Bipartisan? Not if it means always capitulating.

I get so tired of the overused word "bipartisan" when people talk about what is happening in the government. True bipartisanship really does not happen very often. Given the fact that the two sides are so far apart on so much ideologically bipartisanship very seldom happens.

The question that should be asked is what exactly defines the word bipartisan or being bipartisan? When using the word in a sentence such as "President Obama was looking for bipartisan support for his stimulus package" it probably means that he gets support from both sides of the political isle when the aforementioned bill gets voted on in the house. So if one republican had voted for the bill, would this have constituted what one would call bipartisan? To be intellectually honest one would have to get at least a group of senators or congressmen in order for it to be true bipartisanship.

What is silly here is that while Obama and even some members of House gave lip service to the idea of bipartisanship, very little was done to build a coalition among House Republicans and Democrats. In fact, when the President met with the Republican leadership, his response to some very good ideas to include in the stimulus packgage included some real tax cuts (not the ones that give money back to people who don't pay any in the first place) was "I won." He was polite about it, but basically he was saying that he and the Dems won the election and therefore really don't have to listen to the Republicans on much of anything. That is not what I would call bipartisan.

This is obvious when one considers that not one House Republican voted for the Stimulus bill. 0, zip, nada. Why did this happen? I think the answer is more simple than one might realize. While I would like to believe that every Republican finally found their conservative principles, and grew a pair, I think there were some who just did not vote to yes, because they were not included in negotations when the bill was in committee. Surely some feel released from the shackles of a moderate President (Bush) and are learning what it means to be the "loyal opposition." But this is essentially the same group that voted for TARP, which was umpopular and did little to help the banking industry. I am happy nonetheless that this did happen, because this so called stimulus package will do nothing to stimulate the economy, but is a pork laden, socialistic piece of garbage.

Since the Democrats did not even listen to a single thing that the Republicans had to say when fashioning this bill, it is obvious that to a Democrat bipartisanship is when the Republicans abandoned their principles, and just capitulate and vote for whatever the Democrats want.

Which brings up the question. Why does Obama want or need Republican support? He as enough votes in the House and only needs a couple moderate senators to switch to get cloture on a bill, and put the bill up for a vote which would then be passed since the Dems have a majority in the Senate as well. If he is so sure that his so-called stimulus bill will work, then he should see this as an opportunity to score some huge political points and further entrench the Democrats power in Congress. Republicans opposing such a measure during such a horrible economic time that turns out to work is tanemount to political sucide. So again, why does he then need Republican support. The answer seems simple. He wants political cover if this doesn't work. If Republicans vote for this package and it fails and the economy worsens, he can spread the blame on the GOP and deflect the blame away from the Democrats. Essentialy Obama is gambling huge and he is trying to get GOP support to hedge his bet.

Back to the word bipartisan, the only thing that was bipartisan about this bill was that 11 Democrats voted against this bill. So one could argue that there was no bipartisan support for the bill and a little bipartisan opposition to the bill.

Here's hoping that the Senate stands strong and forces the pork out of this bill, or better yet stops it all together. If the Republican Senators stay unified they can. Moderates in the Senate need to know that they cannot give cover to the Obama as he takes our country down the road of Socialism. The conservative talk-show hosts are right. Put this on the dems. Let them ride this to their doom.

Obama's first words as President....

"My fellow citizens..." I got news for you, Mr. President. You are President of the United States, not Supreme Leader of the World.

His inaugural address was the most naive piece of garbage that I have ever heard. We are in trouble America. This country will most likely turn to socialism. This country will be less safe. We are in serous trouble. Mark my words.

A bit about the Arizona Cardinals

As I watch what has unfolded in the Valley of the Sun with regards to the Arizona Cardinals, the feeling of the fans and the play of the team, the events and fan enthusiasm seems to be very similar to the '02 Angels and their road to their World Series title.

I have been a life-long Angels fan. I grew up just 20 minutes from Anaheim Stadium, began going to Angels games when I was a little boy. I was in the stadium when the Angels clinched the division in 1986 (the year Dave Henderson ripped our hearts out). I saw Wally Joyner's first major league home run. I saw Jim Abbott's first shut-out (against Roger Clements and the Red Sox). I died with the Angels in 95 when they blew a 12 game lead. When the Angels finally made it to the World Series in 2002, I was awestruck by how rabid the Angel fans were. This is a fan base that often would arrive late to the game and leave early to beat traffic. Not this year. We all were nuts. It was 40 years of frustrations, that were bottled up. We had come so close in the past, but endured so many years of frustration. I cannot imagine what it will be like when the Cubbies finally break their draught.

Arizona fans are experiencing the same thing. I was able to attend the Wild Card game against the Atlanta Falcons. I was struck by the intensity and enthusiasm by Cardinal fans as they cheered their team to victory. On the way out as we walked down this multi-level ramp, the crowd spontaneously kept erupting into cheers, as they walked out to their cars. It was very cool to watch and listen to. I could feel the electricity in the air throughout the game. It was amazing.

I don't know if the Cardinals can win it all, but the fact that they get to play the NFC championship game at home in front of their demon exercising fans, I think they have a good chance. At the very least, the Arizona Cardinal fans will be screaming for their team and hopefully they will help the Cardinals to victory.

It's been a while!

It has been quite a while since I last posted. It is simple. There is so much to write about, I do not know where to start. I am sickened by the lack of fiscal responsibility within government these days. We have a faltering economy, states (including my home state of Arizona) are running out of money. The federal budget deficit for the year 2009 could be more than a trillion dollars. Let me write that out. $1,000,000,000,000. I think that number is so high that we just cannot comprehend it. Now this number is not accumulated debt. This number is the deficit for the year. This is so scary it is hard to describe. It sounds great. Spend money on public works. Build infrastructure. But there are serious downsides to this.

The notion that spending our way out of a recession is ridiculous. They happen whether government tries to avoid them or not. In fact they are necessary. A recession is a correction. Yes it is difficult for everyone, but it is necessary. The alternative is to live in the perpetual poverty of communism, or in other words to lower the standard of living for everyone.

One might argue that this is more fair, but one has to remember, the upper class will never be eliminated. Those at the top will simply move from wealth to the leaders of the bureaucracy. The genius of capitalism is that everyone can participate. The chief flaw of communism and socialism is that it inherently puts a very small group of people in charge of everyone else. These people at the top are deemed smarter, and more capable than the rest of us. What is worse is that these people really believe this and think that they are going to save us from ourselves.

We are in some serious trouble people. Many are willing to give up their liberty for a few bucks or free health care. Too many people are starting to think that the government's job is to eliminate all pain and suffering. Read the Constitution. Remember the Preamble.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It does not say provide general welfare. It says promote. But above all it says, "secure the blessings of Liberty." If we are not careful, we will be doing just the oposite. Wake up America.

Woops! Terrorism Still a Problem!

Yes, my headline is dripping with sarcasm. I thought that Barack Obama, The Messiah, was going to heal the world with his rhetoric of change. This weekend however was a grim reminder of what people all over the world are up against.

Islamo-fascism is alive and well. Like Bush or hate him. One thing he has done since 2001 is that he has kept America safe. NO terror attacks have occured in this country. 0. Nada. We have had alerts, including in New York last weekend, but no attacks.

We are at War. People may have grown war weary, but make no mistakes. We are at war. These EVIL people want to anihillate the non-Muslim world. They will stop at nothing. There is little chance that they will be habilitated. It is a scarry thought indeed.

What makes me sad, above all, is that it may just take another terrorist attack on our own people in America to reawaken the people of this country as to just what we are up against.

We live in terrifying times indeed!

Redistribution of Wealth and "Fairness"

The Obama campaign has repeatedly said that their tax plan is "fair" and that the rich needs to pay more. They contend that the tax policies of the Bush Administration has helped to expand the gap between the rich and the poor, and they essentally need to pay their fair share. The implication is that the middle class pays a disproportionate amount of federal income tax. Lets examine this premise.

According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2006 the top 10% of wage earners in the USA, (who make over 100,000 per year and up pay 70.79 % of the federal income taxes. Furthermore, if you look back, according to the same website in 1999, the same top 10% paid 66.45%. So the so-called rich are paying a higher percentage of federal income tax than ever before.

There are two facts that must be said. To cut taxes across the board is to give the rich a bigger tax break than the middle class. If you cut taxes by 5% across the board, the rich get a bigger tax break. Why? because they pay so much more in taxes. Take for example a person whose taxable income is $500,000 per year, at 35% they pay $175,000. Take a person who's taxable income is $50,000, at 25%(Which is the tax bracket for this income group)they will pay $12,500. So if the government lowers tax rates across the board by 5%. They person making 50K will now pay 10,000 in federal taxes. The 500K income earner will pay $150,000. The rich person's tax break will be more than the middle class earner's tax bill. Both income earners recieved the percentage of a tax break, but the "rich" person's tax bill goes down by a much higher dollar amount.

Barack Obama wants to redistribute wealth. He said as much to Joe the Plumber. He said that "if you spread the wealth around, it is good for everyone." One the one hand to many, this might sound good. They might think, "Yeah, stick it to those greedy bastards." But one has to understand the consequences of puntative taxes. The fact of capitalism is that the "rich" employ the rest of us. Whether it is a huge corporation like Haliburton or Microsoft, or a small business owner who employs 15-20 people, lower and middle class Americans are employed by people like this. If the government under an Obama administration decides to raise taxes on Corporations and small business owners, these new taxes will drag the economy down. Any company, large or small, is in business to make money, not to employ people. If profits are not there, the company will cease to exist. A company that has its taxes raised, will have to cut jobs to keep its profit margins or risk its ability to compete.

The last thing this country needs, with the economy in its current state, are tax and economic policies that will hurt and push the economy into a deep recession or worse.

Oh, how I wish that Mitt Romney were the man at the top of the GOP ticket. A brilliant economic mind was thrown under the party bus by single issue voters.

Response to David Brooks Comment about Sarah Palin

David Brooks of the New York Times recently said that Sarah Palin "represents a fatal cancer of the Republican Party." His intellectual bloviating can be found here.

I love how he can say this about Sarah Palin when he knows so little about her. I got news for him. She is not a cancer, but rather she is a shining light of conservatism that the Republican Party needs. She has taken on corruption in her own party in Alaska and is wildly popular in her state.

Every intellectual likes to paint any Conservative as a simple minded dolt. If that Conservative is a powerful politician, he gets even more stupid. Ronald Reagan, who was a man of ideas, was anything but stupid. He was a man of ideas, as Brooks puts it, but he was so much more. He also was a man of action who got things done. The left tried to paint him, first as a stupid talking head former "B" movie star, then as a senile old man. Most of the republicans that swept into power in 1994 were dismissed as idiots. George W. Bush (in my opinion not a conservative), is consistently caricatured as a simple minded religious nut. Dan Quayle was destroyed by the press and painted as a stupid idiot.

Since liberals have nothing new to offer, they are going after Sarah Palin in much the same way. She is being painted as a simple minded woman from a the back country. People like Brooks say that she is a cancer, because of her "anti-inellectualism."

Let me explain why the Republican party is in trouble. It is not because of a lack of ideas. It is because Republicans in the House and Senate have 1)become to moderate, and 2)spent like Democrats used to. Had Republicans in the House stayed true to the conservative ideals that got them elected in 1994, they would have not lost control of the House of Representatives. President Bush, apart from trying to keep America safe against Islamofascism, has consistently departed from Conservative principals. Had he adhered to such principles, he would not be nearly as unpopular as he has become.

Sarah Palin scares liberals to death. She, in my opinion, is Ronald Reagan in heels and lipstick. Her weakness is not her lack of experience (She does have more experience than Obamma). Her weakness is that she has to carry the water for Senator McCain. McCain losing the election will not be the end of her. Give her four years to run her country effectively and prepare to run for President and watch out.

Liberals know this, and that is why they are doing everything they can to discredit her. Their attemps to smear and discredit her will not work, and if libs continue to underestimate her, they will find her wonderful family in the White House in 2012.

Keep on truckin' Sarah.