JUST A RETIRED THINKER!
I recently read an article by Dick Morris about how the states will all face a fiscal crisis similar to Greece. This crisis is going to come to the United States next year via the vulnerable state governments of California, Michigan and New York. Look for these states to descend once more on Washington DC with their tin cups seeking additional federal subsidies, disguised as stimulus payments. But...with Republicans in control of the House they will meet a frosty reception on Capitol Hill. While Obama will try to pass the subsidies, the GOP will turn them down. The American people - from the other 47 states - will ask why they should reward state irresponsibility with federal dollars.
Faced with a cutoff of additional federal aid, these state legislatures will be unable to avoid bankruptcy. From there, the fiscal crunch will extend to states throughout the nation and the reduction of state expenditures will assume critical importance at just the time that a slew of Republican governors and state legislators - who have pledged not to raise taxes - will take office.
A key focus will be on reforming state pension systems. The recent crash of 2008-2009 cost the average state pension system 30% of its assets. Already, this crunch will force legislatures to slash current spending on education, highways, law enforcement, etc. to accommodate the needs of their pension systems.
Unfortunately, even though the market was crashing, the pension systems had to keep sending out checks. The result is a shortfall will take 25 years for the average state to make up for the losses they sustained in the few months of the crash and in the two years since. And, should the market crash again (think: Obama's economic policies and their impact) then the states will find they have to contribute more and more to their pension systems.
Enter a bold new proposal introduced by Utah State Senator Republican Dan Liljenquist for a massive overhaul of his state's pension system, a bill which was passed and signed into law in March of this year.
The Utah reform changes the pension system for public employees to a fixed defined state contribution so that the state has no longer to raise or lower its contributions to the retirement fund in response to the market fluctuations in the return these funds earn on their investments. It fixes the state contribution each year at 10% of the employees' salary whether pension fund investments are doing well or doing poorly.
If the investments are tanking and earning too little to sustain the guaranteed benefits, the state would not be obliged to pay more than 10% and the employee would have to make up the difference out of his or her salary. If the investments were doing well, the state would still invest 10% annually and, if this sum came to more than was required to meet the guaranteed benefits, the state worker will get to invest the difference in a personal 401 (k). The worker would not be permitted to borrow against his 401 (k) and would have to invest the funds according to parameters set by the Utah Retirement System so that the savings are not squandered. Each state employee would also have the option of opting out of the state system entirely. In that case, the state would just forward its 10% annual contribution to the employee's 401 (k). This system will start covering all new state workers after July 1, 2011. Existing workers are grandfathered in under the current system.
The Utah bill will allow the state to begin cutting its contributions to the pension system after seven years. For that to happen if they do not pass this reform, it will take twenty-five years.
States throughout America - and their taxpayers - need to study the Utah system and work to pass it in their states. Cut payments now or get soaked later...that's the choice for our states and their citizens.
Thanks to Dick Morris
Friday, November 5, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
I recently read an article by Ed Lasky entitled “How to Fight Back against Public Unions: A Primer”. Mr. Lasky is very concerned about the bloated salaries that Public Employees are now receiving and the fact that these jobs are growing beyond the ability of the public to provide the taxes necessary to pay for this monstrosity.
Apparently we have reached a potential turning point in the relationship of public employee unions and the electorate they serve. Over the past year, there has been a steady drumbeat of criticism focused on public unions and the havoc they have wrought on our public finances.
Governments from the local level to the federal are drowning in red ink. Our taxes are flowing to ever-voracious government workers (whose own ranks are growing steadily while the private payrolls shrink); they are better Compensated than private workers in comparable positions.
What is to be done? We; taxpayers, tea partiers and sympathizers, independents, Republicans, and Democrats need to come together and forge a blueprint to take back our nation. The inclusion of Democrats was deliberate, despite the fact that many Democrat politicians are in the pockets of public unions. AFSCME, the government employee union, has a political action committee that is the second-largest in the nation, and virtually all of its donations are to Democrats.
When liberal newspapers now report on subway conductors earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and takes editorial swipes at public employee unions and their greedy and self-centered leadership, the timing may be ripe for Democrats to come out of the closet and transform themselves from donkeys into fiscal hawks (see Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's efforts in Los Angeles).
When that arbiter of popular culture "Saturday Night Live" makes fun of surly government workers, we may have reached a turning point. Hope springs eternal on the political front, but what can people power do to weaken the grip of public employee unions and restore fiscal sanity to our governments' budgets?
We are in a communications war where we have a voice. Public employee unions will spend millions to try to defeat measures to rein in their bloated salaries and pension benefits. They threaten even longer lines at government offices (and fewer of them), shorter hours at libraries, park districts cutting programs, and fewer policeman and firefighters. The list goes on and on of the plagues that will hit us if we dare take on public unions.
They never address high salaries, excessive days off, sick days being used because government employees are sick of work, or pensions being used to buy piña coladas in Pensacola. Government unions spend vast sums on this propaganda (and on lobbyists and political campaigns to elect politicians to put in their pockets), and the exact amount is now almost unknowable. Barack Obama, in the first few days of his presidency, issued an executive order shielding unions from disclosure rules requiring them to report how they spend union dues.
But facts can be marshaled that put the blame where it belongs. Public-sector unions and state debt go hand in hand; states with the highest per capita debt have the strongest public-sector unions, who have cut sweetheart deals with politicians. We should highlight how these unions have diminished our futures.
The American Enterprise Institute, CATO, Reason magazine, and the Manhattan Institute's City Journal have all been publishing columns on the problems posed by public employee unions. Their websites -- and that of American Thinker and sites such as Newsalert, who focus on this topic -- are readily available, are open 24 hours a day, and the information can be found easily and after a few seconds (unlike, say, at government offices).
The Center for Union Facts has a well-designed website (http://www.unionfacts.com/), and Pension Watch reports on the coming pension tsunami that will engulf America at http://www.pensiontsunami.com/. This brief video that touches on the fiscal crisis caused by public unions can and hopefully will go viral.
The Role of Leaders, we do have leaders who can rally taxpayers and, because they have a megaphone, broadcast the facts and rally taxpayers. One of these leaders is, of course, Republican Chris Christie of New Jersey. He is seeking to stop rampant public-employee wage growth. Revealing opponents' hypocrisy can work wonders.
Running against public employee unions has resonance with voters; the leader in the Alabama GOP primary for governor is a former college professor who is opposed to the unions. Use YouTube -- The People's Network Governor Christie has become a YouTube star, and the clips of his taking on public unions are the reason . This shows the value of videos in our new age of media. We can see gladiators fighting for taxpayers. They are instantaneous and cannot be censored by liberals in the media who pick and choose what to broadcast. Conversely, like all morality plays, there are villains, and we can watch them too, in all their glory.
One video that circulated recently showed an AFSCME union leader threatening Illinois legislators across the street as he demands more money for government employees. He ominously taunted them that AFSCME knew where they lived and could follow them home. (It's not so far-fetched when you consider that SEIU leaders protested in front of the home of a Bank of America lawyer recently. They owe the bank money and may have wanted their own bank-sponsored bailout. There is a new film genre: SEIU thugs at work.) Boston firefighters have done the same at Boston's City Hall. Protests are spreading -- and not just in Athens. Apparently, public servants are willing to serve only if they are vastly overpaid.
These protests should become part of the public record. In the era of camera phones and flip cameras, anyone can become a reporter. If Fox News won't run these clips, YouTube (the people's network) is available -- as are a myriad of websites.
Name Names: Barack Obama and his allies on the political left make a fetish of excoriating salaries of corporate executives. Well, turnabout is fair play. Taxpayers are paying some very high salaries to government workers, and giving them golden pensions to boot. There are a lot more of them than there are corporate execs earning high salaries -- and they rarely are fired (unless they whistle-blow during Obama's reign, as did Inspector General Gerald Walpin).
While taxpayers struggle with higher tax bills, government bureaucrats are doing quite well. Barack Obama may moan that this is the toughest year and a half that America has ever faced (a laughable claim from the president who called himself a "student of history" -- in that subject, he certainly does not merit a B-plus), it hasn't been so tough for those on the
government dole:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in the last year the federal government added 86,000 permanent (non-Census) jobs to the rolls. And high-paying jobs at that: The number of federal salaries over $100,000 per year has increased by nearly 50% since the beginning of the recession.
Today, the average federal worker earns 77% more than the average private-sector worker, according to a USA Today analysis of data from the federal Office of Personnel Management.
America could save $340 billion a year by aligning public wages to
private-sector rates: enough to fill the budget holes in states over the next two years. That is how vast the pay differentials are between workers doing comparable work: it just depends who pays. Politicians love playing with Other People's Money (ours). Yet the Democratic Congress is adding insult to injury by proposing to award government workers a big ten-year pay raise.
What recession? Of the top 25 richest counties in America, 11 are part of the Washington metropolitan area (that sucking sound you hear is your money being vacuumed up by politicians, right into the sinkhole of D.C.). Government is seemingly the only growth industry left in America. The problem is not just in Washington, but also prevalent throughout America, wherever politicians pay off public unions for their campaign support with our money. Why not name names of who benefits -- as does this taxpayer watchdog?
The Madison, Wisconsin bus driver pulling in $160,000 dollars The New York City railroad conductor raking in $240,000 a year In New York, bus drivers can take two months off of paid leave if a passenger spits on them because their contract characterizes this as an "assault." The second-in-command of the firefighters in New York has retired on a tax-free disability pension worth almost $250,000 annually for the rest of his life because he once hurt his knee. Prison guards in California can easily earn over $100,000 a year, but that is trivial compared to the prison nurse there who raked in over $270,000 last year. The former city administrator of Vernon, California earns a pension of $509,664 a year.
The horror stories never end. They should be publicized. One group in California has taken that message to heart. The website= californiapensionreform.com provides a searchable database for all public employees drawing six-figure public pensions. The concept can be cloned -- as it should be. Every government should have one. We should know who is responsible for this problem and shame them for frittering away our future.
Support politicians who run on a platform of cutting back the power of public unions. Publicize how the fiscal fates of neighboring communitiescan depend on whether one allows public unions to exist and the other doesn't (a county in Virginia has a healthy budget, while its neighbor in Maryland is mired in fiscal woes. Virginia does not allow public employees to unionize, while Maryland does -- and Maryland Democratic politiciansoutbid each other with spending promises to public employee unions).
If they are elected, hold them to their promises. While many state
constitutions protect pensions of government employees, they don't protect current jobs. Politicians should require government workers to bite the bullet, as the rest of us has. They are public servants, after all. Why not require them to chip in more to cover health expenses and pension benefits? Why not mandate that all new hires accept lower salaries and pension benefits that are more in line with private pay? And privatize... always privatize. Support politicians, such as Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who were in the forefront of privatizing what had been government functions.
There are reasons public unions oppose vouchers and charter schools and why all state and government employees loath the idea of privatization. They know a bad deal for us is a good deal for them.
If the situation is dire, our politicians can threaten the nuclear option: Throw cities or counties into bankruptcy to break contracts with public employee unions. Vallejo, California filed for bankruptcy, done in by public unions; the city has been successful in renegotiating these contracts.
The prospect of this tactic being used by other cities and counties has led to a reaction by Democrats in the state legislature to foreclose the future use of this tool in California.
A municipality declaring bankruptcy may be the only way to quickly cut through the Gordian Knot of foolish contracts that politicians and public unions have tied together. There would be serious ripples in the financial markets. But dire times call for dire steps. And we live in dire times that compel us to protect ourselves, because few politicians will.
Apparently we have reached a potential turning point in the relationship of public employee unions and the electorate they serve. Over the past year, there has been a steady drumbeat of criticism focused on public unions and the havoc they have wrought on our public finances.
Governments from the local level to the federal are drowning in red ink. Our taxes are flowing to ever-voracious government workers (whose own ranks are growing steadily while the private payrolls shrink); they are better Compensated than private workers in comparable positions.
What is to be done? We; taxpayers, tea partiers and sympathizers, independents, Republicans, and Democrats need to come together and forge a blueprint to take back our nation. The inclusion of Democrats was deliberate, despite the fact that many Democrat politicians are in the pockets of public unions. AFSCME, the government employee union, has a political action committee that is the second-largest in the nation, and virtually all of its donations are to Democrats.
When liberal newspapers now report on subway conductors earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and takes editorial swipes at public employee unions and their greedy and self-centered leadership, the timing may be ripe for Democrats to come out of the closet and transform themselves from donkeys into fiscal hawks (see Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's efforts in Los Angeles).
When that arbiter of popular culture "Saturday Night Live" makes fun of surly government workers, we may have reached a turning point. Hope springs eternal on the political front, but what can people power do to weaken the grip of public employee unions and restore fiscal sanity to our governments' budgets?
We are in a communications war where we have a voice. Public employee unions will spend millions to try to defeat measures to rein in their bloated salaries and pension benefits. They threaten even longer lines at government offices (and fewer of them), shorter hours at libraries, park districts cutting programs, and fewer policeman and firefighters. The list goes on and on of the plagues that will hit us if we dare take on public unions.
They never address high salaries, excessive days off, sick days being used because government employees are sick of work, or pensions being used to buy piña coladas in Pensacola. Government unions spend vast sums on this propaganda (and on lobbyists and political campaigns to elect politicians to put in their pockets), and the exact amount is now almost unknowable. Barack Obama, in the first few days of his presidency, issued an executive order shielding unions from disclosure rules requiring them to report how they spend union dues.
But facts can be marshaled that put the blame where it belongs. Public-sector unions and state debt go hand in hand; states with the highest per capita debt have the strongest public-sector unions, who have cut sweetheart deals with politicians. We should highlight how these unions have diminished our futures.
The American Enterprise Institute, CATO, Reason magazine, and the Manhattan Institute's City Journal have all been publishing columns on the problems posed by public employee unions. Their websites -- and that of American Thinker and sites such as Newsalert, who focus on this topic -- are readily available, are open 24 hours a day, and the information can be found easily and after a few seconds (unlike, say, at government offices).
The Center for Union Facts has a well-designed website (http://www.unionfacts.com/), and Pension Watch reports on the coming pension tsunami that will engulf America at http://www.pensiontsunami.com/. This brief video that touches on the fiscal crisis caused by public unions can and hopefully will go viral.
The Role of Leaders, we do have leaders who can rally taxpayers and, because they have a megaphone, broadcast the facts and rally taxpayers. One of these leaders is, of course, Republican Chris Christie of New Jersey. He is seeking to stop rampant public-employee wage growth. Revealing opponents' hypocrisy can work wonders.
Running against public employee unions has resonance with voters; the leader in the Alabama GOP primary for governor is a former college professor who is opposed to the unions. Use YouTube -- The People's Network Governor Christie has become a YouTube star, and the clips of his taking on public unions are the reason . This shows the value of videos in our new age of media. We can see gladiators fighting for taxpayers. They are instantaneous and cannot be censored by liberals in the media who pick and choose what to broadcast. Conversely, like all morality plays, there are villains, and we can watch them too, in all their glory.
One video that circulated recently showed an AFSCME union leader threatening Illinois legislators across the street as he demands more money for government employees. He ominously taunted them that AFSCME knew where they lived and could follow them home. (It's not so far-fetched when you consider that SEIU leaders protested in front of the home of a Bank of America lawyer recently. They owe the bank money and may have wanted their own bank-sponsored bailout. There is a new film genre: SEIU thugs at work.) Boston firefighters have done the same at Boston's City Hall. Protests are spreading -- and not just in Athens. Apparently, public servants are willing to serve only if they are vastly overpaid.
These protests should become part of the public record. In the era of camera phones and flip cameras, anyone can become a reporter. If Fox News won't run these clips, YouTube (the people's network) is available -- as are a myriad of websites.
Name Names: Barack Obama and his allies on the political left make a fetish of excoriating salaries of corporate executives. Well, turnabout is fair play. Taxpayers are paying some very high salaries to government workers, and giving them golden pensions to boot. There are a lot more of them than there are corporate execs earning high salaries -- and they rarely are fired (unless they whistle-blow during Obama's reign, as did Inspector General Gerald Walpin).
While taxpayers struggle with higher tax bills, government bureaucrats are doing quite well. Barack Obama may moan that this is the toughest year and a half that America has ever faced (a laughable claim from the president who called himself a "student of history" -- in that subject, he certainly does not merit a B-plus), it hasn't been so tough for those on the
government dole:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in the last year the federal government added 86,000 permanent (non-Census) jobs to the rolls. And high-paying jobs at that: The number of federal salaries over $100,000 per year has increased by nearly 50% since the beginning of the recession.
Today, the average federal worker earns 77% more than the average private-sector worker, according to a USA Today analysis of data from the federal Office of Personnel Management.
America could save $340 billion a year by aligning public wages to
private-sector rates: enough to fill the budget holes in states over the next two years. That is how vast the pay differentials are between workers doing comparable work: it just depends who pays. Politicians love playing with Other People's Money (ours). Yet the Democratic Congress is adding insult to injury by proposing to award government workers a big ten-year pay raise.
What recession? Of the top 25 richest counties in America, 11 are part of the Washington metropolitan area (that sucking sound you hear is your money being vacuumed up by politicians, right into the sinkhole of D.C.). Government is seemingly the only growth industry left in America. The problem is not just in Washington, but also prevalent throughout America, wherever politicians pay off public unions for their campaign support with our money. Why not name names of who benefits -- as does this taxpayer watchdog?
The Madison, Wisconsin bus driver pulling in $160,000 dollars The New York City railroad conductor raking in $240,000 a year In New York, bus drivers can take two months off of paid leave if a passenger spits on them because their contract characterizes this as an "assault." The second-in-command of the firefighters in New York has retired on a tax-free disability pension worth almost $250,000 annually for the rest of his life because he once hurt his knee. Prison guards in California can easily earn over $100,000 a year, but that is trivial compared to the prison nurse there who raked in over $270,000 last year. The former city administrator of Vernon, California earns a pension of $509,664 a year.
The horror stories never end. They should be publicized. One group in California has taken that message to heart. The website= californiapensionreform.com provides a searchable database for all public employees drawing six-figure public pensions. The concept can be cloned -- as it should be. Every government should have one. We should know who is responsible for this problem and shame them for frittering away our future.
Support politicians who run on a platform of cutting back the power of public unions. Publicize how the fiscal fates of neighboring communitiescan depend on whether one allows public unions to exist and the other doesn't (a county in Virginia has a healthy budget, while its neighbor in Maryland is mired in fiscal woes. Virginia does not allow public employees to unionize, while Maryland does -- and Maryland Democratic politiciansoutbid each other with spending promises to public employee unions).
If they are elected, hold them to their promises. While many state
constitutions protect pensions of government employees, they don't protect current jobs. Politicians should require government workers to bite the bullet, as the rest of us has. They are public servants, after all. Why not require them to chip in more to cover health expenses and pension benefits? Why not mandate that all new hires accept lower salaries and pension benefits that are more in line with private pay? And privatize... always privatize. Support politicians, such as Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who were in the forefront of privatizing what had been government functions.
There are reasons public unions oppose vouchers and charter schools and why all state and government employees loath the idea of privatization. They know a bad deal for us is a good deal for them.
If the situation is dire, our politicians can threaten the nuclear option: Throw cities or counties into bankruptcy to break contracts with public employee unions. Vallejo, California filed for bankruptcy, done in by public unions; the city has been successful in renegotiating these contracts.
The prospect of this tactic being used by other cities and counties has led to a reaction by Democrats in the state legislature to foreclose the future use of this tool in California.
A municipality declaring bankruptcy may be the only way to quickly cut through the Gordian Knot of foolish contracts that politicians and public unions have tied together. There would be serious ripples in the financial markets. But dire times call for dire steps. And we live in dire times that compel us to protect ourselves, because few politicians will.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Democrats Election Plans
I recently read an article in “The American Thinker” by Jed Skillman that Indicates that the Democrats are already gearing up. They can't wait for the November elections to arrive.
One of the Chicago blogs, Marathon Pundit, ran an interesting post this weekend. Mr. Skillman didn't want to mention the writer's name and risk blowing his cover, but due to a DNC computer glitch, he received an invitation to attend an Organizing for America "training session" in Evanston, Illinois.
After checking the box marked "Yes! You can count on me!" said blogger returned his RSVP. Then, wearing what he described as a "subtle disguise," he arrived at the session, signed the guest list, and positioned himself in the audience to take copious notes.
The Covert Blogger is to be commended. He got in and got out undetected and filed an informative and enjoyable report. In the report are some interesting details and quotes, a few of which may benefit from a little further analysis.
For instance, in a brief description of the political landscape in Evanston, we are told that in the 2008 election, Evanston -- which is home to Northwestern University -- voted 87% for Obama-Biden.
That is an astounding percentage of voters even for an affluent liberal college town. But it is even more astounding when we turn that number around and consider the fact that this left only 13% to vote for the Green Party, Communist Party, or the Socialist Worker's Party.
According to the report, one of the hosts of the training session was the secretary of the Democratic Party of Evanston, Brian Miller. Miller told attendees that the DP of E has "a history of exporting our influence."
This was the purpose of the meeting. Under the name "Organizing for America," it is their stated objective to further export Democratic influence. Miller went on to describe the hundreds of Obama volunteers the group sent into Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa -- busloads of them.
Evanston, the blogger shows, is a major distribution hub of Leftist politics. Reading this part of the report, recalled the scene where the doctor looks out his window on the town square in the black-and-white version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers and witnesses his fellow citizens loading pods onto trucks and into the trunks of their cars.
"We got it locked down" in Evanston, Miller told attendees. Then, Organizing for America regional field director, Brian Gorman asked attendees to consider the question, "How can I use the tools to take ownership of the community?"
One such "tool," apparently, will be the continued use of the sexual slur "teabagger." Democrats seem to take a giggly delight in saying it. It's like a dirty word in the mouth of a child. President Obama has been quoted using it. I still don't know exactly what it means, but get the idea that unless you're into whips and chains, it isn't good.
To drill attendees in proper usage, they used the term to refer to Republican Illinois gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady, never mentioning him by name. He was just the "The Republican 'Teabagger' running for governor."
Concerning the Left's dismissal of Bill Brady, so far the main thing the public knows about him is that he is asking where our tax money has been going for all these years. He's calling for an independent audit of the State of Illinois's financial books. Given the $12-17-billion hole in the state's annual budget and the estimated $77.8 billion in unfunded state worker pensions, this seems reasonable.
Yet the only thing Organizing for America had to say about Bill Brady is that he's a "Teabagger" and "a really bad guy." There was nothing in the report that indicated concerns over the current Illinois governor, Pat Quinn, a Democrat, who was Rod "Blago" Blagojevich's running mate just four years ago, back when Blago was cutting deals and shaking down charity hospitals. No worries there.
Notice, too, the use of the phrase take ownership of the community." Evanston borders Chicago on the north, and they speak the same political language. In Democrat-ese, "owning the community" means that if you got a problem with trash pickup, talk to the Democratic precinct captain. If you have a kid who needs a job, talk to the Democratic precinct captain. If you have trouble with delivery trucks getting ticketed for double-parking in front of your shop, talk to the Democratic precinct captain. If you need a block party permit, a one-day liquor license, or a building code violation overlooked, talk to the Democratic precinct captain.
Democrats own the community. They don't own the potholes or the crumbling infrastructure or the failing schools or the crime in the streets -- that part of the community taxpayers own. Democrats own just the parts with the "juice." Additionally, in Evanston they own the part that gets to decide how everyone else has to live and how much VAT they'll have to pay and whether mass illegal immigration is a good thing or a bad thing. They own the policy part.
As our clandestine blogger reports, Democratic strategy for the 2010 midterm elections boils down to this: They are going to quote-unquote "zero in" on those first-time voters who in 2008 went overwhelmingly for Obama. That's their plan. That's it. That, and the phrase "teabagger."
At this point, let me caution against over-confidence. The midterm election is by no means a sure thing for Conservatives, Libertarians, and right-thinking Republicans. We are all going to have to work with a will. But if this is the central strategy of the Democrats' plan to hold on to power, then they are in deep water. Obama won in '08 with 53% of the vote, which, outside of places like Evanston, does not give the administration much room to play with.
What this tells us is that the official Leftist Democratic agenda has peaked. It has gone as far as it can go at the ballot box and is now contracting. The reality of economic and world events has made it difficult if not impossible for Democrats to expand their voter base. Now they are forced to put their efforts into holding on to their old voters, especially those who were "new" voters two years ago. Most of those new voters in 2008 were inexperienced. And if they were young voters, then they were inexperienced, period.
Having this knowledge of the Democrats' strategy presents us an opportunity. When Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans volunteer to campaign door-to-door, we, too, will take the opportunity to "zero in" on those young voters. Many of them are not so inexperienced now. Many have awakened from the fog that was the Obama-Biden campaign of '08. Many now realize that our nation and the world face problems that can't be overcome with feel-good speeches of Hope and Change.
Take it as a guarantee. When you come to the door of those "new" voters of the '08 campaign, you will find that many are now open to discussion. Let us offer thanks to the Covert Blogger for this valuable reconnaissance.
One of the Chicago blogs, Marathon Pundit, ran an interesting post this weekend. Mr. Skillman didn't want to mention the writer's name and risk blowing his cover, but due to a DNC computer glitch, he received an invitation to attend an Organizing for America "training session" in Evanston, Illinois.
After checking the box marked "Yes! You can count on me!" said blogger returned his RSVP. Then, wearing what he described as a "subtle disguise," he arrived at the session, signed the guest list, and positioned himself in the audience to take copious notes.
The Covert Blogger is to be commended. He got in and got out undetected and filed an informative and enjoyable report. In the report are some interesting details and quotes, a few of which may benefit from a little further analysis.
For instance, in a brief description of the political landscape in Evanston, we are told that in the 2008 election, Evanston -- which is home to Northwestern University -- voted 87% for Obama-Biden.
That is an astounding percentage of voters even for an affluent liberal college town. But it is even more astounding when we turn that number around and consider the fact that this left only 13% to vote for the Green Party, Communist Party, or the Socialist Worker's Party.
According to the report, one of the hosts of the training session was the secretary of the Democratic Party of Evanston, Brian Miller. Miller told attendees that the DP of E has "a history of exporting our influence."
This was the purpose of the meeting. Under the name "Organizing for America," it is their stated objective to further export Democratic influence. Miller went on to describe the hundreds of Obama volunteers the group sent into Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa -- busloads of them.
Evanston, the blogger shows, is a major distribution hub of Leftist politics. Reading this part of the report, recalled the scene where the doctor looks out his window on the town square in the black-and-white version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers and witnesses his fellow citizens loading pods onto trucks and into the trunks of their cars.
"We got it locked down" in Evanston, Miller told attendees. Then, Organizing for America regional field director, Brian Gorman asked attendees to consider the question, "How can I use the tools to take ownership of the community?"
One such "tool," apparently, will be the continued use of the sexual slur "teabagger." Democrats seem to take a giggly delight in saying it. It's like a dirty word in the mouth of a child. President Obama has been quoted using it. I still don't know exactly what it means, but get the idea that unless you're into whips and chains, it isn't good.
To drill attendees in proper usage, they used the term to refer to Republican Illinois gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady, never mentioning him by name. He was just the "The Republican 'Teabagger' running for governor."
Concerning the Left's dismissal of Bill Brady, so far the main thing the public knows about him is that he is asking where our tax money has been going for all these years. He's calling for an independent audit of the State of Illinois's financial books. Given the $12-17-billion hole in the state's annual budget and the estimated $77.8 billion in unfunded state worker pensions, this seems reasonable.
Yet the only thing Organizing for America had to say about Bill Brady is that he's a "Teabagger" and "a really bad guy." There was nothing in the report that indicated concerns over the current Illinois governor, Pat Quinn, a Democrat, who was Rod "Blago" Blagojevich's running mate just four years ago, back when Blago was cutting deals and shaking down charity hospitals. No worries there.
Notice, too, the use of the phrase take ownership of the community." Evanston borders Chicago on the north, and they speak the same political language. In Democrat-ese, "owning the community" means that if you got a problem with trash pickup, talk to the Democratic precinct captain. If you have a kid who needs a job, talk to the Democratic precinct captain. If you have trouble with delivery trucks getting ticketed for double-parking in front of your shop, talk to the Democratic precinct captain. If you need a block party permit, a one-day liquor license, or a building code violation overlooked, talk to the Democratic precinct captain.
Democrats own the community. They don't own the potholes or the crumbling infrastructure or the failing schools or the crime in the streets -- that part of the community taxpayers own. Democrats own just the parts with the "juice." Additionally, in Evanston they own the part that gets to decide how everyone else has to live and how much VAT they'll have to pay and whether mass illegal immigration is a good thing or a bad thing. They own the policy part.
As our clandestine blogger reports, Democratic strategy for the 2010 midterm elections boils down to this: They are going to quote-unquote "zero in" on those first-time voters who in 2008 went overwhelmingly for Obama. That's their plan. That's it. That, and the phrase "teabagger."
At this point, let me caution against over-confidence. The midterm election is by no means a sure thing for Conservatives, Libertarians, and right-thinking Republicans. We are all going to have to work with a will. But if this is the central strategy of the Democrats' plan to hold on to power, then they are in deep water. Obama won in '08 with 53% of the vote, which, outside of places like Evanston, does not give the administration much room to play with.
What this tells us is that the official Leftist Democratic agenda has peaked. It has gone as far as it can go at the ballot box and is now contracting. The reality of economic and world events has made it difficult if not impossible for Democrats to expand their voter base. Now they are forced to put their efforts into holding on to their old voters, especially those who were "new" voters two years ago. Most of those new voters in 2008 were inexperienced. And if they were young voters, then they were inexperienced, period.
Having this knowledge of the Democrats' strategy presents us an opportunity. When Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans volunteer to campaign door-to-door, we, too, will take the opportunity to "zero in" on those young voters. Many of them are not so inexperienced now. Many have awakened from the fog that was the Obama-Biden campaign of '08. Many now realize that our nation and the world face problems that can't be overcome with feel-good speeches of Hope and Change.
Take it as a guarantee. When you come to the door of those "new" voters of the '08 campaign, you will find that many are now open to discussion. Let us offer thanks to the Covert Blogger for this valuable reconnaissance.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Socialist Democratic Party
During the last national election many Independents chose to go to the Democratic Party to cast their vote! Now they are upset because everything has been turned upside down for them! Apparently they did not look at who they were voting for and as a result they voted for the new Socialist Democratic Party of America. Had they inquired they would have discovered this fact!
I have been telling people about this since I left the Democratic Party years ago! I knew then that the party was beginning to be taken over by Socialists so I left the Party and became a Republican. All you have to do is open your eyes and ears to see what Democrats are about. This is not something new, it has gone on for a long time and the Democratic Party that your parents belonged to is no more.
Many members of the Tea Party Groups are Democrats who have seen the light and have finally, finally given up any hope to regain the Democrat Party! These are the people that we have elected in the past that are also Socialists! Is it any wonder that the Democrats are no longer the same party?
75 House Representatives of Congress who are members of “DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA”
1 Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
2 Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
3 Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
4 Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
5 Robert Brady (PA-01)
6 Corrine Brown (FL-03)
7 Michael Capuano (MA-08)
8 André Carson (IN-07)>
9 Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
10 Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
11 William "Lacy" Clay (MO-01)
12 Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
13 Steve Cohen (TN-09)
14 John Conyers (MI-14) >
15 Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
16 Danny Davis (IL-07)
17 Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
18 Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
19Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
20 Keith Ellison (MN-05) a Muslim
21 Sam Farr (CA-17)
22 Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
23 Bob Filner (CA-51)
24 Barney Frank (MA-04)
25 Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
26 Alan Grayson (FL-08)
27 Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
28 Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
29 John Hall (NY-19)
30 Phil Hare (IL-17)
31 Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
32 Michael Honda (CA-15)
33 Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
34 Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
35 Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
36 Hank Johnson (GA-04)
37 Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
38 Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
39 Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
40 Barbara Lee (CA-09)
41 Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
42 John Lewis (GA-05)
43 David Loebsack (IA-02)
44 Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
45 Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
46 Ed Markey (MA-07)
47 Jim McDermott (WA-07)
48 James McGovern (MA-03)
49 George Miller (CA-07)
50 Gwen Moore (WI-04)
51 Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
52 Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
53 John Oliver (MA-01)
54 Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
55 Donald Payne (NJ-10
56 Chellie Pingree (ME-01) >
57 Laura Richardson (CA-37)
58 Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
59 Bobby Rush (IL-01)
60 Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
61 Bernie Sanders (VT)
62 Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
63 José Serrano (NY-16)
64 Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
65 Pete Stark (CA-13)
66 Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
67 John Tierney (MA-06)
68 Nydia Velazquez (NY-1)
69 Maxine Waters (CA-35)
70 Diane Watson (CA-33)
71 Mel Watt (NC-12)
72 Henry Waxman (CA-30)
73 Peter Welch (VT-AL)
74 Robert Wexler (FL-19)
75 Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
I have been telling people about this since I left the Democratic Party years ago! I knew then that the party was beginning to be taken over by Socialists so I left the Party and became a Republican. All you have to do is open your eyes and ears to see what Democrats are about. This is not something new, it has gone on for a long time and the Democratic Party that your parents belonged to is no more.
Many members of the Tea Party Groups are Democrats who have seen the light and have finally, finally given up any hope to regain the Democrat Party! These are the people that we have elected in the past that are also Socialists! Is it any wonder that the Democrats are no longer the same party?
75 House Representatives of Congress who are members of “DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA”
1 Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
2 Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
3 Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
4 Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
5 Robert Brady (PA-01)
6 Corrine Brown (FL-03)
7 Michael Capuano (MA-08)
8 André Carson (IN-07)>
9 Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
10 Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
11 William "Lacy" Clay (MO-01)
12 Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
13 Steve Cohen (TN-09)
14 John Conyers (MI-14) >
15 Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
16 Danny Davis (IL-07)
17 Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
18 Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
19Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
20 Keith Ellison (MN-05) a Muslim
21 Sam Farr (CA-17)
22 Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
23 Bob Filner (CA-51)
24 Barney Frank (MA-04)
25 Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
26 Alan Grayson (FL-08)
27 Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
28 Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
29 John Hall (NY-19)
30 Phil Hare (IL-17)
31 Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
32 Michael Honda (CA-15)
33 Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
34 Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
35 Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
36 Hank Johnson (GA-04)
37 Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
38 Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
39 Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
40 Barbara Lee (CA-09)
41 Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
42 John Lewis (GA-05)
43 David Loebsack (IA-02)
44 Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
45 Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
46 Ed Markey (MA-07)
47 Jim McDermott (WA-07)
48 James McGovern (MA-03)
49 George Miller (CA-07)
50 Gwen Moore (WI-04)
51 Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
52 Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
53 John Oliver (MA-01)
54 Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
55 Donald Payne (NJ-10
56 Chellie Pingree (ME-01) >
57 Laura Richardson (CA-37)
58 Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
59 Bobby Rush (IL-01)
60 Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
61 Bernie Sanders (VT)
62 Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
63 José Serrano (NY-16)
64 Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
65 Pete Stark (CA-13)
66 Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
67 John Tierney (MA-06)
68 Nydia Velazquez (NY-1)
69 Maxine Waters (CA-35)
70 Diane Watson (CA-33)
71 Mel Watt (NC-12)
72 Henry Waxman (CA-30)
73 Peter Welch (VT-AL)
74 Robert Wexler (FL-19)
75 Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Monday, March 1, 2010
Just A Retired Thinker
I recently read an article by Randall Hoven on the American Thinker.com Mr. Hoven stated something that is "unsustainable" cannot be sustained. Our federal budget is on an unsustainable path. Therefore, it will not be sustained. Our only choice is the manner in which it will not be sustained.”
One set of choices would lead to one or more "crashes," or bad endings: federal debt default, hyper-inflation, massive and deep economic recession, riots, and chaos.
Is there a way to stop what is unsustainable without the dire consequences? The short answer: Yes. But to get there, we would need to get rid of Obamanomics and adopt a Republican plan. Yes, there is a Republican plan.
You don't have to take my word for it that the budget is unsustainable. Take President Obama's word: "When it comes to health care spending, we are on an unsustainable course that threatens the financial stability of families, businesses, and government itself."
That was also stated clearly by the Congressional Budget Office this June.” The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, primarily because of rapidly rising spending on health care ... the country faces difficult and fundamental trade-offs between limiting the growth of Medicare and Medicaid relative to GDP, accepting a continuing increase in taxes relative to GDP, and reducing other spending relative to GDP ... Moreover, serious fiscal imbalances are not a far-off problem.”
Is this something new that came about because of recent economic troubles? Nope. We've been warned repeatedly. Here is a statement from the General Accounting Office in 2007. “The "Status Quo" is not an option. We face large and growing structural deficits largely due to known demographic trends and rising health care costs. GAO's simulations show that balancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as cutting total federal spending by 60% of more, or raising federal taxes to two times today's level.”
Note that in April 2007, when the Comptroller General of the United States made that statement, there was no recession, few financial system worries, and a very manageable federal budget. (Federal spending, the deficit, and the debt held by the public were all below the average of the previous 25 years as a percentage of GDP then. And federal revenues were above that average.
The problem can be visualized with the following graph from the Heritage Foundation (based on Office of Management and Budget data and CBO data).
Federal Spending and Revenue as a Percentage of GDP
The main problem with this chart is that Net Interest should be on the bottom, since it is essentially uncontrollable. Another minor problem with this chart is that "Other" rather understates the issue. "Other" is almost everything you normally attribute to the federal government, other than Defense. It includes:
1 Agriculture
2 Community and regional development
3 Education
4 Energy
5 General government
6 Housing and commerce
7 International affairs
8 Judicial system
9 Natural resources and the environment
10 Space and science
11 Transportation
12 Unemployment compensation, housing assistance, food and nutrition
assistance
13 Veterans
So look at the above chart again. Imagine that chart with Defense spending totally eliminated -- set to zero. We would still have a deficit -- last year, today, and from now to infinity. Go ahead and dream of what you could do with all that money going to Defense. Because it is a dream. Eliminate Defense entirely, and you still have deficits as far as the eye can see. In just 2009, Defense spending was less than half the size of the deficit.
Now imagine the "Other" spending, that bulleted list above, totally eliminated. By about 2024 (fourteen years from now), we could eliminate it all and still be running deficits.
By 2040, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt, all by themselves, will eat up every cent of federal revenue. And that is what you call "unsustainable."
Now look at that graph one more time. What categories of spending are growing? There are really only two categories with significant growth: Medicare/Medicaid and net interest. And the net interest grows only because our debt is growing. In short, net interest is a symptom, not a cause. The cause is, in a word, Medicare. Yes, Obama inherited this mess. He inherited it from Lyndon Baines Johnson.
But instead of addressing this problem head-on, Obama is doubling down on LBJ's mistake. All the health care "reform" measures put forth by Democrats leave the basic structure of Medicare untouched, and in fact, expand on this already bankrupt system. If your intent is anything other than the destruction of both our health care system and government finances, then this is insane.
A sane response to both this real crisis of unsustainable federal budgets and the lesser problem of health care coverage does not require defying the laws of physics. One sane plan, the "Roadmap for America's Future," has been proposed by Paul Ryan (R-WI). The Heritage Foundation's evaluation of this plan is summarized in the chart below.
Compare the two charts. Call them Unsustainable and Sustainable, or Insane and Sane. Or call them Democrat and Republican. Any reasonable person looking at the first chart, or listening to the CBO or GAO, or anyone with insight into the federal budget, would not add to the budget, as Obama does year after year, proposal after proposal.
A reasonable person would look at the big budget offenders and see how to throttle them back. The big budget offenders are not earmarks. All discretionary spending, including Defense, has actually been declining over the years as fractions of both total government spending and GDP. A reasonable person would need to concentrate on the entitlements and do something major with them, not just tinker with them, and certainly not expand them. In short, Democrat plans are unsustainable, insane, and unreasonable, and Paul Ryan's plan is sustainable, sane, and reasonable.
Now you might think that the Heritage Foundation has a conservative or Republican bias. But Ryan's plan was also scored by the CBO. Here are the CBO's words.
“The Roadmap would put the federal budget on a sustainable path,
generating an annual budget surplus of about 5 percent of GDP by 2080... real gross national product per person would continue to grow overthe entire 75-year period. The economy would be considerably strongerunder the proposal than it would be under the alternative fiscalscenario. Real gross national product per person would be about 75 percent higher in 2058 under the proposal than under the alternative scenario.”
One set of choices would lead to one or more "crashes," or bad endings: federal debt default, hyper-inflation, massive and deep economic recession, riots, and chaos.
Is there a way to stop what is unsustainable without the dire consequences? The short answer: Yes. But to get there, we would need to get rid of Obamanomics and adopt a Republican plan. Yes, there is a Republican plan.
You don't have to take my word for it that the budget is unsustainable. Take President Obama's word: "When it comes to health care spending, we are on an unsustainable course that threatens the financial stability of families, businesses, and government itself."
That was also stated clearly by the Congressional Budget Office this June.” The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, primarily because of rapidly rising spending on health care ... the country faces difficult and fundamental trade-offs between limiting the growth of Medicare and Medicaid relative to GDP, accepting a continuing increase in taxes relative to GDP, and reducing other spending relative to GDP ... Moreover, serious fiscal imbalances are not a far-off problem.”
Is this something new that came about because of recent economic troubles? Nope. We've been warned repeatedly. Here is a statement from the General Accounting Office in 2007. “The "Status Quo" is not an option. We face large and growing structural deficits largely due to known demographic trends and rising health care costs. GAO's simulations show that balancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as cutting total federal spending by 60% of more, or raising federal taxes to two times today's level.”
Note that in April 2007, when the Comptroller General of the United States made that statement, there was no recession, few financial system worries, and a very manageable federal budget. (Federal spending, the deficit, and the debt held by the public were all below the average of the previous 25 years as a percentage of GDP then. And federal revenues were above that average.
The problem can be visualized with the following graph from the Heritage Foundation (based on Office of Management and Budget data and CBO data).
Federal Spending and Revenue as a Percentage of GDP
The main problem with this chart is that Net Interest should be on the bottom, since it is essentially uncontrollable. Another minor problem with this chart is that "Other" rather understates the issue. "Other" is almost everything you normally attribute to the federal government, other than Defense. It includes:
1 Agriculture
2 Community and regional development
3 Education
4 Energy
5 General government
6 Housing and commerce
7 International affairs
8 Judicial system
9 Natural resources and the environment
10 Space and science
11 Transportation
12 Unemployment compensation, housing assistance, food and nutrition
assistance
13 Veterans
So look at the above chart again. Imagine that chart with Defense spending totally eliminated -- set to zero. We would still have a deficit -- last year, today, and from now to infinity. Go ahead and dream of what you could do with all that money going to Defense. Because it is a dream. Eliminate Defense entirely, and you still have deficits as far as the eye can see. In just 2009, Defense spending was less than half the size of the deficit.
Now imagine the "Other" spending, that bulleted list above, totally eliminated. By about 2024 (fourteen years from now), we could eliminate it all and still be running deficits.
By 2040, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt, all by themselves, will eat up every cent of federal revenue. And that is what you call "unsustainable."
Now look at that graph one more time. What categories of spending are growing? There are really only two categories with significant growth: Medicare/Medicaid and net interest. And the net interest grows only because our debt is growing. In short, net interest is a symptom, not a cause. The cause is, in a word, Medicare. Yes, Obama inherited this mess. He inherited it from Lyndon Baines Johnson.
But instead of addressing this problem head-on, Obama is doubling down on LBJ's mistake. All the health care "reform" measures put forth by Democrats leave the basic structure of Medicare untouched, and in fact, expand on this already bankrupt system. If your intent is anything other than the destruction of both our health care system and government finances, then this is insane.
A sane response to both this real crisis of unsustainable federal budgets and the lesser problem of health care coverage does not require defying the laws of physics. One sane plan, the "Roadmap for America's Future," has been proposed by Paul Ryan (R-WI). The Heritage Foundation's evaluation of this plan is summarized in the chart below.
Compare the two charts. Call them Unsustainable and Sustainable, or Insane and Sane. Or call them Democrat and Republican. Any reasonable person looking at the first chart, or listening to the CBO or GAO, or anyone with insight into the federal budget, would not add to the budget, as Obama does year after year, proposal after proposal.
A reasonable person would look at the big budget offenders and see how to throttle them back. The big budget offenders are not earmarks. All discretionary spending, including Defense, has actually been declining over the years as fractions of both total government spending and GDP. A reasonable person would need to concentrate on the entitlements and do something major with them, not just tinker with them, and certainly not expand them. In short, Democrat plans are unsustainable, insane, and unreasonable, and Paul Ryan's plan is sustainable, sane, and reasonable.
Now you might think that the Heritage Foundation has a conservative or Republican bias. But Ryan's plan was also scored by the CBO. Here are the CBO's words.
“The Roadmap would put the federal budget on a sustainable path,
generating an annual budget surplus of about 5 percent of GDP by 2080... real gross national product per person would continue to grow overthe entire 75-year period. The economy would be considerably strongerunder the proposal than it would be under the alternative fiscalscenario. Real gross national product per person would be about 75 percent higher in 2058 under the proposal than under the alternative scenario.”
Saturday, February 13, 2010
JUST A RETIRED THINKER
I recently read an article by Mr. John Chapman at American Thinker.com. Mr. Chapman believes that the campaign of Senator-elect Scott Brown offers such a perfect roadmap for Republicans in 2010 that it is worth deconstructing his campaign to draw the key lessons for the next nine months. Those Republicans thinking about running for congress might consider his thoughts.
“First, the stakes are huge. The potential for a radically different course for American history thanks to Scott Brown's senatorial win is quite real. Consider the magnitude of Mr. Brown's achievement: His capture of the march toward universal health care in the United States, which Kennedy himself described as the seminal cause of his life. And it was a fight which seemed destined to fail: Twelve Senate elections had occurred since a Republican last won a Senate race in Massachusetts (in 1972). Mr. Kennedy averaged more than 66% in his six election wins since then, including 69% of the vote in 2006; John Kerry, meanwhile, won 66-31%over his Republican opponent just fourteen months ago on the same day that Barack Obama won the state 62-36% over John McCain. Further, Martha Coakley, Brown's opponent, carried 73% of the vote in her statewide contest for Attorney General in 2006.”
“In a state where, according to the Rasmussen polling organization, 53% of voters self-identify as Democrats compared to 21% as Republicans, the prior history made this Senate seat all but impregnable for Democrats. Indeed, the outcome seemed so foregone that well-known Republicans in the state such as Andrew Card begged out of the race, leaving Mr. Brown to his sacrificial fate. And the public polling done in November and December affirmed this: Mr. Brown trailed Attorney General Coakley by 20-30 points throughout the fall, in a state where 56% of all voters considered Mr. Obama's signature issue, health care reform, to be the most important current challenge.”
“Further, in an irony matched only by the race being for Kennedy's old seat and dominated by his issue, the Massachusetts Democratic machine is so powerful that they had changed the election rules for U.S. Senate races twice in recent years on short notice: first to protect the seat in case John Kerry vacated it in 2004, and then again in 2009 to ensure representative continuity after Mr. Kennedy's death.
Democratic Party power in the Bay State is close to invincible, and in an unusually high turnout for a special election (over 2.2 million voters versus 2.8 million in November 2008), there could be no rational expectation of Republican victory. Truly, Massachusetts is the "bluest of the blue" states, as established by being the only state in the union carried by George McGovern in 1972.”
Against gale force winds and seemingly insurmountable odds manifested by the huge democratic behemoth in the state, Mr. Brown worked diligently. “Brown crisscrossed the state in the finest traditions of retail politics, showing himself to be a genuine person” in an age of political phonies populating the political class. “Brown evinced a dogged determination to carry a simple message to voters, starting most prominently with the promise to be the 41st senator for procedural checks on the Obama agenda. That resonated with voters, along with his support of tax and spending cuts, total transparency and honesty in governing, and common sense in defense policy. (Mr. Brown is also against harmful carbon energy taxes, against illegal immigrant amnesty, tough on crime, and takes a states' rights approach on social issues.)”
“Brown campaign insiders say his numbers turned dramatically after airing television ads, beginning December 30th, touting the benefit of John F. Kennedy's 1963-64 tax cuts. Further, he scored well in three debates between January 5-11, making his intention to check Obama's spending and government expansion designs clear to viewing voters. Also a factor were many helpful endorsements, from popular Boston radio host Howie Carr to the Boston Herald and other local print media, as well as national media exposure in the final two weeks of the campaign.”
“As a result of this media exposure and Mr. Brown's simple, repetitive, and highly effective messaging -- well-suited to a truncated campaign period after early December primaries -- Massachusetts voters were highly informed by election day of the contrast he presented to the Obama agenda.
As such, Brown's victory -- again, in Massachusetts, of all places -- is a stunning repudiation of the thesis that Obama's win in 2008 represented any sort of sea change in what is still essentially a center-right American electorate. Indeed, Mr. Brown raised $13 million in the final eighteen days of the campaign, and a nationwide telephone poll conducted by Rasmussen on election day cut 49%-34% in favor of Brown, with 17% undecided.”
“Rasmussen's post-election analysis revealed the crux of Mr. Brown's victory: near-parity on health care and decisive margins on most other important issues. For voters who regarded health care as the seminal issue at the moment, Ms. Coakley carried the vote 53%-46%. Yet this was only due to the intensity of Obama supporters in the state: of those supporting the president on health care, Coakley won 97% (yet 51% of Massachusetts voters oppose health care plans before Congress). For those who regarded the economy as the top issue, Mr. Brown won 52% of their vote. Where tax levels were most worrisome, Brown won 87% of the vote, and for those regarding national defense as the top issue, Brown carried 67%.”
“Given the foregoing, the following are key lessons and implications from Scott Brown's improbable win:
a). As Senator 41, and more importantly, coming from Massachusetts, Mr. Brown has upset the political calculus inside the Beltway even before being seated. The Obama agenda is now substantially stalled, and confirmation of this is nowhere more on display than in the words of pundits or politicians sympathetic to Obama: blame is variously assigned to a weak Coakley campaign, to sexist voters in the Bay State, to voter anger over "Washington" or, from the President himself, over "the last eight years" of failed policies. Psychologists call that denial, a phenomenon last seen starkly in American politics in 1994.
b). Again, the fact that this was Massachusetts ;indeed,Teddy
Kennedy's seat, in a rigged-rules election and not Kansas or South
Carolina, along with the fact that Mr. Brown was a candidate who
unambiguously succeeded in drawing a sharp distinction between the
Obama/Coakley worldview and his own, represent details of capital
importance. These are a potential dagger in the heart of the entire Obama enterprise. And Mr. Brown's effective communication of his message along with his points of contrast with Obama reaffirm a political truism reiterated by Republicans from Ronald Reagan to Rush Limbaugh: when Republicans effectively differentiate their platform in favor of free enterprise, limited government, economic growth, and strong defense, they win elections over statist Democrats.
What President Nixon called the "Silent Majority" is today the center-right core of the body politic, and this is where elections are won. To say this differently, the difference between Mr. Brown and Ms. Coakley was stark and clear in voters' minds; the difference between Messrs. Obama and McCain a year ago was less so. That is to say, Mr. McCain did not lose because he was "too much like Bush", so much as he was not different enough from Mr. Obama, to the center-right core (which at the time was also, admittedly, rattled by a financial market meltdown that the incumbent had only stoked).
c). Mr. Brown, in a de facto sense, nationalized this election. Though (brilliantly) left unspoken, his opponent was not Ms. Coakley, for Massachusetts voters; it was Barack Obama. Again, it is crucial for Republicans to understand this, and ominous for Democrats that, so far, they do not.
d). Mr. Brown's genuine authenticity, and his ability to show this in his communication style, is a competitive advantage in modern politics precisely because it is so rare. Ms. Coakley carried the high-income precincts surrounding Harvard, in the Berkshires, and in Provincetown, but Mr. Brown won the middle class vote, and came close among union members, losing 52-46%. Additionally, Mr. Brown is the antithesis of an elitist, and the embodiment of American values: on election night he electrified the crowd with such common-sense lines as his preference to pay for weapons to stop terrorists, rather than lawyers to defend them.”
Time will tell, but it is possible that Scott Brown's election will prove to be highly consequential. As President, Mr. Obama has been a failure. He has pursued a statist agenda which guarantees higher taxes, sluggish growth and job creation, more financial and monetary troubles, and a declining standard of living. He has engendered a level of fear and uncertainty in the investor and job-creating entrepreneurial classes not seen in this country since the 1930s. And his seemingly unremitting apologies for past American transgressions, as well as inane decisions such as a $250 million criminal trial in New York City of an already-confessed jihadist combatant like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are intensely unpopular with a center-right core electorate steeped in middle-class values.
Mr. Brown, in contrast, represents an effective antidote to Obama's
demagoguery and failed leftist paradigm. His capture of Ted Kennedy's seat of 47 years, in Massachusetts, in an election dominated by the promise (or threat) of universal health care, is as historic as it is ironic. For Republicans, there could not be a clearer roadmap to electoral success this fall.
Mr. Chapman is an Adjunct Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Contact him at john_l_chapman@yahoo.com.
“First, the stakes are huge. The potential for a radically different course for American history thanks to Scott Brown's senatorial win is quite real. Consider the magnitude of Mr. Brown's achievement: His capture of the march toward universal health care in the United States, which Kennedy himself described as the seminal cause of his life. And it was a fight which seemed destined to fail: Twelve Senate elections had occurred since a Republican last won a Senate race in Massachusetts (in 1972). Mr. Kennedy averaged more than 66% in his six election wins since then, including 69% of the vote in 2006; John Kerry, meanwhile, won 66-31%over his Republican opponent just fourteen months ago on the same day that Barack Obama won the state 62-36% over John McCain. Further, Martha Coakley, Brown's opponent, carried 73% of the vote in her statewide contest for Attorney General in 2006.”
“In a state where, according to the Rasmussen polling organization, 53% of voters self-identify as Democrats compared to 21% as Republicans, the prior history made this Senate seat all but impregnable for Democrats. Indeed, the outcome seemed so foregone that well-known Republicans in the state such as Andrew Card begged out of the race, leaving Mr. Brown to his sacrificial fate. And the public polling done in November and December affirmed this: Mr. Brown trailed Attorney General Coakley by 20-30 points throughout the fall, in a state where 56% of all voters considered Mr. Obama's signature issue, health care reform, to be the most important current challenge.”
“Further, in an irony matched only by the race being for Kennedy's old seat and dominated by his issue, the Massachusetts Democratic machine is so powerful that they had changed the election rules for U.S. Senate races twice in recent years on short notice: first to protect the seat in case John Kerry vacated it in 2004, and then again in 2009 to ensure representative continuity after Mr. Kennedy's death.
Democratic Party power in the Bay State is close to invincible, and in an unusually high turnout for a special election (over 2.2 million voters versus 2.8 million in November 2008), there could be no rational expectation of Republican victory. Truly, Massachusetts is the "bluest of the blue" states, as established by being the only state in the union carried by George McGovern in 1972.”
Against gale force winds and seemingly insurmountable odds manifested by the huge democratic behemoth in the state, Mr. Brown worked diligently. “Brown crisscrossed the state in the finest traditions of retail politics, showing himself to be a genuine person” in an age of political phonies populating the political class. “Brown evinced a dogged determination to carry a simple message to voters, starting most prominently with the promise to be the 41st senator for procedural checks on the Obama agenda. That resonated with voters, along with his support of tax and spending cuts, total transparency and honesty in governing, and common sense in defense policy. (Mr. Brown is also against harmful carbon energy taxes, against illegal immigrant amnesty, tough on crime, and takes a states' rights approach on social issues.)”
“Brown campaign insiders say his numbers turned dramatically after airing television ads, beginning December 30th, touting the benefit of John F. Kennedy's 1963-64 tax cuts. Further, he scored well in three debates between January 5-11, making his intention to check Obama's spending and government expansion designs clear to viewing voters. Also a factor were many helpful endorsements, from popular Boston radio host Howie Carr to the Boston Herald and other local print media, as well as national media exposure in the final two weeks of the campaign.”
“As a result of this media exposure and Mr. Brown's simple, repetitive, and highly effective messaging -- well-suited to a truncated campaign period after early December primaries -- Massachusetts voters were highly informed by election day of the contrast he presented to the Obama agenda.
As such, Brown's victory -- again, in Massachusetts, of all places -- is a stunning repudiation of the thesis that Obama's win in 2008 represented any sort of sea change in what is still essentially a center-right American electorate. Indeed, Mr. Brown raised $13 million in the final eighteen days of the campaign, and a nationwide telephone poll conducted by Rasmussen on election day cut 49%-34% in favor of Brown, with 17% undecided.”
“Rasmussen's post-election analysis revealed the crux of Mr. Brown's victory: near-parity on health care and decisive margins on most other important issues. For voters who regarded health care as the seminal issue at the moment, Ms. Coakley carried the vote 53%-46%. Yet this was only due to the intensity of Obama supporters in the state: of those supporting the president on health care, Coakley won 97% (yet 51% of Massachusetts voters oppose health care plans before Congress). For those who regarded the economy as the top issue, Mr. Brown won 52% of their vote. Where tax levels were most worrisome, Brown won 87% of the vote, and for those regarding national defense as the top issue, Brown carried 67%.”
“Given the foregoing, the following are key lessons and implications from Scott Brown's improbable win:
a). As Senator 41, and more importantly, coming from Massachusetts, Mr. Brown has upset the political calculus inside the Beltway even before being seated. The Obama agenda is now substantially stalled, and confirmation of this is nowhere more on display than in the words of pundits or politicians sympathetic to Obama: blame is variously assigned to a weak Coakley campaign, to sexist voters in the Bay State, to voter anger over "Washington" or, from the President himself, over "the last eight years" of failed policies. Psychologists call that denial, a phenomenon last seen starkly in American politics in 1994.
b). Again, the fact that this was Massachusetts ;indeed,Teddy
Kennedy's seat, in a rigged-rules election and not Kansas or South
Carolina, along with the fact that Mr. Brown was a candidate who
unambiguously succeeded in drawing a sharp distinction between the
Obama/Coakley worldview and his own, represent details of capital
importance. These are a potential dagger in the heart of the entire Obama enterprise. And Mr. Brown's effective communication of his message along with his points of contrast with Obama reaffirm a political truism reiterated by Republicans from Ronald Reagan to Rush Limbaugh: when Republicans effectively differentiate their platform in favor of free enterprise, limited government, economic growth, and strong defense, they win elections over statist Democrats.
What President Nixon called the "Silent Majority" is today the center-right core of the body politic, and this is where elections are won. To say this differently, the difference between Mr. Brown and Ms. Coakley was stark and clear in voters' minds; the difference between Messrs. Obama and McCain a year ago was less so. That is to say, Mr. McCain did not lose because he was "too much like Bush", so much as he was not different enough from Mr. Obama, to the center-right core (which at the time was also, admittedly, rattled by a financial market meltdown that the incumbent had only stoked).
c). Mr. Brown, in a de facto sense, nationalized this election. Though (brilliantly) left unspoken, his opponent was not Ms. Coakley, for Massachusetts voters; it was Barack Obama. Again, it is crucial for Republicans to understand this, and ominous for Democrats that, so far, they do not.
d). Mr. Brown's genuine authenticity, and his ability to show this in his communication style, is a competitive advantage in modern politics precisely because it is so rare. Ms. Coakley carried the high-income precincts surrounding Harvard, in the Berkshires, and in Provincetown, but Mr. Brown won the middle class vote, and came close among union members, losing 52-46%. Additionally, Mr. Brown is the antithesis of an elitist, and the embodiment of American values: on election night he electrified the crowd with such common-sense lines as his preference to pay for weapons to stop terrorists, rather than lawyers to defend them.”
Time will tell, but it is possible that Scott Brown's election will prove to be highly consequential. As President, Mr. Obama has been a failure. He has pursued a statist agenda which guarantees higher taxes, sluggish growth and job creation, more financial and monetary troubles, and a declining standard of living. He has engendered a level of fear and uncertainty in the investor and job-creating entrepreneurial classes not seen in this country since the 1930s. And his seemingly unremitting apologies for past American transgressions, as well as inane decisions such as a $250 million criminal trial in New York City of an already-confessed jihadist combatant like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are intensely unpopular with a center-right core electorate steeped in middle-class values.
Mr. Brown, in contrast, represents an effective antidote to Obama's
demagoguery and failed leftist paradigm. His capture of Ted Kennedy's seat of 47 years, in Massachusetts, in an election dominated by the promise (or threat) of universal health care, is as historic as it is ironic. For Republicans, there could not be a clearer roadmap to electoral success this fall.
Mr. Chapman is an Adjunct Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Contact him at john_l_chapman@yahoo.com.
Friday, February 5, 2010
JUST A RETIRED THINKER!
I recently had a chance to read the REPUBLICAN HEALTH CARE PLAN that was presented in the U. S. House of Representatives. The
Republicans’ Common-Sense Reforms Will LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS!
Americans want a step-by-step, common-sense approach to health care reform, not Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s costly, 1,990-page government takeover of our nation’s health care system.
Republicans’ alternative solution focuses on lowering health care premiums for families and small businesses, increasing access to affordable, high-quality care, and promoting healthier lifestyles – without adding to the crushing debt Washington has placed on our children and grandchildren.
Following are the key elements of Republicans’ alternative plan:
• Lowering health care premiums. The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number-one priority for health care reform.
• Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable care for those with pre-existing conditions. The GOP plan creates Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care – while lowering costs for all Americans.
• Ending junk lawsuits. The GOP plan would help end costly junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine by enacting medical liability reforms modeled after the successful state laws of California and Texas.
• Prevents insurers from unjustly cancelling a policy or instituting annual of lifetime spending caps. The GOP plan prohibits an insurer from cancelling a policy unless a person commits fraud or conceals material facts about a health condition. It also prohibits insurance plans from instituting annual or lifetime spending limits.
• Encouraging Small Business Health Plans. The GOP plan gives small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do.
• Encouraging innovative state programs. The GOP plan rewards innovation by providing incentive payments to states that reduce premiums and the number of uninsured.
• Allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines. The GOP plan allows Americans to shop for coverage from coast to coast by allowing Americans living in one state to purchase insurance in another.
• Codifying the Hyde Amendment. The GOP plan explicitly prohibits all federal funds, whether they are authorized funds or appropriated funds, from being used to pay for abortion.
• Promoting healthier lifestyles. The GOP plan promotes prevention & wellness by giving employers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who adopt healthier lifestyles.
• Enhancing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The GOP plan creates new incentives to save for future and long-term care needs by allowing qualified participants to use HSAs to pay premiums.
• Allowing dependents to remain on their parents’ policies. The GOP plan encourages coverage of young adults on their parents’ insurance through age 25.
If you would like to read this Republican Health Care Plan then please go to my NEWS SECTION on my website.
Republicans’ Common-Sense Reforms Will LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS!
Americans want a step-by-step, common-sense approach to health care reform, not Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s costly, 1,990-page government takeover of our nation’s health care system.
Republicans’ alternative solution focuses on lowering health care premiums for families and small businesses, increasing access to affordable, high-quality care, and promoting healthier lifestyles – without adding to the crushing debt Washington has placed on our children and grandchildren.
Following are the key elements of Republicans’ alternative plan:
• Lowering health care premiums. The GOP plan will lower health care premiums for American families and small businesses, addressing Americans’ number-one priority for health care reform.
• Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable care for those with pre-existing conditions. The GOP plan creates Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care – while lowering costs for all Americans.
• Ending junk lawsuits. The GOP plan would help end costly junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine by enacting medical liability reforms modeled after the successful state laws of California and Texas.
• Prevents insurers from unjustly cancelling a policy or instituting annual of lifetime spending caps. The GOP plan prohibits an insurer from cancelling a policy unless a person commits fraud or conceals material facts about a health condition. It also prohibits insurance plans from instituting annual or lifetime spending limits.
• Encouraging Small Business Health Plans. The GOP plan gives small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as corporations and labor unions do.
• Encouraging innovative state programs. The GOP plan rewards innovation by providing incentive payments to states that reduce premiums and the number of uninsured.
• Allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines. The GOP plan allows Americans to shop for coverage from coast to coast by allowing Americans living in one state to purchase insurance in another.
• Codifying the Hyde Amendment. The GOP plan explicitly prohibits all federal funds, whether they are authorized funds or appropriated funds, from being used to pay for abortion.
• Promoting healthier lifestyles. The GOP plan promotes prevention & wellness by giving employers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who adopt healthier lifestyles.
• Enhancing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The GOP plan creates new incentives to save for future and long-term care needs by allowing qualified participants to use HSAs to pay premiums.
• Allowing dependents to remain on their parents’ policies. The GOP plan encourages coverage of young adults on their parents’ insurance through age 25.
If you would like to read this Republican Health Care Plan then please go to my NEWS SECTION on my website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)