Well, it’s been nearly a month since my last post. I want to disabuse the notion that I haven’t posted because of post-election depression or anything like that. Rather, with the advent of the Christmas holiday, and a new line of work I simply wasn’t able to find the time to blog regularly. But let’s embrace the fact that I have now shown up to the party, rather than focus on the fact that I came perhaps a little bit late.

There’s been a lot going on, but most of that will materialize and coalesce on January 25^th, 2009. So I want to focus on what we are leaving behind in the wake of all of this change and hope. That is Bush’ legacy. I have no doubt that many of you will have read blogs and articles rambling on about the Iraq War, the financial crisis, 911 and the war on terror, as well as the expanding nature of the executive branch of government. Many of these writings will try to postulate whether history will look favorably on our 43^rd president, but rather than follow their lead, I would like to comment on this fascination and preoccupation with legacy and legacy shopping.

I don’t think that President Bush is really concerned with legacy shopping. If his past behavior is any guide to his future or current behavior I feel that we can be fairly certain that he doesn’t care whether or not he has high favorability ratings, now or in the future. He has always seemed much more concerned with doing what he thought was best and most appropriate for our nation. He took, I believe, the job of the Presidency very seriously. And why not, he saw his father in the Whitehouse for many years not only as President, but Vice President as well. I think he understood the incredible weight of the office and its import.

So I think that thinking or talking too much about legacy is the Media’s purview. It is nearly impossible to predict how future generations will view the actions of today’s movers and shakers. We cannot hope to have the impartiality or perspective needed to judge them. It is far too vain and self aggrandizing to talk about legacy. Essentially, it is guessing how someone will be famous, rather than assessing how appropriate or needful someone’s actions have been. I say we all leave legacy shopping to the media, and instead applaud our President for a job well done and if not always completed successfully, attempted with absolute commitment. 

Until next time….

Go Broncos! Beat the Chargers!     

In the recent weeks we’ve heard much from both presidential candidates on how they intend to fix this economic mess that we have found ourselves in. On the one hand, we have John McCain who is advocating the growth of our markets through free-market principled economics; while on the other hand Barak Obama is telling Americans that he wants to help the middle classes but what he proposes is the largest growth of taxation and government spending since the Carter Administration.

Obama begins by telling us that he will make sure that only the wealthy or rich will be burdened with a tax raise. He means those that make $250 thousand per year or more. How this arbitrary number was reached, I have no idea – maybe someone should ask him. The first problem with this plan is that the top 25% of income earners in this nation already pay 86% of the tax burden for our nation, and simply because they can afford it is not a good enough reason for people to be levied a tax. In fact, it is not a reason to do anything at all; they earned that money and should keep what they have worked so hard for. 

The second problem is that he applies this to small businesses. He says that only a very small percentage of small businesses make over $250 thousand dollars a year anyway so the small business market will not feel the burden of a new tax. Well, I have news for Obama. He was confused and got it backwards. In fact, only a very small percentage of small businesses make less than $250 thousand per year. The vast majority make between half a million and $10 to $15 Million. Obama has tried to mislead us here as he has on many other issues.

The last thing I’ll mention about this plan of Obama’s is that he never states what portion of that supposed $250,000 and above he will tax. Is it gross income? Net Worth? With Inventory included? What? Because that is a game changer as well, and for him to be so vague about this is dangerous. He will definitely cause small businesses to lose money. If they lose money, then they lose jobs, and when they lose jobs, business decreases, and when that happens, the markets struggle and before you know it, recession time – and all in the guise of helping the middle classes by punishing the so-called rich with taxes.     

Today, Obama has mentioned a $3000 tax credit for businesses that create jobs. Again, Obama’s ignorance gets the best of him. How on Earth is lucrative for a business to spend – and this is just a guess – $65,000 to create a job (salary, benefits, etc.) just to get $3000 in tax credits. That’s like giving a homeless man $3 and then taking him to the most expensive restaurant in town and telling him to have a full meal and then to pick up the check. (This analogy isn’t mine; I’m borrowing it from someone else!)

The point I’m trying to make with all of this is how ignorant Obama is about economics. It’s obvious to me how little these plans of his could work. But, it seems, the ignorance abounds and millions of Americans – including the middle classes – will be fooled by his rhetoric. He seems to be simply regurgitating what his handlers have told him without understanding any of it. Proof of this can be found in his speech this week where he promised a cut to the capital gains tax on investments made in small businesses. Well, the last time I checked, there was no capital gains tax on investments in small businesses – unless, of course, he is planning to institute one, and then cut it for political expedience.

The solution is simple. Cut taxes. You cannot raise taxes during an economic slowdown and hope to spur growth.  It’s like putting water on a smoldering fir and hoping that it’ll make the flames become hotter and higher. No! Remove the burdens placed upon working Americans by the government; give the economy back to the people. The government has no business running business when it can’t even seem to run itself. It is not government’s job to make my life bountiful, it is mine, and the sooner the government relinquishes that right the sooner we can get our country back on track and on the road to growth and prosperity that only our country has ever known. The idea that is America is its people – not its government. With Obama-nomics it would be the other way around – and that way lies disaster.   

   

The Voice of the People is the Voice of God” is an old axiom about democracy; specifically referencing the Roman and Greek forms.  So my use of it as the name of my blog is purely Homage to the Roman Senate.  I believe that it is also a statement about the temporal nature of democracy if it is not nurtured in the correct ways – or rather, if its core foundation isn’t remembered.  In the case of the Romans, their Democracy was given up to one man when the city was in danger.  So that one man could organize the defense of the city, etc.  The only problem with that is eventually one man did take over, and then refused to give up control.  His name was Caesar. 

As a conservative, I believe that we need fewer Caesars and more “Voices of the People.”  Self governance, self reliance, and individual rather than group rights should be the keystones to our nation.  No government can weave a blanket big enough and without too many holes in it to cover the shivering masses of its people.  Only on a small level (i.e. State and Local) can this be done – the smaller the needle, the smaller the holes.  As far as what the key stones should be - well, I believe that those I have mentioned were the building blocks out of which our country was built.  I think that they have simply been pushed to the side by the liberal ideology that is circulating within the media today.  No one seems to question the premises of liberalism - perhaps because of the "good feelings" that they engender - and therefore the basic principles of our nation are forgotten as they slide to the back of the room in lue of a much more loudly vocal liberal mentality. 

With the economic Bailout Bill (i.e. BOB) that is in the works in Washington today, this can be see very clearly.  Why the federal government thinks that it can pull anyone out of the muck and mire, when it can't even manage its own affairs properly, is beyond me... or to borrow from a presidential candidate espousing this big-government mentality, "Beyond my pay scale."  The federal government has an utterly abysmal track record when it comes to running anything bigger than a committee meeting (although I am pretty cynical about their chances there too).  We’ve seen the Great Society, the War on Poverty, Welfare, and now the largest golden parachute of all, 700 Billion dollars of bailout to the financial market.  It is important to realize that this BOB wouldn't be necessary if the government (i.e. Congress) hadn't already had its paws in the honey jar, so to speak, and had insisted under President Clinton that it needed to have regulatory oversight over the financial market - specifically the mortgage market. Then, for them to blame all of this on the current administration is utterly pathetic.  I am fairly certain that the legislative branch can be classified as the 'federal government' too.  They need to take responsibility for this too.  Especially the dems.

Now as I write this, I find that the BOB  has failed in the House.  All I can say is, "Hooray!"  Now I'm not just saying this because of the fact that I disagree with the bill in principle, but also because of all of the implications of the BOB's defeat.  Think about it.  We were told all last week that the Dems in congress had enough votes to pass this on their own.  And all the while we kept wondering why they hadn't even tried to pass it.  The Republicans didn't - and still don't - have enough votes to stop it on their own.  So that leads us to only one conclusion:  The Dems in the house are scared.  They haven't united behind anything or anyone, and they are worried about being reelected. 

So now we have Speaker Pelosi suspending the vote.  Why would she do this?  So she can try and twist the arms of as many Dems who voted against the bill as she can and try and force them to vote the other way.  Of course, we will all know who they are, and I think I can prophesy that they will have the hardest time getting reelected.  They probably won’t, in fact, and it will be the end of their political careers. 

This failure to unify of the Dems won't, I think, be good for Obama's campaign.  His 'pie in the sky', 'good feelings', economic strategy can't work. The market isn't failing as we are being told right now.  The market hasn't had a chance to correct itself - as it always does.  And I'm glad that the republicans in the house took a stand on principle and shut this thing down before the socialist liberals could get their paws in the honey jar and make a mess all over the place.

We'll see what happens.  Whatever it is, I think that I'll have plenty to comment about.