Middle Class Unite!!!!

Middle Class of the United States it is time to unite against the tyranny of the political elite. Right now Congress, the GOP led US House of Representatives and the Democratic led US Senate, are using us as a ping pong ball in their debate on  the fiscal cliff. The "rich" are being asked to "pay their fair share" as our debt that rises above $16 trillion while our yearly budget adds another $1 trillion a year. Increasing the tax rate on the "rich" brings in another $80 billion if the Democrats get their way. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that $80 billion in tax revenue from the "rich" each year doesn't make up for the $1 trillion in extra spending taking place today. Without a balanced budget we will continue to add to the deficit. Without a budget that spend's less then it revenues we will never reduce the $16 trillion debt that has been amassed thus far. 

Where do Americans think the difference will be made up? That's right, the difference will be made up on the backs of the Middle Class. The political elite view the Middle Class as mindless drones; well it is time for that to stop. It is time for the Middle Class to rise up and make their voice heard. Today it is the "rich" paying their fair share and tomorrow it will be the Middle Class "sharing" in the struggle or it will be our "patriotic duty". The GOP and the Democrats play us to score political points knowing that we will do little to threaten their status as the political elite. That time has come to an end. 

Middle Class it is time to shed ourselves of our GOP, Democrat, Tea Party, Coffee Party, Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian and Progressive labels for the label of Middle Class. Other Third Parties have attempted to make headway into the Two Party system but they have too far Right or too far Left. Well, Middle Class America it is our time. The biggest fear of the political elite is that the Middle Class will wake up, step away from the bar stool and think with a clear head about their role in America.

Join me in the formation of a new political party; the Middle Class Party. We need to organize now before the "rich" are no longer around to buffer us from the tax code and the spending glutton of the political elite is extended to the point of no return. The political elite talk about the fiscal cliff and Thelma and Louise. Let's make the fiscal cliff debacle and the debt ceiling debate the two party system Waterloo.

Rhetoric of the campaign season

It does appear now that Gov. Romney will secure the Republican nominee for President of the United States and President Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Before the media starts spinning things and before Super PAC's start running their ads for or against a candidate let's get some definition's out there that we can all agree on. Here is a short list:

Democrat - A member of the Democratic Party.

Republican - A member of the Republican Party.

Socialism - A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

Capitalism - An economic system based on predominately private (individual or corporate) investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods and wealth.

Fascism - An authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities.

Communism - A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

Republic - A state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them.

Democracy - Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is reatined by the people, but is indirectly execercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

Liberalism - An economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard.

Progressive - Disposed toward adopting a new methods in government or education, holding tolerant and liberal ideas, and generally favoring improvement in the civic life.

Conservative - One who desires to maintain existing institutions and customs; also, one who holds moderate opinions in politics.

All these definitions are taken from www.webster-dictionary.org. It is interesting to see the root definitions of these words. I think for an accurate debate and character to develop we need this common ground. Now, if others feel Webster has it wrong then let's redefine them so we are all on the same page going forward.

Cain wins an upset victory in Florida presidential straw poll - The Hill's Ballot Box

Cain wins an upset victory in Florida presidential straw poll - The Hill's Ballot Box


WOW! Cain has been regulated as a token player in the Republican primary has perhaps broken the glass ceiling. The win will definitely make things interesting especially if he is able to parlay the straw poll win into a GOP nomination. Granted that is several months away, can Cain carry the victory onto the next debate and contest unlike Bachman?

President Obama State of the Union

Okay, I did not get to see the speech first hand as I had my own civic duty tonight; Hamburg City Council meeting. I did read the speech and here are my likes and dislikes:

"It's no secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences over the last two years. The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs. And that's a good thing. That's what a robust democracy demands. That's what helps set us apart as a nation." – I agree. We can have and must have "contentious" debate on the topics that divide us ideologically. Then we need to find a middle ground. Hopefully pundits on both sides of the aisle listened to this as they are the polarizing group.

"At stake right now is not who wins the next election – after all, we just had an election." – Funny, I recall the recently elected President saying that "elections have consequences." Those words spoke by Obama was meant to be a poke in the eye of Republicans and fueled partisan politics.

"Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up." – True but this is not due to his Stimulus Package; rather it's due to companies shedding jobs, inventories and other cost cutting measures. Too bad the Democratic led Congress didn't take note by increasing the National Debt by more than $3 Trillion.

"What's more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea – the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny." – Bingo! The idea was a nation of a limited Central government and the empowerment of States. The trouble is that we have seen the power of the Central government increase while State Rights have been eroded. The latest is the Health Care Mandate.

"Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation" – Exactly! So why did we have TARP and the GM Bailout? I understand that not all of this was implemented by Obama but he has not shied away from trying to turn TARP into a slush fund.

"Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas." – I like this idea. President Obama can start by overturning President Carter's ban on reusing spent nuclear rods as the technology has improved to the point that allows France to reuse their spent rods thus reducing nuclear waste.

"That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities……Our schools share this responsibility. When a child walks into a classroom, it should be a place of high expectations and high performance. But too many schools don't meet this test….'If you show us the most innovative plans to improve teacher quality and student achievement, we'll show you the money.'" – I agree here. The trouble is the teachers Unions. For a long time I thought teachers needed higher pay but after hearing about the benefits they get after retiring my view has changed. Message to Teachers: Do you want the money now or do you want the benefits later?

"Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows. I know that debate will be difficult and take time. But tonight, let's agree to make that effort. And let's stop expelling talented, responsible young people who can staff our research labs, start new businesses, and further enrich this nation." – Sounds like Amnesty to me. We need to enforced our laws and apply the 14^th Amendment as it was intended and anchor babies was not it.

"Over the last two years, we have begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. Tonight, I'm proposing that we redouble these efforts." – Does this mean another Trillion Dollar Stimulus package? Wasn't the last one suppose to keep unemployment under 8%?

"So tonight, I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system" – I agree. I know he was talking more about Corporate taxes but it applies to all of us. It is time for a flat tax with no tax credits. We all use the roads, the waterways, and the security of our military so we all need to pay a share.

"To help businesses sell more products abroad, we set a goal of doubling our exports by 2014 – because the more we export, the more jobs we create at home." – I am all for this but let's not do it via another QE.

"Now, I've heard rumors that a few of you have some concerns about the new health care law. So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses." – Okay, if President Obama is serious then let's remove the mandate, create true tort reform, and allow the purchase of insurance across state lines.

"So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. This would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and will bring discretionary spending to the lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president." – Heard this one before, I believe last year he said that we reduce deficit by more than $200 billion over the next decade. We need to put all the sacred cows on the table. Cut military spending, education and entitlement programs.

"The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it – in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes." – Didn't Obama start the speech requesting civility and cooperation? Then why not implement the Fiscal Commission's suggestions? I don't agree with them all either then again I am not asking for bipartisanship.

"And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply cannot afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans." – Agreed. If we are to truly take care of the deficit we all need to pitch in. Scrap the current tax code and replace it with a flat tax that has not tax credits. Although we did cut SSN withholding by 2% for 2011.

"In fact, the best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code. This will be a tough job, but members of both parties have expressed interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them." – AGREED!!! Flat Tax with no tax credits. Done!

"In the coming year, we will also work to rebuild people's faith in the institution of government. Because you deserve to know exactly how and where your tax dollars are being spent, you will be able to go to a website and get that information for the very first time in history. Because you deserve to know when your elected officials are meeting with lobbyists, I ask Congress to do what the White House has already done: put that information online. And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren't larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: if a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it." – Didn't President Obama say that all bills passed would be posted online for at least five days before he'd sign them into law? Plus, didn't he say that he would sign any bill that wasn't paid for? He broke both of those within days of saying it. Why are we to believe he will veto a bill that has earmarks within it?

Well that is my take on the speech. Now it's time to listen to the pundits!!!

Pledge to America or Hope and Change: Which will get America back on track?

The GOP launched their Pledge To America (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/GOP_pledge_09222010.pdf) in an attempt to win back Congress. Take a moment and read it for yourself to determine if the message that is being sent is what is being portrayed in the media. Based on my understanding of the "Pledge" here is what I took away from it.

A plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive

• Permanently stop job-killing tax hikes
  
• Small business that create jobs will get a 20 percent tax deduction
  
• Require Congressional approval of any new federal regulation
  
• Repeal small business mandates passed via the health care law
  

A plan to stop out-of-control spending and reduce the size of government

• Roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels – estimated savings $100 billion in year one
  
• Cut Congress' budgets, establish strict budget caps, net hiring freeze, review government programs for redundancy and duplication
  
• Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
  
• Safe guard entitlement programs for seniors and future generations
  

A plan to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care

• Allow Inter-state purchasing of health care coverage
  
• Enact real medical liability reform
  
• Give small business greater purchasing power
  
• Create new incentives to save for future health requirements
  
• Codify the Hyde Amendment
  
• Ensure people with pre-existing conditions can get coverage
  
• End taxpayer funding of abortion
  

A plan to reform Congress and restore trust

• Require every bill to contain Constitutional citation
  
• Allow all Americans to read the bill for at least three days prior to vote
  
• Cut out unnecessary spending
  

A plan to keep our nation secure at home and abroad

• Fully fund a missile defense
  
• Enforce sanctions on Iran
  
• Keep terrorist combatants at Guantanamo Bay
  
• Ensure federal government fulfills its constitutional duty to protect citizens through enforce of border security
  

After the Pledge to America was unveiled I received the following retort from the Democrat Party.

Chris -- 

Yesterday morning, Republicans unveiled their plan for governing -- their Pledge to America.

They're pledging to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires.

They're pledging to roll back regulations on big oil and Wall Street.

They're pledging to strike down rules reining in the credit card lenders and the insurance companies.

They're pledging to increase the deficit by trillions of dollars.

Their agenda is a windfall for the folks spending millions to put them back in power -- the lobbyists, the big corporations, and the special interests.

We're not sitting by watching this scheme become a reality. Our plan to win this fall is as different from that of the GOP as our agenda for the country.

We've got organizers on the ground in every state, working with campaigns and volunteers to coordinate an unprecedented voter-turnout operation.

We're knocking on thousands of doors and making millions of calls to get our voters out to the polls.

We pay for this work with our By the People Fund -- and we're trying to reach 3 million grassroots donations through the course of this campaign.

To stay on pace, we need 5,241 donations by the end of the week.

Can you chip in $5 or more to help us meet our goal?

This Republican Pledge to America is nothing new. Even John Boehner said, "We are not going to be any different than we've been."

They're offering up the very same agenda that put us on a path to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

That means they're not prepared to discuss protecting Social Security and Medicare.

They have no plan for education or teachers.

They offer up no solutions to the outsourcing of American jobs.

They lay out no plans to invest in key industries like clean energy and manufacturing.

They don't talk about rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and railways.

With your help, we can send the Republicans back to the drawing board.

Together, we'll make sure the country never returns to the failed policies of the past. But that means moving forward with our plan to win the 2010 elections.

Please support the By the People Fund today:

http://my.democrats.org/BTPDeadline

Thanks,

Governor Tim Kaine
Chairman

 

Regardless of the results in November, one thing that will not change is both major parties got us in this mess. How can we trust either party to move the country forward? We know the current regime running record deficits with no end in sight while the other party had an opportunity to be fiscally conservative but failed us during the Bush era. What do we do as Americans? Where do we turn?

Letter from Rep. Kline –March 12, 2010

 

Just wanted to share an email I received from Rep. Kline about a concern I have with the growing size of government. I encourage every reader of the blog to contact their Congress member to voice their concerns as well. These people are elected to represent us. We are their bosses. Let's start acting like it. 

March 12, 2010

 
 

 
 

Dear Mr. Lund:

 
 

Knowing of your concerns regarding out-of-control government spending, I would like to share some information that may be of interest to you.

 
 

On Thursday, March 11, my Republican colleagues and I took an unprecedented step toward curbing excessive spending by the federal government.  By voting for an earmark moratorium, House Republicans sent a clear message that the days of runaway government spending, taxing, and borrowing are numbered.

 
 

In these challenging and uncertain times, no amount of economic stimulus or reform will solve our economy's ills without action to address out-of-control government spending.   Over the years, the congressional earmarking process has evolved into a corrupt and broken system with no regard for merit.  While both political parties share the blame for this wasteful practice that has eroded public confidence in our ability to marshal our nation's financial resources, House Republicans are leading the way by imposing an immediate ban on all earmarks.  Washington needs to end the corrupt process of pork-barrel spending, and this is a good first step toward wiping the slate clean and reforming the process.

 
 

As you may know, in 2007, I made the decision not to submit any earmark requests until Congress implements reforms to ensure transparency and a merit-based system of awarding federal funds.  I am proud to see all my Republican colleagues taking the same course of action.  I am hopeful that by standing together, we can address the real challenges currently facing our nation.

 
 

If you would like to stay informed with the latest happenings on Capitol Hill, please sign-up to receive my E-newsletter at http://Kline.house.gov.

 
 

I appreciate your attention to this issue.  Please feel free to contact me on any issue of importance to you.

 
 

 
 

Sincerely,

JOHN KLINE
Member of Congress

This e-mail box is unable to accept responses. If you would like to send a comment to Congressman Kline, please visit: http://kline.house.gov/.

Why are we skirting the Conference Committee for health care reform?

Yesterday President Obama went on the offensive for a final push on Democrats plan for health care reform at Arcadia University near Philadelphia. The speech was fiery and brought back memories of the type of speeches Obama gave during his election. The goal set by Obama is to have a reform bill on his desk prior to the Easter break. While we all can agree that reform is required in the health care industry to bring down costs and reduce premiums. President Obama has it right when he said, "The price of health care is one of the most punishing costs for families, businesses and our government. The insurance companies continue to ration health care…That's the status quo in America, and it's a status quo that's unsustainable" (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/08/health.care/index.html?hpt=T2).

I do not think anyone, Republican or Democrat, will disagree with the assessment by Obama. Even though Obama appears to think differently when he said, "You had 10 years. What were you doing?" That is a great question but should not be the reason to forge forward with the Senate's version of reform. A few weeks back leaders from both parties sat down for a six-hour chat to come to a common ground on health care reform. Now the current Senate bill does not contain the items the Republicans spoke of during the summit. The message yesterday by Obama was the first time he was clear about the process to follow moving forward to achieve reform. Obama wants the House of Representatives to pass the Senate bill as is then after Obama signs the bill they will go back and "fix" the bill.

Why not use the process established to reconcile bills that pass Congress when language is different? The Conference Committee is supposed to convene when the bills differ and then re-introduced for both chambers of Congress to pass. Instead of this process the Obama administration wants to end run the process because they lost their filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate. Obama claims that his administration is doing what is best for America; yet Americans are voicing opposition to the bill through the election in Massachusetts and polling data too. If the reform is strong enough and is bipartisan the filibuster threat in the Senate by Republicans will be for not. Sen. Brown (R-Mass) has already proven that he will not play partisan politics.

I agree with President Obama that the status quo cannot be sustained. At the same time, I cannot support the use of reconciliation to pass legislation that will impact America like health care nor can I support the House of Representatives passing the Senate bill as is in hopes that a separate package of changes will be introduced and passed. The arrogance of our elected Representatives to think that Americans do not see what is going on is staggering. Since the U.S. Constitution was ratified it has been treaded on. We need to stand up to our two-party system and demand more from our elected officials. President Obama, I agree with you reform is needed, please do not follow the path of passage you profess rather allow the Conference Committee to make the changes and have both chambers of Congress vote on it. What is wrong with following this approach?

Staff quits after Congressman switches party

A friend of mine listed this story from the Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/04/parker-griffith-staff-res_n_410280.html, on his Facebook page. The article discussed that every member of Rep. Parker Griffith's staff has quit because the Representative of Alabama's Fifth District decision to switch from the Democrat to the Republican Party. Chief of Staff Sharon Wheeler is quoted in the article as saying, "Alabama's Fifth District has deserved and has benefited from great Democratic conservative leadership since Reconstruction. And until now they had it. I appreciate Congressman Griffith's being a very dedicated congressman. But we believe he made a mistake – a well-intentioned but misguided mistake that is not in the interest of the great people of North Alabama who elected him a year ago as a Democrat." So let me get this right, since the Congressman switched political labels he suddenly lost his conservative leadership? This is exactly what is wrong with having political parties. Just as Arlen Specter (D-PA) made his leap last year, did anyone really think his ideals or principles flipped as well?

The move from one political party to another is not one of personal shift in ideology, at least it does not appear in this situation, and rather the move is for political survival. House Speaker Pelosi has already conceded that policies passed on the Hill will result in a net loss of Democrat seats in the House of Representatives and is giving all indications that she is okay with that. Wheeler goes on to say, "As his staff, we wish him only the best, and we will remain committed to the citizens of the Tennessee Valley. But we cannot, in good conscience, continue working for him. It is with deep sadness that we leave our work for the Fifth District. But because we are unwavering in our own principles, we have no choice but to move on." Really, "because we are unwavering in our own principles", what does that mean?

The man the staff went to work for was a Conservative Democrat (Blue Dog) and now he is a Conservative Republican. Someone, anyone please help me understand how the change in words – Democrat to Republican – breaks with Rep. Griffith's core beliefs and what most likely attracted the staff to work for him. For the staff to up and quit just displays how ideology rules the roast in Washington D.C., probably in politics in general, that if ones employer or candidate doesn't have a certain label then they must be the opposition. How shortsighted is the staff?

The type of ideological stance taken by the staff is the primary reason why I do not call myself a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or insert political affiliation. Instead I look at the candidate's stance on my core issues to determine if I will back that person or not. I have little time to care what their party affiliation is. Does one a change in party affiliation translate into a change in core beliefs of the candidate? Is the staff being true to the principles they signed up for by quitting? Or is the staff quitting a sign of ideology over principle in action?

Sen. Reid marginalizes Slavery

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over'. If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough'. When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). I have been watching a lot of the health care debate this summer first hand and have witnessed a lack of bi-partisan approach to health care reform.

During August we heard from the media and Democrats that public radio and Republicans were using scare tactics to sway public opinion. When average Americans showed up at the town hall debates, they were marginalized by the media as a fringe group. Now, Sen. Reid is likening the debate on health care reform to slavery. WHAT!!!! Sen. Reid needs a history lesson as it was under a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that the country went to war in an effort to end slavery. I do not see how going to war with one's own citizens is a "slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough" approach; rather it says quite the opposite. Where is the deal, how can anyone, let alone the Senate Majority Leader, assert that health care reform debate equates to emancipation, suffrage, or civil rights is pathetic at best.

The words spoke; see above, by Sen. Reid marginalizes emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights. Health care is not a right nor does the current health care system restrict the rights of others. Health care costs are skyrocketing and premiums continue to rise thus making it difficult for all in America to afford health care insurance but health care is not a right. Does it make sense for a society to succeed that a robust health care system is required; yes. Does the current form of health care reform really reform health care; no. Not only that, Sen. Reid and House Speaker Pelosi do not need the support of one Republican in Congress to pass health care reform. So it begs the question: Who is really digging in their heels?

Those digging in their heels are one-issue Democrats. Sen. Nelson (D-Neb.) amendment to deny taxpayer funds to pay for abortion was killed on the Senate floor yesterday to which the Senator warned that he will filibuster the bill if strict abortion language is not put in the final version. On the other side of the issue, many in the House of Representatives vow not to support a bill unless a public option exists. Moderate Democrats are at odds with their more Liberal brethren. Yes, Republicans are not in favor of the type of reform being proposed but their votes are not warranted to pass "reform". But I digress.

The assertion made by Sen. Reid that health care reform ranks in the annuals of history with emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights just proves the lunacy that exists in the leadership of the Democrat party. Even though I am a white male, I feel outraged by the marginalized comments by Sen. Reid as it belittles those that gave their lives to emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights. We all agree that reform is needed in health care but Sen. Reid's statement trumps any fear mongering alleged during the August research. Or am I missing something? Is health care reform on the same level of emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights?

Maine voters speak on Same-Sex marriage

Yesterday I thought the big story would be the Republican sweep of key bell weather races – which they took 2 of 3 – but the bigger story to come out from Election Day is what took place in Maine. The Legislature in Maine pasted a law allowing same-sex couples to wed and was signed by the Governor. Despite the new law a measure was on the Maine ballot to repeal the same-sex marriage law. "With 87 percent of precincts reporting early this morning, 53 percent of voters had approved to repeal, ending an expensive and emotional fight that was closely watched around the country as a referendum on the national gay-marriage movement" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/politics/05maine.html). The repeal makes Maine the 31^st state to reject same-sex marriage when allowed to be voted on by the general populous.

In my blog entry, A Better Approach, I addressed the constitutional state amendment passed by Californians that defined marriage "between a man and a woman" where I offered a better approach to the same-sex marriage issue. At that time I even emailed a group call OutFront to offer up my approach. Even though 87 percent of the precincts have reported, gay-marriage supporters are holding out hope and are unwilling to concede the voice of the people. Frank Schubert who organized the campaign to repeal the gay-marriage law said that a victory will be a "backbreaking loss" for gay-rights activists while Jesse Connolly, organizer of the pro-gay marriage campaign, is holding out hope that when the remaining 13 percent of precincts report that victory will be achieved.

The bigger question here is twofold. Why is it that State Representation is passing laws that constituents are clearly saying they do not want? Why are Americans continually looking to Government to cure their plights? The issue of marriage is not a social issue that ought to have government involvement. The decision to spend one's life with another ought to be done in private. By allowing the Government to regulate marriage through the issuance of a "marriage" license means it's a privilege and not everyone is entitled to participate. It is time for Americans to wake up and realize that Government is not the answer to this issue. By removing the Government from the equation will have a ripple effect.

The ripple effect will be evident as the restrictions that same-sex couples argue they experience will dissipate as those institutions will no longer have the shield of marriage to hide behind. Americans – straight or gay – need to realize that the issue of marriage is a solemn arrangement to many and one that Government ought not to play a role in. Use the fact that 31 states have repealed same-sex marriage laws and rally to limit Government intrusion into our private lives. The populous is speaking loudly that Government is not the answer and when all the votes are counted in Maine will send that signal no matter how razor thin the result may be.

Why do gay-right activists, and other Americans, not realize that looking to Government for the answer is the wrong approach?

President Obama needs to be specific tonight on health care reform

Tonight at 7 P.M. CST President Obama will address a joint session of Congress in an attempt to guide them in developing a health care reform bill for him to sign into law. President Obama wanted Congress to pass health care reform before the August recess for good reason; the message on health care reform is no longer being controlled by the White House. The August recess allowed, those really concerned, to review the House bill and get an opportunity to participate in town hall meetings. While not every member of Congress held open forums, they did hold meetings of some sort to hear from constituents on the issue of health care. No one denies, okay maybe one person, that health care costs are growing out of control and reform is needed. The disagreement is how much reform is required to bend the cost curve downward.

The "Gang of Six" is trying to hammer out an idea. The Republicans have a proposal but are unable to get it out of committee or get it scored by the CBO. Republicans do not want to release the plan before it can be scored by the CBO which is politics. I have had the opportunity this summer to witness first hand a number of C-SPAN session of Congress and can attest to Republicans ideas are not given real consideration in committees. The Liberal Left members of the Democrat party have drawn the line in the sand that if reform does not include a public option then they will not vote for reform. The Conservative Right is dead set against the public option and it appears many "Blue" dog Democrats are as well. President Obama campaign on bringing people together; yet he cannot find common ground with members of Congress without creating uproar from the base of the Democrat party.

Thus far the President has touted that "if you like your health care you will be able to keep it." Unfortunately his rhetoric does not match what is being done in Congress which is not a bad thing since there is suppose to be separation of powers. Then again, it his party that is in power and one would think they'd be on the same page. The current HR 3200 bill penalizes companies if they do not offer insurance equal to what the public option will offer. A bit of hypocrisy presents itself here. People in general are happy with the coverage but are unhappy at the rising cost of being covered. Why do we need to penalize companies if people are happy with their insurance cover? Let's not confuse the issue though.

I find it interesting that during the campaign and after taking office President Obama looked to places like Canada and England health care systems as models his administration would emulate. Recently President Obama said, "I've said that the Canadian model works for Canada. It would not work for the United States, in part simply because we've evolved differently. So, we've got to develop a uniquely American approach to this problem" (NYtimes.com). A "uniquely American" approach does not restrict freedom of choice or look to the government for the answer; rather free market ideals are what make our current system a "Uniquely American" approach.

The trouble with the current system is that the free market concept of competition is confined by state borders. By deregulating the health care system to allow one in Minnesota to purchase health care coverage from an insurer in Arizona will increase competition thus reducing costs. If the primary goal is to reduce costs then why not start reforming health care by doing this? America's deficit is spiraling out of control and opening up competition does not cost taxpayers any money; Budget neutral!!!!!

Back in June I was challenged by one of my progressive friends to provide an outline for health care reform which I did in my blog entry, Outline of Health Care and Tax Reform, on June 10, 2009. I recognize that my idea of health care reform does not provide all the answers but it does provide a solid base of ideas that would be budget neutral. One aspect that I neglected in my blog entry back in June was to include tort reform. Without solid tort reform the cost curve will not trend downward.

I am hoping that tonight President Obama will lay out specific plans or changes to current bills of health care reform. The time for lofty rhetoric has past; the time for specific language is required. Without specifics the American public fears will only be heightened. According to Scott Rasmussen, "those opposed to Mr. Obama's reform appear to have momentum on their side. Polling last weekend showed that 48% of voters rate the U.S. health-care system as good or excellent. That's up from 35% in May and up from 29% a year ago. Only 19% now rate the system as poor, down from 37% a year ago. It appears that the prospect of changing health care has made the existing system look better to a lot of people" (Wall Street Journal).

The sliding poll numbers are even more reason why President Obama needs to get specific on health care reform and display how the reform will benefit all Americans. I am one of the 48M uninsured in America right now and it is by choice. Because unemployment is just a portion of my previous income level the cost of health care increases but not due to an increase in cost rather due to the decrease in income. Now there are options for health care coverage that is less expensive and affordable than COBRA or any of those offered in Minnesota but I cannot take advantage of that because the coverage is in another state. I look forward to the speech tonight and hope that President Obama can produce on his campaign promise for health care reform that allows those with coverage to keep their coverage for as long as they are employed at their current employer.

Oligarchy to Monarchy; The death of Democracy

The defection of Arlen Specter to the Democrat Party was touted as a victory by Democrats and a blessing by Republicans. Pundits, namely those on MSNBC, are giddy at the upheaval taking place within the Republican Party as moderates are finding there is no room for them. Regardless if you are liberal, conservative, or moderate we are all witnessing something very dangerous taking place in America politics; creation of a one-party system.

An oligarchy already exists on the national political scene. Third party candidates rarely get the exposure, exceptions are Nader and Perot, required to launch a major offensive. The Republican Party is becoming a regional party and may lose their footing on the main stage. While those on the left are cheering, it presents American Democracy in a precarious situation. With no other party established on the national scene, the regionalization of the Republican Party will doom Americans to choosing from one party.

Every national election other candidates are listed on the ballot, without the ability to participate in national debates, they do not get the national exposure the current Oligarchy enjoys. What America requires to save Democracy is more political parties for Americans to choose from. All too often Americans vote for or against the two major parities. President Obama talks a great game and adopted the Clinton game book on his path to the White House.

The mastery of the Clinton playbook by President Obama is a prime example of voters going to the poll to cast their vote based on emotion rather than logic. The Republican Party message of fiscal responsibility was muddled as President Bush abandoned his conservative heritage by opening up the pocket book in the final two years of his Presidency. The departure from fiscal responsibility created the perfect storm for a “liberal” liberal to be voted in. The Republican hierarchy realized this by putting forth their sacrificial lamb; Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin.

The $3.6T budget proposed by President Obama increases the realization of a one-party system as Americans become slaves to the Government. Ironic that many compare President Obama to President Lincoln as Lincoln fought to free the slaves and Obama is fighting to enslave all Americans. I challenge every America to find candidates that best represents their core beliefs and vote for them. The Democrat and Republican Parties are not the only games in town.

Continuing to use the mentality of it’s a “waste of a vote” will destroy Democracy in America. I am suggesting or recruiting for any party rather to find a candidate that fits your core beliefs to rally behind. If one does not exist then perform your patriotic duty and become that candidate. More candidate choice is demanded for the survival of Democracy in the United States.

Minnesota Tea Party: Right-Wing or American Issue

April 15th is a day that every American dreads as the preparation of tax forms are finalized and sent in to the IRS. In St. Paul additional activities took place on the steps of the Minnesota State Capital building. Exercising the right to assembly, nearly 10,000 people assemble to mark April 15th with a “Tea Party”. The crowd began to gather around 2:30 pm and stayed until well past 8:00 pm. Prior to the kick off by Master of Ceremony Sue Jeffers; several conversations took place from excessive taxation to the mounting debt that will burden future generations of Americans.

Many came armed with signs, slogans, and cloaked in garb from 1773. Below are several signs being carried:




Even an Anti-Bush Sign presented itself.



The crowd was reported at the rally to be near 10,000 while Star Tribune reports only 2000 people showed and the Minnesota Tea Party site reported 7500. The true count is probably somewhere in between. The vast majority of crowd was white and was a strong mix between men and women. In an unofficial straw poll of mine (125 people), 80% of the group voted for McCain and 15% voted for Obama. 10% of the group was liberal. 25% of those asked were at their first rally. The oldest person found was 82 year old while the youngest was a two year old.

Here are some pictures from the crowd:



Several speakers spoke over an hour and half ending with KTLK Radio show host Chris Baker. Jim Schottmuller, 2008 Ramsey County Commissioner candidate, said during his speech the he was called to action after learning of a vote by Ramsey County Commissioners panel of a 25% pay raise to an annual income of $80,000. Mr. Schottmuller challenged the crowd to not stop with the Minnesota Tea Party but to run for office, be an activist, and/or freedom. The continuation of the grassroots campaign of the Tea Party was echoed throughout the speakers. A website has been established to continue the campaign as well. http://www.aftertheteapary.com/.

Other speakers were Scott Nehring (average citizen), John Salsbury (Constitution Party of Minnesota Veterans Coalition Co-Chairman), Stephen Parente (PhD economist), Barb Davis White (conservative African-American), Twila Brase (health care rights advocate), Harold Hamilton (Anoka County watchdog), Dave Thompson (KSTP radio talk show host), and Bill Jungbauer (2010 State Senate candidate). Full transcripts of what all speakers said can be seen at http://www.teapartymn.com/.

The crowd was very interactive with shoots of support and wit. Chants of U.S.A broke out after Jim Schottmuller spoke. No clashed took place. No burning of cars or breaking of glass took place. The crowd was respectful of each other’s point of view and at one point a man’s wedding ring was turned in. The gentleman who lost his ring did say a few words upon retrieving it and thank the crowd. The reason given for the lost ring is the gentleman has been losing weight.

Chris Baker ended the speeches by inviting everyone to the annual May 2nd anti-tax rally.

"Tea Parties" across America

Today across the United States “Tea Parties” will be held to get out the message out against higher taxes and the expansion of Government. I will be partaking in one being held in St. Paul, Minnesota. Many in the drive-by media are touting the “Tea Parties” as a Republican and Right-wing rallies. Simply put, it is not true. Granted lower taxes and smaller Government equates to Conservative and Republican slants much like higher taxes, bigger Government, and expansive spending equates to Liberal and Democrat slants.

My participation in the “Tea Party” rally is to get a firsthand account of the issue at hand. Tax overhaul is required. Regardless of your party affiliation or ideological stance, I encourage everyone to attend and not allow the media put their spin on the rallies. As our Founding Fathers did, participate and create your own spin while holding Government accountable.

Correlation: Mayor Party affiliation and City?

According to the US Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007 the top ten poverty stricken, major cities 250,000 or more people, was:

1. Detroit, MI – 32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY – 29.9%
3. Cincinnati, OH – 27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH – 27.0%
5. Miami, FL – 26.9%
6. St. Louis, MO – 26.8%
7. El Paso, TX – 26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI – 26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA -25.1%
10. Newark, NJ – 24.2%

The mayors of the above cities have one thing, with one exception, in common over the past 20 years; Democrat Mayors. The last non-Democrat mayor in Detroit, MI was Louis Miriani (1957-1962). Chester A. Kowal (1962-1965) was the last non-Democrat Mayor of Buffalo, NY. Arnold L. Bortz (1983-1984) was the last non-Democrat Mayor of Cincinnati, OH. George V. Voinovich (1980-1989) was the last non-Democrat Mayor of Cleveland, OH. Miami, Florida is the lone exception with an independent Mayor since 2001; Manny Diaz. The last non-Democrat Mayor for St. Louis, MO was Aloys P. Kaufmann (1943-1949). El Paso, Texas has never elected a Republican Mayor. The last non-Democrat Mayor of Milwaukee, WI was Frank Zeidler (1948-1960) a Socialist. The last non-Democrat Mayor was Republican Bernard Samuel (1941-1952). In Newark, NJ last elected a non-Democrat Mayor in 1903 when Republican Henry Doremus served from 1903-1907.

Lately Republican leadership has led the party down the road that blurs the ideaological line between the two major parties in the United States. With Congress approving President Obama’s $2.1T budget, along party lines, should Americans be concerned by the potential correlation that exists with poverty rates of major cities and party affiliation of the Mayor?