You don’t have to be Ivy League to “get it”!
A little back ground here before I put in the theory. I believe that Conservatives need an irrefutable argument against socialism and big government. The Fabian society (an intellectual progressive liberal group) realized a century or so back that they could not institute socialism in America overtly. So they set about, under the guise of “patriotism”, to infiltrate the higher education system and begin questioning the “failures” of capitalism and promoting the ideals of socialism. This is fact not conspiracy theory. The initial meetings and agenda are well documented. And they have been very successful to date. We have a country full of educated, indoctrinated progressives who believe (despite the historical failures) that only a social democracy, led by an intellectual elite, can give people a level field. And they debate very well. (more…)
Washington: Ban Texting–Or Else!
Eerily reminiscent of the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit legislation, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) plans today to announce new legislation aimed at forcing states to enact laws banning cell phone texting while driving (story here). States that fail to do so within a prescribed period of time stand to lose 25 percent of their federal highway funds. In describing the legislation, Schumer said, “The federal government ought to pass a law banning this dangerous and growing practice to protect the millions of Americans on our nation’s roads. It is a matter of public safety.”
While texting is known to increase the risk of accidents, the question is whether or not this legislation encroaches even further on the powers of the states. Is federal action necessary? Should states be free to legislate according to the will of their own citizens, or should they be forced, at federal gunpoint, simply to acquiesce to each and every demand that comes out of Washington? Is this yet another federal power grab, or can we clearly identify the specific article and section of the Constitution that vests such power in the federal government (that is, which of the oft-abused clauses–commerce, general welfare, or necessary and proper–will Congress claim as the authority)?
Sound off and make your opinion known!
Fort Sumter: Justice Under Sotomayor??
Last week I watched Lt. Ben Vargas testify at the Senate confirmation hearing of Judge Sotomayor. Lt Vargas is a Hispanic member of the New Haven, CT fire department and was one of the plaintiffs in the racial discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of the New Haven firefighters, who were denied promotion after passing a test of their competence for the position of Captain. These Firefighters, including Lt. Vargus, sacrificed time with their families for months and in some cases income from second jobs to study for the job related test. As I would want if I ever needed Lt. Vargas and his crew in an emergency, the test was hard and not everyone passed! This time, many of those who failed were African American, with none passing. There was the threat of a lawsuit by African Americans who failed the test, just the threat mind you, and the city buckled and threw out the results. These Firefighters earned a promotion and they were denied it unjustly. (more…)
LeftyBill: Voice of the Blue Dog
Many people these days seem to think there are only two schools of political thought in this nation, liberal and conservative viewpoints. So often, it seems that those of us who adhere to elements of both are relegated to the back bench, or labeled as fence sitters. On the contrary, I feel we are the true voice of America. If many are not hearing us, it is not because we are silent but because nobody LISTENS any longer.
What exactly are Blue Dog Democrats, and how do they differ from conservative Republicans? (more…)
Hank: An Affordable Path to Health Care Reform
As we move forward with the health care debate, we’re bombarded by a constant rhetoric stream, and it appears we’re in a headlong rush to do something, simply for the sake of doing it! So let’s slow down and find a no-nonsense approach to the problem.
First of all, let’s start with the numbers. We continually hear the 47 million number thrown around. When we take out those who earn more than $50,000, unenrolled Medicaid-eligibles, illegal aliens, and the short term uninsured (4 months or less), that number drops down to somewhere around 7-8 million. We can argue about the specific number all day long, but that would be like teaching the proverbial pig to sing. The fact remains there are millions of Americans chronically uninsured. So how do we fix it? (more…)
Susanne: California, The New Dust Bowl
Look at the typical family’s shopping list, and you’ll find that many of those items used to be grown in California’s San Joaquin Valley, but not anymore. Why? Because of the Silver Minnow, a 2-inch smelt that has been on the Endangered Species List since 2004. The pumps that supplied water to these farms to compensate for any lack of rain have been shut off. No new crops have been planted; established fruit and nut trees are dying. Families are losing their businesses, and over 80,000 people in the city of Mendota alone are without jobs–an unemployment rate of 41%. (more…)
Who Will Pay for Health Care Overhaul?
The House Democrats released their anxiously-awaited health care bill yesterday with proclamations of coverage for all Americans, cost reductions and efficiency improvements. Those with expectations of tax increases to fund the $1.0 trillion bill were not disappointed, as funding provisions bill included:
- A tax on individuals who opt out of health care insurance, equal to the lesser of 2.5% of adjusted gross income (AGI) or the average individual premium amount.
- A tax on employers who do not provide a health care plan, equal to 8% of payroll for companies with payrolls exceeding $400,000 annually, with lower rates applying to employers with smaller payrolls. This, on top of the current 15.3% payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare, brings the total entitlement tax to a whopping 23.3%.
- A new excise tax on health insurance plans at a rate yet to be determined.
- A new “surtax” on the AGI of small businesses and other high income earners:
- 1% on AGI of $350,000 to $500,000
- 1.5% on AGI of $500,000 to $1,000,000
- 5.4% on AGI over $1,000,000
This last, on top of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, will result in a top marginal tax rate of 45% and a capital gains rate of over 25%. The fact that the surtax is applied against AGI rather than taxable income (meaning that it is applied before deductions such as mortgage interest, property taxes and medical expenses) will push the top rate, including state taxes, over 50% and the capital gains rate over 30%.
These punitive income tax rates alone will be a huge impediment to business, particularly small and medium sized businesses responsible for the vast majority of job creation. Additional corporate tax provisions contained in the bill, designed to close “loopholes”, reduce the use of offshore tax havens and accelerate the double taxation of foreign earnings, will further add to the corporate tax burden. These additional costs not only provide businesses further incentive to move to a more friendly environment, but will ultimately be borne by the consumer (taxpayer), again flying in the face of Obama’s vow not to raise taxes on families earning under $250,000.
Proponents of massive health care reform are once again playing the crisis card to accelerate approval of this bill. We are far from a health care crisis in this country. Collapse of the entire health care system is not imminent. Despite misleading statistics published on a daily basis by those complicit in the charade, the numbers of chronically uninsured Americans are relatively small. Improvements certainly need to be made, but taking the time to explore options, gather real facts and make intelligent decisions will ultimately result in a solution that makes more sense and has a far greater chance of actually working. This high cost, ill-conceived bureaucratic nightmare is not the answer.
Enlightened Atheist: Who is the Real Dictator?
With more and more evidence of questionable CIA activities coming out of the woodwork, it leaves me pondering one question. Who is the real dictator? I hear my friends on the right saying Obama is grabbing more unconstitutional power than ANY president ever! That may be technically right, with the automotive and bank takeovers, but these are unprecedented times which will not continue. (By the way, with government controlling only 1% of American commerce it’s not as bad as you might think.) But are we asking the wrong question? Maybe its not about which President, but which person?
The suggestion has been made over the last week or so that the CIA may have been ordered to mislead congress on key issues. Not only is this unethical , but its illegal! Cheney may have ordered and funded a counterterrorism program without the knowledge of Congress. Now I get some things are covert, but there still is the gang of eight that are supposed to be briefed on everything!
This idea was so flawed that the day that new CIA Chief Leon Panetta heard of it he immediately scrapped it and briefed Congress the very next day! This coincides with Nancy Pelosi saying that the CIA never briefed Senators about waterboarding. Our GOP friends were quick to jump on Pelosi as a liar, but was she? The Security Act of 1947 requires the President to make sure intelligence committees are kept “fully and currently informed” of US intelligence activities. This along with the torture program, illegal wire tapping and the unnecessary Iraq war all lead me to one question. Where were all the questions from the right when we WERE without a doubt under the worst and only dictatorship the US has ever seen? Not the Obama administration, But DICK CHENEY! Was Bush merely a puppet?
Selecting a Supreme Court Justice
As the confirmation hearings get underway for Judge Sonia Sotomayor, some say she’s a shoe-in, that her truly American story uniquely qualifies her for a position on the United States Supreme Court. Others say that she is out of the mainstream, and that her rulings tend toward the prejudicial.
While the political drama unfolds in Washington, we want to know what our fellow citizens think about the constitutional role of a Supreme Court justice. Should justices decide the law based solely on what is actually written, or should other factors or circumstances, such as race or sex, have a bearing on their decisions? Should justices restrict their decisions to the law as defined by the US Constitution, or should they be free to consider foreign precedents in formulating their decisions? Should the Supreme Court–or any federal court–have the power to strike down the laws duly enacted by the legislatures of the several states, and where might such authority be found? Should justices adhere to the Constitution, as written (originalist), or should they be free to re-interpret the Constitution to fit a changing society? Finally, what is your opinion of Judge Sotomayor, and why?
Please join us in discussing this extremely important topic!
T. Lee Mac: Recalling Representatives Terrorism?
John and Ken are at it again. It seems they are encouraging listeners to recall three Republican state representatives who voted with Democrats to raise taxes in order to close the $24 billion budget gap California is facing. $24 billion!! That seems more like an abyss to me, but they’re calling it a gap. I guess the Grand Canyon is a “ditch,” and the Amazon is a “brook.” And the Pacific? Well, let’s just call that thing a “fishin’ hole.”
Unfortunately, liberals’ propensity toward referring to the huge as though it were minuscule apparently only applies to matters fiscal. Thus, the 6/10ths of one degree the earth has warmed in the last hundred years or so is a DISASTER of such apocalyptic proportions that we must sacrifice liberty and common sense entirely, and turn our lives over to the government as slaves, in order that we might undertake the noblest of causes, that of saving the entire planet from… (more…)
