Friday, February 08, 2008

Liberal V Liberal - For the Future

In the nightmare scenario of a choice between McCain or Clinton come next November what should the choice be?

I have always said “ABC” (Anybody But Clinton) but I have been listening to a logical argument from Ann Coulter that has me pausing. It goes like this:

If we get McCain he will be the (so-called) republican Jimmy Carter and lock the White House for decades for the Democrats. Republicans will be blamed for him and scare people from voting for any republican for at least a generation.

On the other hand, if Clinton gets in it will surely be for one term and the country will be screaming for the republicans to undo all the damage she did.

In both cases there will be so much damage done to the republic that, along with all the damage that’s been done over the past seventy years, we may never recover. If the democrats lock up the White House for decades there will certainly never be a chance to undo it. We will have a socialist hell-hole with unbridled numbers of illegal immigrants pouring over the borders to reap the harvest of everybody else’s hard work. There will no longer be a reason for people to aspire to ‘get ahead’ because there will be no place to go. Every raise, every dime over the poverty level will be ripped out of our paychecks before we ever see it, to feed the unquenchable thirst of people who would rather collect a handout than contribute to the bankrupt system; and who can really blame them?

If the damage was done by Hillary, however, the country might be so incensed, finally, that the Constitution might be modified by the republicans to undo all the socialist damage done by her and seventy years of abuses by liberals who think they are saviors because they redistributed our hard-earned industry to those who will not help themselves or others.

I will not spend a lot of time qualifying that, just to say that, yes, people should help their neighbors in genuine need; but that is not the business of the Federal Government. One change that needs to be made before any others is that the Constitution should be taught at every grade in school along with the Declaration of Independence so that people will understand what our republic is. That’s something that has long been lost; that’s the first thing that was removed from the curriculum so that all the abuses could be fostered on an ignorant electorate.

I wonder how many of us could pass a comprehensive test on those two documents as well as the Bill of Rights that came with them? Just a guess here but I think less than 5% of the general public would get over a ‘C’ on such a test. (Quick, what is the eighth amendment about?) Feeling queasy?

This may be a case when you see two evils and rather than which would be worse now we have to ask ourselves, which would have the most long reaching effects?

Reference: & for the Constitution and Declaration of Independence (respectively).


(Could it be that the only reason McCain running now is to get Hillary into the White House? (He has been helping a variety of liberal causes since he begrudged Bush the nomination in 2000; and he’s really too old and infirm to serve a whole term.) Is he getting help behind the scenes from the Clintons? The MSM have been on his side for quite some time. What I don’t understand about that is why some people allow the liberal press/media to help them choose a republican candidate – they sure as hell don’t want a conservative running the country; but they sure are enamored with Team Clinton!)

It may be worth looking at whom he chooses as his running mate because there is a real chance that’s who will be President shortly after McCain is inaugurated. (Just a thought…)

It’s looking like we are going to have two liberals running for President this year, one on the democrat ticket and the other on the republican ticket. The real big problem is that people will blame all republicans for a generation for whatever McCain does and we’ll have liberal Presidents there after… The other way, if Clinton (or Obama) wins, the liberals will get their justly deserved blame and maybe, just maybe we’ll have a generation of republican Presidents and Congress to right the wrongs of the past – if we can get one or two with some real testicles (or ovaries, don’t get riled girls) to get some real changes to the Constitution like repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments for starters!

A National Sales Tax (with rebates for the poorest) will go a long way to repairing our very sick economy; and having Senators represent their States instead of being a second House of Representatives will get States’ Rights back where they belong, too!

Then (mostly) privatize the public pensions (Social Security) and get the government completely out of the health-care industry and regulate the insurance companies, which should be highly regulated anyway as well as protected from unscrupulous lawyers. All the country needs to guarantee everybody is covered is to pool the insurance carriers and we’d all be part of a 600,000,000 member (what’s out population, minus illegals?) coalition of insured people. Insurance is covered under interstate commerce and as such the feds do have authority to do that; but what they do not have authority to do is be the insurers!

Get the Federal Government completely out of the education industry, period! That’s State business, period.

The FCC has control over the broadcast media; we don’t need any campaign finance legislation to protect incumbents and it never should have been signed into law in the first place. Cleaning it up just takes spending caps and equal access to free broadcast time, which should also be capped. The broadcast companies could still sell commercial time and with all of them broadcasting the political ads, etc. at the same time, (coordinated by the FCC) all the sponsors would get equal time, too. Nobody losses and more people would be able to afford to run for office, not just the wealthy ones. or with rich friends, and high-paid media & marketing companies to raise untold capital, not to mention the corruption involved with campaign finance (Charlie Tre, Normand Shu, and countless others both known and unknown.

Term limits has always been a good idea; we never needed long-term windbags who become expert at pork-barrel spending and pandering to lobbyists to keep their jobs. I do think, though, that after sitting out a term or two that all elected offices should be open to everybody, even people who had served previously. After a hiatus, if a person could get re-elected that just might mean they are who the people want, not just who use their office to hold on to that office. With the 17th Amendment repealed, the Senate wouldn’t have that problem very much anyway; they’d change with the states’ governors.

The only way to even have a chance at any of that, though, just might mean getting the democrats to rightfully take the blame for the liberal administration that we’re going to have anyway. That’s a bitter pill for sure; but these are bitter times with no choice about having a liberal in the White House anyway. One way gets rid of them for the long-term; the other insures a liberal government for many, many years, perhaps for decades to come. Really, what’s worse, four years of liberals or twenty? That’s what this may well have come to.

This is not good however I look at it. Does anyone have a better future in view? Please? I need to hear about it. What choices do we have?


There is a virtuous fear which is the effect of faith, and a vicious fear which is the product of doubt and distrust. The former leads to hope as relying on God, in whom we believe; The latter inclines to despair, as not relying on God, in whom we do not believe.Persons of the one character fear to lose God; those of the other character fear to find Him.--Pascal

“Democracies are most commonly corrupted by the insolence of demagogues.” —Aristotle

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Veritas vos Liberabit!

God Bless America, it needs it!



Anonymous said...

Gov. Huckabee's advocacy of the FairTax is the single most important policy position in this election. Research findings explain why:

The FairTax rate of 23 percent on a total taxable consumption base of $11.244 trillion will generate $2.586 trillion dollars – $358 billion more than the taxes it replaces [BHKPT].

The FairTax has the broadest base and the lowest rate of any single-rate tax reform plan [THBP].

Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case [THBNP].

The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be [ALM].

Consumption benefits [ALM]:

• Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place: 1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10.

• Consumption increases by 2.4 percent more in the first year, which grows to 11.7 percent more by the tenth year than it would be if the current system were to remain in place.

• The increase in consumption is fueled by the 1.7 percent increase in disposable (after-tax) personal income that accompanies the rise in incomes from capital and labor once the FairTax is enacted.

• By the 10th year, consumption increases by 11.7 percent over what it would be if the current tax system remained in place, and disposable income is up by 11.8 percent.

Over time, the FairTax benefits all income groups. Of 42 household types (classified by income, marital status, age), all have lower average remaining lifetime tax rates under the FairTax than they would experience under the current tax system [KR].

Implementing the FairTax at a 23 percent rate gives the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 a 13.5 percent improvement in economic well-being; their middle class and rich contemporaries experience a 5 percent and 2 percent improvement, respectively [JK].

Based on standard measures of tax burden, the FairTax is more progressive than the individual income tax, payroll tax, and the corporate income tax [THBPN].

Charitable giving increases by $2.1 billion (about 1 percent) in the first year over what it would be if the current system remained in place, by 2.4 percent in year 10, and by 5 percent in year 20 [THPDB].

On average, states could cut their sales tax rates by more than half, or 3.2 percentage points from 5.4 to 2.2 percent, if they conformed their state sales tax bases to the FairTax base [TBJ].

The FairTax provides the equivalent of a supercharged mortgage interest deduction, reducing the true cost of buying a home by 19 percent [WM].

ALERT: Kotlikoff refutes Bruce Bartlett's shabby critiques of the FairTax.

Ichabod Crane said...

Ian's comment is well taken but not to be taken as an endorsement of Governor Huckabee by the publisher of this post. The Presidency is more than about one issue; and although this is a good one the Governor leaves a lot to be desired in so many other areas.
Whether we can change the tax system of the country will depend on a lot more than the advocacy of any President, there will have to be a climate of desire within the country to accomplish that. That is why I said what I did in the original post.
Notwithstanding all that, the nomination is all but wrapped up and Governor Huckabee will not be the party's choice, for good or ill. All that is left to be seen is whom McCain will be running against. Will it be Obama with all the liberalism he embodies or will it be Billary, with that much liberalism plus a new depth of corruption and sleaze that she embodies?
So we will have a liberal for President for four years, the question is how much corruption will accompany that? McCain will bring some but not as much as Billary and Obama is unknown in that area but appears clean now.

Worldviews Revolution said...

Great stuff here! I agree with just about all of it except the FairTax - I believe we need to simply end all the government waste, and then we can just abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing. The rest of the taxes will cover actual, good government activities.

I'm wondering why your blog address is "neoconservative" - I always heard neocons lauding Bush, the NAU, amnesty for illegals, and so on. They do not usually care a bit about the Constitution, and strongly support increased Federal intervention in education, etc.

How can you claim to represent neoconservatives? I think you should call yourself a paleo-conservative or a constitutionalist. Just a thought...

Ichabod Crane said...

Well, Worldview, et al, you heard wrong then, didn't you? You might take a moment and look-up neoconservatism, I think you'll be surprised. Surprised enough, maybe, to not allow liberals to define words and terms for you in the future at any rate. To wit:
Neoconservatism: An approach to politics or theology that represents a return to a traditional point of view (in contrast to more liberal or radical schools of thought of the 1960s)
I think that definition, from Word-Web fits my worldview just fine.

As to taxes, it would be nice to eliminate all of them but there are realities that disallow that. Like it or not, Social Security is far too entrenched to simply eliminate and that takes more than taxes on alcohol, tobacco and firearms to feed. Certainly it can be trimmed and, to a point, privatized, but again, it is far too far along to stop. what about all the money collected from all the people ages twenty through sixty-four? Would you make the robbery of their money more hurtful than it is already? I speak of out friends, relatives and neighbors, as well as everyone else who has been relieved of their industry 'for their own good'; how could you justify harming them even more?

Wars, sir, may be horrible but they are a reality of life as long as despots and dictators exist and populations seek to relieve their neighbors of their natural resources. They, too, are far too expensive to support with the petty taxation that existed prior to the Sixteenth Amendment. Certainly that state may well exist due in great part from the excess taxes levied by that Amendment but that state of affairs does exist now. It costs too much to rely on the BATF to support.

Might I suggest reading some of the missives of modern economists like Thomas Sowel and Walter E. Williams to gain some insights into the necessity of some form of broad-based tax structure, a tax structure more fair to one and all than the progressive income tax, which overburdens one class and allows another to a free ride. The Fair Tax may well be the best means of accomplishing that; or at least something very similar.

It would seem that some of your instincts are well centered but your knowledge of the state of affairs is in need of some strengthening. No offense intended, I assure you; but do at least show an understanding of those things of which you speak before doing so. You will be seen as more clever if you did.

Be well and God bless you and all of us.