumbersome tax rules and regulations for which individuals and businesses spend $265 billion annually on filing and compliance. It's called the FairTax and it promises to unleash the American economy especially during these difficult times, and unshackle us, the American taxpayers, from yearly nightmare that is April 15th.
If you're not already familiar with the FairTax, here are the basics:
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:
• A progressive national retail sales tax.
• A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
• Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
• Repeal of the 16th Amendment through companion legislation.
Just imagine...bringing home your entire paycheck AND never having to file a tax return again! It's not a dream. It's called the FairTax, and you can help make it a reality.
If this sounds interesting, you can learn more at www.fairtax.org, and sign the "Pass the FairTax" petition there as well
Monday, March 31, 2008
Changes And Supporting McCain
I unsurprisingly got a comment about my writing and expressing surprise at my support for McCain. As I’ve said before, over the last several years, my ideology hasn’t changed much. But, my disposition has shifted and the conditions we face have changed dramatically. Here is my response:
Cindy:
I'm sure it was on Kerry's One Mom Blog that I saw a comment of yours. I still look in on a handful of Blogs that I watched for months. I've hardly watched my own, in March. Is this mental decompression? There are still things going on in my head. I think I'll turn to a more personal focus on my perspective on life as a person with MS who spends a lot of time analyzing socio-philosophical questions. I don't have the popular platform of a public office or a media program. I don't even have an academic title to flaunt as credentials. I went to graduate school and finished my coursework in the early 80's, but I started working before I finished my essay. In case anyone asks, you can make money as a salesman that you can't make as a student or even as a teacher unless you get a Ph.D. and a good university position. I was at Western Kentucky, not Harvard or Stanford. (Speaking of marketing credentials) :-)
But plainly, I do have a unique position as a philosophically oriented person with multiple sclerosis. It has been interesting watching what has happened in my body and my subjective experience, as well as looking at society from a perspective not largely occupied with labor or an office. There are a lot of people with MS who don't get enough input about the physical and social effects that one might face, and most people have a friend or family member with MS. That's a fairly large potential audience, and their attention might (hardly incidentally) be directed to some social questions.
Speaking of that, I believe I mentioned that I was a MAJOR McCain critic. In the 2000 election cycle, of 14 original Republican candidates, McCain was my LEAST favorite. I called him "philosophically incoherent."
But as I said, I've come to recognize his unique virtues and our unique situation. Especially given that those unique virtues include a gracious and well-meaning disposition, when it comes to those philosophical questions, we should befriend and encourage him, not scorn and repel him. If he disappoints conservatives, that should be all his doing, not ours.
But, the other virtues include a thoroughgoing patriotism relative to foreign policy. And also critically important TODAY is his record and resolve against extravagant government spending. This is no longer a future concern: the entitlements tidal wave hits over the next ten years. For instance, S.S. disability is getting difficult to be approved, because bureaucrats see that there is no money. The plain truth is that there are very few politicians with the resolve McCain will have about controlling spending. That's why Tom Coburn supports McCain. In the statewide constituency pork barrel-prone Senate, Coburn is the closest thing you will see to a "Dr. No."
Just yesterday for instance, McCain said that it isn't the federal government's job to bail out businesses that made bad loans. He's right. This is just the umpteenth manifestation of the endemic pathology of the federal government that subsidizes failure and penalizes success. Of course, this invites more failure and less success. We need to support McCain for these literal VITAL reasons, and encourage and counsel him where we disagree. I think I'll post THIS.
Cindy:
I'm sure it was on Kerry's One Mom Blog that I saw a comment of yours. I still look in on a handful of Blogs that I watched for months. I've hardly watched my own, in March. Is this mental decompression? There are still things going on in my head. I think I'll turn to a more personal focus on my perspective on life as a person with MS who spends a lot of time analyzing socio-philosophical questions. I don't have the popular platform of a public office or a media program. I don't even have an academic title to flaunt as credentials. I went to graduate school and finished my coursework in the early 80's, but I started working before I finished my essay. In case anyone asks, you can make money as a salesman that you can't make as a student or even as a teacher unless you get a Ph.D. and a good university position. I was at Western Kentucky, not Harvard or Stanford. (Speaking of marketing credentials) :-)
But plainly, I do have a unique position as a philosophically oriented person with multiple sclerosis. It has been interesting watching what has happened in my body and my subjective experience, as well as looking at society from a perspective not largely occupied with labor or an office. There are a lot of people with MS who don't get enough input about the physical and social effects that one might face, and most people have a friend or family member with MS. That's a fairly large potential audience, and their attention might (hardly incidentally) be directed to some social questions.
Speaking of that, I believe I mentioned that I was a MAJOR McCain critic. In the 2000 election cycle, of 14 original Republican candidates, McCain was my LEAST favorite. I called him "philosophically incoherent."
But as I said, I've come to recognize his unique virtues and our unique situation. Especially given that those unique virtues include a gracious and well-meaning disposition, when it comes to those philosophical questions, we should befriend and encourage him, not scorn and repel him. If he disappoints conservatives, that should be all his doing, not ours.
But, the other virtues include a thoroughgoing patriotism relative to foreign policy. And also critically important TODAY is his record and resolve against extravagant government spending. This is no longer a future concern: the entitlements tidal wave hits over the next ten years. For instance, S.S. disability is getting difficult to be approved, because bureaucrats see that there is no money. The plain truth is that there are very few politicians with the resolve McCain will have about controlling spending. That's why Tom Coburn supports McCain. In the statewide constituency pork barrel-prone Senate, Coburn is the closest thing you will see to a "Dr. No."
Just yesterday for instance, McCain said that it isn't the federal government's job to bail out businesses that made bad loans. He's right. This is just the umpteenth manifestation of the endemic pathology of the federal government that subsidizes failure and penalizes success. Of course, this invites more failure and less success. We need to support McCain for these literal VITAL reasons, and encourage and counsel him where we disagree. I think I'll post THIS.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Why Conservatives MUST Support John McCain
I have been resting from my Blog since Mike Huckabee withdrew from the campaign for the Republican nomination on March 4th, after John McCain secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination. I must soon be about changing many of the objects on the Blog, including revising its primary objectives. There are always current events I want to discuss and in fact, some specific writing that I want to focus on.
But for right now, it is a priority that I establish my resolve to support John McCain for the fall election and state why I believe this objective is critical. My feelings are independent of but unsurprisingly consistent with Mike Huckabee's expressed intention to direct his infinitely greater influence to the same end. With respect to me, some may find my disposition odd, given my history of dissent and criticism of conservative drift in The Republican Party. Perhaps I am a little different, but I certainly think the immediate situation is a LOT different and I will explain why I think so.
It is important first, to briefly explain my own background. I am a lifelong conservative who began reading conservative thinkers and ideals as a teenager in the 1970’s. After developing multiple sclerosis in the 1990’s, I became an activist participant in Republican politics and the convention process. I went to the 1998 Republican Party of Texas convention armed with flyers about my problems with John McCain. Even today, on most of the standard conservative catalog of McCain infidelities, I may generally agree. And in fact, I declined to support or even vote for George W. Bush, whom at the time I saw as only marginally better than McCain. I didn't and don't dislike Bush. I just thought he was not constrained by sound conservative principle.
The profligate spending and federal government usurpation of the past six years have born that concern out. But looking back, perhaps Bush was more politically constrained. What has become clear is that on the things that he strongly believes, John McCain has been an uncommonly resolute United States Senator, including on urgent issues on which we agree. And, he has run his campaign this year in an uncommonly civil and gracious fashion. Let me explain why a few of those points of resolve and agreement rise categorically above any list of disagreements:
First, all of us other than some Ron Paul enthusiasts understand that on the primary duty of the federal government and the president, defending the American people and their interest, John McCain is not only with us but most assertively so and most prepared for the responsibility. America’s physical defense is of course, constitutionally established as a priority for the federal government generally and the chief executive specifically, who is the commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces. And in a world that technology has brought close and in which America is the technological and military supreme power, defending American principles of humanity is a duty the neglect of which is a human dereliction. As we know, today, these concerns are not incidental but pressing priorities.
Secondly, there is another great crisis upon us that some have warned of but many Americans seem to have slept through the approach of. For decades now, we have had warnings of the long-term insolvency in government’s accrued liabilities versus reasonably expected revenues. But, when plans to devise a correction have been raised, political rhetoric has killed the effort. In fact we have only continued to widen the shortfall. Well guess what? We are only barely talking about a future problem, now.
For the next decade the entitlement liabilities will devour the disbursements of the federal budget. Discretionary expenditures will be cut. And the gap won’t be near filled. The yawning debt will be expanded. New taxes, benefit cuts, and accelerated currency printing (i.e., rapid inflation/devaluation of money) will be the only options to try to meet the liability. Unless a dramatic change is made to boost productivity and revenue (a massive tax reform – like The Fair Tax plan) is implemented, all three of these supposedly more modest solutions would probably be tried. But, the net effect would be to make matters worse. John McCain has the resolve to resist these efforts.
Whatever course is taken to infuse the system, America will have to stop the bleeding; that is, the spending. Say what we might about John McCain, there has not been a more resolute actor in Washington against budgetary extravagance. Under the Bush administration, a Republican majority expanded government at a rate not seen for forty years, since Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress. Most dramatically, these Republicans greatly increased the Medicare entitlement that along with Social Security was already long-term insolvent. John McCain was among the few who opposed this action. There probably is not a more stark demonstration of why fiscal conservatives like Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and former Senator and economist Phil Gramm are enthusiastically supporting McCain.
Thirdly, we are looking at long-term social imprudence prevailed upon the country if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton appoint the next generation of federal jurists, including 2-4 Supreme Court justices. The folly will be broad and deep, but for example, the social calumny of “legal” abortion will be guaranteed until at least the middle of this century. I always emphasize that, as hard as it is to believe, the most tragic victims of this would not be the innocent lives lost over what will have been 60-80 years. God has always dealt with and will continue to handle the deaths of innocents. They are a class that will bypass this vale of tears and be delivered directly to perfect justice.
However, as usual, the true sufferers and victims will be our children that have to live in a society that has assimilated this most fundamental and grave selfish incivility. Why will neighbors and commercial relationships be afforded a respect that is not held up even for our own offspring? Relatively speaking, dog-eat-dog sounds like an innocuous social standard.
For all of last year, until he withdrew on March 4th, I was a Mike Huckabee supporter. I studied Mike Huckabee’s record and campaign for over a year, and found the supposedly “conservative” criticisms of him to be misrepresentation. But, most remarkable about his candidacy was his distinctive positive and engaging approach, which often disarmed and engaged even liberals who disagreed with his policy conclusions, but trusted Huckabee’s honesty and sincerity, which was particularly ironic in that those were precisely the thoughtful qualities that many conservatives were suspicious of. In defending him, I often found myself oddly cast as a “liberal,” just like he was.
But, John McCain conducted a campaign that was likewise civil and genuine. For the sake of the nation and an American model for an elevated disposition, it is critical that conservatives rally around John McCain and engage him by putting their concerns before this genuine and resolute American patriot. Let’s help him with everything we have and ask him to help with our sincere and noble concerns for America.
But for right now, it is a priority that I establish my resolve to support John McCain for the fall election and state why I believe this objective is critical. My feelings are independent of but unsurprisingly consistent with Mike Huckabee's expressed intention to direct his infinitely greater influence to the same end. With respect to me, some may find my disposition odd, given my history of dissent and criticism of conservative drift in The Republican Party. Perhaps I am a little different, but I certainly think the immediate situation is a LOT different and I will explain why I think so.
It is important first, to briefly explain my own background. I am a lifelong conservative who began reading conservative thinkers and ideals as a teenager in the 1970’s. After developing multiple sclerosis in the 1990’s, I became an activist participant in Republican politics and the convention process. I went to the 1998 Republican Party of Texas convention armed with flyers about my problems with John McCain. Even today, on most of the standard conservative catalog of McCain infidelities, I may generally agree. And in fact, I declined to support or even vote for George W. Bush, whom at the time I saw as only marginally better than McCain. I didn't and don't dislike Bush. I just thought he was not constrained by sound conservative principle.
The profligate spending and federal government usurpation of the past six years have born that concern out. But looking back, perhaps Bush was more politically constrained. What has become clear is that on the things that he strongly believes, John McCain has been an uncommonly resolute United States Senator, including on urgent issues on which we agree. And, he has run his campaign this year in an uncommonly civil and gracious fashion. Let me explain why a few of those points of resolve and agreement rise categorically above any list of disagreements:
First, all of us other than some Ron Paul enthusiasts understand that on the primary duty of the federal government and the president, defending the American people and their interest, John McCain is not only with us but most assertively so and most prepared for the responsibility. America’s physical defense is of course, constitutionally established as a priority for the federal government generally and the chief executive specifically, who is the commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces. And in a world that technology has brought close and in which America is the technological and military supreme power, defending American principles of humanity is a duty the neglect of which is a human dereliction. As we know, today, these concerns are not incidental but pressing priorities.
Secondly, there is another great crisis upon us that some have warned of but many Americans seem to have slept through the approach of. For decades now, we have had warnings of the long-term insolvency in government’s accrued liabilities versus reasonably expected revenues. But, when plans to devise a correction have been raised, political rhetoric has killed the effort. In fact we have only continued to widen the shortfall. Well guess what? We are only barely talking about a future problem, now.
For the next decade the entitlement liabilities will devour the disbursements of the federal budget. Discretionary expenditures will be cut. And the gap won’t be near filled. The yawning debt will be expanded. New taxes, benefit cuts, and accelerated currency printing (i.e., rapid inflation/devaluation of money) will be the only options to try to meet the liability. Unless a dramatic change is made to boost productivity and revenue (a massive tax reform – like The Fair Tax plan) is implemented, all three of these supposedly more modest solutions would probably be tried. But, the net effect would be to make matters worse. John McCain has the resolve to resist these efforts.
Whatever course is taken to infuse the system, America will have to stop the bleeding; that is, the spending. Say what we might about John McCain, there has not been a more resolute actor in Washington against budgetary extravagance. Under the Bush administration, a Republican majority expanded government at a rate not seen for forty years, since Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress. Most dramatically, these Republicans greatly increased the Medicare entitlement that along with Social Security was already long-term insolvent. John McCain was among the few who opposed this action. There probably is not a more stark demonstration of why fiscal conservatives like Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and former Senator and economist Phil Gramm are enthusiastically supporting McCain.
Thirdly, we are looking at long-term social imprudence prevailed upon the country if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton appoint the next generation of federal jurists, including 2-4 Supreme Court justices. The folly will be broad and deep, but for example, the social calumny of “legal” abortion will be guaranteed until at least the middle of this century. I always emphasize that, as hard as it is to believe, the most tragic victims of this would not be the innocent lives lost over what will have been 60-80 years. God has always dealt with and will continue to handle the deaths of innocents. They are a class that will bypass this vale of tears and be delivered directly to perfect justice.
However, as usual, the true sufferers and victims will be our children that have to live in a society that has assimilated this most fundamental and grave selfish incivility. Why will neighbors and commercial relationships be afforded a respect that is not held up even for our own offspring? Relatively speaking, dog-eat-dog sounds like an innocuous social standard.
For all of last year, until he withdrew on March 4th, I was a Mike Huckabee supporter. I studied Mike Huckabee’s record and campaign for over a year, and found the supposedly “conservative” criticisms of him to be misrepresentation. But, most remarkable about his candidacy was his distinctive positive and engaging approach, which often disarmed and engaged even liberals who disagreed with his policy conclusions, but trusted Huckabee’s honesty and sincerity, which was particularly ironic in that those were precisely the thoughtful qualities that many conservatives were suspicious of. In defending him, I often found myself oddly cast as a “liberal,” just like he was.
But, John McCain conducted a campaign that was likewise civil and genuine. For the sake of the nation and an American model for an elevated disposition, it is critical that conservatives rally around John McCain and engage him by putting their concerns before this genuine and resolute American patriot. Let’s help him with everything we have and ask him to help with our sincere and noble concerns for America.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
The Pros And Cons Of John McCain
I’m anxious to hang it up for today, but I wanted to say at least a little about John McCain. Understand: Tuesday is the Texas primary, I already voted early for Mike Huckabee, and will promote Huckabee and his ideas in the Texas convention process. Today, I was cited polls supposedly showing a poll margin of twenty or more percentage points for John McCain over Mike Huckabee. But, that will not happen. One direction or another, I think the difference will be single digits. I have a number of reasons to say that, but time will soon tell. As an example, Texas Governor Rick Perry has endorsed John McCain. And depending on turnout, that should prove a net (additional) negative for John McCain. A large turnout of relatively casual observers may favor McCain. But, the greater percentage of the vote that is more activist Republicans, the better it will bode for Mike Huckabee. Though it is March in Texas, I wish it would snow.
I have been critical of John McCain for over a decade. In 2000 when asked whether I liked McCain I said, “I loved my grandfather, but I wouldn’t recommend him for president.” It has become only plainer to me that, especially as he has aged, John McCain is a sober and well-intentioned human being with a substantially undefined philosophical compass. It is ironic that his philosophically brutish and constitutionally audacious lunge at tamping the influence of money in Washington, the infamous McCain-Feingold, is now nipping at his posterior as a presidential candidate. And that is hardly the beginning of his infidelities to The Constitution and misunderstanding of some basic inclinations of human nature.
But all of that said, should Republicans fail to deliver the miracle of fidelity of principle that give the nomination to Mike Huckabee and McCain is the nominee, barring an outrageous act that surely he would be warned away from , I would support McCain as I never did George W. Bush’s presidential bids. And by the way, in case you haven’t read it before in the past several years, I’m not mad at George Bush. I just think he is ill-equipped to lead or steer America out of the aimless ideological drift in which the Reagan administration was a hiccup.
When Bush was elected in 2000, I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager,” and history has shown that to be an accurate assessment. I have also said that with a Republican Congress, Al Gore could not have succeeded in expanding the federal government and its expenditures as Bush has, and I sincerely believe that. But though hardly perfectly, Bush has succeeded in giving us marginally better federal judges and has been resolute about the primary federal government responsibility of defending America and basic humanity. And in the face of strong pop-cultural headwinds, I must say.
I think that John McCain will be equally or more resolute and apt, in that regard, and will do an starkly superior job of restraining federal spending that in fact now threatens economic calamity. I also think that as an older man, he will be more sober about reckless judicial possibilities and the social pathologies that have settled into American culture.
Of course, it will make a great difference to me if McCain should choose a more philosophically meticulous running-mate to provide counsel to his administration. Though he is advised against it on left and right, I would be greatly more animated about a McCain ticket if Mike Huckabee were on it. And I believe it is true that this way or another, McCain would need to animate the social conservatives who inject the legwork and elbow grease that drives Republican campaigns and pulled the Republican Party out of the congressional shadows almost 30 years ago. Huckabee is the obvious choice in that regard. He understands the drift of American principle. And, it would be revolutionary and unprecedented productive if Huckabee could sell McCain on the virtues and prospects of The Fair Tax. That’s my two cents worth.
But today, I still hope and pray for a Huckabee victory in Texas on Tuesday, and that “miracle” of a brokered convention. It seems to me, that McCain and Huckabee could distinguish two factions of the Republican Party and in the spirit that they have exercised all along, unite them and the country to successes that neither the party or the country have seen in a long time.
I have been critical of John McCain for over a decade. In 2000 when asked whether I liked McCain I said, “I loved my grandfather, but I wouldn’t recommend him for president.” It has become only plainer to me that, especially as he has aged, John McCain is a sober and well-intentioned human being with a substantially undefined philosophical compass. It is ironic that his philosophically brutish and constitutionally audacious lunge at tamping the influence of money in Washington, the infamous McCain-Feingold, is now nipping at his posterior as a presidential candidate. And that is hardly the beginning of his infidelities to The Constitution and misunderstanding of some basic inclinations of human nature.
But all of that said, should Republicans fail to deliver the miracle of fidelity of principle that give the nomination to Mike Huckabee and McCain is the nominee, barring an outrageous act that surely he would be warned away from , I would support McCain as I never did George W. Bush’s presidential bids. And by the way, in case you haven’t read it before in the past several years, I’m not mad at George Bush. I just think he is ill-equipped to lead or steer America out of the aimless ideological drift in which the Reagan administration was a hiccup.
When Bush was elected in 2000, I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager,” and history has shown that to be an accurate assessment. I have also said that with a Republican Congress, Al Gore could not have succeeded in expanding the federal government and its expenditures as Bush has, and I sincerely believe that. But though hardly perfectly, Bush has succeeded in giving us marginally better federal judges and has been resolute about the primary federal government responsibility of defending America and basic humanity. And in the face of strong pop-cultural headwinds, I must say.
I think that John McCain will be equally or more resolute and apt, in that regard, and will do an starkly superior job of restraining federal spending that in fact now threatens economic calamity. I also think that as an older man, he will be more sober about reckless judicial possibilities and the social pathologies that have settled into American culture.
Of course, it will make a great difference to me if McCain should choose a more philosophically meticulous running-mate to provide counsel to his administration. Though he is advised against it on left and right, I would be greatly more animated about a McCain ticket if Mike Huckabee were on it. And I believe it is true that this way or another, McCain would need to animate the social conservatives who inject the legwork and elbow grease that drives Republican campaigns and pulled the Republican Party out of the congressional shadows almost 30 years ago. Huckabee is the obvious choice in that regard. He understands the drift of American principle. And, it would be revolutionary and unprecedented productive if Huckabee could sell McCain on the virtues and prospects of The Fair Tax. That’s my two cents worth.
But today, I still hope and pray for a Huckabee victory in Texas on Tuesday, and that “miracle” of a brokered convention. It seems to me, that McCain and Huckabee could distinguish two factions of the Republican Party and in the spirit that they have exercised all along, unite them and the country to successes that neither the party or the country have seen in a long time.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Huckabee Discusses Evolution And Gay Marriage With Tyra Banks
http://www.gabbybabble.com/2008/03/mike-huckabee-talks-about-homosexuality.html
http://www.duckydoestv.com/2008/03/01/watch-tyra-banks-interview-mike-huckabee-video/
Perhaps you should prepare to shake your head and wonder more at the persistence of skepticism about evolution. But, I find it highly questionable. And, it isn't as though I'm a semi-illiterate who has not read the relevant material. I am confident that I am more familiar with the material and the thinking on both sides of the question than over 99% of the American public.
If I found the evidence for macro-evolution across species from a common ancestry) at all compelling, I would tweak my habits of interpreting data and go on. I understand the psychological force of the consensus of confession in the popular American culture and the consequential majority of textbooks, but I don't find the evidence compelling at all.
The evolutionist confession is not one driven by the data, as often suggested. It is not a scientific (empirical) conclusion. It is a philosophic predisposition largely driven by the force of consensus.
Given the pervasiveness of that disposition in the culture, I believe it is essential that the theory be taught in schools. An American who doesn’t understand that is uneducated and culturally illiterate in a very critical way. But, they should teach the details of the metaphysical belief in macroevolution, while maintaining the bare modesty that recognizes that it IS, in fact, a metaphysical confession and not a "scientific" conclusion (a "fact")
I also voted for Huckabee. He is simply the most able and thoughtful candidate to have appeared in the contest. And, I mean "thoughtful" in both senses of the term: in terms of ideas and in terms of consideration and engagement of the broad spectrum of Americans.
I disagree with amending The Constitution of the United States on marriage, though. Not because I think the institution by the state of "gay marriage" is a good idea: I don't. I think rather, because I think the federal government ought to have nothing to do with it. If we concede that the federal government has the jurisdiction to define marriage one way today, we concede that it has the jurisdiction to define marriage another way, tomorrow. Governments don't determine what marriage is. But, let anyone, with some modesty about how often and how much it may change, determine to whom they may assign the benefits of personal relationship, relative to benefits, contracts, etc.
I'll get to John McCain, next.
http://www.duckydoestv.com/2008/03/01/watch-tyra-banks-interview-mike-huckabee-video/
Perhaps you should prepare to shake your head and wonder more at the persistence of skepticism about evolution. But, I find it highly questionable. And, it isn't as though I'm a semi-illiterate who has not read the relevant material. I am confident that I am more familiar with the material and the thinking on both sides of the question than over 99% of the American public.
If I found the evidence for macro-evolution across species from a common ancestry) at all compelling, I would tweak my habits of interpreting data and go on. I understand the psychological force of the consensus of confession in the popular American culture and the consequential majority of textbooks, but I don't find the evidence compelling at all.
The evolutionist confession is not one driven by the data, as often suggested. It is not a scientific (empirical) conclusion. It is a philosophic predisposition largely driven by the force of consensus.
Given the pervasiveness of that disposition in the culture, I believe it is essential that the theory be taught in schools. An American who doesn’t understand that is uneducated and culturally illiterate in a very critical way. But, they should teach the details of the metaphysical belief in macroevolution, while maintaining the bare modesty that recognizes that it IS, in fact, a metaphysical confession and not a "scientific" conclusion (a "fact")
I also voted for Huckabee. He is simply the most able and thoughtful candidate to have appeared in the contest. And, I mean "thoughtful" in both senses of the term: in terms of ideas and in terms of consideration and engagement of the broad spectrum of Americans.
I disagree with amending The Constitution of the United States on marriage, though. Not because I think the institution by the state of "gay marriage" is a good idea: I don't. I think rather, because I think the federal government ought to have nothing to do with it. If we concede that the federal government has the jurisdiction to define marriage one way today, we concede that it has the jurisdiction to define marriage another way, tomorrow. Governments don't determine what marriage is. But, let anyone, with some modesty about how often and how much it may change, determine to whom they may assign the benefits of personal relationship, relative to benefits, contracts, etc.
I'll get to John McCain, next.
Friday, February 15, 2008
If McCain Supposedly Has It Locked Up, Why Not Vote For Huckabee? - Wisconsin Tuesday, Sen. McCain's Lead In Texas Small
Supporters got an email message from Governor Huckabee with basically the same information as the web notice, below, and an appeal for contributions: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ .
Irrespective of how Wisconsin goes on Tuesday, there’s a sure shot at winning Texas, if we get out everyone we know to vote on March 4. That would give the campaign a big push. If the delegate race goes to convention, a late string of wins will be difficult to overlook. I think conservatives should bombard McCain’s campaign and The Republican National Committee, demanding The Right To Life and The Fair Tax be given the consideration that has been earned. I’ll tell them that after this year’s campaign, the party cannot shrug off these constituencies and expect the fervency and work from them that is essential to Republican victory and first pulled them almost 50 years of minority status in 1980. I believe that reviving the sanctity of human life to the public conscience is essential to the long-term maintenance of a civil society. And, The Fait Tax is the most potentially liberating and empowering proposal of my lifetime.
If Huckabee does not gain the top of the ticket, wisdom would make him the running-mate, ensuring the enthusiasm of these constituencies for election cycles to come. I know that the distortions of Romney and Thompson and the reactions of some conservatives who were unnerved by Huckabee’s expressions of empathy for all humans, have left a sentiment among some that he is “not a conservative.” Just yesterday, I heard a radio host bemoaning Huckabee’s “Christian socialism” that supposedly sees government as the vehicle of Christian responsibility, which this person doesn’t see. The problem is that Huckabee has never said any such thing. He has a clearer than ordinary understanding of human nature and how government can corrupt it. And he also has a clear understanding of a conservative essential that many conservatives seem to have forgotten: the distinction between the responsibilities and capacities of state and federal government in The United States.
Mike Huckabee is also smart enough to engage this directly when given the opportunity. The great irony is that is Huckabee does not win the nomination, it will have been with the help of supposed conservatives that he will have not succeeded electorally for the first time in almost 16 years. He beat Democrats repeatedly. It took conservatives to slow him down, though he hasn’t stopped, yet.
February 15, 2008 - 12:59 PM
Sen. McCain's Lead In Texas Small
by Team Huckabee
Two new polls in Texas from ARG and POS show a 6 and 4 point lead for Senator McCain in Texas.
As Gov. Huckabee said in his email yesterday, Texas is the place to fight for the nomination. These leads are small considering the attention the media has been heaping on Senator McCain as the "frontrunner."
Here are a couple of red states we might mention, where Senator McCain had a similar lead:
Georgia won by Gov. Huckabee
Tennessee won by Gov. Huckabee
Alabama won by Gov. Huckabee
Louisiana won by Gov. Huckabee
Kansas won by Gov. Huckabee
Irrespective of how Wisconsin goes on Tuesday, there’s a sure shot at winning Texas, if we get out everyone we know to vote on March 4. That would give the campaign a big push. If the delegate race goes to convention, a late string of wins will be difficult to overlook. I think conservatives should bombard McCain’s campaign and The Republican National Committee, demanding The Right To Life and The Fair Tax be given the consideration that has been earned. I’ll tell them that after this year’s campaign, the party cannot shrug off these constituencies and expect the fervency and work from them that is essential to Republican victory and first pulled them almost 50 years of minority status in 1980. I believe that reviving the sanctity of human life to the public conscience is essential to the long-term maintenance of a civil society. And, The Fait Tax is the most potentially liberating and empowering proposal of my lifetime.
If Huckabee does not gain the top of the ticket, wisdom would make him the running-mate, ensuring the enthusiasm of these constituencies for election cycles to come. I know that the distortions of Romney and Thompson and the reactions of some conservatives who were unnerved by Huckabee’s expressions of empathy for all humans, have left a sentiment among some that he is “not a conservative.” Just yesterday, I heard a radio host bemoaning Huckabee’s “Christian socialism” that supposedly sees government as the vehicle of Christian responsibility, which this person doesn’t see. The problem is that Huckabee has never said any such thing. He has a clearer than ordinary understanding of human nature and how government can corrupt it. And he also has a clear understanding of a conservative essential that many conservatives seem to have forgotten: the distinction between the responsibilities and capacities of state and federal government in The United States.
Mike Huckabee is also smart enough to engage this directly when given the opportunity. The great irony is that is Huckabee does not win the nomination, it will have been with the help of supposed conservatives that he will have not succeeded electorally for the first time in almost 16 years. He beat Democrats repeatedly. It took conservatives to slow him down, though he hasn’t stopped, yet.
February 15, 2008 - 12:59 PM
Sen. McCain's Lead In Texas Small
by Team Huckabee
Two new polls in Texas from ARG and POS show a 6 and 4 point lead for Senator McCain in Texas.
As Gov. Huckabee said in his email yesterday, Texas is the place to fight for the nomination. These leads are small considering the attention the media has been heaping on Senator McCain as the "frontrunner."
Here are a couple of red states we might mention, where Senator McCain had a similar lead:
Georgia won by Gov. Huckabee
Tennessee won by Gov. Huckabee
Alabama won by Gov. Huckabee
Louisiana won by Gov. Huckabee
Kansas won by Gov. Huckabee
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
McCain, Huckabee, Conservatism and Audacious Integrity/Dear Dr. Dobson
Rett Hatcher posted a comment on James Dobson’s statement that he cannot vote for McCain: Dobson Puzzle
My comment was extended it enough that I needed to post and reference it, discussing McCain and Huckabee…
Rett:
Listen, I went to my state Republican convention in 1998 with a stack of flyers detailing the problems with a few Republican figures, most notably John McCain. In 2000, and 2004 I voted third-party, in fact leaving the Republican Party and joining The Constitution Party. I'm in Texas and I knew that George W. Bush was philosophically skeletally structured. When he was elected I said, "Leviathan gets a night manager," and I was exactly right. The fact is that the Republican Congress never would have let Al Gore do things like double the federal Department of Education and greatly expand Medicare entitlements, for example: that required the affirmation of an "R" president.
I'm not angry at Bush and in fact hugely appreciate his resolve in opposing violent Islam and defending America and humanity, which is just one reason why I left The Constitution Party, the spokespeople and probably the majority of which have a foreign policy disposition closer to Ron Paul's. I wish Bush had had the same resolve about the social vitality of America. But, I always knew that that facility was not there.
Generally, I think McCain is similar and probably worse, in terms of philosophical ambiguity, because he has plainly shown a vulnerability to usually misguided pop-ethics. I think Bush has a helpful combination of sound counsel and political pragmatism, and McCain may be less amenable to countering advice. McCain's extraordinary resolve can be bad as well as good. A man who has never supported a tax increase, can go into Iowa as a candidate and oppose ethanol subsidies, oppose Bush's tax reductions out of conviction about spending, oppose Bush's expansion of Medicare, support resolve in Iraq at the lowest ebb of that position's popularity several months ago...there's plenty more, but I hope you get the idea...is strikingly loyal to the convictions that he HAS in today's political world.
I'm aware of the paradox in what I'm saying: McCain is philosophically deficient, but faithful to his sentiments. For me, that makes him preferable by legions to the picture that Mitt Romney's history presents to me. Provide him with surrounding counsel that is equally decent and philosophically more lucid.
I think Romney should get out. He can only compete in a few Western states. But, it amounts to a demonstrable waste of money. In the contests he needed, he lost to BOTH McCAIN AND HUCKABEE! Huckabee can very possibly win in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and strongly compete in Ohio (very pro-life Catholic), South Dakota, and possibly Kansas. But Romney can do as he likes with his money. I just hope he doesn’t hurt anyone with it and doesn’t try, and I don’t think he will…anymore.
Huckabee can take a substantial stack of delegates. If he becomes the nominee, McCain NEEDS badly to animate the social conservatives in the South and Midwest, as is so starkly illustrated in James Dobson's comment that you cite. I don't know if there's possible path to that other than Huckabee on the ticket, who also balances McCain's age, appeals to women and youth. And believe it or not you aggravated conservatives; Huckabee also is the answer to that inclination to philosophical dysfunction, where he is clear and articulate. The only problem a McCain-Huckabee ticket can possibly have is if some conservatives continue to make a stink about it. I’m glad Hugh Hewitt has relented and is being positive about the fall Republican ticket. I’m waiting to hear about Rush’s or Ann coulter’s foolishness.
In truth, where Huckabee is distinguished from this rabid population is in his lack of animosity and his realism, which is another source of my separation from The Constitution Party. I am a Christian, as are most all of the CP, mostly good and thoughtful and dedicated people. But, the model of Christ engages reality, not just an abstract and practically irrelevant ideal. Jesus had the Spirit of God...IN a FALLEN world. The whole point of the divine incarnation is that Jesus LOVED SINNERS, which incidentally includes ALL of us. We don't require grace any less than anyone else. Our duty as grace's recipients is to be the expression of God's grace to a world as flawed as we are.
Constitutionalists will insist that government has nothing to do with that. As an example that I have written about in the past, many months ago now, I visited a web site organized by a constitutionalist guru after they misunderstood the issue that had arisen about Huckabee and a smoking ban. In the first place, Huckabee’s position was misconstrued and the question hadn’t arisen as it had been portrayed. But, I raised another question about the extremity of health care costs and the need for their containment. I was immediately swarmed as though I had shaken a stick in a beehive: “…no constitutional authority!" they scorned, which was correct: there is none. But a little reality check is in order and urgently in need. The federal government is fairly drowning in medical liabilities that it has accrued, never mind the high and rapidly escalating personal costs that the system, including govt. regulations. Constitutionality is irrelevant: the costs and liabilities are an intractable FACT. What is a meticulous constitutionalist going to do about that? It seems like they are going to pretend it isn’t there.
But, all of that is part of the exile into abstraction, which I suspect animates much of the hostility against Huckabee, who commits the audacious apostasy of even expressing concern for the concerns of ordinary Americans, including populations that have to a great extent favored Democrats: minorities, laborers, or simply as he says, “Main Street” Americans. If we can’t even talk like that, such populations will stay largely Democrat strongholds. Conservatives need to work on and explicate conservative responses to those concerns. Reality is that the utter disjunction of government from moral concerns is a battle long lost. If you don’t want to play, you may as well leave the field. But to some conservatives, empathy only translates to the love of unconstrained taxing and spending and “open borders.”
That root problem of Huckabee’s empathetic expression runs through most of the so-called “conservative” complaints about him. As a state government must do, taxes were raised (though modestly) to address state essentials. States must provide education, build roads, and maintain parks, which was the great bulk of tax increases. Under Governor Huckabee, Arkansas also (gasp) gave very poor children access to Medicare coverage. Scandalous! And all of this was in a state with an 80% Democrat representation, by the way. But, Huckabee cut taxes at every opportunity, including a broad-based income tax reduction, and all of them were unprecedented in Arkansas. The tax attacks were politically and/or personally motivated, and drastically deceptive.
Likewise, he did not scorn and spurn illegal aliens. But in 2007, he opposed the immigration bill that didn’t secure the border first, and later outlined the most rigorous immigration enforcement bill, which offered incentives rather than proposing (ultimately probably empty) threats, to return home and pursue an orderly legalization via a hopefully expedited process. And the Fair Tax idea that Huckabee endorses and advocates for is the most economically liberating and stimulating idea to have appeared in our lifetimes.
I support Huckabee because he’s a remarkable combination of philosophical clarity, empathetic realism, sound character, and engaging leadership. Today, I heard Bill Krystol doubting Huckabee’s potential as a VP option, saying McCain would need someone of “more stature,” and mentioning Jeb Bush, though acknowledging the last name is a problem.
What does one have to do to achieve “stature?” Huckabee was Arkansas governor longer than Bill Clinton and longer than Jeb Bush was governor of Florida. I’ll acknowledge that Florida is larger and more electorally critical than Arkansas. But, I may be accused of mere “identity” defensiveness as an evangelical Christian, but I can’t help but think that Huckabee wouldn’t meet the “stature” standard, even if he had served his 101/2 years (14 as Governor and Lt. Governor) in Florida, precisely because he is an evangelical Christian, which can be condescended to, even if subconsciously, by the political establishment. That’s an irony when so many establishment Republicans endorsed Romney, whom I assume has no “stature” problem, even though he was Massachusetts governor for only 4 years.. But, Romney might have gotten similar treatment if, in addition to affirming his Mormonism and the role of “faith” in America., he said things like, “My faith not only informs me, it defines me.” That is laudable in terms of integrity and consistency. But, in terms of pop-culture, it’s “politically incorrect.”
My comment was extended it enough that I needed to post and reference it, discussing McCain and Huckabee…
Rett:
Listen, I went to my state Republican convention in 1998 with a stack of flyers detailing the problems with a few Republican figures, most notably John McCain. In 2000, and 2004 I voted third-party, in fact leaving the Republican Party and joining The Constitution Party. I'm in Texas and I knew that George W. Bush was philosophically skeletally structured. When he was elected I said, "Leviathan gets a night manager," and I was exactly right. The fact is that the Republican Congress never would have let Al Gore do things like double the federal Department of Education and greatly expand Medicare entitlements, for example: that required the affirmation of an "R" president.
I'm not angry at Bush and in fact hugely appreciate his resolve in opposing violent Islam and defending America and humanity, which is just one reason why I left The Constitution Party, the spokespeople and probably the majority of which have a foreign policy disposition closer to Ron Paul's. I wish Bush had had the same resolve about the social vitality of America. But, I always knew that that facility was not there.
Generally, I think McCain is similar and probably worse, in terms of philosophical ambiguity, because he has plainly shown a vulnerability to usually misguided pop-ethics. I think Bush has a helpful combination of sound counsel and political pragmatism, and McCain may be less amenable to countering advice. McCain's extraordinary resolve can be bad as well as good. A man who has never supported a tax increase, can go into Iowa as a candidate and oppose ethanol subsidies, oppose Bush's tax reductions out of conviction about spending, oppose Bush's expansion of Medicare, support resolve in Iraq at the lowest ebb of that position's popularity several months ago...there's plenty more, but I hope you get the idea...is strikingly loyal to the convictions that he HAS in today's political world.
I'm aware of the paradox in what I'm saying: McCain is philosophically deficient, but faithful to his sentiments. For me, that makes him preferable by legions to the picture that Mitt Romney's history presents to me. Provide him with surrounding counsel that is equally decent and philosophically more lucid.
I think Romney should get out. He can only compete in a few Western states. But, it amounts to a demonstrable waste of money. In the contests he needed, he lost to BOTH McCAIN AND HUCKABEE! Huckabee can very possibly win in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and strongly compete in Ohio (very pro-life Catholic), South Dakota, and possibly Kansas. But Romney can do as he likes with his money. I just hope he doesn’t hurt anyone with it and doesn’t try, and I don’t think he will…anymore.
Huckabee can take a substantial stack of delegates. If he becomes the nominee, McCain NEEDS badly to animate the social conservatives in the South and Midwest, as is so starkly illustrated in James Dobson's comment that you cite. I don't know if there's possible path to that other than Huckabee on the ticket, who also balances McCain's age, appeals to women and youth. And believe it or not you aggravated conservatives; Huckabee also is the answer to that inclination to philosophical dysfunction, where he is clear and articulate. The only problem a McCain-Huckabee ticket can possibly have is if some conservatives continue to make a stink about it. I’m glad Hugh Hewitt has relented and is being positive about the fall Republican ticket. I’m waiting to hear about Rush’s or Ann coulter’s foolishness.
In truth, where Huckabee is distinguished from this rabid population is in his lack of animosity and his realism, which is another source of my separation from The Constitution Party. I am a Christian, as are most all of the CP, mostly good and thoughtful and dedicated people. But, the model of Christ engages reality, not just an abstract and practically irrelevant ideal. Jesus had the Spirit of God...IN a FALLEN world. The whole point of the divine incarnation is that Jesus LOVED SINNERS, which incidentally includes ALL of us. We don't require grace any less than anyone else. Our duty as grace's recipients is to be the expression of God's grace to a world as flawed as we are.
Constitutionalists will insist that government has nothing to do with that. As an example that I have written about in the past, many months ago now, I visited a web site organized by a constitutionalist guru after they misunderstood the issue that had arisen about Huckabee and a smoking ban. In the first place, Huckabee’s position was misconstrued and the question hadn’t arisen as it had been portrayed. But, I raised another question about the extremity of health care costs and the need for their containment. I was immediately swarmed as though I had shaken a stick in a beehive: “…no constitutional authority!" they scorned, which was correct: there is none. But a little reality check is in order and urgently in need. The federal government is fairly drowning in medical liabilities that it has accrued, never mind the high and rapidly escalating personal costs that the system, including govt. regulations. Constitutionality is irrelevant: the costs and liabilities are an intractable FACT. What is a meticulous constitutionalist going to do about that? It seems like they are going to pretend it isn’t there.
But, all of that is part of the exile into abstraction, which I suspect animates much of the hostility against Huckabee, who commits the audacious apostasy of even expressing concern for the concerns of ordinary Americans, including populations that have to a great extent favored Democrats: minorities, laborers, or simply as he says, “Main Street” Americans. If we can’t even talk like that, such populations will stay largely Democrat strongholds. Conservatives need to work on and explicate conservative responses to those concerns. Reality is that the utter disjunction of government from moral concerns is a battle long lost. If you don’t want to play, you may as well leave the field. But to some conservatives, empathy only translates to the love of unconstrained taxing and spending and “open borders.”
That root problem of Huckabee’s empathetic expression runs through most of the so-called “conservative” complaints about him. As a state government must do, taxes were raised (though modestly) to address state essentials. States must provide education, build roads, and maintain parks, which was the great bulk of tax increases. Under Governor Huckabee, Arkansas also (gasp) gave very poor children access to Medicare coverage. Scandalous! And all of this was in a state with an 80% Democrat representation, by the way. But, Huckabee cut taxes at every opportunity, including a broad-based income tax reduction, and all of them were unprecedented in Arkansas. The tax attacks were politically and/or personally motivated, and drastically deceptive.
Likewise, he did not scorn and spurn illegal aliens. But in 2007, he opposed the immigration bill that didn’t secure the border first, and later outlined the most rigorous immigration enforcement bill, which offered incentives rather than proposing (ultimately probably empty) threats, to return home and pursue an orderly legalization via a hopefully expedited process. And the Fair Tax idea that Huckabee endorses and advocates for is the most economically liberating and stimulating idea to have appeared in our lifetimes.
I support Huckabee because he’s a remarkable combination of philosophical clarity, empathetic realism, sound character, and engaging leadership. Today, I heard Bill Krystol doubting Huckabee’s potential as a VP option, saying McCain would need someone of “more stature,” and mentioning Jeb Bush, though acknowledging the last name is a problem.
What does one have to do to achieve “stature?” Huckabee was Arkansas governor longer than Bill Clinton and longer than Jeb Bush was governor of Florida. I’ll acknowledge that Florida is larger and more electorally critical than Arkansas. But, I may be accused of mere “identity” defensiveness as an evangelical Christian, but I can’t help but think that Huckabee wouldn’t meet the “stature” standard, even if he had served his 101/2 years (14 as Governor and Lt. Governor) in Florida, precisely because he is an evangelical Christian, which can be condescended to, even if subconsciously, by the political establishment. That’s an irony when so many establishment Republicans endorsed Romney, whom I assume has no “stature” problem, even though he was Massachusetts governor for only 4 years.. But, Romney might have gotten similar treatment if, in addition to affirming his Mormonism and the role of “faith” in America., he said things like, “My faith not only informs me, it defines me.” That is laudable in terms of integrity and consistency. But, in terms of pop-culture, it’s “politically incorrect.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)