About the election
Well, it was a rough night for Republicans. In my home state, the state GOP party chair resigned before 9 p.m. Talk about depressing... As I listened to the radio and news shows through the night and into this morning, I heard many Republicans speak honestly about why they lost. Tom Delay gave a great interview to Fox and Friends early this morning, as did Ken Mehlman.
In my opinion, as you may have noticed, expressed here before, this was a better day to lose than in 2008. Or so I thought. My original perception was that a loss yesterday would give the dems just enough rope to either hang themselves with liberalism or to pull themselves closer to the center - both options which would benefit a return to responsible conservatism. After the president's briefing this afternoon, I have a different take.
My respect for President Bush plummeted today between 1 and 1:30 p.m. He crumbled under the loss of Congress and spoke of Rumsfeld's resignation with an air of sour grapes. What I wish he would have said:
Yesterday, the voters spoke with their ballots and it is increasingly clear that at least a vocal minority feel strongly that we must change course in Iraq. Our political goal for the Middle East is not up for compromise but the means we use to achieve these ends can always be adjusted to reflect the ever changing circumstances on the ground. It is with that in mind, that I announce the resignation of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
The fiscal policies that have brought this nation back, like a pheonix from the ashes of 9/11, have incubated an environment in which we have seen the lowest unemployment rates in our nation's history and the highest surges in our stock market. The tax cuts we pushed through the republican congress were a crucial part of the policies that have ushered in this time of national prosperity. A democrat led congress may feel tempted to alter our fiscal policy. Such alterations will be vetoed. The deficits that I projected would be cut in half by 2010 are already down 50%. Attempts to raise taxes or redistribute allocated funds in a way that burdens the tax payer will be vetoed.
Oh well, back to reality. He cowered.
Again, on a local level, these elections really annoyed me. North Carolinians don't have a lot of power in Washington. It's no secret. One of the reasons is that tarheels tend to vote for moderates. The state hasn't had a very strong alliance to either party although recently it has leaned republican on national issues and democrat on local policy. It's seems kind of schizophrenic when you put it in those terms but a deeper analysis would probably indicate that most of the state votes for the more moderate candidate - party be damned. Having said that, the face of state politics is changing. And that change can be summed up in one word: CARPETBAGGERS.
Cary, Raleigh's affleunt suburb, is commonly defined by the acronym Containment Area for Relocated Yankees. Now, the spillover from Cary is infiltrating small sleepy towns like Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina. I was shocked, when I moved "home" to North Carolina to find out that I only have one neighbor who is actually, like me, a native. Most are New Yorkers. It's like and 1865 invasion.
Don't get me wrong, I like my neighbors. But they have brought with them the same failing political beliefs that ruined both New York and New Jersey. And the same people who fled high taxes and an enormous, invasive state governments up north, have moved south without abandoning their awful misconceptions about public policy. Someone needs to wake up the native North Carolinians or the days of Mayberry and common sense politics in the tarheel state are over.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
politics has never solved much....keep focused on the ONE who can make a difference one heart at a time
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/08 @ 03:19 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/11/08 @ 03:49 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/08 @ 04:09 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/08 @ 04:44 PM — (Reply)
How do I unblock?
Comment by Dugg— 2006/11/08 @ 04:46 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/08 @ 04:55 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/08 @ 05:02 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/11/08 @ 05:05 PM — (Reply)
There may never be another republican pres after him. Unless of course they pull a diebold again.
Comment by Dugg— 2006/11/08 @ 04:45 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/08 @ 05:08 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/11/08 @ 05:40 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/08 @ 06:47 PM — (Reply)
Do you mean to say that thanks to the spread of intelligent, capable Northerners, the South might finally rescue itself from its historical backwoods ignorance?? *duck* Just kidding!! (But thought you'd appreciate the 'elitist liberal' act just the same.)
On a serious note, I was shocked at your reaction to Bush's speech. I was listening to him, and actually thinking, "Wow, maybe he's not just talking out of his ***. It sounds like he might have looked up the definition of 'bipartisanship.'" Can't say that I'm any more fond of him, because he's used similar language in the past, only to demonstrate utter ignorance of the notion. But for a brief moment, I had hope that something positive might actually occur in these final two years of the insanity known as the Bush-43 administration.
Bush did say one correct thing- the election was, in part, about people who failed to keep their word. One point that hasn't been mentioned on a national level, but that I know has popped up on several local races, was the failed 'Contract with America.' Among its planks (virtually all of which have been tossed aside by the GOP) one of the terms of which was a principle of 12-year term limits.
Of the 30 Republican representatives that were swept into office as part of that drastic movement, (and all of who were pledged to the principle of term limits at the time), all 30 put themselves up for reelection this year, 12 years later.
Granted, the term-limit law never passed, but of those 30, 8 were not reelected. Granted, Ney (OH) and Foley (FL) got kicked out for different reasons than the term limits, but I know that the pledge played at least a role in the loss of Gutknecht (MN).
I agree that conservatism didn't lose. Republicans did. Republicans who lost the focus that swept them into office 12 years ago. The Dems do not have the same focus, but at least they don't pretend that they do.
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/08 @ 07:26 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/08 @ 08:03 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/11/08 @ 08:15 PM — (Reply)
I am so tired of this *hit. Pardon me Cate..I am pissed.
consensus is the lack of leadership - margaret thatcher
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/08 @ 10:56 PM — (Reply)
They just voted for a 970,000,000 million dollar school bond when we have schools now that are riddled with waste - I know, I was a public school teacher here. Schools with foyers that are like the Taj Mahal - because of course, you can't learn to read in a school with modest architecture... and set on 16 acres - because, of course, it's easier to do math when you have adequate breathing room (dripping with sarcasm). Don't forget the all expense paid boondoggles for teacher conferences where you meet the haliburtons of the education world - vendors who give lecture on how teaching can only be accoomplished using whatever product they're selling. Attended several of those myself - they're a joke.
The carpetbaggers have brought with them the same unfettered idealism of that let to the success (eyes rolling wildly) of the welfare state.
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/09 @ 07:57 AM — (Reply)
It's unpopular of me to say this among my lefty pals, but I agree with you about a lot of the money getting poured into public schools. I'm not going to say that they get enough money as it is... but I will definitely agree that a lot of the money they do get winds up getting wasted in stunning ways. I know the budget of the Catholic school where my son goes pales in comparison to the nearby public school, yet there is no comparison in terms of results- the Catholic school excels on every standardized test results.
Of course, there are a few additional reasons behind that, but my personal theory has been that the single biggest distinction is parental involvement. As a former teacher, can I ask your perspective on that? Am I far wrong?
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/09 @ 08:15 AM — (Reply)
I have a second grader reading on a high school level. A Kindergartner reading on early first grade level and a preschooler reading on a 2nd grade level. All for the cost of a set of Hooked on Phonics and some quality time.
We won't even get into the fact that my 2nd grader does long division...
Public schools have become babysitters - I went in to vote the other day at 7 a.m. Our neighborhood elementary takes in at 9:15 and yet there were already kids left in custodial care of some teacher's aide sitting in the cafeteria at 7:00 about 25 of them... it's unreal how little time parents actually spend with their children - and then they blame teachers...
Want a real solution? Quit buying into every educational whim that the psychoteacher people sell (i.e. the various shiny, new, fancy and endlessly superlative described ideologies for teaching). Each of 40 million teachers don't all desperately need 3 day conferences and individual handbooks for how to make folder games out of manila folders. What they need are fewer students. Take all the money spent on ludicrously stupid stuff and get more teachers, lower student-teacher ratio, and pay them a decent salary. Y'know, if we had a student teacher ration of 10:1 then we wouldn't need classes on "the seven different learning styles" because the teacher would know the INDIVIDUALS in her class and would easily recognize thier needs - as is we put so many kids in a young teacher's hands all day that we have to pay a "professional education expert" thousands of dollars to teach a 3 day seminar reminding classroom teachers that the classroom shouldn't be an assembly line.
I promise we'd actually spend much less than we presently do.
In my county we have roughly 1.6 administrators per 8 teachers. Now that's much better than the students get - they are 20:1 or more. Can't an adult with a PhD handle 8 college educated adults???
Sorry - rambling, muttering, cursing now... this is a hot button topic in my house.
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/09 @ 09:39 AM — (Reply)
we're in agreement on two issues now! *looks up to the heavens for any other signs of the apocalypse*
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/09 @ 12:27 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/09 @ 04:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/09 @ 05:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/09 @ 05:05 PM — (Reply)
You wanna talk bipartisanship, or SS reform?
Near as I reckon, everyone has known that the SS system is a sinking ship since the early 80's, and noone has the balls to actually take it on. Why? Because there are really only three solutions answers: 1) cut benefits, which would piss off the older generation, or 2) raise taxes, which will piss off everyone else. "Privatization" is such a red herring, I'm surprised that any conservative worth their salt is even considering it.
As for bipartisanship... so be it. If you want a pure majority rule, and to heck with anyone else, then sit down and shut up for two years. Our side won, so stop whining!! Nah, I can't say that with a straight face- sounds too much like a Republican.
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/09 @ 07:25 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/09 @ 07:26 AM — (Reply)
Put the responsibility on people to take care of themselves. The poor always have welfare as a recourse. How many programs do we need to babysit us?
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/09 @ 08:10 AM — (Reply)
I'm all in favor of that.
Social Security is a regressive tax that puts the cost of retirement on the backs of children and grandchildren. It's been horn-swiped by generations of irresponsible Congresses to mask absurd deficits. It's been a drain on employers and employees alike, and added absurd complications to the tax code for small businesses.
Now, let's try and find even one politician who'll say that in public. :)
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/09 @ 08:29 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/09 @ 08:55 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/09 @ 12:39 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/09 @ 12:53 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/09 @ 01:14 PM — (Reply)
BTW, I am not a straight ticket voter. (this might upset some of my friends)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/09 @ 01:18 PM — (Reply)
and if you're wondering I watch NASCAR sometimes.
As far as social security I'm sure this isn't news to you but I'll mention these things anyway.
Why can't I just have my money and spend it the way I want...why do you consider this some kind of red herring? People who work for the government like postal workers and recently the military are allowed to take a portion of their money and put it into thrift savings accounts. Do you find this offensive because the government won't be responsible for taking care of me?
Boths sides have screwed us over when it comes to SS.
- Payment into the Social Security system was meant to be voluntary when the plan was introduced by Roosevelt. Now it is mandatory.
- Only 1% of the first $1,400 of annual income was to be paid for participation in this once voluntary program. Now it is much, much higher and mandatory.
- These payments were to be deductible from income taxes. Now they're not, and they tax your retirement checks.
- The Social Security program was to be a independent trust fund separate from the general revenue, used to fund the retirement program and no other government function. Now it isn't.
- The Congress has raided the Social Security trust fund so that Congress could spend it.
- The Congress eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) witholdings. You are now taxed on your Social Security money three times before you ever see any back at retirement, when it is taxed again.
- VP Al Gore cast the deciding tiebreaker vote in a split Senate to begin taxing Social Security annuities.
- During Carters administration immigrants who never paid a penny into the Social Security program were made eligible and began to recieve Social Security annuity payments.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/09 @ 01:10 PM — (Reply)
Maybe you didn't read my reply to Cate above. I agree with just about everything you've said above! The reason I consider privatization a red herring is this:
It doesn't fix the fundamental problem of the SS trust fund, which is that receipts are not going to keep pace with expenditures. The system has always been a "pay as you go," and withholding a portion of the receipts only speeds up the foreseeable moment when the system spends more than it receives.
It doesn't provide anything new that citizens don't already have. You, I, anyone middle class or lower can already set aside up to $4K in tax-deferred traditional IRA's. Anyone upper middle class or lower can contribute to Roth IRA's. The rules are already in place for folks to make their own decisions with their own money, and doesn't require a large bureaucracy to manage or oversee it.
I find it "Privatization" to be a red herring because it is a solution in desperate search of a problem to fix. It won't do anything to fix Social Security. The best that can be said is that it would FORCE Americans to save money. But doesn't that run counter to the principle of letting people manage their money for themselves??
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/09 @ 01:33 PM — (Reply)
"The Republicans lost and the Democrats won for the same reason -- they distanced themselves from their base. "
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/09 @ 01:26 PM — (Reply)
The Republicans stuck to their base- and the evangelicals came out in strong numbers, and voted with just as much enthusiasm as in other recent elections.
It was the middle of the road that decided this election- same as they decide most elections in this country. The Republicans have deliberately abandoned the center and clung stubbornly to their base, pushing for red herring topics like gay marriage and avoiding even a hint of mistrust on this administration's policies on Iraq, the economy and stem cell research. By focusing on the wedge issues, the Republicans allowed the kitchen table issues to become the talking points for the Democrats.
That is what allowed the Democrats to move in, giving the middle of the road voter a voice. Most people think the war in Iraq is not succeeding the way it should. Republicans won't even acknowledge the idea... so the middle of the road voter starts to listen to the Democratic candidate. Doesn't mean that they agree with the left wing, but for some- any change is better than a known failed tactic.
If the Republicans had joined the clamor for Rumsfeld's resignation... and if they had quickly confirmed a replacement this summer, a LOT of the Democrats talking points would have been defused.
And the Democrats didn't abandon its base, either. The race in Connecticut was one element of proof- the base gave its endorsement to Lamont, but the electorate choose the moderate Lieberman over either extreme. Cate's already cited the Arizona example
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/09 @ 01:53 PM — (Reply)
Michael,
I think the current system should just be scrapped. Let people have what they have put into it and do what they will. I realize Congress has dipped into this fund. Nevertheless this is what I think should happen and let the Congress figure out where the money comes from. That's their job. They shouldn't have been robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The word "privatization" is a word bantered about because a certain demographic can't seem to get by without big brother or a government handout. I know I'm a cruel conservative.
and this is not what is going on now? Only I get taxed over and over again and I can't use my money as I see fit.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/09 @ 01:47 PM — (Reply)
I like Cate's proposal to grandfather the system into extinction.
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/09 @ 01:57 PM — (Reply)
I just thought it was funny.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/09 @ 03:22 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/09 @ 03:23 PM — (Reply)
I would also give citizenship to all illegal aliens. They pay three years back income taxes with payments spread over ten years. For illegal aliens to be, the green cards are issued more freely and for longer pending citizenship while again taxes are paid from day one. Two misdemeanors or one felony equals instant deportation and waiver of whatever has been paid into SS.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/09 @ 05:46 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/10 @ 07:16 PM — (Reply)
1) Opt-out will cause the SS system to crash even faster. Despite the sometimes misleading name, it is not a trust fund, but a pay-as-you go system, so the less money that comes in, the quicker it will go into insolvency.
That doesn't mean I'm against your idea. Just that I don't see it solving the intrinsic SS problems, and would need to be included as a part of some larger solution. Cate's grandfathered shutdown doesn't fix the issue, either, but she acknowledges that Congress will just have to come up with the money. Maybe the same answer exists for you.
Okay, liberal counter-proposals for all of you to blast apart:
1) Social Security
-Grandfather-kill the SS benefit system per Cate's suggestion.
-Shut down the payroll tax immediately, and incorporate the obligations into the general structure until the last SS recipient passes on.
-Along with SS, grandfather-kill the Railroad Pension program- an entitlement in even more trouble than SS.
-Cap tax-free investments in 401(k)'s at a rate equal to the current SS employee payroll tax.
-Provide tax-structured incentives for employers to match 401(k) investments from their employers.
2) Illegal immigration
Sorry, this is one I completely disagree with you on, Barry. We had an amnesty program in the 80's, and not only did that fail to address the problem, it aggrevated it.
-Zero amnesty for current illegals. Anyone found to be in the United States illegally is deported and have future immigration potential voided. Children born in the US are accorded citizenship, as per the Constitution, however, this will not accord their parents or other family members any special priviledges. Upon reaching majority, those children would have all due rights and priviledges as any other citizen.
-Harsh penalties for employers who hire illegals, even accidentally. Criminal fraud prosecutions for employers who can be shown to knowingly hire illegals.
-Broad-scale relaxation of current green card and visa requirements to ENCOURAGE legal immigration for both economic and humanitarian purposes.
I reject the notion that we have to "accept the reality that millions of illegals are already here." The reason they are here is because our government has failed, for decades, to secure our border effectively. Even with a three-year plan as suggested by this administration, we reward those who knowingly and willfully broke the law, with citizenship. I can not accept that principle.
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/11 @ 06:21 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/11 @ 06:33 AM — (Reply)
Meanwhile, here is a reasonable model, IMHO, of what has worked in the past, though admittedly on a smaller scale than we face now. But we are only talking about a matter of scale, and a matter of national will... which right now I see as being split between most average US citizens and the economic interests of the agriculture and service industries.
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/11 @ 07:11 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/11 @ 07:41 AM — (Reply)
1) Many of the illegals haven't earned enough income in any given year to actually exceed the personal deduction, so are likely to owe nothing in income tax.
2) Some are actually likely to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so we'd find ourselves PAYING illegals for them to come and become citizens.
3) Documentation, especially for migrant and transitory farm workers, is rare to non-existent. How do we prove they earned anything while here illegally? We have enough tax cheaters among our legal citizens- you think illegals are going to file clean and easily verifiable income tax statements?
4) Illegals working in the service industry already have been paying taxes in the form of Social Security payroll taxes to undocumented SS numbers (account 000-00-0000 is earning a windfall!). Legalizing their residence means that we have to unravel that whole mess as well, and now have millions of new obligations on our SS system.
I'm all in favor of liberalizing our immigration policy. It is too strict and filled with bureaucratic rules.
But rewarding those who've cheated the system already will only encourage more cheaters in the future. After all, we can see that! Look at the amnesty that Reagan gave in '86. Did that stop illegal immigration? No- it made it far, far worse!
Comment by Michael— 2006/11/12 @ 06:34 AM — (Reply)
I disagree, if they are here they wouldn't be if they were not earning in excess of standard deduction and personal exemptions.
The real problem is that the illegals already here can't be kicked out so why not get some bucks from them and new ones can't be stopped so why not get some bucks from them since they are getting the benefits anyway.
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/12 @ 04:23 PM — (Reply)
A huge tax on any and all US dollars being deposited into Mexican banks. You know most immigrants are working here and sending the money home. I think legal and financial disincentives are the way to go.
Children born to illegals on US soil are not given natural citizenship, for example. If a parent walks into a department store and shoplifts a coat for their child, the coat has to be returned, right? It's still stolen property. But stolen citizenship is okay? A wrong makes a right? Not in my book.
If people come her seeking a better life then we need to require that the better life is only accesible through legitimate citizenship.
A tall fence (figurative) with a wide gate, is what I want. There should be no legal or financial incentive to remain in this country illegally. I'm all for verifying citizenship or legal residency for public school registration, driver's licensing, etc. I'd go so far as to say - 'We won't deport you if you try to obtain a driver's license or enroll you child in school here but we will charge you exorbitant fees - annually. Your other option is to pay a one-time fee for citizenship and assume the privileges, rights and OBLIGATIONS of being an American. You decide.'
I've had to show a military ID nearly all my life to have access to benefits. I don't understand why American citizens should consider a national ID card an intrusion. Nowadays, they are scanned as you enter post with the same kind of bar code scanner you see cashier's using in the checkout line. Any place that dispense government bennies ought to be able to verify citizenship.
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/12 @ 05:26 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/12 @ 06:02 PM — (Reply)
The Nazi example shows just how silly some people are - we already carry social security cards, driver's licenses, voter registration cards, and to register for schools, shot records, birth certificates. When I went to get a NY driver's license I practically had to have a piece of the placenta signed by the doctor who delivered me - it was ridiculous! (Of course, if I'd had one piece of paper from INS or the welfare office, I'd have been in and out of the DMV in under 5 minutes...
No one is demanding a scarlet letter A, just a box checked on your driver's license or social security card. A bar code of some type - anything. And it would only be used if you were trying to receive some government benefit.
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/12 @ 06:17 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/11/12 @ 06:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/12 @ 07:03 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2006/11/12 @ 07:08 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ron R.— 2006/11/12 @ 07:14 PM — (Reply)