Democrats On Social Security: "Do Nothing"

Ron Kind said it this morning on Wisconsin Public Radio: “Even if we do nothing recipients will get 75% of their benefit for 75 years.”

Imagine if someone said to you, “I can offer a retirement plan where I guarantee you will lose at least 25% of your investment.” Would you take it? Seriously?

Republicans should jump all over this, because it amounts to a 25% tax on social security on top of existing taxes on benefits. Either that or Dems raise Social Security taxes on the front end to maintain benefits. The message is clear – Democrats are unwilling to recognize the epic scope of the failure of their most cherished welfare program.

Meanwhile on the economic front, Congressman Kind said that he favors protectionism, essentially, as a strategy for improving the US economy. This must coincide with Obama's decree to "Double exports within five years." Kind wants to hold imports to the same standards we hold ourselves. In other words, the same standards that helped kill American manufacturing - environmentalism, health care, labor progressivism... How can he be that naive?

And right on queue, China launches a preemptive attack, kicking off the trade war that Obama and the Democrats wanted. They are initiating a tariff on chicken imports. Democrats are writing the book on how to destroy capitalism, and don't think for one second that wasn't the plan all along.

The Tea Party has ammuninition for decades.

Gagging On Liberalism

It struck me the other day liberalism is like a food you forget you don’t like. I would suggest that the current political climate extends back to the Carter presidency, as Ford and Nixon were tarnished by Watergate and it’s residuals and prior to that we had three decades of significant war. Since Carter was ousted after a single term, this country has experienced less than 4 total years where Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. In each case – 1994, and again now in 2010, the Democrats are getting shelled in the polls and Republicans are poised to reclaim one if not both houses in dramatic fashion.

Liberalism is clearly a highly toxic substance that America gags on and cannot swallow, but Americans are apparently stupid enough to put it back in their mouths once in a generation. What’s remarkable and dangerous is that Liberals can do so much damage in 2 year intervals, but they have to because that’s all they get, and then they’re shut down until the next batch of voters comes along who have either never tasted the poison or forgotten how bad it was the last time.

The media is quick to say how bad Republicans got shelled in 2006, but that was only after 6 long years of uncontested media reports hammering Bush for every little thing – many of the same things which are overlooked today or receive a wink and a nod. This situation is different – America is making up its own mind.

The good news is this is obviously a conservative leaning country, and it will always gag on liberalism whenever it foolishly tries it out again. On top of that, we understand that there is little room for fiscal liberalism in the Republican party, and as we cleanse it this November – even if we don’t take back the Senate – we setup a more consistent conservatism with better staying power, more resistant to the vice of liberalism.

YOU Are Funding Feingold Attack Ads

I woke up this morning to a disgruntled Wisconsin Public Radio. First they had to report that Ron Johnson has pulled to a significant lead over Russell Feingold. To temper this foul news, they immediately did a report on how Johnson’s latest ad is full of falsehoods and inaccuracies – about as close as they can get to say he’s lying. They referred to his claim that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme.” Then they explained the definition of a ponzi scheme: using new investor money to pay for commitments to old investors. ?!? How is that not exactly what Social Security is? Then they refute his claim that the money for Social Security is gone, even bringing in a professor of elderly programs. (BTW, I know a good way to cut $70,000 from the UW budget…) She says the money isn’t gone, it’s borrowed. Well that makes it so much better. Apparently accounting tricks are used to say that specific tax dollars go to specific programs, and by moving the money around you can leave a debt trail that shows everything is paid for. Isn’t that something!

It amounted to a free 2 minute attack advertisement against Ron Johnson courtesy of the taxpayers of Wisconsin. Disgusting. I can’t wait to vote!

Tax Cuts Do Not Need To Be “Paid For”

Democrats are framing the tax cut debate by saying things like, “How will these tax cuts for the rich be paid for,” or, “Tax cuts for the rich paid for by the middle class.” This is infuriating class warfare, and it’s a desperate tactic, but so far conservatives have done a terrible job refuting the premise of the Democrat argument.

Their argument says two things very clearly: they are unwilling to reduce government spending, and they consider tax money as belonging to the government. The second point is the most insidious because they, the government, control how much money they take from the people who earn it.

Conservatives need to change the debate. Whenever a Democrat asks how a tax cut for the rich will be paid for, turn it around and ask them point blank, “How can you defend tax hikes on the producers in the economy when government spending is out of control? The premise that tax cuts need to be paid for implies spending cannot be reduced. Reject that premise! We should always be looking for ways to reduce government spending and allow hard-working Americans to keep more of the money they earn. Don’t pit people against each other – we’re all in this economy together, and when you take more from those who have achieved some modest financial prosperity then you tarnish the American dream!”

Challenge Democrats to defend all the egregious spending. Look at the headlines this week about government contracts for the Gulf cleanup effort. $52,000 for a “marine charter for things.” That’s more than most people make in a year! $90,000 for boat anchors, nearly $6 million for helicopter services – how many helicopters could they possibly need? And it goes on and on and on. That BP is getting the bill does not grant government a license to waste money. Remember last year, when “stimulus” money went to congressional districts that don’t even exist? Every American should be infuriated by this nonsense, regardless of political leanings!

What is the Democrat plan to pay for Social Security in the next thirty years? Don't tell me it's paid for, we all know the lockbox is empty. Will they just continue to raise taxes to fund broken programs? Change the debate - make Democrats answer for relentless government spending!

Tired Old Tricks

This morning on the Early Show Gibbsy was interviewed about the economy and the host mentioned Senator Boehner's plan to reduce Federal spending down to 2008 levels as a solution to the current massive Bama deficits.

Gibbsy replied by reminding us that Bama has proposed spending freezes on non-security discretionary spending, but also "We can't afford to give $700 Billion to the rich paid for by the middle class." Huh?

Boehner's proposal makes the $700 Billion into Zero! Boehner wants to reduce the deficit and extend the Bush tax cuts. The nerve!

Doesn't he know that it's more important to steal from the rich to fuel Bama's socialism while lubricating the gears of class warfare?

Democrats are so transparent.

The Cost Of Taxes

I must be slipping. I missed a golden chance to highlight the quintessential difference between Democrats and conservatives. Bara Bama said it himself. Economists say extending the Bush tax cuts to those who make more than $250,000 will cost $700 billion over the next decade.

Cost.

It will cost the government money.

You see? Democrats, and our elected Campaigner-In-Chief, think of all of our money as belonging to the government. Like we're only borrowing it instead of the other way around.

The biggest problem with the current economic debate is that most Americans don't catch this critical difference in philosophy. Conservatives believe that those who earn are actually entitled to what they earn. Democrats and the government think that they are entitled to what is made by those who earned it. And if people start to catch on Democrats up the ante by framing those who earn as somehow having swindled their way to ill-gotten-gains, so better off the government takes it.

This is the essence of the Tea Party movement; the assertion that government doesn't earn anything, it only takes from those that do. And then who is government accountable to? Taxpayers? Yeah right. Voters? Hardly. Lobbyists? Sure, for the money, but the truth is that government is accountable only to the ideology that drives it. And that ideology is liberalism.

Our Desperate President

Bama's "Perfect example" of a failed policy that led us toward a depression is the Bush Tax cuts, which in the same breath he says he wants to make permanent for 97% of people. What a clown. But of course he can't say, "Bush Tax cuts" because then his lie would be exposed. He can only survive as a politician for both attacking Bush while taking credit for Bush's successes. He's also claiming as his own the Republican tax cuts included as part of the "stimulus". Democrats didn't want them but Republicans demanded it and held their ground. Now Bama is using that to highlight his good record on taxes. Yeah, right.

Now Democrats are saying extending the tax cuts to the remaining 3%, those making more than $250,000 a year, will cost the country $700 Billion over the next ten years. First of all, you can never, never, trust a Democrat with a number. But even if we again take that number at face value, it ignores the principle that almost all economists have come to understand, that the "wealthy" don't just stuff money into Swiss Bank accounts; they buy things and look to invest. If you allow them to keep their money they will use it! That's how the economy works, that's how innovation is is financed, and that's how jobs are created in healthy sectors.

Bama keeps saying Republicans will put us in reverse. WTF? Democrats are the ones in love with unsustainable manufacturing jobs because of their incestuous relationship with Unions. Those are the jobs that will cause this economy to fail. We can't go back there in a global economy. How can people not see that? Rational people do.

He keeps blaming the "determined minority" for his inability to do everything. Then he also demands leadership. What a loser. Donald Trump would have fired this guy day one.

Oh, and there's this looming agency whose sole responsibility it will be to "Protect families' financial transactions." Holy sh!t - that deserves a post in itself, but that stinks of Nanny State policy!

He just sounds so desperate, and he can't stop whining.

Islamophobia? Absolutely!

Not surprisingly the media and all of the pundits are missing the critical element in this whole Qur'an burning thing by the pastor in Florida. What most people don't know is what justification this pastor has. Why would anyone want to burn a holy book?

The justification he has is exactly the same justification Muslims around the world use when they burn Christian Bibles. Their fundamentalism prohibits them from allowing another view of religion. Their way is the only way, and any other view is heresy and is not tolerated.

Now you know that may be the justification, and it doesn't make it right, but there's also a lot of human emotion clouding the judgment of those doing the burning. My guess is Pastor Jones might also believe this is a pretty good PR device for his church given the visceral reaction of a majority of Americans to the proposed Mosque site in lower Manhattan.

All of that belies the real issue here: that America is now a country that operates out of fear of Muslims. The Mosque people want to call us Islamophobic. Damn right we are! Because every time any little thing happens like this some crazy radical Muslim straps a bomb onto their teenage daughter and blows up a bus full of people. These people are f*cking crazy! Meanwhile, they are allowed to burn Bibles and American flags and our Presidents in effigy and chant, "Death to the Great Satan!" and elect leaders who openly do the same on the world stage, and we're just supposed to passively sit by and hope to God they don't ever get the Bomb because we all know what will happen next. Of course they are not afraid of retaliation because Bama has already said nukes are off the table as long as he's in charge.

That's pussy-diplomacy, courtesy of Bama and Hillary, where the USA is always wrong regardless of what atrocities other societies commit. President Bush was absolutely right. The Bush Doctrine scared the crap out of the Muslim world, but then Rumsfeld and the Free Press combined to make a mockery out of what could have been a resounding victory.

So yes, burning Qur'an is stupid, or as Governor Palin put it, "Unnecessarily provocative," but we shouldn't allow ourselves as a free society to be ruled by fear.

Why I Think What I Think About Race

Given the recent potential for my commentary to be read by more than four people I felt the need to go through my posts and try to read them from the perspective of someone who has never met me or conversed with me and has no idea about my beliefs beyond the words accumulated in this blog. I reached one stark conclusion: It is likely that my comments regarding race will be considered inflammatory by those inclined to be offended by such frank and unfiltered language. I have made no attempt to censor myself and have always written what I think at the time, and in reading the body of my efforts here there is definitely a trend toward viewing the problems afflicting this country through the lens cut by those who created the problems, and this lens, despite the promise of a post-racial era affected by the election of Barack Obama, is increasingly tinted.

Let me start by saying that to the best of my ability as a white man I try to understand the concerns of non-whites and women in this country, but I will not be apologetic for being who I am. This is the core of my belief system - no one can control their race or the social circumstances of their birth and upbringing, and I will not judge anyone on that basis, but I will also not tolerate being judged for being white and male. The perceived disparities that result from race and sex in this country are not my fault, and in my life I have not caused any person or group to be in any way disenfranchised.

Do I generalize about race? Yes, but only in the context of circumstances created by those who presume to target people along racial lines for the purpose of gaining or increasing power over the targeted group. Please understand - I want everyone to succeed in life and be happy. I want this for myself and my family and friends, but I also desperately want it for others I don't even know, with the exception of anyone who's ideals would then infringe on other's ability to meet their own personal goals and succeed and be happy. So when I say things like, Obama has lower expectations for "black folks" kids, it's because the statement is observationally true. The quotes exist because those are Barack Obama's own words, and I use them no less often than he does. You might read that and think there's no evidence he thinks that way, but its clear in the context of his speeches that is exactly what he thinks, not out of any malice or pity but because he sees the circumstances of those "folks" as something that is an absolute for the purposes of defining his ideology.

"You're unfairly generalizing," you say. Maybe, but so does Obama. He's a world-class generalizer; just read his words and count how many times he refers to people by class or race or sex, or says "some people," or "many people." He's one of the great generalizers of all time. I generalize to show the absurdity of his generalizations. So then you say, "He's black, so he can talk frankly about black people, but you're white so the same rules don't apply." I don't even feel the need to defend myself against that argument, as it shows the true lack of depth of the racial discussion in this country. When you allow one group to define the rules of an argument you lose the ability to assert your point effectively. Typically it is the self-proclaimed leaders of these groups who make the rules so only they can be right about whatever it is they want to say, and any dissension from that narrow line of thought is then vilified. This is how the current tenor of racial discussion in this country reverberates. As a white man I am only permitted to agree with the premise of any racial issue or I am automatically a racist. You can see how this undermines any useful discussion revolving race in America.

Critical for Democrats and so-called "progressives" is to maintain the facade that they care about the needs of these minority groups, while Republicans and conservatives do not. The truth is that while Democrats may be genuinely empathic of the human condition, they are completely incapable of doing anything to help. This is proven out by nearly fifty years of liberal programs aimed at helping minorities, but the results are that more minorities fail to graduate high school, have children out of wedlock, get into trouble with the law and fail to meaningfully contribute to society or make a stable, prosperous life for themselves and their children. The reason for this failure is twofold: First, subsidies and handouts have diminished the need for many people to achieve a better standard of living for themselves. If you can get by with almost no effort, why would you work hard and take on personal risk for just the possibility of achieving success in life? Humans are creatures of habit, and like lightning our tendency is toward the path of least resistance. Naturally many people become dependent on these programs because they know no other way to live. Starting your own business, with all the perceived legal and bureaucratic obstacles, must seem impossible, and so these communities survive but almost never prosper.

The second reason is more insidious, and no politician would admit to it, but Democrats need for racial minorities to continue to be dependent on them and their government programs. The logic in that is undeniable, and voting trends prove it out.

What upsets me so greatly is that minorities, specifically blacks, rarely seem to see the truth behind the curtain. 97% of those that voted chose the same old self-destructive liberal policies that have failed them for three generations. But I understand that mindset - when you are continually told that everyone else is against you, and you cannot succeed on your own merits, and you need to listen to your local community organizers because nobody else cares about you - that kind of thought is pervasive but it tends to stick because, again, it's the path of least resistance. Challenging the status quo is difficult, and if you really don't believe it will get you where you want to go you won't even try. That's why the conservative belief of self-reliance is so important. It's why Jackie Robinson campaigned for Republicans - he saw the power in that message in the face of the alternative.

My message is not politically-correct, and it's not polite, but I absolutely believe that a commitment to hard work can rescue anyone from any set of circumstances. They just need to believe in themselves and not government or anyone who offers them a handout in lieu of the hard truth about success in life. It takes hard work and nothing short of that will do. You can't just want something and then wait for it to be handed to you. Go work for it! Earn it! Overcome the obstacles in your way! Believe in yourself, and don't let anyone tell you you can't do it without their help! I was raised poor and watched my parents make better lives for themselves and for me and my siblings through hard work and personal sacrifice. I've seen first hand what it takes, and I have absolute faith everyone can do the same if they just believe in themselves and in the prospects for a better future.

Am I naive? For the sake of our country I hope not. But I will continue to call it the way I see it until everyone understands what brand of sugar water those Democrat carpetbaggers are peddling. If I am frank it is because I care, and not because I want your vote or care if you agree with me or ever read my blog again. I believe the only way we will ever break down barriers between groups is if people stop listening to those who say we can't and start doing for ourselves, regardless of where we start from.