I have to put this out there, in case anyone actually reads this.  The Republican Party has lost the election.  We can't go back and vote again.  If you call radio stations and write blogs about how Obama wasn't born where he has produced a birth certificate that says he was born.  You sound crazy.  You give the Left the fodder they need to say the Right is just as bad as the Left.  In effect, you hurt all of us.  You let the answer to every challenge to the Left be, well the Right does the same thing.  The Right does not do the same thing and we need to not continue to provide this amo to them because these people are on the frindge of the Party.  Stop it, please.
The next steps for the Republican party are in front of us.  We have about a year, to come together on a message.  Hopefully something in-line with www.heritage.org. and not some McCain middle of the road, or Bush financially irresponsible position.

I had posted this on the 5th, to be sort of original, and go somewhere I didn't think people would go. To my surprise, someone called into Rush and made the comment and now its being repeated on Garrison. In addition to their making the connection, some more news is becoming prevalent. Couple of things, the Fairness doctrine and the retaking of the 401K's support this point of view even more. I don't think this is a direction we really want to go. I challenge people to study the Great Depression, the changes that have happened in Russia and Europe and we have to learn something from that history. In 1917 in Russia there was an election that took place in November not that much different than ours in 2008. Unhappy people feeling hardship voted for change. By July 1918 they published their revised constitution. You can read it here.

These new Bolsheviks with their power took the land from the land owners and gave it to the people. This was to restore equity to the people who did the work. But as time went on, times got harder the Bolsheviks took the food, from workers who just received the land they thought was theirs!!!
So while they did get the land and could work it on their own for a little while, the government just took the output, which made owning the land worthless. We have just elected the Bolsheviks, but now the go by the term Democrats.
Take a look at what they are doing, as we have links below to show it. They believe it is arrogant for the wealth builders to actually think they would keep their wealth! America is taking some people's land already for commercial uses for the "greater good". With the current bail-out they are prepared to take ownership of all the mortgages in the country. Sound familiar. The government taking steps to own your property.
This did result in civil war as you may recall. One the people couldn't win against superior organized forces. Output dropped for the entire country, the people who just redistributed the wealth didn't actually know how to create wealth or manage it. When that happens, the wealth goes away. And after more hardship and the cold war, that government system finally failed.

Why are trying so hard to follow that path in America?

This post follows up on my States rights post. I think States should have more power to control local issues and be different from other states. Federal spending leads to more waste - not efficiency, and it leads to less accountability. Further, we live in a Republic, where we are represented federally by elected individuals. We have a certain number of representatives based on our relative population distribution. So California gets dramatically more influence on federal issues, because they are big. The voting system, House and Senate was setup to balance this out. I'm going to suggest that federal tax paying should follow this same model. Last, Presidents get on the stump and promise to change the tax code to 'buy' votes. These promises are usually not kept and have lead to the disaster of a tax code we have now.

We should do away with Federal Income tax, permanently and modify the constitution to make sure it never comes back. When a person completes their annual tax returns they complete a state tax return and federal tax return. Then we need twice as many people because we are checking them twice, processing them twice, prosecuting them twice, etc. A total waste that only the government could think was a good idea.

So what should we do?

At the end of the year, we split the bill according to electoral votes. So if a budget is passed for $1 Trillion, and you are CA with 55 votes and there are 538 total in the pool, than CA gets their portion of the bill ~10%. That state then collects enough money from its people to pay that bill with whatever mechanism they see fit for their economy. Now we are talking fair and simple.

The impact is a dramatic reduction in federal spending. It also means less power for the federal government to control our lives. The power is what the federal politicians really want at this time. This plan pushes accountability closer to the people and holds representatives responsible for their votes near the time when the money was spent. That doesn't happen today because no one actually gets a bill. Federally we get debt, and some other generation could get a bill (Eventually will). This will help control spending once the current representative is liable to pay their fair share and not pass off the problem to the next guy.

Last I propose a marginal, lets call it 2-3% federal sales tax. This sales tax will expressly be used to pay down the federal debt and expire when such debt reaches 0. A federal sales tax is better than an income tax for several reasons. The first being that it is fair. If you spend money, you pay the tax. If you want to save money, you don't pay the tax. It doesn't matter how you earned the money, if you spend it, you pay. You don't need complicated deductions and different rates for the different ways you earned the money. Who cares, how you got the money, if you spend it, you pay. The next positive is that everyone pays it, which includes illegal immigrants, people working under the table, teenagers, rich people with big deductions, foreign visitors, etc. I understand this will require some federal over site, so before you fire all the people currently supporting the federal income tax, lets keep a few people to do this. The result is still smaller federal government when you net it out. Business are already used to collecting and filing sales tax and the number of entities to track and audit is considerably smaller.

This plan puts accountability on the people who vote for the budgets when they spend the money, which they get out of now. This accountability is crucial to ensure better spending of our money. This plan will reduce overall government spending and waste. It reduces the power of the federal government. Its a fair plan where CA, can't pass their bills off on NH. Where drug dealers contribute to reducing the national debt. This plan will return this country to fiscal responsibility by making budgets and spending a key element of every election. These are all things your representatives desperately don't want, but as Americans we desperately need.

What ever happened to State's rights? We have created a nation of conflict primarily because activist groups wish to push their agenda on every one else in the country. The idea that we all have to be the same is disgusting. Of course we need to be some sort of melting pot, that is our tradition, but its also important to let be live free enough to enjoy the pursuit of happiness. Many people came to this country in the pursuit of religious freedoms. I would argue that liberalism is the new religion that we need to free ourselves from. The idea that that God has no place in the world and poverty is a 36 inch television and a used car. On the flip side the Religious right has gone a little crazy in the past over issues like same sex marriage.

My point is not to say these issues aren't important to people. My point is to say they have no place in the federal government. I'm going to include Education in this bucket as well. What does the federal government know about education? Obviously nothing, if past performance is any indication of future outcomes.
States should have the right to create policies for their states that are a the heart of the people who live there. They should be allowed to differentiate themselves as much as they believe is in the best interest of their people. Instead today judicial activism lets court rulings in one state override the wants of the people in other states. In process our rights to live free lives are being taken away from us faster than ever before.

Moving these issues to the States means less Federal time wasted and less dollars wasted on programs that sound nice but don't deliver. How can the federal government doing any good educating people in TX, or expect to it better than the state of TX. That's just dumb. What we have really been talking about is handouts to each state, to help get people re-elected. More buying votes from the federal government. That is truly what they spend most of their time doing and we need to reduce that immediately.

So what types of things should we stop arguing about a federal level:
- Abortion
- Death penalty
- Same Sex Marriage
- Education
- Drilling for oil
- Federal speed limits
- Federal income tax - Get rid of it, like in my earlier post!
- There are many more

These things just aren't in the constitution. The federal government should be providing for our common defense and I think it would be hard to argue they do that well after 9/11 and the porous borders we can't lock up.

The point is that we should let local governments and states decided these issues where they can meet the needs of the people. There can be a lot of complexity to the issues, but the more we make it local the better the decision will be.

Hello,
I'm glad to be joining town hall.  I am converting my Blogger account and wanted to get some of the posts from today and yesterday moved over.  My older posts are here.

Thank you for patience.

You can see in our historical posts how I have helped you see what will happen in the future. Instead of posting again about an Obama win, I thought I would point you to the older post. Its want things say something, its another thing to write it down. Read it and leave a comment. Now for something new. The racism debate was thought to be ended once Obama got elected, its already becoming the opposite as people begin to make their comments. Already on the news they are saying electing one black man to President doesn't erase racism. So much for the people who hoped that would change. The predictions: You are going to see Obama back peddle on his promises very soon. It shouldn't take long for him to start the process of lowering expectations. After all people are posting today about the 'new America'. What if the totally inexperienced person can't deliver. He will also get his first briefings from the CIA. Talk about a wake up call. Put some Russian missile crisis in there and the back peddling will be out of control. Not to mention their policies are not actually viable to produce the results they wanted. He must know this. So the question is how will the disappointed react to his failure? Will they defend him anyway and continue to blame Bush even after he's gone? I expect this will take place for at least the first 6 months. But then what? Deficits will certainly get bigger, unemployment will be higher and small business won't be creating new jobs. They are too scared to take any risks for at least 6 months into 2009. So big business will need to carry the load. What are they going to do when he fails to deliver? Update: People have raising expectation for Obama in the news lately! Wow its getting deep. The have been comparing him to Kennedy again. He's nothing like Kennedy, who had a resume before he got the job, but who cares, no one can remember that. Obama has been quite so far, but after that first briefing we should start seeing some news.

Its a like press just woke up the morning after and is wondering, what did we just do? On CNN they were debating if Obama would rule from the Middle or the Left. But the didn't know!!! A little late to have that discussion. You followed him around for 2 years and you don't know!
Tom Brokaw said: "There's a lot about him (Obama) we don't know." Chris Matthews finally came clean and said Obama's tax plan was welfare. No really Chris. I bet nobody said that before you moron.
These people couldn't figure out who this guy was in the last 2 years, because they were to busy campaigning for change. Now they want to find out and start acting like a news organization. Its a little late for that.
The old Chuclkebee, my nickname for the happy go lucky Huckabee, said he learned from Clinton and he's going to go Center. Idiots!
There's no one even reading this blog, same idiots. I'm handing out the truth to you, telling you in advance and you don't pay attention and then you acted surprised. "Oh my, how could we have known that?"
Look Huckabee is wrong, for several reasons. He's using normal main stream logic. That's not at play here. First Obama is arrogant. He would have to be, to have no relevant experience and run for President. He doesn't like Clinton, and I don't think he's taking from their playbook. He ran on the some of the same issues that did in Clinton, free healthcare for everyone. People don't want socialized medicine in America. Clinton tried it and failed and Obama ran on it again. He's not going to not try it and people won't like again. In also won in his mind by a landslide. I call 5 points marginal, 10 points would be different. He considers it validation of his vision that got him elected, the greatness of his ideas. He doesn't realized that he won because people hate Bush. They would have voted for Lenin, maybe even Hitler in this election season. They don't even know is vision. As we just discussed, the reporters following him for 2 years just figured out they don't know him. Then like Bush, he will move forward with his leftist agenda, much like Bush pushed is Right agenda. Which is not what people want. They want moderation. They were happiest with Clinton in the middle. The analogy and lessons learned for Obama are better to be watched by Bush's mistakes. Stay in the center and don't over spend, maybe veto a budget or two. He's not going to do that. I'm sorry Huckabee, but your analysis is wishful thinking and wrong.
Obama is going to govern from the Left. He has the congress behind and the "will of the American people". He just picked Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, to be his own chief of staff. There is nothing middle of the road about this guy. That's first and biggest indicator of how left they are going. Yes, I know he was an adviser to Clinton, but that's different than being the chief of staff.
Based on his voting record, we know is the most liberal senator. He would have to change his entire world view, just to get to the middle. You can't see the middle from where he standing. That includes votes to restrict medical care to surviving aborted fetuses, higher taxes for those making as little as 42K/year, and calling hunting a rifle an assault weapon.
We know what he said. Socialize health care, Socialize wages and "spread the wealth", diminish the military and our role as a world leader, nationalize banks and other industries, and drive up the price of energy to promote going green.
How do we get to the middle from there? And why are reporters in the main stream media just waking up to ask these questions now. Go back to sleep, if we wanted news we already be watching a different station.

Update:
Looks like Rush agrees with me today that Obama will work from the far left before he starts to do anything from a moderate point of view.
Rush also started to talk about how reporters covered the election and started just asking questions now about what he will do.
Maybe Rush is a reader.

As you might have guessed, I talk to people about politics. I try to find Democrats who will actually talk to you, but its hard. They don't like to actually talk issues and have little tolerance for those with different views. That said, I do have some relief that McCain didn't win. I have said it before, that McCain is a liberal, and if a liberal is going to be President, it might as well be a Democrat.
What I do wonder is what will the Liberals do now that they can't blame Bush for all of their life's problems? The answer to any question, any problem about any topic was its Bush's fault. I'm fairly confident that will be the mantra for the first 100 days as well. What will they do when they figure out it wasn't actually Bush's fault.
I'm the first to blame Bush for killing the GOP and not using a veto on a single budget that wasn't balanced. But there comes a time when you realize that people around the world don't like us no matter who is President. They didn't like us when Clinton President either - another Liberal myth. If the terrorist liked us so much during the Clinton years, why did the spend all 8 of those years attacking us and planning 9/11? No really answer for that except they didn't like us then either.
That's not going to change soon, even if Obama gives in to all their requests, they said they won't be happy until they kill us all.
The last excuse will be the filibuster. Republicans will have to use it. Democrats will have to blame it. But that can't cover everything.
Let me know what you think they are going to do? Who is the next Liberal deamon? My pick is Fox News and Radio.