Healthcare: Alternative ideas but the White House and Democrats aren't listening!

Whenever you read in the paper that Republicans are obstructionists and the people are just complaining at town hall events, there is a common thread in the story. And it is that no one is offerring alternative ideas to the load of garbage being put forward by House Democrats and the White House. The sad thing is that there are a lot of ideas suggested to fix both the cost and the coverage aspects of healthcare that our current crop of politicians absolutely refuse to comprehend.

And all while Obama insists on demonizing insurers. The unfortunate thing is that the industry is far from healthy and is hurting in a major way. In my business, we work with all kinds of organizations and the insurance companies have been shedding employees for the past 5 years. They are not making massive profits. As a matter of fact, if you graph Barack Obama's and Chris Dodd's last eight years revenue against individual companies in the insurance industry, you will find that both Obama and Dodd fared far better in terms of growing their revennue base. The insurance industry in fact makes less than 1 penny for every dollar in premium received (Forrester research).

We have the Obama and Democrat narrative:

- Insurance companies are evil and healthcare unions are good
- Companies that provide insurance are bad and government providing insurance is good
- Competition is bad when private companies do it, good when the government fixes it
- People that speak at town halls are astroturf while union thugs beating them up are good
- Anyone questioning Democrats is fake while paid protestors are good
- Old people are bad but illegal immigrants are good
- Doctors are bad but Tort lawyers are good

It's no wonder people are fed up.

Here are some ideas that will never find their way into the debate despited being offerred up by Republicans, the insurance industry and free market advocates:

Controlling cost and adding flexibility

1. Insurance Portability. Make it a requirement that all insurance it portable. If every firm needs to accept the rule, it will be so. The insurance industry has already agreed to do this early into the debate.
2. Tort Reform. I know I know. The Democrats need to protect poor Dicky Scruggs so that he can own ten airplanes while filing bs lawsuits against doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical firms. But you cannot control costs without addressing frivilous lawsuits.
3. Drop interstate limitations on competition for insurance. Right now we have 50 different states plus the Federal government regulating insurance and blocking competition. Remove these barriers and then maybe Joe Smith in New York will stop paying 5 times what Jim Smith in Tennessee is paying.
4. Have a discussion about moving the responsibility for insurance from the employer to the employee. And help provide a transition from the business entity which will gain long term in cost control to the employee. Then the employee will be free to take advantage of the increased competition to buy the kind of coverage that will be optimal for their family.
5. Health savings accounts. Cash is king even in the healthcare marketplace. Remove the requirement to submit claims for insurance completely and the doctor can perform certain care much more efficiently and cost effectively.
6. Eliminate government based care and hospital mandates so that the private sector can stop underwriting goverment programs and citizens are not paying twice for the same thing. For example, we all pay for medicare at both the state and federal level. Then the goverment only pays the hospital 5 dollars for a 20 dollar procedure. Who pays the rest? We do through private insurance as we will get charged 35 dollars to make up for it. This is goverment competition and is contributing to our current damaged system. Obama and Democrats just don't talk about it.
7. A national fraud database to track both doctors patients who abuse the system and real penalties when they are caught.

Once costs are brought under control, we can have the discussion about insuring the 12 million people who legitimately may need assistance. Not the illegal aliens. Not people who can afford insurance but choose to keep their money in their pocket. And not the fictitious people who cannot get insurance until you really investigate their story and find out they really do have coverage.

All of these things would add to the debate but you will never hear them proposed. Why? Because they don't add power to the unions and Democrats in congress.

---

Stimulus ideas you disagree with are still ideas!

This morning I read an editorial in the Trentonian written by Donna Brazile decrying the fact that the GOP was "nitpicking" on the stimulus. Even more so, her contribution to the discussion was that Republicans had no ideas to add to the discussion. I am paraphrasing here because I do not want to dignify her statements by quoting them because they are so disingenuous.

During this stimulus debate, there were several alternative ideas put forward to create something that was stimulative and not just a Democratic party spendathon. Some of the Republicans ideas were as follows:

1. Real tax relief - The Obama plan offered 13 dollars per paycheck for those who qualify. This will have zero is no impact because everyone knows they are temporary. Republicans continuously fought to increase the return of taxpayer money back to those who earn the money. Apparently, this doesn't qualify as an "idea" because it is a core principle of conservatives.
2. Eliminate all non-stimulative spending from the package - We do not even know half the mess that this congress has showered upon its special interests. Every single spending item in this plan should have been evaluated in the context of real impact on the economy.
3. Small business tax relief - Small businesses add jobs. Government spending on welfare doesn't. Isn't it interesting that the small business breaks to stimulate job growth were stripped from the bill.
4. MORE spending on infrastructure. Republicans agree on the infrastructure ideas and wanted them more immediate and more stimulative. Of course, Republicans were not trying to stage this money for Obama's next election as Democrats were apparently trying to do.

Even the Republican Study Committee submitted their own bill of which the summary is shown below:

The Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act of 2009

“Responsible and immediate economic stimulus for every American family and business without burdening future generations.”

Financial markets are tumbling worldwide. The unemployment rate is climbing. It is clear that more Americans are struggling to make ends meet and that the economy needs a boost. The question is: from where should that boost come, Washington or the private sector? Conservatives believe the answer is the private sector. History shows that the best way to encourage an economic turnaround, help preserve jobs, and spur widespread economic growth is to ensure that job-creators face a lower
tax burden.

That’s why the Republican Study Committee (RSC) is introducing the Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act of 2009—to provide some much-needed, incentive-based relief to jobcreators and to reduce the cost that government imposes on middle-class families. The RSC’s Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act is designed to provide broad, growth-oriented, permanent incentives for economic activity across all sectors and industries, with immediate application and sustained, long-term implications. This will ensure that Washington takes a back seat to Main Street and job creators are empowered to do what they do best—create jobs.

Highlights: The RSC’s Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act is based on three main themes:

1) Support Families through Tax Relief; 2) Provide Economic Relief for American Businesses and Entreprenuers; and 3) Save Future Generations from a Crushing Debt Burden.

Support Families through Tax Relief
1) Five Percent Across the Board Income Tax Cut. This provision would reduce the six federal income tax rates by 5% beginning with 2008, and make the new rates permanent. Under current law, by contrast, income tax rates will increase in 2011.
2) Increase the Child Tax Credit from $1,000 to $5,000. Under current law, families are eligible for a $1,000 tax credit for each child under the age of 17. This provision would increase, and make permanent, an increase in the child tax credit to $5,000 beginning in 2008. This will provide a substantial, immediate tax cut for middle-class families. The increased credit would not be refundable.
3) Make the Lower 15% Rate on Capital Gains and Dividends Permanent. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 lowered the top tax rates on capital gains and dividends to 15%. Under current law the lower rates currently in effect expire at the end of 2010, which means that the top capital gains rate will go back to 20% and the top tax rate for dividends will be 39.6%. The last time the capital gains tax rate increased (1987), capital gains tax collections fell by 54% over
the first five year and then took a full decade to recover. This provision makes the 15% rate permanent.
4) Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax on Individuals. The AMT was created in 1969 to prevent 155 wealthy taxpayers from using loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying taxes altogether. Under current law, the tax will hit more than 30 million people in 2009. There is a broad consensus that this is both an unintended result and an unfair one, which is why Congress has repeatedly passed an “AMT patch” to limit the scope of the tax. The legislation would permanently repeal the AMT.
5) Permanently Repeal Required Distributions on Retirement Accounts. Under current law, senior citizens, beginning at the age of 70-and-a-half, are required to make mandatory withdrawals from their IRAs and 401(k)s. Though temporarily suspended for 2009, this provision in the tax code is scheduled to go back into effect in 2010 and for every year thereafter. This provision in the tax code needlessly complicates financial planning for retirees, restricts the freedom of seniors to make
their own decisions on when to make withdrawals, and in the short-term will force many seniors to sell a portion of their assets at a loss. The bill permanently repeals this provision.
6) Make All Withdrawals from IRAs Tax- and Penalty-Free During 2009. As a general matter, the purpose of 401(k)s and IRAs is to incentivize retirement savings. However, individuals who are facing foreclosure or some other financial emergency during the current recession should have penalty-free access to all of their savings. Especially since, without any other alternative, some
families facing hardship will have no choice but to take the penalty. The bill would, for 2009, make all withdrawals from IRAs penalty- and tax-free.
7) Increase by 50% the Tax Deduction on Student Loans and the Tax Deduction on Qualified Higher Education Expenses. Under current law, the tax code provides a tax deduction of $2,500 for interest on student loans and a tax deduction of $4,000 for higher education expenses. This provision would increase the value of both by 50% or to $3,750 and $6,000 respectively, and apply both provisions to a larger number of middle-class families by allowing any individual earning up to $75,000, or any family earning up to $150,000, to claim the full deduction.


Provide Economic Relief for American Businesses and Entrepreneurs
1) Full, Immediate Expensing. The bill would allow all businesses to immediately expense—or fully deduct on their tax returns—the costs of assets (including buildings) they purchase for their business in the year that they buy such assets (“Section 179” expensing). Under current law, businesses can only take limited deductions in pieces, over several years. By uncapping and accelerating the expensing, this provision would encourage the purchase of assets with which to
grow a business.
2) Significant Reduction in the Top Corporate Income Tax Rate. The bill would immediately cut the top corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25%, aligning it with the average rate in the European Union. By allowing businesses to keep more of the money they earn, this provision would encourage the expansion of businesses, the hiring of more workers, and an acceleration of investment, while making American companies more competitive internationally.
3) End the Capital Gains Tax on Inflation. The bill would index for inflation the cost basis used when calculating the capital gains tax on assets acquired before the end of 2009. Under current law, the capital gains tax is based on the difference in the original purchase price of the asset and the sale price of the asset. However, some of this difference, or “gain,” can be attributed to inflation. By effectively reducing the amount of a gain that is taxable, this provision would encourage the
movement of capital in 2009 and spur voluminous economic investment.
4) Simplify the Capital Gains Rate Structure. The bill would allow corporations to benefit from the 15% capital gains rate. Under current law, individuals pay a top capital gains rate of 15%, but corporations are subject to a 35% top rate. By encouraging corporations to sell unwanted assets, this provision would unleash funds and materials with which to create jobs and grow the economy.
5) Make the R and D Tax Credit Permanent. The Research and Development tax credit is currently due to expire at the end of 2009. Originally enacted as party of President Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, it has since been extended on 13 separate occasions without being made permanent. The purpose of this tax provision is to spur research and development in the private sector.
6) Extend the Carryback Period for Net Operating Losses to Seven Years. A business incurs a net operating loss when its tax liability is negative in a given year. Under current law, there is a twoyear carryback period for businesses to receive refunds on previously paid taxes. In other words, a business may receive a refund equal to their negative tax liability up to the amount of taxes paid
over the previous two years. This legislation would extend this period from two years to seven years, which will smooth out changes in business income, and incentivize private sector investment and job creation.

Save Future Generations from a Crushing Debt Burden
1) NO Trillion Dollar Spending Spree. Even before Congress enacts one penny of spending from a “stimulus” bill currently being put together by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid, this year’s deficit is projected to be, by far, the highest peacetime deficit in the history of the country—8.3% of GDP. And this is because federal spending is projected to be 24.9% of GDP (also the highest figure in American history, excepting World War II), even before any new spending is
enacted. This legislation does not contain one penny of new spending, and rejects the idea that massive new government spending will lead to an economic recovery. Borrowing from one part of the economy and redistributing it to others will not grow the economy.
2) A Down-Payment on Spending Restraint. The bill includes a one-percent reduction to FY 2009 discretionary spending, excepting the Defense and Military Construction-Veterans appropriations bills. This is a modest limit on the extent to which spending will otherwise increase compared to FY 2008, and is a first step toward a commitment of spending restraint.

Lack of ideas indeed. I had lived through this silly assessment in New Jersey which goes essentially unchallenged in the press. The sad thing is that too many people believe it and do nothing, read nothing and do not act.

---

An Open Letter to Republicans in the Senate

To All Honorable Republican Senators

After watching President Barack Obama's speech to his friends in the Democrat party at their retreat this evening on national news, it should be as clear to you as it is to citizens of the United States that you are not negotiating with a partner that values your opinion nor does he think you have any value to this process in any way shape or form.

The President just negated any opposition to the most outrageous spending plan in the history of the United States as pure politics. And even worse, he frankly dissed you as a pack of losers who are only trying to "advance failed policies of the past".

Gentlemen and Gentle Ladies, you have no role in this administration. You should not choose to accept any position within this administration nor should you trust this President.

Real bi-partisan agreement means that everyone comes to the table and act like statesman and stateswoman. It is give and take and doesn't mean that you take a 900 billion bill and offer a couple of weak senators 50 billion and then pretend that it is good for the country. This kind of concensus has already destroyed the Republican party and will destroy the country.

Please stand by your principles. The American people are against this bill and the only reason Obama wants to advance it now is that the trend is so against the bill that by next week, 3/4 of the United States will be against this massive endeavor. For the sake of our country, please stand up. So we won't have to!

Regards

NJ Tax Revolution

---

Christopher Christie for Governor-No longer rumors

We have it from a reliable source that while the official announcement will not be made for a few weeks, Christopher Christie is filing papers to run for Governor of New Jersey.

---

Please say it is so....Chris Christie for Governor

I received this in my inbox yesterday:

Subject: Message from Senator Kyrillos

Dear Friend,

I spent time over the weekend with my good friend, former US Attorney Christopher Christie and I am very encouraged by what I heard.

Chris is being urged to run for Governor by Republicans, Independents, and even some prominent Democrats. They've read what the newspapers wrote about what Chris achieved as our state's US Attorney, and they're telling Chris that he can provide the leadership and make the tough decisions needed to fix our broken state.

Chris's record of integrity and effectiveness has been praised by virtually every paper in the state, as well as the New York Times and Philadelphia Inquirer.

By contrast, NJ Monthly's January profile had this to say about Jon Corzine:

"It's hard to imagine a governor more qualified to fix the state's finances and less able to get the job done."

Our state's problems are too great, our taxes too high, our economy too distressed.
We need a leader like Chris Christie. Stay tuned! I have a feeling we will hear some good news real soon.

Sincerely,

Senator Joe Kyrillos

If an announcement is imminent, this is great news for the state of New Jersey.

---

Corzine Sued - Is the state operating illegally?

It has been clear for some time that New Jersey has been spending way beyond its means. And the Governor ("I didn't take this job to be Scrooge') continues to ignore the fiscal calamity facing the state. But with all of his fiscal scams, I thought he was intelligent enough to either change the rules or come up with a technicality around New Jersey's leaky laws regarding public funding and spending.
Apparently not.

Governor Corzine has failed to respond to an open records act request from Senate Republicans regarding the states budget. From Politicker:

The complaint notes that there is a constitutional requirement that the expenditures of the State not exceed its revenues and that Governor Corzine has acknowledged drops in revenue that meet or exceed the planned surplus for the current fiscal year. At the same time, the Governor has continued to sign new appropriations into law, without indicating how those appropriations will be funded.

Could it be that our Governor knows that the state is spending far outside the revenue it is taking in right now? I would bet on it. Otherwise, why would the governor refuse the request which would put him squarely in violation of the state constitution.

See the complaint here.

Read the Politicker article here.

---

Bush fails yet again and may revive auto bailout!

Last night it was reported that talks about the auto bailout in the Senate broke down because the Unite Autoworkers Union refused to make a serious concession toward solving the real problem in Detroit-automaker profitability(from the Washington Post):

The legislation would have provided emergency loans to General Motors and Chrysler, which have said they face imminent collapse without federal help. The high-stakes talks broke down over when the wages of union workers would be slashed to the same level as those paid to nonunion workers at U.S. plants of foreign automakers such as Toyota and Honda.

Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.), the lead GOP negotiator, said the sides were on the brink of a deal on the amendment he had offered. Representatives from the United Auto Workers -- who were present for most of the negotiations -- would not agree to a specific date, Corker said.

"We offered any day -- any day -- in 2009," Corker said.

The UAW IS THE PROBLEM. While lawmakers keep spewing about hybrid cars and quality, our Detroit automakers are building good cars that people want to buy. The problem is that they lose money on every car, roughly $1,500 on each and every car. No business can operate that way and they won't make it up on volume. And it is frankly about time the Republicans stood up to this continued bailout frenzy by this congress and President.

And now Bush wants to bail them out anyway. Is there anyone left in this country that has any confidence in George Bush anymore? If so, I don't know them.

---

Conservatives and the 2008 elections

Here I sit in a town that is not my own reading a slew of drivel about what conservatives should take out of this past election. Since I live in New Jersey, I have heard all of these arguments before because alleged conservatives are an extinct species in NJ. But that isn't really the problem. New Jersey is exactly the model that national conservatives should shun when mapping a strategy forward. Why?

1. In New Jersey, unless a Republican (the closest thing we have to a conservative) agrees with abortion, there is a high degree of probability that the political machines will squash them out of the gate. And God forbid, they get the nomination. Google Brent Schundler to get the details on that. He lost through friendly fire before he ever competed. Abortion is an issue. Maybe to me it is important and to others less important. This needs to stop being a wedge issue among conservatives. And it needs to stop being a disqualifying issue among moderates when competing against conservatives in the party.

2. Many have argued that conservatives need to move to the middle because their beliefs don't match the electorate. This one is interesting. Barack Obama won with a solid margin. But defense of marriage won big in every election where it was on the ballot. This is not exactly a mandate against conservatism. It is as I have blogged before a great sign of voters breaking out of formerly lock-step mentality.

3. Conservative ideas don't work and need to be more liberal. How would you know in NJ or in the country? There has not been a conservative influence in our state in 40 years. And when Republicans got control of the federal government, they let down their core constituency by quickly learning to spend just like their Democrat friends. What does that prove? That Trenton and Washington corrupts and conservatives let us down.

4. Once voters believe it doesn't matter, you lose. For example, George W Bush reduced taxes by significant margins at every level. In return, states like New Jersey immediately sucked up the reduction with increases with no explanation. As a matter of fact, our corrupt governor (who became our corrupt gay governor to avoid prosecution) somehow managed to increase taxes, spending, borrowing and corruption without any media attention paid. And now NJ residents believe that "it doesn't matter who is in charge, taxes will go up".

The net for conservatives and Republicans is that we need to take a position that we stand for something. Anything. If Republicans like the former Chris Shays of CT win and we become warmed over Democrats, fine. At least the party will stand for SOMETHING. Right now, the brand is tarnished by the war, tarnished by a congress that would not hold true to its principals and catered to a pack of politicians that espoused conservative and Republican principles only when convenient but never in practice.

Time to stand up for something, anything, please....

---

An Open Letter To Michael Smerconish.

Last week, Philadelphia Big Talker 1210 mornign talk show host Michael Smerconish (aka Smernakof) wrote an op ed peice to announce his support for Barack Obama. He wrote it two days before it printed and sent it to those on the show's email list(of which I am one). The announcement was not surprising to those of us who follow Michael but apparently created serious consternation in his audience. That then motivated Michael to stretch the unhappiness further by writing another op ed this time critical of his own audience.

The floodgates of criticism opened before my endorsement of Barack Obama was even published last Sunday.

I gave my talk-radio audience a two-day advance warning of my decision while asking that they read what I had written.

More than 500 people weighed in immediately, unwilling to consider my argument before criticizing its conclusion.

Michael is right. His fans were upset and lashed out. But he is also wrong that his fans have no substance to their lack of support for his position. And once he uses his position to advance it as almost like a campaign position, it is all fair game. So, to address his issue, I would like to offer my rebuttal to his original op ed.

Terrorism: Michael has been hung up on Pakistan due to the alleged/likely existance of Osama Bin Laden there. He is right that we should focus more there in the war on terror. He is also right that Iraq is a distraction that didn't need to happpen. But the problem with his argument is that it did happen and now it needs to be dealt with. A cheap talking point that "I will get Bin Laden" doesn't dignify what the next President will need to do to clean this all up.

Unfortunately McCain is a little too status quo on this. But Obama is a little too naive as well suggesting that we should attack Pakistan (a sovereign country just like Iraq who would not appreciate it). Michael for some time has repeated this tome. And then proceeded his hero worship with Obama during the primary debating who stole each other's line. It was a bit cozy then and not as objective as Michael would probably want it to be. From my perspective, Michael seems to hang way too much importance on this. Too much of his argument is about Bush and not about McCain.

Economy: It is way too easy for Michael to repeat one of the favorite Democrat attack adds about McCain saying the fundamentals are sound. Guess what? They are. It is not stupid to try to calm the markets and the President's job is to do just that. What about Obama? What did he say? Nothing. He stood there like a deer in the headlights and said that candidates should stay out of it. Sorry Michael, that isn't very impressive.

And while we are on the economy, let's look at the pass that both Michael and much of the media have given to the Democrats and Obama. This problem has causes. Bush was one because he didn't make the mortgage issue a priority. He also represents the team in power. The Democrats were also responsible. This includes Obama. Why when Michael had the change did he not ask Obama what he did to become the second biggest recipient of Fannie/Freddie during his interview? Apparently, because someone yelled Hussein during McCain's appearance in Pa, that was more important.

VP: Michael is more than happy to declare Sarah Palin "not ready" to be Vice President. But he has never asked whether nor not Barack Obama is ready to be President. We have the immediate question of competence and one that is second hand. Michael discounts the first and glorifies the second. I am calling Malarkey on this one! Michael was already on his way with Obama. Maybe it was his time with Matthews or maybe it was Pakistan but his argument he is specious.

Sarah Palin has a solid record. Barack Obama gives a good speech. Let's be honest. It you want to trash Palin's experience, you have to trash Obama's. Yes, Palin would be a hearbeat away. But an election could put Obama there. This is an sorry example of doublespeak. Sorry Michael, I like you but this one doesn't work for me.

And as for Joe Biden? Are we kidding here? Michael loves Joe because he knows him. The media likes him because he has been there for quotes and gaffs for years. The net is that he is a complete buffoon. He is only convincing when he is lying and he does that often. Thank God that Obama is young because this fool should never be responsible for the nuclear codes. But he is a nice man so he has that going for him.

Opportunity: Michael is right on about this one and I agree. Michael's comments are here:

In a speech delivered on Father's Day, Obama lamented that too
many fathers are missing from the lives of too many children and mothers.
Look no further than Philadelphia for proof that the nation has a fatherhood
problem at the root of its firearms crisis. And no demographic is affected
by this confluence of factors like the black community. Among the many
elements needed to address this crisis are role models, individuals whom
urban youth can aspire to emulate. Little more than a year ago, Charles
Barkley told me: "I want young black kids to see Barack on television every
day. . . . We need to see more blacks who are intelligent, articulate, and
who carry themselves with great dignity." Obama can be that man.
Although, he has never brought it up before on his show in any substantive way. I would be much happier if Michael went this route and not the Pakistan route as his major suit for OBama.

Hope: Sorry, this was Clinton's line. Obama may be liked in Europe but he isn't running for Ambassador for Europe. The American President has a job and very few of his constituents are in Europe or anywhere else. I had a job where I travelled the world extensively and frankly, other countries often criticise the US. It is sometimes envy, sometimes valid and often complete rubbish. This is weak stuff and really not worthy of Michael's other arguments. Being last, it struck me as an afterthought.

Michael also took this opportunity to criticise McCain for not reigning in people at his campaign events. I don't know where Michael has been living but Republicans, the President and anyone conservative have been literally skewered by Democrats on a daily basis for years. The Senator Majority leader said he "hated" McCain. Routinely people at Obama events advocate killing George Bush. In Philadelphia, a Democrat t-shirt seller is promoting his "Sarah Palin is a C*nt" T-shirts. I have not heard Obama tell them to tone it down nor would I expect him to. Come on Michael.

The net here is that Michael is much closer to his friend Chris Matthews than he thinks. Mayne his leg doesn't tingle but he has been looking for reasons to vote for Obama. And you know what, what's wrong with that? Our current President is often inarticulate, McCain isn't much better and maybe we just all need a change. But let's not pretend that there is a whole lot more than that, shall we?

---

A powerful email from The Corner

This was just posted at The Corner and I think speaks volumes for many of us. It is reprinted unedited in its entirety:

I've had it with the Left and I've had it with "conservatives" who haven't had it with the Left [Andy McCarthy]


I'm posting because it is indicative of the anger in lots of reader email I'm seeing:

The Ifill issue is front and center. Last night on Brit Hume's program, the consensus was that they all knew Gwen and she is a swell person, and of course she wouldn't do anything partisan. Just where the hell are these people coming from? Day in and day out, out here in the real world we see obvious bias, obvious double standards and yet the Republicans and a lot of the "conservative" media either don't see it, or if they do, they let it slide.

A few examples. Obviously the current flap of Gwen Ifill, Tom Brokaw, Jim Lehrer as moderators for presidential debates but never an O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh or Brit Hume. Why not?

A special prosecutor is appointed to investigate firings of 9 prosecutors but none was or will ever be appointed to find out why Clinton fired EVERY single prosecutor when he took office?? Republicans stand mute on this and it is infuriating.

Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Waters and the entire Black Caucus defend the running of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and prevent the very reforms which might have avoided the mess we are in today. Yet the MSM and Republicans are silent. Why aren't these guys investigated, forced to step down and prosecuted as was Tom Delay?? Again silence from the White House, McCain and other Republicans.

These are just a few of the things that infuriate conservatives outside the beltway and New York City. We have the Republican Party asking us for money, yet I haven't seen a single penny spent on demanding the Democrats adhere to the same standard Republicans are required to meet. Being a punching bag for liberals who constantly lie about you, constantly use inflammatory language (hate speech in some cases) and use any means necessary to gain power is no way to win elections. Yet this is the path the Republican Party takes time and time again. To say I am mad as hell about the Dems and the response of the Republicans to these liberal attacks is an understatement.

O’Reilly has an article on his web site that says “Conservative group drops Ayers, Rezko and Wright from their ad.” Why I ask?? These guys are terrorists, crooks and as anti-American as they come, yet those in a position to speak out remain mute!!

Enough. I don’t give a damn if the Fox media folk know Gwen and say she is a swell person. I don’t care if McCain thinks the Dems in the Senate and congress are his “good friends”, they sure as hell aren’t my good friends. In fact they work day in and day out to destroy all I hold dear, and tax me to pay for those in society who are too lazy and/or stupid to care for themselves....


10/02 01:42 PM

---

Pelosi's Follies

Let's be clear to all reading this on where you should concentrate your own research efforts in regard to the bailout bill. Both parties came together to craft a (frankly poor - my opinion) bill that raids taxpayers pockets. But many were ready to hold their nose and vote to help the markets.

Several things then happened to change the game.

1. Pelosi majority whip didn't whip (major warning sign to Republicans)
2. Pelosi then took the House floor and fixed blame on the Republicans. We have discussed this topic on NJ Tax Revolution and it is clear that at the least this problem was caused by both parties. At worst it should tilt in the Democrats favor.
3. Republicans can count votes. Pelosi gave permission to her caucus to vote their conscience while expecting Republicans to bail her caucus out.
4. Republicans caught wind and voted their conscience too.
5. The measure was defeated.

That's what happened. No more. No less.

---

Bailout is not the only option!

There was buzz the other day about a large number of economists that sent a letter to the congress suggesting that there was a better way to handle the mortgage crisis. Now today, Jeffrey Miron a Senior Lecturer of Economics at Harvard explains what the content of that communication included (from CNN):

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This represents well understood fact except for Democrats in the House and Senate (and much of the media as well). This statement really brings the issue home:

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

So what to do?

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

A massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to Wall Street isn't the only answer. And congress should do their job and investigate every potential option with an eye toward the bill paying taxpayer first and Wall Street executives second.

Read the entire article here.

---

For once, our House members attempt to vote for us

There is nothing more infuriating in this state than the party line voting that occurs in the House and Senate. For example, our Senators Menendez and Lautengerg ALWAYS go along with Harry Reid and the Democraticv leadership of the Senate regardless of the harm to NJ. But for once, the members of the House used their brains and made a judgement call. From this article in Newaday:

The majority of New Jersey's U.S. House delegation joined their colleagues in voting down a $700 billion rescue plan for the nation's financial system on Monday, with some saying it didn't help regular people while others complained it wasted taxpayer dollars.

Stocks were falling on Wall Street even before the House voted 228-205, with New Jersey's delegation voting 7-6 against the bill.

Party lines broke down as Democrats and Republicans alike voted against the bailout, even as their party leadership and President Bush warned the economy could plummet into recession without it. The Garden State congressmen voting against the bill included four Republicans and three Democrats.

I don't care if any of these politicians voted for or against right now. I am impressed with all for attempting to do what they thought was right. Bravo to all on both side of this issue. Bravo!

---

Nancy Pelosi can shut off the lights/cameras of congress on drilling but can't pass a bailout bill without Republican help?

A very interesting question. Why is it that the Republicans cannot even get an amendment to a bill to the floor when Czar Nancy wields the gavel are now awash with so much power in the House that a bailout bill can't go through? Doesn't anyone remember Nancy Pelosi shutting off the cameras and lights while the Republicans kept debating energy policy when the Democrats went on vacation?

But now, all of a sudden, she can't get a bill through without a small band of conservative legislators in the House? Oh I get it. It is because there were only about 4 votes from Republicans and the bill would have gone through as a piece of partisan Democrat legislation. Apparently, the Democrats do have some level of shame.

For you see, this bill has been crafted by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. Remember these two. Chris Dodd got more money than anyone from Fannie and Freddie to look the other way while they continued to write bad loans. Chris Dodd also got a sweetheart deal from Countrywide as a "friend of Angelo". In most states, Chris Dodd would be in jail. But not in the senate. Oh, and don't forget Barney Frank. These are the people who are leading the bailout:



And even Nancy Pelosi knows that the media will not protect her if Nancy along with her Democrat colleagues were major contributors to the problem, failed in their oversight responsibility and enacted a flawed bailout with no opposition support. Even Nancy isn't that stupid apparently. Harry Reid on the other hand...

---

NJ's Do Nothing Legislature Returns

From this article in NJ.com:

The summer silence at the Statehouse ends Monday when the Legislature returns from a 12-week break. Leaders hope to spend the rest of the year fine-tuning a new housing law, tightening ethical standards and passing long-delayed reforms of the government's power to seize property through eminent domain.

Senate President Richard Codey (D-Essex) said lawmakers also will hold hearings aimed at combating underage binge drinking "so we can save lives on our college campuses" and cracking down on diploma mills.

This is so indicative of the useless legislature we have in this state. Businesses are leaving, people are being priced out, local municipalities are running out of money because Trenton has taken it all and what do they want to work on? Free housing, fake ethical standards and eminent domain. Oh, and binge drinking. They are complete clowns. But they at least are admitting the truth:

"I don't think we're going to be all that busy," predicted Assembly Minority Leader Alex DeCroce (R-Morris).

And Codey concedes "there's no universal, overriding issue that everybody's engaged in."

Really? Nothing pressing. Losers every one.

---

Why I miss Tip O'Neill - Plastic Pelosi turns off the lights

The House of Representatives has turned into a complete circus. When the Democrats took over the House, they and their leader Nancy Pelosi promised that they would lead through bi-partisan agreement. And the big joke is that they have done nothing of the sort. From the Crypt:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House, turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.

Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m., and they are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.

I get very tired of this Democratic congress who claims to represent the people while the people WANT ENERGY RELIEF. Both Florida and California residents want drilling for the first time in decades. But elites like Plastic Pelosi are not interested in what citizens really want. That is why he book rates so high in Amazon's ratings...NOT.

---

A Society of Whiners!

Former Senator Phil Gramm sparked a major controversy this past week by saying that we have become a nation of whiners. Now, of course from a political standpoint, this was a completely stupid thing to say. McCain did the expected two-step backwards and threw Gramm under the bus. Obama responded with his typical snide and condescending "we don't need another Dr Phil" comment that sounded less funny every time it has been played. But the real question is whether or not Gramm is right.

The Media

The media outlets in this country live to whine. The New York Times front page is less often filled with real news than it is with whiny pseudo-news opinion pieces. For example, with all of the constant drumbeat over warrant less wiretapping for terrorism, no one has yet to find a single person to come forward to declare that they were unfairly targeted. It's like listening to my children complain because one or the other is "looking at me". In addition, the television media has created so many cable shows that propagate constant bleating like a sheep on steroids. Need proof? Watch Keith Olbermann just once.

The Political Class

All whiners. There are no statesmen left in politics. What remains is a pack of political hacks bought and paid for by union and industry money. The only ones who go against the grain are the outright kooks (see Kucinich and Paul) who are so marginalized that they will never advance politically. Too many of the elected class serve to feed the media whining about the topic of the day. Chuck Schumer of New York has made a career of the Sunday Morning Whine. You see, it is much easier to get in front of a camera and blame someone else that it is to do something about it. Need proof? Every knows that the oil situation is a problem. Democrats refuse to act as they refused to act 10 years ago. So now, they will go home for the summer having done nothing. But you will find them in front of the camera every day moaning about gas prices.

New Jersey's leaders

I used a small 'l' because I really don't consider there to be a single leading figure in the state's political classes. There is far too many political positions in the state and the bureaucracy is downright silly. The entire state is completely unhappy and the leaders don't care. Why? Because between state workers unions and paying off inner city poor, they remain in power. They whine about worker benefits, rebates for people who don't pay taxes, free health care, national politics, global warming and drilling offshore. But they never whine about the leadership in Trenton that is driving families and business out of the state at a rate unheard of anywhere but Michigan.

Bloggers

Of course bloggers whine. We exist because we feel that we have little of no influence on the political process as taxpayers and voters. If you are of the working class in this society, you have no say. Why? There is no lobbyist organization advocating for you. So we blog. It is the one opportunity to have your voice heard beyond your circle of friend (where you really don't want to advocate anyway). Thank God we are in this country where blogging is robust and our freedom of speech is protected. Been to any good Chinese blogs lately?

Me

Hellooooo? This post is one big WHINE!

---

Taxation and 'post partisan' Politics

So much has been said about the political battles on the Democrat side of the ledger this year. While we have weighed in on various topics over the past few months as wide-eyed observers, it has frankly been really interesting and almost fun to see a party who plays racial games come to grips with it when played from within. Just as the party who has traded on sexist stereotypes has had to come to grips with the reality of their female candidate meeting another of their famed protected class, a black candidate.

From my seat, I could care less what color either of these candidates is nor their gender. But what really intrigues me is the characteriization going on within their own voters over these candidates. For example, because you are supposed to believe per the media the Barack Obama is the savior of the party, union voters who have long been for Hillary are now racist because there happens to be more of them who are white and middle class.


One need no more proof of this silliness then to follow the actions of DNC chair Dean. Every time his party in conjunction with the media acts sexist or racist, Dean blames a Republican. While that may work in the old world of no Iraq war, it won't cut it in this new post partisan world where everyone is looking at things in a new light. If you think Hillary is a racist because she is fighting to win a nomination that she thinks she still has a shot at(she is not by the way and I don't support her), you are wrong.


The problem here is that for far too long, the general media outlook is far too pedestrian for real people. Obama may be unattractive to many voters due to lack of experience, a naive world view or a set of policy positions that are just plain wrong. That doesn't make Hillary's supporters evil. It just makes them honest.

Tonight I watched an interview with Harry Reid on Fox where he lamented on how John McCain went astray, Apparently, he did it because he didn't sign on to Reid's partisan view of the world. That now makes him Bush-2 or 3. But that is far too simple minded. While I am not a McCain supporter(as I mentioned before I voted Romney for NJ), I find the concept of McCain as Bush as drivel.

The net is that any of these candidates can and should stand on their own merits. Hillary is a formidible candidate and still very much in play. Obama is the front runner and has real positions and ideas. And McCain is his own man. They all have their positives and negatives. Let's let them all play out.

---

Obama's wife...and McCain's

Barack Obama got mad yesterday because the Tennessee Republican party created a You-Tube ad that quoted her verbatim about her unhappiness as an American for so many years. From TheAge.com.au:

The first-term Illinois senator today blasted Republicans in Tennessee for an ad attacking his wife, Michelle, for comments some interpreted as unpatriotic. He called the criticism "low-class".

That is so much better than this criticism of Cindy McCain from Howard Dean from Boston.com:

"What is John McCain trying to hide?" Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said in a statement. "Throughout this campaign, he has acted like his own calls for openness and accountability apply to everyone but himself. Now he thinks he can bring that same double standard to the White House."

And her defense of herself:

Cindy McCain made crystal clear today that she has no plans to release her tax returns -- now while her husband is the presumptive Republican nominee, or later if she becomes first lady.

"This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate," she said in an interview aired on NBC's "Today" show.

The reality of both of these things is clear. If Michelle Obama goes out and stumps for her husband and trashes the country, her comments are fair game. She will be living in the White House as well if her is elected.

Just as Cindy McCain's financials are fair game as well as she will be a resident on Pennsylvania Avenue. What is absolutely silly is Obama's claim to "Stay away from my wife...that's not fair!". Forget it. Obama's answer to every hard question is turning into "not fair, I am not going to stoop to that level. I am about hope".

Grow up Senator. You want to trash other people and think you won't get it back. It doesn't work that way. You can't give a pretty speech and then claim that any examination of its content is out of bounds. You once compared yourself to Lincoln (a bit presumptious I thought at the time but so be it). Do you think that Lincoln cried foul during the Lincoln/Douglas debates?

---

Adults in office - Hamilton Township

Finally, a government entity in the state showing some adult leadership and attacking the problem of out of control spending. From today's Trentonian:

HAMILTON — The township plans to lay off 30 municipal employees, demote 20 more and eliminate 10 positions through attrition — all to save taxpayers a total of $3 million, the administration announced yesterday.

As expected, most of the layoffs are coming from departments dealing with the slumping housing market so municipal services are not expected to be seriously curtailed. The demotions, officials said, are geared to reduce the number of higher-paid supervisors.

And how did the township get into a situation where they had to take measures like these? The previous administration (Democrat) completely mismanaged the budget leaving the township 16 million dollars in debt. The voters threw them out in the last voting cycle. The new administration (Republican) decided they were going to have to grit their teeth and fix the problem:

Both Guhl and Mayor John Bencivengo expressed regret the layoffs are necessary.

“Workforce reductions are the most difficult and painful aspect of a chief executive’s duties,” Bencivengo said. “It is, in fact, a last resort. Unfortunately, our financial circumstances dictated this action, and what’s more, it is something that Hamilton taxpayers are demanding.”

Though more layoffs occurred in areas related to construction, the “reduction in force” plan touches every municipal department, except police, officials said.

Compare this course of action to the current legislature in New Jersey. They kicked off the year adding a half a billion dollars to a budget already 3 billion in the red. They now add a new tax for Paid Family Leave. They have proposed adding taxes for tolls, gasoline and new universal health care that the state cannot afford.

One of these days, the people of this state will wake up and realize that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with local politics. And on that day, when they realize what the politicians in this state have done, I hope they throw them all out. And better yet, if we ever get an Attorney General in this state, maybe, just maybe indictments will follow.

Read the entire article here.

---

Taxing Porker of the Month - Bill Baroni(R-14) and the Paid Family Leave Tax (watch out John McCain)

For his support of the Paid Family Leave Tax, Bill Baroni get's this month's Taxing Porker of the Month Award. As a Republican, Mr Baroni claims to support good government, claims to be against corruption and excessive spending by Trenton. The strange this is that Mr Baroni has unbelievably large support from the unions of this state such as the NJEA (the largest public employee union in NJ) as well as several trades unions. Given the undue influence unions have in bloating the state budget, one has to question their love of Mr Baroni.

People in New Jersey wonder why Republicans do not get traction in this state despite the large number of people who in many other state would be pre-disposed to be conservative or right of center politically. It is because the Republican party in New Jersey looks too much like the Democratic party in New Jersey. And Bill Baroni is a perfect example.

I think that John McCain may want to re-evaluate Mr Baroni's position in his campaign in the state of New Jersey. It is hard to claim you are against government waste and support lower taxes when your campaign chairman in the state is for both!

Of course, it Mr Baroni somehow realizes that his constituents (who in Hamilton have been severely hurt by their representatives over the post 8 years and pay some of the highest taxes in NJ) are more important than the lobbyists for his union friends, we will happily rescind his pork skin. But I am not holding my breath.

---

McCain Placing Increased Focus On the Economy - WSJ.com

McCain's not the most conservative guy in the world, but he may be dodging right: McCain Placing Increased Focus On the Economy - WSJ.com

At Boston's historic Faneuil Hall, Mr. McCain said he would "be coming out with more specific proposals," on the economy. "They will be based not on big government interventions and not on raising your taxes and not on increasing government," he said.

Mr. McCain's current economic plan centers around making permanent the Bush tax cuts and cutting corporate taxes and government spending. He has yet to make a specific housing-policy plan other than saying he supports President Bush.

Mr. McCain has portrayed himself on the campaign trail as a Reaganomics conservative, against government spending, taxes and regulation. But his record reflects Teddy Roosevelt's brand of government regulation, which serves the consumer to the benefit of no specific industry or company.

Let's see some more specifics, and let's hope.

---

Earmarks: "Congress Should Debate Them In The Open And Hold A Public Vote"

Over at Human Events, Newt Gingrich has a great roundup of the recent efforts to regain control over earmarks. Earmarks, you may recall, are dollars that are targeted to pet programs; and the pets often look a lot like Jabba the Hutt -- bloated, all-consuming, and either irrelevant or nasty.

Among other great developments, there's an executive order that prohibits the feds from taking their cues from explanatory reports and other ancillary material -- if a spending guideline isn't in the law as written, it doesn't count.

For appropriations laws and other legislation enacted after the date of this order, executive agencies should not commit, obligate, or expend funds on the basis of earmarks included in any non-statutory source, including requests in reports of committees of the Congress or other congressional documents, or communications from or on behalf of Members of Congress, or any other non-statutory source, except when required by law or when an agency has itself determined a project, program, activity, grant, or other transaction to have merit under statutory criteria or other merit-based decisionmaking.

How often does a sentence that dry sound that good? :)

Also, the President has committed to vetoing any appropriations bill that doesn't cut the number and cost of earmarks by half.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) are both fighting the good fight here -- McConnell, in fact, has just appointed a Republican task force chaired by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) to address earmark reform. Look for ways to support these men in their struggles against a bloated and domineering federal government.

---

Who Should You Vote For?

votechooser.com has a simple, 10-question quiz that may help you to decide for whom you should cast your vote today. In order, I got Romney, Huckabee, McCain, Paul, Clinton, and Obama.

It's worth noting that some of the key issues can be boiled down to the role of the federal government in taking and spending our money.

---

Forget Corzine - How about a citizen constitution convention to reform taxes!

I caught an editorial in Thursday's Sentinel online that really piqued my interest. It was entitled "Toll Hikes the last trick of a very desperate man". Obviously it was all about John Corzine and his Enron Toll Plan. But there were several points that lead to a very sound conclusion:

Corzine knows taxes are about as high as they can go without precipitating an actual revolution, so substantial tax hikes are out.And because he thinks our elected representatives in the Assembly and Senate will never have the sand to fix the problem (he's right, by the way), the only idea he's got is "asset monetization." In other words, he wants to increase tolls by 50 percent in 2010, 2014, 2018 and 2022.

If our elected officials do not have the courage to attack this spending problem in this state, the citizens will have to take matters into their own hands. That was the original purpose of NJTaxrevolution. The problem in our state is really this:

As philosophically bankrupt notions go, this one is a humdinger. In a recent interview, Corzine basically admitted that none of the lawmakers in either the Democratic or Republican parties have the willpower to do what needs to be done to reduce the budget because it's political suicide to support cutting the number of state workers and programs.

The solution may be right there in front of us:

For a real solution, I believe we have to think about something Middlesex County Freeholder Director David B. Crabiel said last week that was reported in Greater Media's publication the Sentinel.

Discussing his frustration with this year's freeholder budget, and noting that "economy and cost-cutting notwithstanding, we may now have reached the point where, absent meaningful tax reform at the state level, no amount of fiscal conservatismor efficiency by county government can offset the rising costs of goods and services," Crabiel spelled out the bottom line.

"If the governor and the Legislature are unable or unwilling to deal with the issue of tax reform in New Jersey," he said, "then they should enact legislation that would convene a limited constitutional convention to allow people to reform the property tax system in New Jersey for themselves."

We may finally be nearing the time when the citizens of this state say ENOUGH.

You can read the entire editorial here.

---

Corzine's Toll Plan - Some Random Thoughts

Just a few random questions on Governor Corzine's toll plan.

If the Governor is so brave for putting forth this plan, why don't any of the toll increases take effect until after the next Governor's election?

Any plan this good for New Jersey should be able to be voted on by the citizens of New Jersey. As a matter of fact, the law states that any significant debt MUST be voted on by the citizens of the state. Why isn't the Governor putting this up to a referendum?

During a feedback session the other night, the Governor listed a litany of "other options" the state could undertake to fix the debt problem. Notable not among them was ANY reference to CUTTING SPENDING. Why?

The New Jersey Chamber of Commerce just endorsed this plan despite saying previously that it is bad for business and bad for New Jersey. I can't help but wonder how that decision came about, who made it and when. Something doesn't feel quite right about this decision.

At what point does this entire debate make its way to the NJ Supreme Court. The law is clear and has been reaffirmed by the court. Given that the last time a Governor (McGreevey) borrowed long to pay current obligations, the court said it cannot happen again but didn't correct the borrowing that had already occurred. That means that this time the court should be willing to stop a similar plan before it is actually implemented. The real question is will the NJ Supreme Court uphold New Jersey's laws? We may soon find out.

---

Primary Elections - Both sides

It looks like both sides are going to go reasonably long. As I have stated before, I am less for a candidate on either side and more for a protracted and substantive debate. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have started to have to address the difficult issues and leave their sound byte cocoons. Some things to hope for:

Democrats

With the word out that Edwards is gone, it is a two person race. So far, the debate between Hillary and Obama has been loaded with sniping and indirect shots back and forth about race and gender. Given the longstanding development of political correctness and race and gender baiting directed at those outside the Democratic party, it has been fun to see those issues talked about openly. It is long overdue but the fun is over. Now it's time to speak about real issues and real governance and real leadership. Hillary needs to answer hard questions without cackling and Obama needs to prove that his message of hope isn't a fairytale.

Republicans

With Rudy now out of the Republican mix (maybe he was never in it) and throwing his support behind McCain, it is time for Mike Huckabee to exit gracefully. So far, McCain has had the benefit of competing for the Republican nomination by carrying only RINO's and Independents. The rest of the Republican voters have been split between everyone else. For John McCain's good, he needs to win clean among Republicans. Huckabee doesn't have a real chance any longer as 80% of the country will never vote for him. Let's see a real debate between McCain and Romney and let the best man win. McCain can't win the general without real Republicans supporting him. And if it is perceived he only won because Huckabee stayed and split the vote, he will never get that support. And Romney needs to prove he can stand in the ring and go toe to toe without sounding lame.

Here's hoping that both parties go the distance. The voter will be the real winner.

---

Romney's win means a real race!

You can't help but be pleased if you are a Republican by Mitt Romney's win tonight in Michigan by a significant margin. McCain's surge was just a little too easy. My hope all along was a long drawn out primary process and we may just get it. This year of all year has exposed the stupidity of every state, including New Jersey who moved up their primaries. We could have had the candidates have to work through the process over the long haul and really have to campaign in many states instead of a select few. I can only continue to hope that we pass Super Tuesday with no clear winner and let the fun begin!

---

McCain - Vote Early Vote Often

Please tell me the clip I just saw did not have John McCain quoting Chicago's senior Daley saying to vote early and vote often...please tell me that didn't happen...

---

Taxes and the Republican Debate

The interesting thing in tonight's debate is the mention and well considered responses related to taxes. Whether or not you like a Huckabee (and his "Fair Tax" that doesn't add up even with new math), Rudy (and his mother of all tax cuts planned) or nuanced responses by McCain or Thompson, or even Ron Paul's ideas, you have to like the fact that they are discussing taxes and spending at all.

When I watch both sides, I am shocked over the fact that there is never a question in a Democratic primary debate over spending or taxes. Well, that's not fair. Every question related to how much spending you intend to increase for health care, education, childcare and illegal immigration health and welfare coverage is discussed. In time, these questions will come.

That is why this Presidential process needs to go all the way. My main goal is to see both parties go down to the last primary. I am sick of the conventional media declaring a winner after a few caucuses and small state primaries. Let's go the distance.

---