Obama's amazing disrespect for the American people and my plea for help with the help of my good friend Mathew Staver and his fine organization Liberty Counsel.
Liberty Counsel, with offices in Florida, Virginia and Washington, D.C.,
is a nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to
advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the
traditional
family. Liberty Counsel . PO Box 540774 . Orlando, FL 32854 .
800-671-1776
President Obama has once again intentionally misled the
American people. In a meeting dubbed the "Sham Wow Summit,"
he promised to listen to new ideas, but allotted twice
as much time for the majority party's views as for
Republicans. But that was just one of many misrepresentations.
At a place called Blair House, the President's official guest
quarters across the street from the White House, Barack Obama
played host to a select small group of legislators to find
"common ground" for passage of a healthcare reform bill.
Well, that was the White House's version, anyway.
As we now know, that's not what happened. In reality, the
so-called "summit" was an elaborate magic show, complete
with sleight of hand, illusion and elaborate misdirection -
all designed to resuscitate the once-thought-dead ObamaCare
bill.
This political theater took place in the space of seven and
a half hours. The President had already destroyed the
credibility of the meeting on Monday by publishing his
Trillion Dollar plan that looks, coincidentally, a whole
lot like the discredited Senate version of ObamaCare -
including abortion funding!
We were expected to believe that legislators could deal with
over two thousand pages of a bill that amounts to a government
takeover of an estimated 16% of our economy in just a few
hours! Unbelievable!
Of course, the President never had any intention of finding
"common ground." In fact, the invitation to the summit came
with a PS: If you don't go along with me, I have
"reconciliation" ready in the wings!
In other words, "the fix was in." And from what we can see,
this eleventh-hour attempt to ram socialized medicine down
the throats of the American people is more dangerous than
any that has gone before.
++There was more to this "Hail Mary" than met the eye.
There was an even more telling activity going on behind the
scenes this week. Utilizing the same technologies and
strategies that propelled him into office, Obama's cohorts
launched "One Million Voices for Healthcare Reform: A
Virtual March on Washington."
This scheme was almost as elaborate as its title. Here are
statements from its organizers:
"The nation's leading progressive [read, radical left]
organizations are joining forces for A Virtual March on
Washington" to send Congress one million messages urging
action on health care reform. This is designed to be the
single largest action yet in the health care fight.
"The Virtual March on Washington: A Million Voices for Change"
campaign is bringing together some of the largest progressive
organizations in the nation including, MoveOn.org Political
Action, Progressive Congress Action Fund, Health Care for
America Now (HCAN), and Service Employees International
Union (SEIU)....
President Obama, who has failed to effectively govern
throughout his first year in office, has re-hired his
campaign staff to try to regain the popularity he enjoyed
while running for office!
The highly orchestrated political theater we witnessed on
Thursday would be merely pathetic if it wasn't such a
dangerous and dishonest abuse of presidential power.
++We must NOT cave in to this manipulation!
We must act NOW to counter this outlandish strategy. The
next few weeks will be crucial as members of Congress are
being pressured to accept the Obama/Reid/Pelosi reconciliation
plan. We cannot allow the only messages Congress hears to
be from the "Obama for President 2012" crowd!
The pressure is mounting as ultraliberal activists redouble
the use of corrupt "Chicago-Style" politics of coercion
and bribery that have so dramatically overshadowed Capitol
Hill for the last year.
Here's just one measure of their audacity: When the American
people cried, "Foul!" over the Cornhusker Kickback, the
President then decided to extend the exorbitant bribe that
bought Senator Ben Nelson to the ENTIRE SENATE!
Now, we have a sort of "Omnibus Kickback" on the table - all
of it paid for by you and me, the hapless American taxpayers!
Amazingly, when Obama's team heard the uproar over certain
Senators getting bribes, they thought it was because all
the other Senators wanted one, too! What a low view of our
nation this administration must have. This is outrageous!
++We cannot allow Congress to be bullied and bribed into silence.
I need thousands of patriotic Americans to respond to this
challenge with a massive PHONE CAMPAIGN to flood Congress
with a crystal clear message: "NO TO OBAMACARE!"
I'm asking everyone who believes in Liberty to
counter this last-ditch liberal scheming and once again
press hard on Members of the House and Senate with personal
phone calls - and concentrated prayer!
Citizens of The Great State of Illinois Go here to see your
Senators and Member of Congress and their phone numbers:
Sen. Durbin 202-224-2152
Sen. Burris 202-224-2854
Rep. Quigley 202-225-4061
++Despite the Left's deceptions, WE are the majority!
A recent Rasmussen poll found that 58% of likely voters opposed
the Reid/Pelosi legislation, and 61% wanted Congress and
the president to scrap their socialist reforms and start
from scratch.
It is clear that the American people wanted a reboot of
the entire process. Instead, the President took the worst
parts of both the House and Senate bills and crafted his
own version. Now we're getting more of what HE wants -
including provisions he explicitly promised would never
be included!
Do you remember his televised speech to both Houses of
Congress on healthcare, in which he looked straight into
the camera and said with emphasis, THERE WILL BE NO
FEDERAL FUNDING OF ABORTION in our reform?
Well, according to National Right to Life, the so-called
"President's Plan" includes provision for public funding
of abortion on demand in three distinct ways. It goes
even further than the Senate bill did!
And here's another broken promise: The President's Plan
is so expensive that he is now calling for increased
taxes for those making well under $250 thousand per year.
I'm sure you remember his hollow campaign promises on
not raising taxes.
++These insolent, elitist central planners must be stopped!
The sheer arrogance of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi axis of power
defies logic. These ideologues dissemble, bribe and continue
to invent cunning new schemes to pass their pet bill, all
the while knowing that a majority of Americans strongly
disapprove!
My friends, now more than ever, Chicago-style politicians,
socialists and radical abortion advocates need to understand
that WE ARE NOT GIVING IN TO THEIR PRESSURE and we will not
be silenced until ObamaCare is declared, "Dead: Do Not
Resuscitate!"
++Say a resounding "NO!" to reconciliation and to ObamaCare.
Let's make Congress do something they haven't done in a
long time... listen to the voice of the American people!
We're
going all out to protest ObamaCare's special perks,
backroom deals, bribery, lies and the scandalous way
in which the process has been handled.
Here's what I'm asking you to do...
#1 - Call your Senators and Congressman!
Stop the Obama/Reid/Pelosi machine's head-long
push for healthcare "reform" once and for all. Even if you
have done so many times before, help us continue flooding
congressional offices with protests until the liberal coalition
finally gives up.
The next few weeks will be the most crucial time since this
battle began. Even with the Left's arm twisting campaign
taking place, there must not be any doubt in our elected
officials' minds that their careers will not survive a
vote for the so-called "President's Plan" or any other
version of ObamaCare.
Go here right now:
Sen. Durbin 202-224-2152
Sen. Burris 202-224-2854
Rep. Quigley 202-225-4061
#2 - Continue to pray that this unbalanced, anti-life bill -
whatever version it has morphed into - will be
completely derailed with no chance of returning!
We refuse to pay for abortions! We will not allow our taxes
to be increased to pay for special interest perks! We will
not allow the trickery and deceit that has become the norm
from the Obama/Pelosi/Reid power axis to continue!
Together, we can send a powerful message to the 111th Congress!
Help us counter the left's "virtual march." Join thousands
of like-minded Americans who will make Congress and the Obama
Administration realize that we are fully awake to their
trickery and strongly oppose their underhanded efforts to
pass ObamaCare. Make your calls as soon as possible!
God bless you,
P.S. There are still a number of legislators "on the fence"
regarding ObamaCare. Some know that a "yes" vote will be
political suicide for their careers. More need to know!
Let them understand that we are holding them accountable
if they vote "yes" on ObamaCare. Also, please consider
sending this message to 10-20 of your like-minded friends.
Thank you for taking action with us!
To restore and uphold the sovereignty and rights of the individual States as guaranteed by the tenth amendment of the United States Constitution, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Its Easy To Lose Sight Of Real Business When You Live In Politics
This truly is one of the most amazing things that ever happened, I think, in the history of politics, the fact that these people seem to believe that you’re as gullible. You know, I just, after watching that yesterday, folks – and I don’t know how many of you got a chance to be tortured by all six hours of it, but after watching it yesterday and watching Obama just throw little hissy-fits and watching the histrionics and the faces, the contorted faces on those promoting this socio-commie takeover of your life – it’s not a takeover of the healthcare system, it’s a takeover of your life. This is the end game here.
I really, I cannot tell you any longer whether or not they really just are that stupid. Or whether or not they’re just inherently evil. Before yesterday, I was siding with the evil side. No, no, they’re just despicable and evil. They know this stuff won’t work. But after watching it yesterday, boy, and especially when you hear about Pelosi’s four million jobs? You know, I want – one of these economists that’s always wrong about unemployment numbers, oh, there’s a surprise. Why, the unemployment numbers came in, and there is shock. and we can’t explain.
Oh, I know how we can explain it now. They explained this yesterday. It’s because of snow. When it snows, people get laid off. It’s in your company – it’s in your employee handbook. Look it up. I would like for somebody to sit down and ask Ms. Pelosi, can you run me through the scenario under which four million people become employed that are unemployed today because you borrow on behalf of next year’s receipts and then you tax people to extricate the same money from the capital that’s available that the people have earned?
Listen to the Pelosi jobs program.
[Clip] Speaker Nancy Pelosi: So this bill is not only about the health security of America. It’s about jobs. In its life it will create four million jobs, 400,000 jobs almost immediately. Jobs, again, in the healthcare industry, but in the entrepreneurial world, as well.
I thought the problem was that the healthcare industry spent too much. I mean, ladies and gentlemen, am I wrong?
[Clip] Rep. Steny Hoyer: Cost containment is clearly one of those issues that we need to deal with. Cost containment for that small business that is having a 67 percent increase. Cost containment for that woman who can’t afford...
Ah,shut up you idiot. If a small business has a 67 percent insurance rate increase, if I am the small business owner and runner, I am going to eliminate the cancer of the 67 percent increase. I’m just not going to pay it anymore. I’m just going to eliminate it. Either that or I will seriously mitigate it.
They act as if it is the sovereign, God-given, congressionally ordered responsibility of small business to not make good products, to not make great services, to not invent the next new thing, to not take manufacturing back from the Chinese and the Taiwanese. What your real job is, is to figure out new and mo’ better ways to provide health insurance benefits, and now retirement benefits and daycare and whatever the hell else. You’re not a businessman, you’re a social organization. You’re an adult daycare center. That’s what these people want business to be, adult daycare centers. C’mon, yeah, you want to do a couple hours work? Well, [indiscernible], yeah, I’ll wipe your ass later. I mean, the attitude.
Like I said, I’m torn now. I was convinced that these people were just evil. Now I may just be convinced, whew, it’s so hard to tell, that they are just absolutely the most idiotic people in the history of the world. I want to ask one of you screaming Obamabot zombie brain-dead ‘tards out there a question.
When you go to apply for a job, how do you view your employer? Is your employer someone that gives you an opportunity to share in the use and the productive activity of the capital that he has worked and slaved his entire life to accrue, to plow it into something that’s worth more than you started with, and in the end you receive this thing called a paycheck, you receive a benefit in the form of pay for your services? Or do you view, when you go into somewhere, and you go to apply for a job, you’re not really seeing a job. What you’re really seeing is a daycare center. Am I right? You see someone there who is waiting with a roll of toilet paper in his left hand and in his right a wad of it so he can wipe you for you because you’re too lazy to do it yourself? Do you see someone there who, in the vicissitudes of your life when you can’t do it, will hire a babysitter on your behalf, babysit your kids for you? Maybe even buy some formula, buy some baby food? Is that what you see?
Do you see someone who has to see all into the future on your behalf and must make retirement plans for you because you’re too g-damn lazy to make them yourself? Is that what you see? And if that is what you see, will you please call us so we can get you a bus ticket to Cuba? Well, actually you’ll have to take a ship. But you don’t belong in a free market. You don’t belong in a free society. You’re worthless. We need to start calling these people out for what they are.
As an employer. As a small businessman. I do not exist to provide anyone anything other than an opportunity to earn a living. What you do with it is your free, God-given, sovereign business of yours. You have the liberty do whatever you want with it. If you want to take 30 percent of it and invest it in retirement, you go right ahead. You want to buy health insurance, you go right ahead. My responsibility to you ends when I sign the check. “Oh, that sounds so cold and cruel and callous.” No, it doesn’t. Have you ever run a business? You ever put your capital at risk? Huh? I don’t do it for communitarian purposes. If I did, then I’d just go run a goodwill shelter and get me a 501(c)3. I won’t be for profit anymore.
I mean, this is really at the heart of the matter, and it’s not just the politicians. It’s you teat-suckling parasites out there that demand this stuff. Try running your own business for a while. Boy, and you know, and Hollywood and the entertainment culture has done such a wonderful job of promoting our capital at risk, my capital at risk, and how it is that when I make decisions about my own damn money and how I’m going to spend it and invest it, I’m demonized as the bad guy. That’s what all this is about.
I really, I cannot tell you any longer whether or not they really just are that stupid. Or whether or not they’re just inherently evil. Before yesterday, I was siding with the evil side. No, no, they’re just despicable and evil. They know this stuff won’t work. But after watching it yesterday, boy, and especially when you hear about Pelosi’s four million jobs? You know, I want – one of these economists that’s always wrong about unemployment numbers, oh, there’s a surprise. Why, the unemployment numbers came in, and there is shock. and we can’t explain.
Oh, I know how we can explain it now. They explained this yesterday. It’s because of snow. When it snows, people get laid off. It’s in your company – it’s in your employee handbook. Look it up. I would like for somebody to sit down and ask Ms. Pelosi, can you run me through the scenario under which four million people become employed that are unemployed today because you borrow on behalf of next year’s receipts and then you tax people to extricate the same money from the capital that’s available that the people have earned?
Listen to the Pelosi jobs program.
[Clip] Speaker Nancy Pelosi: So this bill is not only about the health security of America. It’s about jobs. In its life it will create four million jobs, 400,000 jobs almost immediately. Jobs, again, in the healthcare industry, but in the entrepreneurial world, as well.
I thought the problem was that the healthcare industry spent too much. I mean, ladies and gentlemen, am I wrong?
[Clip] Rep. Steny Hoyer: Cost containment is clearly one of those issues that we need to deal with. Cost containment for that small business that is having a 67 percent increase. Cost containment for that woman who can’t afford...
Ah,shut up you idiot. If a small business has a 67 percent insurance rate increase, if I am the small business owner and runner, I am going to eliminate the cancer of the 67 percent increase. I’m just not going to pay it anymore. I’m just going to eliminate it. Either that or I will seriously mitigate it.
They act as if it is the sovereign, God-given, congressionally ordered responsibility of small business to not make good products, to not make great services, to not invent the next new thing, to not take manufacturing back from the Chinese and the Taiwanese. What your real job is, is to figure out new and mo’ better ways to provide health insurance benefits, and now retirement benefits and daycare and whatever the hell else. You’re not a businessman, you’re a social organization. You’re an adult daycare center. That’s what these people want business to be, adult daycare centers. C’mon, yeah, you want to do a couple hours work? Well, [indiscernible], yeah, I’ll wipe your ass later. I mean, the attitude.
Like I said, I’m torn now. I was convinced that these people were just evil. Now I may just be convinced, whew, it’s so hard to tell, that they are just absolutely the most idiotic people in the history of the world. I want to ask one of you screaming Obamabot zombie brain-dead ‘tards out there a question.
When you go to apply for a job, how do you view your employer? Is your employer someone that gives you an opportunity to share in the use and the productive activity of the capital that he has worked and slaved his entire life to accrue, to plow it into something that’s worth more than you started with, and in the end you receive this thing called a paycheck, you receive a benefit in the form of pay for your services? Or do you view, when you go into somewhere, and you go to apply for a job, you’re not really seeing a job. What you’re really seeing is a daycare center. Am I right? You see someone there who is waiting with a roll of toilet paper in his left hand and in his right a wad of it so he can wipe you for you because you’re too lazy to do it yourself? Do you see someone there who, in the vicissitudes of your life when you can’t do it, will hire a babysitter on your behalf, babysit your kids for you? Maybe even buy some formula, buy some baby food? Is that what you see?
Do you see someone who has to see all into the future on your behalf and must make retirement plans for you because you’re too g-damn lazy to make them yourself? Is that what you see? And if that is what you see, will you please call us so we can get you a bus ticket to Cuba? Well, actually you’ll have to take a ship. But you don’t belong in a free market. You don’t belong in a free society. You’re worthless. We need to start calling these people out for what they are.
As an employer. As a small businessman. I do not exist to provide anyone anything other than an opportunity to earn a living. What you do with it is your free, God-given, sovereign business of yours. You have the liberty do whatever you want with it. If you want to take 30 percent of it and invest it in retirement, you go right ahead. You want to buy health insurance, you go right ahead. My responsibility to you ends when I sign the check. “Oh, that sounds so cold and cruel and callous.” No, it doesn’t. Have you ever run a business? You ever put your capital at risk? Huh? I don’t do it for communitarian purposes. If I did, then I’d just go run a goodwill shelter and get me a 501(c)3. I won’t be for profit anymore.
I mean, this is really at the heart of the matter, and it’s not just the politicians. It’s you teat-suckling parasites out there that demand this stuff. Try running your own business for a while. Boy, and you know, and Hollywood and the entertainment culture has done such a wonderful job of promoting our capital at risk, my capital at risk, and how it is that when I make decisions about my own damn money and how I’m going to spend it and invest it, I’m demonized as the bad guy. That’s what all this is about.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
The liberty end of the conservative movement is alive and well.
here’s what I would hope is going to come out of this cpac conference here. Not just a bunch of glad-handing, patting on shoulders and, yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s great, oh, and I got paid a speaking fee.....
The liberty end of the conservative movement is alive and well. The liberty end of the conservative movement is where the action is.
The rest of you people are dead weight. We tried it your way. It doesn’t work. You lay down with the wolves, acting as if they wouldn’t eat you, you could make buddies with them, you could make friends with them, you could talk like Democrats, you could legislate and act like Democrats, like liberal pinko commies, and everything would be all right. We tried it your way. You’re fired. You had your chance. Now get the hell out of the way.
So what I hope happened is that more people went to see the Judge, and less people went to the other ones. I hope that more people went to the liberty event, to go watch former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson speak, and watch Mike Church. Tim Carney is also going to speak. He’s got a book out called “Obamanomics,” which is an oxymoron in and of itself. Well, it is an oxymoron. And I hope that the liberty events are the ones that are the highest attended and inspire the most learning. There’s a learning curve here. And the more educated people get and the more educated you become about actual little “r” republicanism and what I hold is Jeffersonian conservatism, I think the better the chances of finding remedies and solutions.
The old guard, though, ladies and gentlemen, I’ve got to tell you, is not going anywhere peacefully. They’ve defended and staked their turf out. As a matter of fact, it’s contained in the Mount Vernon Statement which has been all over Fox News on friday. Oh, look at these guys. Man, they went and met right down the street from where Washington lived. And look at this, they produced this thing that’s called the Mount Vernon Statement(see one of my earlier blogs) that’s just filled with conservatism (not). And [laughing], As soon as I read the Mount Vernon Statement I went, oh, God. The more things change the more they stay the same....
This is old news. There’s nothing new here. The perpetuation, I mean, listen to this. First of all, anytime anyone invokes the Declaration of Independence to you, you should be like the robot in “Lost in Space.” Warning, warning, Will Robinson. Warning, warning, liberal approaching.
when people start hearkening back to the Declaration, you’re in trouble. The declaratory parts of the Declaration are all about the rights of self-government and of the states, or the colonies then, to secede. Ask yourself the question, what are they declaring? They’re not declaring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That already existed. They are declaring that they are new, sovereign states, 13 of them. And in some manners they will act as one union in repelling the British invasion.
So any time you read these statements, and when someone starts invoking the Declaration, you ought to be on guard.
But anyways, you get to the principles of the Mount Vernon Statement, and this is where it gets hairy, and this is where it gets, shall we say, not focused. When you start promoting capitalism, or when you start promoting free enterprise, what is free enterprise? Can someone define for me what free enterprise is? I can define for you what a free market is. I don’t know what free enterprise is. Is free enterprise where you have businesses that are still run and ordered about by the government, and just because the government’s run by Republicans, that makes it better?
So many people run around and are so, what’s the word, enamored with, awash with the idea that the best that it’s ever gotten, or the best economic conditions that had ever been experienced were experienced from 1983 to 1988. It has never been better before. It’ll never be better since unless we get back to cutting taxes. When in fact the proper view ought to be that taxes were the problem to start with.
If you’re going to get into the business of admitting that the slashing of the tax rates is what led to the economic activity and what led to all the prosperity, well, then it ought to follow that there is something wrong with the tax rates. And it ought to follow that there’s something wrong with the idea of taxing productivity, something wrong with the idea of taxing success, of taxing wealth, of taxing capital. But instead, why, the one-size-fits-all solution for almost all our ills is just cut taxes. I got a better idea. Why don’t we just eliminate the ability of the federal government to tax? Why don’t we snip them and get them back on their constitutional heels where they ought to be, where they can only raise revenues through duties and imposts and what have you there. Why don’t we get back to that, instead of taxing the people that are productive and taxing the people’s productivity?
Anyways, you get to the Mount Vernon Statement, and you read to the end here, and this is where you find the real nuts and bolts of the problem. “A constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.” And here’s the policy agenda. “It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.” Eh, all right. I would have worded it different, but I can live with that. “It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.” I can kind of live with that. “It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.”
What does that mean? Here, again, here we are. We’re going to fix the economy because we’re going to have Republicans design the tax policies, and we’re going to have Republicans design the way out, and we’re going to have Republicans design the government that’s going to regulate it and make it all good. That’s what that means. The best medicine, like one of my fav authors Tom Woods says, is to get the hell out of the way. This is not laissez-faire. This is anything but. This is command-and-control with a different set of people doing the commanding.
Then we get to the real heart of the matter. “A constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda. It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.” I’m sorry. You can count me out. I should have just read ahead to the end and went, oh, here we go again.
So again, it’s our job, my job when I wake up in the morning, I knew that a significant portion of what I was going to make today was going to be taken, confiscated from me at the point of the IRS’s gun, and it’s going to be used to go support freedom and democracy around the world. Screw you. This is the damn problem, again.
The liberty end of the conservative movement is alive and well. The liberty end of the conservative movement is where the action is.
The rest of you people are dead weight. We tried it your way. It doesn’t work. You lay down with the wolves, acting as if they wouldn’t eat you, you could make buddies with them, you could make friends with them, you could talk like Democrats, you could legislate and act like Democrats, like liberal pinko commies, and everything would be all right. We tried it your way. You’re fired. You had your chance. Now get the hell out of the way.
So what I hope happened is that more people went to see the Judge, and less people went to the other ones. I hope that more people went to the liberty event, to go watch former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson speak, and watch Mike Church. Tim Carney is also going to speak. He’s got a book out called “Obamanomics,” which is an oxymoron in and of itself. Well, it is an oxymoron. And I hope that the liberty events are the ones that are the highest attended and inspire the most learning. There’s a learning curve here. And the more educated people get and the more educated you become about actual little “r” republicanism and what I hold is Jeffersonian conservatism, I think the better the chances of finding remedies and solutions.
The old guard, though, ladies and gentlemen, I’ve got to tell you, is not going anywhere peacefully. They’ve defended and staked their turf out. As a matter of fact, it’s contained in the Mount Vernon Statement which has been all over Fox News on friday. Oh, look at these guys. Man, they went and met right down the street from where Washington lived. And look at this, they produced this thing that’s called the Mount Vernon Statement(see one of my earlier blogs) that’s just filled with conservatism (not). And [laughing], As soon as I read the Mount Vernon Statement I went, oh, God. The more things change the more they stay the same....
This is old news. There’s nothing new here. The perpetuation, I mean, listen to this. First of all, anytime anyone invokes the Declaration of Independence to you, you should be like the robot in “Lost in Space.” Warning, warning, Will Robinson. Warning, warning, liberal approaching.
when people start hearkening back to the Declaration, you’re in trouble. The declaratory parts of the Declaration are all about the rights of self-government and of the states, or the colonies then, to secede. Ask yourself the question, what are they declaring? They’re not declaring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That already existed. They are declaring that they are new, sovereign states, 13 of them. And in some manners they will act as one union in repelling the British invasion.
So any time you read these statements, and when someone starts invoking the Declaration, you ought to be on guard.
But anyways, you get to the principles of the Mount Vernon Statement, and this is where it gets hairy, and this is where it gets, shall we say, not focused. When you start promoting capitalism, or when you start promoting free enterprise, what is free enterprise? Can someone define for me what free enterprise is? I can define for you what a free market is. I don’t know what free enterprise is. Is free enterprise where you have businesses that are still run and ordered about by the government, and just because the government’s run by Republicans, that makes it better?
So many people run around and are so, what’s the word, enamored with, awash with the idea that the best that it’s ever gotten, or the best economic conditions that had ever been experienced were experienced from 1983 to 1988. It has never been better before. It’ll never be better since unless we get back to cutting taxes. When in fact the proper view ought to be that taxes were the problem to start with.
If you’re going to get into the business of admitting that the slashing of the tax rates is what led to the economic activity and what led to all the prosperity, well, then it ought to follow that there is something wrong with the tax rates. And it ought to follow that there’s something wrong with the idea of taxing productivity, something wrong with the idea of taxing success, of taxing wealth, of taxing capital. But instead, why, the one-size-fits-all solution for almost all our ills is just cut taxes. I got a better idea. Why don’t we just eliminate the ability of the federal government to tax? Why don’t we snip them and get them back on their constitutional heels where they ought to be, where they can only raise revenues through duties and imposts and what have you there. Why don’t we get back to that, instead of taxing the people that are productive and taxing the people’s productivity?
Anyways, you get to the Mount Vernon Statement, and you read to the end here, and this is where you find the real nuts and bolts of the problem. “A constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.” And here’s the policy agenda. “It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.” Eh, all right. I would have worded it different, but I can live with that. “It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.” I can kind of live with that. “It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.”
What does that mean? Here, again, here we are. We’re going to fix the economy because we’re going to have Republicans design the tax policies, and we’re going to have Republicans design the way out, and we’re going to have Republicans design the government that’s going to regulate it and make it all good. That’s what that means. The best medicine, like one of my fav authors Tom Woods says, is to get the hell out of the way. This is not laissez-faire. This is anything but. This is command-and-control with a different set of people doing the commanding.
Then we get to the real heart of the matter. “A constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda. It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.” I’m sorry. You can count me out. I should have just read ahead to the end and went, oh, here we go again.
So again, it’s our job, my job when I wake up in the morning, I knew that a significant portion of what I was going to make today was going to be taken, confiscated from me at the point of the IRS’s gun, and it’s going to be used to go support freedom and democracy around the world. Screw you. This is the damn problem, again.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Sharon Statement is from ACTUAL CONSERVATIVES not wannabe fakes
The "revival of conservatism" is all the rage right now in the political media. We are told that the Tea Parties are sweeping the nation, that the Republican Party is being forced to the Right in its attempts to woo them, that they are either an independent populist force or (alternatively) controlled by the GOP and Beltway Conservatives. Pundits laugh at the lack of sophistication on the part of these tea partiers (they are inevitably compared to McCarthyites or John Birchers), but then ponder the Deeper Significance of this phenomenon.
Seeking to take advantage of this explosion of grassroots vigor – and to control it – dozens of top conservative muckamucks met on February 17 at an estate that was an original part of George Washington’s Mount Vernon. There they signed "The Mount Vernon Statement" with the subtitle: "Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century."
First of all, though, I have to note that a statement written by one competent person will almost always outshine a committee document.
The Sharon Statement was written by one competent person – M. Stanton Evans, a gifted conservative journalist and leader then still in his twenties. Given the responsibility for bringing a statement of principles before the gathering, Carol Dawson and David Franke made some minor cosmetic changes, but it was 99.9% Stan Evans. And it was a real statement, concise but comprehensive in its scope, listing 12 "eternal truths" that "we, as young conservatives, believe." You could agree or disagree, but you knew where we stood.
The Mount Vernon Statement, I have to believe that it is the product of a committee. (You know, "if it quacks like a duck," etc.) It certainly is not a series of precise principles in the spirit of the Sharon Statement. Rather it’s a short essay seeking to identify modern conservatism with the spirit of the Constitution and George Washington. It’s not bad, given what it attempts to do. It’s just that it’s vague and muddled compared to the Sharon Statement – sort of like the conservative movement itself.
The Sharon Statement in Historical Context
The Sharon Statement was adopted in 1960, when the "conservative movement" was in its infancy and was still defining itself as something apart from the Old Right of the World War II and post-World War II era. Bill Buckley and his National Review were trying to meld traditionalist, libertarian, and cold warrior elements into one movement – a tough assignment. This gathering-together of disparate elements was called "fusionism," and its prophet was Frank S. Meyer, one of National Review’s senior editors. Stan Evans was a student of the prophet, and the Sharon Statement was Stan’s Fusionist Codice.
Fifty years later, the Sharon Statement has lost none of its brilliance – as a portrayal of what it was promoting. The defects we note are not in the statement itself but rather, informed by 50 years of history and conservative practice, defects in the movement it was defining.
To its credit, the Sharon Statement gave primacy to the Constitution (and especially the Tenth Amendment, all but forgotten today) and to "the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand." "Market economy" is much superior to the Mount Vernon Statement’s homage to "free enterprise," whatever that is. For one thing, a "market economy" (or "free market") by definition excludes any government intervention. "Free enterprise," and the even worse "capitalism," tends to change meanings with whatever is being hawked at the moment.
The great failure of the early conservative movement, which led to even greater failures over the past 50 years, is its belief that the lamb can lie down with the wolf and not be eaten. Conservatives of the Sharon Statement era, including Bill Buckley himself, knew that we were making a deal with the devil – endorsing an interventionist foreign policy, which the Old Right had fought tooth and nail, as a "temporary" measure to "defeat world communism." The Sharon Statement gives voice to this mentality with "eternal truths" 10 and 11:
"That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the single greatest threat to [American] liberties;
"That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with, this menace…"
Fifty years later, it’s obvious that the devil won that bet. International communism as a political force has been dead for 20 years – the "victory" cited as the goal in the Sharon Statement – and now we, the American Empire, are the enemy of the Constitution that conservatives swore obeisance to in 1960.
Which brings us to…
The Mount Vernon Statement in Historical Context
The great failure of the Mount Vernon Statement is not any literary shortcoming, but rather its utter failure to learn anything from the past 50 years, and to accept any responsibility for what has gone wrong over the past 50 years.
The Mount Vernon Statement reads like a document stuck in the Sixties: "America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics." There is not the slightest hint or acknowledgement that conservatives had any part in this undermining or redefining. Nothing about people posing as conservatives being responsible for a brutal empire that straddles the world, the bankrupting of the nation to pay for this empire, the justification of torture at home and abroad, an imperial presidency, the evisceration of the Tenth Amendment, you name it. Apparently only liberals have committed these crimes against the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.
Granted, documents like the Sharon Statement and the Mount Vernon Statement don’t usually name names, so we shouldn’t expect to see Bush and Cheney singled out for indictment in the latter. But there are disparaging references like "some insist that America must change" and "this idea of change." Gee, whom could they be talking about? Anyone with an ounce of political savvy can figure out that this is not an indictment of changes brought about by Bush and Cheney, but by that scoundrel Barack Hussein Obama.
And there’s a reason why the signers of the Mount Vernon Statement are silent today about the decapitation of the Constitution in the Bush/Cheney era – almost 100 percent of them supported Bush and Cheney with their votes in 2000, 2004, and (by proxy McCain) 2008. Even if they uttered some criticisms from time to time, they ended up voting for the Republican every time because – horrors – otherwise a Democrat would win.
In short, they put allegiance to party above allegiance to the Constitution they claim to serve. And because they cannot acknowledge this, the Mount Vernon Statement has to be seen as just another partisan battle cry, not a statement of "conservative beliefs, values and principles."
Back to George Washington
They were so close to Mount Vernon, and called this the Mount Vernon Statement. I wish they had taken the time to reflect on what George Washington had to say about political parties and partisanship.
From Washington’s lengthy Farewell Address in 1796 I have extracted some of the warnings he gave about "the baneful effects of the spirit of party." He was so much more prescient on foreign entanglements than those who signed the Sharon Statement in 1960, and so much more wise than the Republicans, posing as conservatives, who signed the Mount Vernon Statement this year.
David Franke was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s, when Democrats and liberals were the ones who believed in big government, fiscal recklessness, and an imperial presidency.
The Sharon Statement
Adopted in conference at Sharon, Connecticut, on 11 September 1960.
In this time of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths.
We, as young conservatives, believe:
That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual's use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;
That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;
That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;
That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;
That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;
That the genius of the Constitution- the division of powers- is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;
That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;
That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;
That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies;
That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;
That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistance with, this menace; and
That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?
Seeking to take advantage of this explosion of grassroots vigor – and to control it – dozens of top conservative muckamucks met on February 17 at an estate that was an original part of George Washington’s Mount Vernon. There they signed "The Mount Vernon Statement" with the subtitle: "Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century."
First of all, though, I have to note that a statement written by one competent person will almost always outshine a committee document.
The Sharon Statement was written by one competent person – M. Stanton Evans, a gifted conservative journalist and leader then still in his twenties. Given the responsibility for bringing a statement of principles before the gathering, Carol Dawson and David Franke made some minor cosmetic changes, but it was 99.9% Stan Evans. And it was a real statement, concise but comprehensive in its scope, listing 12 "eternal truths" that "we, as young conservatives, believe." You could agree or disagree, but you knew where we stood.
The Mount Vernon Statement, I have to believe that it is the product of a committee. (You know, "if it quacks like a duck," etc.) It certainly is not a series of precise principles in the spirit of the Sharon Statement. Rather it’s a short essay seeking to identify modern conservatism with the spirit of the Constitution and George Washington. It’s not bad, given what it attempts to do. It’s just that it’s vague and muddled compared to the Sharon Statement – sort of like the conservative movement itself.
The Sharon Statement in Historical Context
The Sharon Statement was adopted in 1960, when the "conservative movement" was in its infancy and was still defining itself as something apart from the Old Right of the World War II and post-World War II era. Bill Buckley and his National Review were trying to meld traditionalist, libertarian, and cold warrior elements into one movement – a tough assignment. This gathering-together of disparate elements was called "fusionism," and its prophet was Frank S. Meyer, one of National Review’s senior editors. Stan Evans was a student of the prophet, and the Sharon Statement was Stan’s Fusionist Codice.
Fifty years later, the Sharon Statement has lost none of its brilliance – as a portrayal of what it was promoting. The defects we note are not in the statement itself but rather, informed by 50 years of history and conservative practice, defects in the movement it was defining.
To its credit, the Sharon Statement gave primacy to the Constitution (and especially the Tenth Amendment, all but forgotten today) and to "the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand." "Market economy" is much superior to the Mount Vernon Statement’s homage to "free enterprise," whatever that is. For one thing, a "market economy" (or "free market") by definition excludes any government intervention. "Free enterprise," and the even worse "capitalism," tends to change meanings with whatever is being hawked at the moment.
The great failure of the early conservative movement, which led to even greater failures over the past 50 years, is its belief that the lamb can lie down with the wolf and not be eaten. Conservatives of the Sharon Statement era, including Bill Buckley himself, knew that we were making a deal with the devil – endorsing an interventionist foreign policy, which the Old Right had fought tooth and nail, as a "temporary" measure to "defeat world communism." The Sharon Statement gives voice to this mentality with "eternal truths" 10 and 11:
"That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the single greatest threat to [American] liberties;
"That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with, this menace…"
Fifty years later, it’s obvious that the devil won that bet. International communism as a political force has been dead for 20 years – the "victory" cited as the goal in the Sharon Statement – and now we, the American Empire, are the enemy of the Constitution that conservatives swore obeisance to in 1960.
Which brings us to…
The Mount Vernon Statement in Historical Context
The great failure of the Mount Vernon Statement is not any literary shortcoming, but rather its utter failure to learn anything from the past 50 years, and to accept any responsibility for what has gone wrong over the past 50 years.
The Mount Vernon Statement reads like a document stuck in the Sixties: "America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics." There is not the slightest hint or acknowledgement that conservatives had any part in this undermining or redefining. Nothing about people posing as conservatives being responsible for a brutal empire that straddles the world, the bankrupting of the nation to pay for this empire, the justification of torture at home and abroad, an imperial presidency, the evisceration of the Tenth Amendment, you name it. Apparently only liberals have committed these crimes against the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.
Granted, documents like the Sharon Statement and the Mount Vernon Statement don’t usually name names, so we shouldn’t expect to see Bush and Cheney singled out for indictment in the latter. But there are disparaging references like "some insist that America must change" and "this idea of change." Gee, whom could they be talking about? Anyone with an ounce of political savvy can figure out that this is not an indictment of changes brought about by Bush and Cheney, but by that scoundrel Barack Hussein Obama.
And there’s a reason why the signers of the Mount Vernon Statement are silent today about the decapitation of the Constitution in the Bush/Cheney era – almost 100 percent of them supported Bush and Cheney with their votes in 2000, 2004, and (by proxy McCain) 2008. Even if they uttered some criticisms from time to time, they ended up voting for the Republican every time because – horrors – otherwise a Democrat would win.
In short, they put allegiance to party above allegiance to the Constitution they claim to serve. And because they cannot acknowledge this, the Mount Vernon Statement has to be seen as just another partisan battle cry, not a statement of "conservative beliefs, values and principles."
Back to George Washington
They were so close to Mount Vernon, and called this the Mount Vernon Statement. I wish they had taken the time to reflect on what George Washington had to say about political parties and partisanship.
From Washington’s lengthy Farewell Address in 1796 I have extracted some of the warnings he gave about "the baneful effects of the spirit of party." He was so much more prescient on foreign entanglements than those who signed the Sharon Statement in 1960, and so much more wise than the Republicans, posing as conservatives, who signed the Mount Vernon Statement this year.
David Franke was one of the founders of the conservative movement in the 1950s and 1960s, when Democrats and liberals were the ones who believed in big government, fiscal recklessness, and an imperial presidency.
The Sharon Statement
Adopted in conference at Sharon, Connecticut, on 11 September 1960.
In this time of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths.
We, as young conservatives, believe:
That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual's use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;
That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;
That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;
That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;
That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;
That the genius of the Constitution- the division of powers- is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;
That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;
That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;
That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies;
That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;
That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistance with, this menace; and
That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
HB1388 got passed in the cloak of darkness
HB 1388 PASSED
You just spent $20,000,000 to move members/supporters of Hamas, a terrorist organization, to the United States ; housing, food, the whole enchilada.
Whether you are an Obama fan or not, EVERYONE IN THE U.S. needs to know.
Something happened.... H.R. 1388 was passed, behind our backs. You may want to read about it. It wasn't mentioned on the news - just went by on the ticker tape at the bottom of the CNN screen.
Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA . This is the news that didn't make the headlines:
By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims" in Gaza .
The "presidential determination", which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States , was signed and appears in the Federal Register.
Few on Capitol Hill, or in the media, took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.
Let's review....itemized list of some of Barack Obama's most recent actions since his inauguration:
His first call to any head of state, as president, was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.
His first one-on-one television interview with any news organization was with Al Arabia television.
His first executive order was to fund/facilitate abortions not just here within the U. S. , but within the world, using U. S. tax payer funds.
He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees halted.
He ordered overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.
He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole and the "terror attack" on 9/11.
Now we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refuges to move to, and live in, the US at American taxpayer expense.
These important, and insightful, issues are being "lost" in the blinding bail-outs and "stimulation" packages.
Doubtful? To verify this for yourself:
www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488
PLEASE PASS THIS ON... AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW
WE are losing this country at a rapid pace...
and dont forget that on sat nite while you were doing whatever it is you do, obama so quietly signed the bill that raised the debt ceiling.....did the elite media even alert you to this fact???
This socialist government is transforming the constitution to whatever they want it to say, the question is:
WHAT ARE WE PREPARED TO DO ABOUT IT???
You just spent $20,000,000 to move members/supporters of Hamas, a terrorist organization, to the United States ; housing, food, the whole enchilada.
Whether you are an Obama fan or not, EVERYONE IN THE U.S. needs to know.
Something happened.... H.R. 1388 was passed, behind our backs. You may want to read about it. It wasn't mentioned on the news - just went by on the ticker tape at the bottom of the CNN screen.
Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA . This is the news that didn't make the headlines:
By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims" in Gaza .
The "presidential determination", which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States , was signed and appears in the Federal Register.
Few on Capitol Hill, or in the media, took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006.
Let's review....itemized list of some of Barack Obama's most recent actions since his inauguration:
His first call to any head of state, as president, was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.
His first one-on-one television interview with any news organization was with Al Arabia television.
His first executive order was to fund/facilitate abortions not just here within the U. S. , but within the world, using U. S. tax payer funds.
He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees halted.
He ordered overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.
He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole and the "terror attack" on 9/11.
Now we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refuges to move to, and live in, the US at American taxpayer expense.
These important, and insightful, issues are being "lost" in the blinding bail-outs and "stimulation" packages.
Doubtful? To verify this for yourself:
www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488
PLEASE PASS THIS ON... AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW
WE are losing this country at a rapid pace...
and dont forget that on sat nite while you were doing whatever it is you do, obama so quietly signed the bill that raised the debt ceiling.....did the elite media even alert you to this fact???
This socialist government is transforming the constitution to whatever they want it to say, the question is:
WHAT ARE WE PREPARED TO DO ABOUT IT???
Friday, February 12, 2010
Heres a different take on what glenn beck did to debra medina on his radio show....
First, let me state that I thought that what glenn did on his radio show, and the comments that he and his staff said after the interview were in my opinion VERY UNPROFESSIONAL.
I mean glenn portrays himself as some advocate for truth, and whats for good, and he portrys himself as a conservative. After this interview I can assure you he is not a conservative in the true meaning of the word....what he is for is for republicans to have the power in washington, calling all the shots. He is against obama and his administration, so yeah he`s out there digging and exposing all of obamas lies and corrupt buddies....
How can someone who claims that he is a conservative, attack the only real conservative running for gov in the state of texas, and then on his show state that hes for Senator Kay “Bailout” Hutchison, and then calling her a "nutjob" on the radio.
Hey mr beck, thats how political careers are destroyed before they even begin, are you trying to sabotage her campaign on purpose???? Why is glenn making Debra out to be a 9-11 truther??? WHERES YOUR FACTS SIR???
Medina Campaign Responds to Glenn Beck Interview
by Debra Medina on Feb 11, 2010
I was asked a question on the Glenn Beck show today regarding my thoughts on the so-called 9/11 truth movement. I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way. No one can deny that the events on 9/11 were a tragedy for all Americans and especially those families who lost loved ones.
The question surprised me because it's not relevant to this race or the issues facing Texans. This campaign has always been about private property rights and state sovereignty. It is focused on the issues facing Texans. It is not a vehicle for the 9-11 truth movement or any other group.
The real underlying question here, though, is whether or not people have the right to question our government. I think the fact that people are even asking questions on this level gets to the incredible distrust career politicians have fostered by so clearly taking their direction from special interests instead of the people, whether it's Rick Perry and his HPV mandate or Kay Hutchison and voting for the bank bailout. It is absolutely the right and duty of a free people to question their government. Texas does not need another politician who tells you what you want to hear, then violates your liberties and steals your property anyway. I fully expect to be questioned and to be held accountable as Governor, and that's the underlying issue here: should people be questioning their government. And the answer is yes, they should be.
Now for a real, in-depth interview between Mike Church and Debra Medina:
As many people are aware, candidate for Texas governor Debra Medina, a friend of the show, had a brief phone interview with Glenn Beck. Well some questions were left unanswered and Mike invited Ms. Medina on to defend herself...
Mike: I asked Debra Medina to be on the program today, and she’s taken some time out of her day. I just – I thought it was funny, though, that right before we put you on hold, Debra, you had to put gas in your car. You don’t have minions?
Debra: I really am just an average, ordinary Texan out here fighting the good fight. And we’re winning. And that’s what’s causing this to happen. We’ve known for some time that the attacks would come when we really become a threat. They have no choice. And we saw that concerted attack and concerted swipe at me yesterday. Kay and Rick were both waiting in the wings so they – they knew what was coming. And we got it. And, you know, we’re still standing today. We’re still focused for restoring a constitutional republic, private property ownership, gun ownership, state sovereignty, baby, it’s going to be a pretty thing in Texas and beyond. We know that. Don’t be dismayed. Don’t be discouraged. We’re going to win this. And we’re going to stay eye on the target.
Mike: Well, that’s good to hear. It’s eye of the tiger. You need to go home and watch “Rocky III,” it’s on Showtime this month. Eye of the tiger, Deb, eye of the tiger. Now, let me ask you a couple questions here because I have a lot of people that want to ask you questions. And I’m going to ask on their behalf, okay?
Debra: Sure.
Mike: All right. Number one, are you aware – and Lew Rockwell reported this yesterday at LewRockwell.com. Are you aware that a mere 90 minutes after you hung the phone up with Mr. Beck, that Governor Gardasil had a robocall campaign set complete with audio, ready to go, and was calling Texas residents?
Debra: My campaign manager actually got that call, I believe, at 11:15, which was less than an hour after I got off the air, so – or right at an hour after I got off the air. I’ve not heard it myself, nor have I seen a transcript. But I have heard the rumors, yes.
Mike: Okay. Did you read Ms. Hutchison’s, one of your other competitors, did you read her statement on the issue?
Debra: I have not seen – I understand that they’re both talking about it. But I’ve not seen or heard either one of them yet. I have had a lot of microphones in my face for the last 24 hours. And so, no, I have not.
Mike: Okay, in a respectful manner, without mocking, and without trying to set you up, I want to walk back through yesterday, just for edification, and hopefully some other media outlets will pick up on this.
Debra: You bet.
Mike: Do you consider yourself a truther?
Debra: No, I do not.
Mike: Let me ask the question in another way. And I think this will give you a chance to elaborate on your statement on your website. When should it become politically wrong for Americans individually or running for an elective office to certify blindly the results that their government has given them and not ask for more statistics or more information about events that affect their everyday life?
Debra: I can’t envision a situation where that would ever be appropriate. I mean, wait. Are you asking the negative? I want to make sure that I’m saying it is always appropriate for us to question authority and government.
Mike: Yes. And is it also, shouldn’t it also be part of a self-government, then, or should it be part – let me just ask you. I don’t want to answer the question for you. Should it be part of a limited self-government for the people to question all the actions of their government?
Debra: Yes, it should. Mike, I think I’ve got to say that it ought – I think it’s disturbing to all of us that we have so many unanswered questions. And we’ve – I’ve been talking about those here in Texas. We’re wondering what kind of deal was really struck between Rick Perry and Cintra to give away a big chunk of the state of the Texas to a foreign country.
Mike: Right.
Debra: You know, those kinds of questions are getting asked, and they have to be asked. We deserve transparency. We need to know the answers to those questions. We need to know them clearly.
Mike: And that was going to be my next question. There is a bit of a conspiracy theory or a conspiracy in action, if you will, happening right now in Texas with this Trans-Texas Corridor. Has all the information that you want been laid out there for the public and for the citizens of the republic of Texas to view?
Debra: No, it’s been a smoke-and-mirrors game for years now. The governor has claimed that the corridor has died five times. It dies really spectacular deaths around campaign season, and then it’s resurrected again afterwards. Even the Senator, who’s been critical of that, has in her own transportation plan what she’s calling a “multimodal transportation network.” Okay, so we’re not calling this a corridor anymore. Now it’s a multimodal transportation network. And we’re supposed to believe that the corridor is dead, and this is something else entirely? It’s the same footprint. It’s the same plan. It’s just been given multiple names. We’ve now seen it also called the North American SuperCorridor.
So, you know, people are sick of this smoke-and-mirrors, constantly shifting dialogue. And that’s’ what we’ve come to expect from political royalty in America. We just need to know that when we challenge that, they’re going to attempt to smush us like bugs and make us fringe and strange and radical. I’m not fringe, strange, or radical. Everyday, average, American citizen. We’re going to keep fighting hard.
Mike: So then it would be fair to say, then, that there are a considerable amount of Texans out there that would be Trans-Texas Corridor truthers, then.
Debra: They would be.
Mike: Just to put it in another way. And I’m trying to illustrate the point here. Now, moving on to issues that actually matter to Texans, let’s talk about what actually matters to the people of Texas. If you were the governor, and if Barack Obama passed ObamaCare and sent to you a $3.5 billion per year mandate that you alter your Medicaid delivery system and that you confiscate taxes from the people of Texas in order to pay for it and that you monitor them to make sure that they were buying ObamaCare or some facsimile thereof, you as governor of Texas would do what?
Debra: It’s not happening here. We’re already calling for the attorney general to seek an injunction in federal court to keep the IRS off the backs of Texans and incurring any additional penalties for their failure to obtain that accessible health insurance. We’re looking for nullification language to give the AG a second line of defense against the constitutionality of that measure and looking at every means available to begin to return healthcare to the individual family, church, and community where it belongs. It’s not something that the government should be doing.
Mike: I think that’s a pretty reasonable answer. Same answer for unemployment, unfunded unemployment mandates. If the President of the United States or if Senator Kay “Bailout” Hutchison voted for another 26-week or whatever long extension of unemployment benefits and then passed the bill to the state of Texas, your position on that would be what?
Debra: Again, not participating in that sort of bait-and-switch game. I got asked about that in West Texas last week. And I said, you know, the best fix for unemployment is let people get back to work. Get the government off their back, let them get out there and get a job, and we don’t have to worry about unemployment, that charity does not belong with the government. People lose jobs all the time. I’ve been n that situation. You get out there, you find another job, and you get back to work. We’ve got to get the government off of people’s backs so that they can do that.
We’ve got a system here in Texas. We need to keep it viable. But I believe we need to begin to wean away from those sorts of programs and really shrink the size of government. That’s what all of us have been giving lip service to. It’s not going to be painless. But when we implement wise and conservative government principles, we’ll get back to freedom and prosperity, where people really do have the resources and ability to help one another.
Mike: Debra Medina, who’s a candidate for the governorship of the state of Texas, is on the line. Now, you have about 18 days until primary election day? Do I have that...
Debra: That’s correct. Early voting actually starts next Tuesday. And so we know about 60 percent of the vote in Texas will be cast during the early voting timeframe. We’re turning out to vote beginning Tuesday of next week. But election day is March 2nd.
Now all I ask is that you make up your own mind, are you ready for true conservatives in office? Or do you want the same ol` song and dance politician in office???
I also want to say, that if you are going to make blatant accusations about someone, you had better base it on facts and not on rumors because you can destroy someones life or career that way!
I mean glenn portrays himself as some advocate for truth, and whats for good, and he portrys himself as a conservative. After this interview I can assure you he is not a conservative in the true meaning of the word....what he is for is for republicans to have the power in washington, calling all the shots. He is against obama and his administration, so yeah he`s out there digging and exposing all of obamas lies and corrupt buddies....
How can someone who claims that he is a conservative, attack the only real conservative running for gov in the state of texas, and then on his show state that hes for Senator Kay “Bailout” Hutchison, and then calling her a "nutjob" on the radio.
Hey mr beck, thats how political careers are destroyed before they even begin, are you trying to sabotage her campaign on purpose???? Why is glenn making Debra out to be a 9-11 truther??? WHERES YOUR FACTS SIR???
Medina Campaign Responds to Glenn Beck Interview
by Debra Medina on Feb 11, 2010
I was asked a question on the Glenn Beck show today regarding my thoughts on the so-called 9/11 truth movement. I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way. No one can deny that the events on 9/11 were a tragedy for all Americans and especially those families who lost loved ones.
The question surprised me because it's not relevant to this race or the issues facing Texans. This campaign has always been about private property rights and state sovereignty. It is focused on the issues facing Texans. It is not a vehicle for the 9-11 truth movement or any other group.
The real underlying question here, though, is whether or not people have the right to question our government. I think the fact that people are even asking questions on this level gets to the incredible distrust career politicians have fostered by so clearly taking their direction from special interests instead of the people, whether it's Rick Perry and his HPV mandate or Kay Hutchison and voting for the bank bailout. It is absolutely the right and duty of a free people to question their government. Texas does not need another politician who tells you what you want to hear, then violates your liberties and steals your property anyway. I fully expect to be questioned and to be held accountable as Governor, and that's the underlying issue here: should people be questioning their government. And the answer is yes, they should be.
Now for a real, in-depth interview between Mike Church and Debra Medina:
As many people are aware, candidate for Texas governor Debra Medina, a friend of the show, had a brief phone interview with Glenn Beck. Well some questions were left unanswered and Mike invited Ms. Medina on to defend herself...
Mike: I asked Debra Medina to be on the program today, and she’s taken some time out of her day. I just – I thought it was funny, though, that right before we put you on hold, Debra, you had to put gas in your car. You don’t have minions?
Debra: I really am just an average, ordinary Texan out here fighting the good fight. And we’re winning. And that’s what’s causing this to happen. We’ve known for some time that the attacks would come when we really become a threat. They have no choice. And we saw that concerted attack and concerted swipe at me yesterday. Kay and Rick were both waiting in the wings so they – they knew what was coming. And we got it. And, you know, we’re still standing today. We’re still focused for restoring a constitutional republic, private property ownership, gun ownership, state sovereignty, baby, it’s going to be a pretty thing in Texas and beyond. We know that. Don’t be dismayed. Don’t be discouraged. We’re going to win this. And we’re going to stay eye on the target.
Mike: Well, that’s good to hear. It’s eye of the tiger. You need to go home and watch “Rocky III,” it’s on Showtime this month. Eye of the tiger, Deb, eye of the tiger. Now, let me ask you a couple questions here because I have a lot of people that want to ask you questions. And I’m going to ask on their behalf, okay?
Debra: Sure.
Mike: All right. Number one, are you aware – and Lew Rockwell reported this yesterday at LewRockwell.com. Are you aware that a mere 90 minutes after you hung the phone up with Mr. Beck, that Governor Gardasil had a robocall campaign set complete with audio, ready to go, and was calling Texas residents?
Debra: My campaign manager actually got that call, I believe, at 11:15, which was less than an hour after I got off the air, so – or right at an hour after I got off the air. I’ve not heard it myself, nor have I seen a transcript. But I have heard the rumors, yes.
Mike: Okay. Did you read Ms. Hutchison’s, one of your other competitors, did you read her statement on the issue?
Debra: I have not seen – I understand that they’re both talking about it. But I’ve not seen or heard either one of them yet. I have had a lot of microphones in my face for the last 24 hours. And so, no, I have not.
Mike: Okay, in a respectful manner, without mocking, and without trying to set you up, I want to walk back through yesterday, just for edification, and hopefully some other media outlets will pick up on this.
Debra: You bet.
Mike: Do you consider yourself a truther?
Debra: No, I do not.
Mike: Let me ask the question in another way. And I think this will give you a chance to elaborate on your statement on your website. When should it become politically wrong for Americans individually or running for an elective office to certify blindly the results that their government has given them and not ask for more statistics or more information about events that affect their everyday life?
Debra: I can’t envision a situation where that would ever be appropriate. I mean, wait. Are you asking the negative? I want to make sure that I’m saying it is always appropriate for us to question authority and government.
Mike: Yes. And is it also, shouldn’t it also be part of a self-government, then, or should it be part – let me just ask you. I don’t want to answer the question for you. Should it be part of a limited self-government for the people to question all the actions of their government?
Debra: Yes, it should. Mike, I think I’ve got to say that it ought – I think it’s disturbing to all of us that we have so many unanswered questions. And we’ve – I’ve been talking about those here in Texas. We’re wondering what kind of deal was really struck between Rick Perry and Cintra to give away a big chunk of the state of the Texas to a foreign country.
Mike: Right.
Debra: You know, those kinds of questions are getting asked, and they have to be asked. We deserve transparency. We need to know the answers to those questions. We need to know them clearly.
Mike: And that was going to be my next question. There is a bit of a conspiracy theory or a conspiracy in action, if you will, happening right now in Texas with this Trans-Texas Corridor. Has all the information that you want been laid out there for the public and for the citizens of the republic of Texas to view?
Debra: No, it’s been a smoke-and-mirrors game for years now. The governor has claimed that the corridor has died five times. It dies really spectacular deaths around campaign season, and then it’s resurrected again afterwards. Even the Senator, who’s been critical of that, has in her own transportation plan what she’s calling a “multimodal transportation network.” Okay, so we’re not calling this a corridor anymore. Now it’s a multimodal transportation network. And we’re supposed to believe that the corridor is dead, and this is something else entirely? It’s the same footprint. It’s the same plan. It’s just been given multiple names. We’ve now seen it also called the North American SuperCorridor.
So, you know, people are sick of this smoke-and-mirrors, constantly shifting dialogue. And that’s’ what we’ve come to expect from political royalty in America. We just need to know that when we challenge that, they’re going to attempt to smush us like bugs and make us fringe and strange and radical. I’m not fringe, strange, or radical. Everyday, average, American citizen. We’re going to keep fighting hard.
Mike: So then it would be fair to say, then, that there are a considerable amount of Texans out there that would be Trans-Texas Corridor truthers, then.
Debra: They would be.
Mike: Just to put it in another way. And I’m trying to illustrate the point here. Now, moving on to issues that actually matter to Texans, let’s talk about what actually matters to the people of Texas. If you were the governor, and if Barack Obama passed ObamaCare and sent to you a $3.5 billion per year mandate that you alter your Medicaid delivery system and that you confiscate taxes from the people of Texas in order to pay for it and that you monitor them to make sure that they were buying ObamaCare or some facsimile thereof, you as governor of Texas would do what?
Debra: It’s not happening here. We’re already calling for the attorney general to seek an injunction in federal court to keep the IRS off the backs of Texans and incurring any additional penalties for their failure to obtain that accessible health insurance. We’re looking for nullification language to give the AG a second line of defense against the constitutionality of that measure and looking at every means available to begin to return healthcare to the individual family, church, and community where it belongs. It’s not something that the government should be doing.
Mike: I think that’s a pretty reasonable answer. Same answer for unemployment, unfunded unemployment mandates. If the President of the United States or if Senator Kay “Bailout” Hutchison voted for another 26-week or whatever long extension of unemployment benefits and then passed the bill to the state of Texas, your position on that would be what?
Debra: Again, not participating in that sort of bait-and-switch game. I got asked about that in West Texas last week. And I said, you know, the best fix for unemployment is let people get back to work. Get the government off their back, let them get out there and get a job, and we don’t have to worry about unemployment, that charity does not belong with the government. People lose jobs all the time. I’ve been n that situation. You get out there, you find another job, and you get back to work. We’ve got to get the government off of people’s backs so that they can do that.
We’ve got a system here in Texas. We need to keep it viable. But I believe we need to begin to wean away from those sorts of programs and really shrink the size of government. That’s what all of us have been giving lip service to. It’s not going to be painless. But when we implement wise and conservative government principles, we’ll get back to freedom and prosperity, where people really do have the resources and ability to help one another.
Mike: Debra Medina, who’s a candidate for the governorship of the state of Texas, is on the line. Now, you have about 18 days until primary election day? Do I have that...
Debra: That’s correct. Early voting actually starts next Tuesday. And so we know about 60 percent of the vote in Texas will be cast during the early voting timeframe. We’re turning out to vote beginning Tuesday of next week. But election day is March 2nd.
Now all I ask is that you make up your own mind, are you ready for true conservatives in office? Or do you want the same ol` song and dance politician in office???
I also want to say, that if you are going to make blatant accusations about someone, you had better base it on facts and not on rumors because you can destroy someones life or career that way!
Thursday, February 4, 2010
How can you tell when its election time?
Have you noticed that it’s that special time of year again?
How can you tell when its election time? Well, when Democrats who have spent their kids and their great great grandkids future earnings during the feast of taxpayer dollars have all of a sudden found austerity! Well not exactly austerity but at least they are channeling their disgusted, busted and impoverished constituents... like Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln.
It's not rare for a handful of members of Congress to turn on a president of the same party during an off-presidential election year, especially when that president's poll numbers are low. But the vehemence with which some Democrats are separating themselves from the president's this year strikes me as a bit over the top. Republicans didn't even run this far from former President George W. Bush in 2006, despite their party's alleged reputation for fiscal restraint and the extent to which Mr. Bush went to destroy that reputation.
Just like the scum that they are, now they are starting to talk out of both sides of their rear-ends....trying to back away from their crook-in-chief, not that they dont get up and cheer everytime he snatches alittle more of our liberties and freedoms, but they now have to appear that they are for the people and that "that big bad president" is the cause of everyones problems!
From the L.A. Times:
A Democratic Senate candidate in Missouri denounced the budget's sky-high deficit. A Florida Democrat whose congressional district includes the Kennedy Space Center hit the roof over NASA budget cuts. And a headline on the 2010 campaign website of Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) blares her opposition to Obama's farm budget: "Blanche stands up for Arkansas farm families."
Of course Chairman MaObama spent all that sacred taxpayer money and lost touch with reality and his constituents all by his “wittle self wight!?”
Actually Blanche voted for the TARP bailout, for the Presidents first budget, for the Porkulus, Stimulus Succubus and most notoriously- not popular - with folks who go to work on Monday and make payroll on Friday - FOR ObamaCare.
But now she is a woman of the people, a tireless servant of the “Ar-Kansans” she represents. This would be hysterically funny if there weren’t more doublespeak from Blanche. Two days ago she blasted Obama for not spending ENOUGH of her constituents money, earned between Monday and payroll Fridays - on Agriculture and Farm subsidies.
There are other outraged stimulus supporters who now want to use Obama as a human voter shield. Central Floridas Suzanna Kosmas lashed out at Dear Leaders unimaginable, inhuman, meager 4% increase in NASA funds because we need [echo effect] Porkulus in outer space!![end effect]
This all leaves me wondering how the Tea Party voters who ostensibly want to stop unconstitutional spending, are going to react to that spending increase in THEIR district.
Will it be their cup of tea, or will it be bitters added to the tonic?
How can you tell when its election time? Well, when Democrats who have spent their kids and their great great grandkids future earnings during the feast of taxpayer dollars have all of a sudden found austerity! Well not exactly austerity but at least they are channeling their disgusted, busted and impoverished constituents... like Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln.
It's not rare for a handful of members of Congress to turn on a president of the same party during an off-presidential election year, especially when that president's poll numbers are low. But the vehemence with which some Democrats are separating themselves from the president's this year strikes me as a bit over the top. Republicans didn't even run this far from former President George W. Bush in 2006, despite their party's alleged reputation for fiscal restraint and the extent to which Mr. Bush went to destroy that reputation.
Just like the scum that they are, now they are starting to talk out of both sides of their rear-ends....trying to back away from their crook-in-chief, not that they dont get up and cheer everytime he snatches alittle more of our liberties and freedoms, but they now have to appear that they are for the people and that "that big bad president" is the cause of everyones problems!
From the L.A. Times:
A Democratic Senate candidate in Missouri denounced the budget's sky-high deficit. A Florida Democrat whose congressional district includes the Kennedy Space Center hit the roof over NASA budget cuts. And a headline on the 2010 campaign website of Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) blares her opposition to Obama's farm budget: "Blanche stands up for Arkansas farm families."
Of course Chairman MaObama spent all that sacred taxpayer money and lost touch with reality and his constituents all by his “wittle self wight!?”
Actually Blanche voted for the TARP bailout, for the Presidents first budget, for the Porkulus, Stimulus Succubus and most notoriously- not popular - with folks who go to work on Monday and make payroll on Friday - FOR ObamaCare.
But now she is a woman of the people, a tireless servant of the “Ar-Kansans” she represents. This would be hysterically funny if there weren’t more doublespeak from Blanche. Two days ago she blasted Obama for not spending ENOUGH of her constituents money, earned between Monday and payroll Fridays - on Agriculture and Farm subsidies.
There are other outraged stimulus supporters who now want to use Obama as a human voter shield. Central Floridas Suzanna Kosmas lashed out at Dear Leaders unimaginable, inhuman, meager 4% increase in NASA funds because we need [echo effect] Porkulus in outer space!![end effect]
This all leaves me wondering how the Tea Party voters who ostensibly want to stop unconstitutional spending, are going to react to that spending increase in THEIR district.
Will it be their cup of tea, or will it be bitters added to the tonic?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Obama Plus Budget Equals Failure
Massive tax cuts that were not funded. Do you realize how preposterous that is? Again, the great dictator, the great socialist commissar acts as if all the money you earn is his. It is only through the kind benevolence of our elected leaders that we allow you to keep some of what you earn. The rest of it belongs to us. This, again, it’s the whole damn thing is inverted here. It’s my money. It’s not yours. It is the fruit of my labor, not yours. I mean, for God’s sake. Massive tax cuts that weren’t paid – you don’t pay – in other words, when you were born, that thing called the Constitution in the federal government, it demanded, it demanded, it required your subservience your admission, your existence on this planet as a result of it. And whatever your Congress, whatever your masters in Washington, D.C. say must be paid, you will pay it. I mean, look at Obama, look how mad he is. Look at that. Oh, folks, you’ve got to see this. Why, he is zippering from left to right with speed I have not seen.
President Obama: Okay. Now, if we had taken office during ordinary times, we would have started bringing down these deficits immediately. But one year ago our country was in crisis. We were losing nearly 700,000 jobs each month. The economy was in a freefall. And the financial system was near collapse. Many feared another Great Depression. Thank God I’m here to fix it.
So we initiated a rescue. And that rescue was not without significant costs. It added to the deficit, as well. One year later, because of the steps we’ve taken, we’re in a very different place. But we can’t simply move beyond this crisis. We have to address the irresponsibility that led to it. And that includes the failure to rein in spending, as well as reliance on borrowing, from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street, to fuel our growth. That’s what we have to change.
We have to do what families across America are doing, save where we can so that we can afford what we need. Now, I think it’s very important to understand...
Let me be clear.
...we want to be able to bring down this deficit overnight, given that the recovery is still taking hold and families across the country....
WHAT??? We’re not going to bring the deficit down over years [laughing]. Again, I’m the great savior. Oh, I’m doing better. But you better thank God that I’m here because I mean business. I mean business. We’re not going to bring it down overnight. Can we slow it down overnight? So he blamed Bush for his last deficit, $1.6 trillion. That was all Bush’s fault. Now, this one, that’s $1.56 trillion, that’s Bush’s fault, too. [Mimicking President Obama] “We have unfunded Medicare liabilities and all sorts of other stuff we’ve got to pay for up in here. And I remain committed to see to it that we continue to grow government and put as many people that work in the private sector out of work as we humanly can.”
(obama)...still need help. We will continue, for example, to do what it takes to create jobs. That’s reflected in my budget. It’s essential. The budget includes new tax cuts for people who invest in small businesses, tax credits for small businesses that hire new workers, investments that will create jobs repairing roads and bridges, and tax breaks for retrofitting homes to save energy. We also continue to lay a new foundation for lasting growth.
WHAT???? Oh, yes. The vaunted roofs Obama’s caulking. Why, you’re going to get a tax credit for weatherizing your home. So let me underscore the stupidity of this. If you buy – if you go to the store and you get some Dow, some Corning Chemical stuff and some weatherstripping and stuff, you’re going to get a tax credit. So you’re going to get a reduction of what is arguably and rightfully yours to start with, which is your money. Again, now, the kind, benevolent, beneficent, boy dictator intervenes to see to it that you get to keep more because you weather stripped.
This is just misdirection. This is give me another year. Wait till my reign of havoc and terror is done. When my reign of economic havoc and terror is done – this is intentional, folks. This is exactly as the plan states. Stay the course, spend more money, tell the rubes out there, the gullible idiot masses out there that you’re doing the exact opposite. They’ll buy it. They love you. You still have political capital. And when we’re done they won’t be able to reverse it. They will be far too gone, too many debts, too many obligations, too many people will have to be conscripted into service of paying it back...
(President Obama): Well, just as it would be a terrible mistake to borrow against our children’s future to pay our way today, it would be equally wrong to neglect their future by failing to invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century. That’s why we build on the largest investment in clean energy in history, as well as increase investment in scientific research so that we are fostering the industries and jobs of the future right here in America. That’s why I’ve proposed a more than 6 percent increase in funding for the education department. And this funding is tied to reforms that raise student achievement, inspire students to excel in math and science, and turn around failing schools which consign too many young people to a lesser future.
WHAT????? I’ve got to get a gun. I`m just [pounding desk] dumbfounded. That’s why [mimicking President Obama] “We’ve got to get our fiscal house in order. Bush screwed everything up, spent all this money on all this wasted stuff. But I’ve increased the education budget 6 percent because there are dumbasses out there, and they were not created by the federal education establishment. They were created by retardos and local schools. But as soon as my Arne Duncan guy gets out there and passes some new rules and makes them study the history of me, then they’ll be educated, and they can step on a world stage like I can. Now, let me be clear. This will not be easy.”
Six percent increase. Has the education establishment, department, infrastructure, whatever you want to call it, community, the education community, have they demonstrated that they’re worth a half a percent increase? Have they? By their own admission, the libtards’ own admission, they are woefully failing at their task. He just said that dumbasses are being cranked out. All right. Roll the digital media, for crying out loud.
(President Obama): Because in the 21st Century there is no better antipoverty program than a world-class education. And that’s why we eliminate a wasteful subsidy to banks that lend to college students and use that money to revitalize community colleges and make college more affordable. This will help us reach the goal I’ve set for America.
ARE YOU FLIPPING KIDDING ME? He is talking about nationalizing the student loan industry, taking it over. He just did it. “We’ve eliminated a wasteful subsidy” that is employing people that work at banks that make the loans, you ass bag. Oh, but don’t worry because there’ll be civic service workers. There’ll be SEIU carrying technocrats and bureaucrats that will come along and will administer the student loans......And also don’t forget that you won’t have to pay them back, either. Remember? If you choose to not have a productive career in the private sector making things that people need, prolonging people’s lives and what have you, and you choose to go work for the government instead, making people’s lives miserable, sitting around pushing paper, passing onerous rules and regulations for other people to live by, we’ll forgive your loan.
Ladies and gentlemen, if there was any doubt that Obama heard you tea partiers out there, do you need any more proof? This guy is not only doubling down, he’s betting the whole damn house. He’s not just doubling down, he’s betting the farm. Every single one of you libtard Democrats, you’re all on the hook here.
[Sighing] This man needs to be impeached.
He needs to be impeached.
He needs to be removed from office before this damage becomes permanent.
Aw, hell, it already is permanent.
President Obama: Okay. Now, if we had taken office during ordinary times, we would have started bringing down these deficits immediately. But one year ago our country was in crisis. We were losing nearly 700,000 jobs each month. The economy was in a freefall. And the financial system was near collapse. Many feared another Great Depression. Thank God I’m here to fix it.
So we initiated a rescue. And that rescue was not without significant costs. It added to the deficit, as well. One year later, because of the steps we’ve taken, we’re in a very different place. But we can’t simply move beyond this crisis. We have to address the irresponsibility that led to it. And that includes the failure to rein in spending, as well as reliance on borrowing, from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street, to fuel our growth. That’s what we have to change.
We have to do what families across America are doing, save where we can so that we can afford what we need. Now, I think it’s very important to understand...
Let me be clear.
...we want to be able to bring down this deficit overnight, given that the recovery is still taking hold and families across the country....
WHAT??? We’re not going to bring the deficit down over years [laughing]. Again, I’m the great savior. Oh, I’m doing better. But you better thank God that I’m here because I mean business. I mean business. We’re not going to bring it down overnight. Can we slow it down overnight? So he blamed Bush for his last deficit, $1.6 trillion. That was all Bush’s fault. Now, this one, that’s $1.56 trillion, that’s Bush’s fault, too. [Mimicking President Obama] “We have unfunded Medicare liabilities and all sorts of other stuff we’ve got to pay for up in here. And I remain committed to see to it that we continue to grow government and put as many people that work in the private sector out of work as we humanly can.”
(obama)...still need help. We will continue, for example, to do what it takes to create jobs. That’s reflected in my budget. It’s essential. The budget includes new tax cuts for people who invest in small businesses, tax credits for small businesses that hire new workers, investments that will create jobs repairing roads and bridges, and tax breaks for retrofitting homes to save energy. We also continue to lay a new foundation for lasting growth.
WHAT???? Oh, yes. The vaunted roofs Obama’s caulking. Why, you’re going to get a tax credit for weatherizing your home. So let me underscore the stupidity of this. If you buy – if you go to the store and you get some Dow, some Corning Chemical stuff and some weatherstripping and stuff, you’re going to get a tax credit. So you’re going to get a reduction of what is arguably and rightfully yours to start with, which is your money. Again, now, the kind, benevolent, beneficent, boy dictator intervenes to see to it that you get to keep more because you weather stripped.
This is just misdirection. This is give me another year. Wait till my reign of havoc and terror is done. When my reign of economic havoc and terror is done – this is intentional, folks. This is exactly as the plan states. Stay the course, spend more money, tell the rubes out there, the gullible idiot masses out there that you’re doing the exact opposite. They’ll buy it. They love you. You still have political capital. And when we’re done they won’t be able to reverse it. They will be far too gone, too many debts, too many obligations, too many people will have to be conscripted into service of paying it back...
(President Obama): Well, just as it would be a terrible mistake to borrow against our children’s future to pay our way today, it would be equally wrong to neglect their future by failing to invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century. That’s why we build on the largest investment in clean energy in history, as well as increase investment in scientific research so that we are fostering the industries and jobs of the future right here in America. That’s why I’ve proposed a more than 6 percent increase in funding for the education department. And this funding is tied to reforms that raise student achievement, inspire students to excel in math and science, and turn around failing schools which consign too many young people to a lesser future.
WHAT????? I’ve got to get a gun. I`m just [pounding desk] dumbfounded. That’s why [mimicking President Obama] “We’ve got to get our fiscal house in order. Bush screwed everything up, spent all this money on all this wasted stuff. But I’ve increased the education budget 6 percent because there are dumbasses out there, and they were not created by the federal education establishment. They were created by retardos and local schools. But as soon as my Arne Duncan guy gets out there and passes some new rules and makes them study the history of me, then they’ll be educated, and they can step on a world stage like I can. Now, let me be clear. This will not be easy.”
Six percent increase. Has the education establishment, department, infrastructure, whatever you want to call it, community, the education community, have they demonstrated that they’re worth a half a percent increase? Have they? By their own admission, the libtards’ own admission, they are woefully failing at their task. He just said that dumbasses are being cranked out. All right. Roll the digital media, for crying out loud.
(President Obama): Because in the 21st Century there is no better antipoverty program than a world-class education. And that’s why we eliminate a wasteful subsidy to banks that lend to college students and use that money to revitalize community colleges and make college more affordable. This will help us reach the goal I’ve set for America.
ARE YOU FLIPPING KIDDING ME? He is talking about nationalizing the student loan industry, taking it over. He just did it. “We’ve eliminated a wasteful subsidy” that is employing people that work at banks that make the loans, you ass bag. Oh, but don’t worry because there’ll be civic service workers. There’ll be SEIU carrying technocrats and bureaucrats that will come along and will administer the student loans......And also don’t forget that you won’t have to pay them back, either. Remember? If you choose to not have a productive career in the private sector making things that people need, prolonging people’s lives and what have you, and you choose to go work for the government instead, making people’s lives miserable, sitting around pushing paper, passing onerous rules and regulations for other people to live by, we’ll forgive your loan.
Ladies and gentlemen, if there was any doubt that Obama heard you tea partiers out there, do you need any more proof? This guy is not only doubling down, he’s betting the whole damn house. He’s not just doubling down, he’s betting the farm. Every single one of you libtard Democrats, you’re all on the hook here.
[Sighing] This man needs to be impeached.
He needs to be impeached.
He needs to be removed from office before this damage becomes permanent.
Aw, hell, it already is permanent.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Adam Andrzejewski...Republican party candidate for Governor
The only true choice for Illinois Gov.
Responses to a Chicago Tribune questionnaire.....
and just for the record, The Tribune endorsed Andy McKenna
Q.Previous Political Experience
A.My first experiences was assisting in my Father's 1976 and 1978 campaigns against then State Representative George Ryan at the ages of 7 and 9. My dad, a teacher at that time, was ultimately unsuccessful in those efforts, but I learned at a young age that people need to step up and do what they can to make Illinois a better place, regardless of "political experience." Following founding a successful business, I founded and funded For the Good of Illinois (www.forthegoodofillinois.org), which spearheaded transparency in government. From November of 2007 until February of 2009, I identified and worked with volunteers to ask their local units of government to post their checkbooks. This movement brought scrutiny to public spending and gave the taxpayer respect. The result the posting of over $1 billion in checks detailing the spending of taxpayer money. This includes the vendor spending and salaries in the $140 million operating budget of College of DuPage. In January of 2009, I was a resource for Bob Grogan, Auditor of DuPage County, who made DuPage County the first of 102 in Illinois to post their spending. I was also a resource for Cook County Board Commissioner Tony Peraica, who spearheaded the vote to have Cook County post its checkbook(s). I can confidently state that I have brought meaningful reform to Illinois even before holding elective office. Imagine what I will do as governor.
Q.Education
A.B.A. from Northern Illinois University
Q.Illinois is struggling to balance its budget this year and may face a $12 billion deficit in 2010-11. Please answer the following questions:
Do you support an income tax increase? At what rates would you set the income tax for individuals and for corporations?
A.I do not support an income tax increase. Any increase in the Illinois income tax would remove one of the last vestiges of competitive advantage Illinois has over other states. This made even more clear when one understands that a) Illinois has 2 business taxes, and b) that the business income tax is tied to the individual income tax rate. Increasing the income tax will create more incentives for high earners to leave Illinois, and the 5/8th individual to business tax ratio will allow the Democratic legislature to quickly raise the business tax rate, which will chase more businesses and jobs out of the state. Illinois income tax rate may be "relatively low" compared to states that have a tax, but there are other competitive disadvantages relative to other states. Your readers can look here to see how we compare. http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.html If anything, Illinois needs to cut spending and balance the budget so it can begin removing/lowering various taxes. I would start with the 2.5% replacement tax and double taxation of gasoline.
Q.Should Illinois create a service tax or raise other taxes? Please explain.
A.No. While broadening the sales tax base to services might be the least damaging tax (according to some experts) relative to other taxes, the fact remains that Illinois is fighting 50 other states for jobs and investment. Any tax that lowers what little competitive advantage we have would be bad for Illinois. As for "other taxes," I've heard from businesses around the state regarding the numerous fees, add-ons, and Workers Compensation costs that are "nickel and diming" businesses. These nickels and dimes add up to the loss of jobs and investments. The Illinois political class that has hiked Illinois unsustainable spending fails to understand just how many jobs are created or destroyed "at the margins." When workers comp. costs rise based upon some administrative or court decision, the business costs associated with that prevent the creation of the next job or cause the destruction of the last person hired. The sharp rise is local property taxation and state and local debt has the same job-destroying effect.
Q.What should be the top priorities for spending cuts? Can the state balance its budget without a tax increase? Please explain
A.Anything non-essential to the most basic needs of Illinois citizens should be looked at as an opportunity to cut. While it will be very politically difficult to cut spending, the actual process is not. I've led with the policy of first putting "every dime on line in real time." This means 100% budget and process transparency for every line item in the budget. This will allow Illinois citizens to see exactly where the money is going. Next, I've led with the policy of auditing all the spending (agencies and every grant) to see if it meets the goals of the program/need it is designed to meet. Everything that can be cut or consolidated should be, including agencies that are not necessary. I've called for the following specific options for where can cut spending. 1. I would zero out the DCEO 2. Illinois Health Facility Planning Board 3. Possible reduction in Municipal revenue sharing until budget improves. 4. Review and audit every grant. Any grant that can’t show definite metrics of success on its stated goal should be zeroed out or consolidated. I also support the idea of "Zero-based budgeting" put forth by others in this race.
Q.Health care for state employees and retirees costs Illinois $2 billion a year. Active employees pay less than 20 percent of premiums; retirees with fewer than 20 years of service pay less than 10 percent; those who worked more than 20 years pay nothing. Should state employees and retirees contribute more for the cost of their health care? Please explain.
A.Yes. They should pay more. I enjoy hearing Democrats use the words "shared sacrifice" when extolling the benefits of their steep tax increases. It is time that "shared sacrifice" meant cuts in benefits for the public sector employees who have had a relatively nice run up in their payroll, pensions, and benefits over the last 10-20 years. While everyone is waiting to see just how bad the Federal Government plan will be, we have an opportunity to reduce costs in Illinois while keeping the level of care the same (or better) by following the lead of Mitch Daniels in Indiana. Gov. Daniels introduced an innovative, consumer-driven health care option for state employees for plan year 2006. The initiative consists of a traditional health plan with a health savings account tied to it. The plan’s deductibles are $2,500 for individual coverage and $5,000 for a family plan. Preventive services are not subject to the deductible. Employees pay nothing toward the plan’s premium. The state deposits money into each employees account, giving them more control over their health care. I would use every power conferred upon the office of Governor to implement such a plan in Illinois.
Q.Illinois has an unfunded pension liability of $80 billion. Would you favor reducing pension benefits for new state employees and/or require higher pension contributions from current employees? Please explain.
A.First, you have to understand the problem, next you have to stop the bleeding. Then you start paying for the promises made. My pension plan does that. First, any solution would likely require changing the benefit and contribution structure for all non-vested employees. The existing system is unsustainable. Everything has to be on the table. Funding of Illinois pensions is based on three components, employee contributions, and the state contribution and growth of investments. For decades, the state has not made its required contribution to the pension system. This has resulted in the low funding levels of the various pension systems. According to the most recent analysis, the state had to fund more than 68% of the 5 major systems. This was before the current market meltdown. The main problem is that the state’s contribution is done through the appropriations process in the General Assembly. When legislators want to lavish state funds on pet projects and special interests, they cut corners on the pensions and Medicaid to make ends meet. The General Assembly has been a poor steward of the pension obligation ever since the 1970 Constitution was ratified. While the state constitution requires that pensions be paid, it does not require that pensions be funded. This loophole – most likely intentionally placed in the Constitution by design – created one of the most clever and egregious examples of “taxation without representation” yet devised by a governmental body. There is nothing preventing High-level bureaucrats lobbying for, and receiving, rich pension perks from the Legislature. The General Assembly has intentionally under-funded the pensions for decades and has thus shown that itself to be untrustworthy. Unfortunately, there is no legal recourse to cut existing vested payouts. The only solution is to restructure the pension system. My plan would include the following. 1. Pension payments should be the obligation of the employing agency directly out of their own budgets. Saddling future taxpayers with unknown liabilities is immoral. 2. The employing agency’s contribution to worker pensions shall be paid at the same time employee contribution is taken out of the checks. 3. All pension benefits will be negotiated directly with the employing agency with no ability of the state to “add” benefits across the board. 4. A legal “cause of action” will be created so any employee, union, or pension system could sue the employing agency for non-payment of pension contributions and compel payment. 5. Pension benefits and calculations can be modified for future employees as economic circumstances dictate.
Q.Should the state expand or reduce eligibility for Medicaid? Do you favor or oppose moving the state's Medicaid system to managed care?
A.The state should not expand eligibility at this time, particularly given the current structure of the system. "Managed Care" is one solution, but the best person to manage health care is the patient and their doctor, not State or Federal Bureaucracies. Along with making Illinois Health Care spending and much more transparent (outcomes, cost of procedures, application of resources), I would spearhead reforms that put the patient in control of as much of their health care dollar as possible. For more details on how I would approach this complex issue, visit http://www.adamforillinois.com/Health-Care/
Q.Former Gov. George Ryan has been imprisoned on ethics charges. Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich is scheduled to be tried in 2010 on ethics charges. Does Illinois have a culture of corruption that encourages unethical behavior?
A.Yes. Illinois has a serious "culture of corruption" problem. Much of this problem stems from a political class that views a good portion of the state budget as a slush fund to pay out pension bumps, patronage hires, and state contracts to a connected set of insiders and powerful special interests. Ending this "culture of corruption" will require 100% transparency on the part of the state (and any entity receiving state money), as well as an ethics standard far beyond what is being discussed in Springfield. I support bringing the "Jindal Standard" to Illinois. To see the size and scope of these reforms, go to the link below. http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/Louisiana/Government/Text_of_Louisiana_Gov_Jindal_Ethics_Reform_Legislative_Call__5752.asp To illustrate my seriousness on this issue, I have posted my tax returns on my website, and asked that all the Republicans in the primary do the same. So far none have done so, with Bill Brady calling it a "gimmick." Tribune readers should know that this "gimmick" resulted in the mass resignation of Louisiana officials, including many on the board of ethics. Illinois needs this type of aggressive ethics reform.
Q.Illinois will vote in 2010 on a constitutional amendment to allow the recall of a governor by citizen initiative. Do you support this amendment? Should all public officials be subject to recall?
A.I support Recall for all elected officials in principle, but the proposed Recall Amendment is not worthy of support. Illinois citizens should know that the proposed Amendment requires that 20 house members and 10 senators, equally balanced from 'both parties,' must sign before any signatures can be circulated. This means that the Proposed Recall Amendment is useless, as party politics would prevent Recall in virtually any circumstance. This Amendment, therefore, is more window dressing from a political class used to getting away with playing games. Like everything from Springfield, it reserves all power to the Government officials and none for the people. This is why I support a far more effective and robust Reform. It's called the Put-Back Amendment, and it re-organizes the legislature through a full legislative re-write. If it gains enough signatures and passes in November 2010, it will dramatically change Springfield for the better. It term-limits all legislators, strips legislative leaders of their undue power, ends Gerrymandering, along with other reforms. Your readers can find out more at www.putbackamendment.com.
Q.Do you favor or oppose limits on campaign contributions by individuals and interest groups? Should limits apply to contributions made by political parties and by funds controlled by the leaders of the House and Senate? Please explain.
A.Limiting campaign contributions at the Federal level has done nothing to improve ethics in Washington DC. Most campaign finance laws that pass a legislature is, by design, incumbent protection for those legislators. A system of far more rapid and effective disclosure is preferable to contribution limits. Anything that limits the power of House and Senate party leaders is good policy.
Q.Should the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts be drawn by an independent, nonpolitical organization, or should that power stay with the legislature? If you support a change, explain how that should be done.
A.Again, I am the only candidate who has endorsed the Put-Back Amendment (http://www.putbackamendment.com/?page_id=3), which effectively addresses the legislative boundary issue. (see Section 3 Amendment) It reforms redistricting so that legislative maps are drawn on objective criteria instead of the current method where politicians pick their voters to ensure their reelection. The methodology prevents the legislature and political class from controlling the process, and allows for a transparent process that empowers citizens groups to submit their own maps, using the tools that are now available on the internet. Most importantly, it also empowers citizens to challenge the map directly, circumventing the power of self-interested elected officials. Every citizen should be encouraged to support this amendment.
Q.Lawmakers this year approved revisions in the Illinois Open Meetings Act. Do you believe those changes were sufficient? If not, what other changes should be made?
A.Virtually public meetings should be virtually 100% public. The abuse of the "closed session" portion of meetings needs to be dramatically curtailed. The recording of these sessions is a good first step. As with many Illinois laws that purport to improve transparency, the exceptions often eat the rule.
Q.Illinois ranked 48th out of 50 states in job growth between 1997 and 2007, according to the 2009 Alec-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index. What specific steps should Illinois lawmakers take to enhance job creation, expand the economic base here and stem the flow of jobs to other states? What do you see as the greatest obstacle to job creation here?
A.As I noted in the tax section, jobs are created and lost "at the margins." As governor, I will aggressively fight to lower the cost of employment for ALL Illinois businesses. This is done by lowering the cost of government across the board. This means a reduction in state spending and regulation. The greatest obstacle to job creation is the cost of doing business in Illinois. This high cost retards job creation and repels businesses from moving (or forming) here. Again, this all comes back to the Illinois Budget and the overall business climate. Any business or entrepreneur can read the headlines and see that moving here will put them on the hook for over $100 billion in debts and unpaid bills. Couple that with the high cost of owning property (business and residential), and you have the perfect incentive structure to bleed jobs and investment while keeping new jobs out. All of the schemes for paving contracts and tax credits merely redistribute jobs from one place to another. If you are taxing citizens to "create jobs" you are merely destroying more jobs than you could possibly create. If you are offering tax breaks to one company to locate here, you are merely increasing the tax burden on the existing tax base. There is no way around the political reality. The to prosperity for Illinois lies in opening up the Illinois budget to the light of day and using that openness to dramatically reduce spending, thereby lowering the cost of doing business in Illinois.
Q.Illinois is competing with other states for the Obama administration's $4.35 billion Race to the Top education reform funds. The winning states must adopt higher educational standards, track student achievement, improve the quality of teachers and principals and turn around failing schools. What specific actions would you take to achieve those results?
A.I would abolish the cap on charter schools and begin the process of moving from a system that funds bureaucracy (890+ districts) to one where funds follow the student. The more the money follows the student directly, and the more choices that student/family has, the more effective the education system. Of course, to achieve even the smallest of these reforms, one must stand up to the special interests that have used our education dollars (now over $10,000/student) as a funding mechanism for their personal gain. For more details on my specific education proposals, go to http://www.adamforillinois.com/Education/
Q.In an essay of no more than 500 words, tell us why voters should choose you for this office and your goals if elected?
A.It is my goal to take Illinois from next to last in job creation, ethics, and reputation to first in all of those categories. I believe the citizens of Illinois are ready for this. I believe they are ready for the dramatic and bold changes in policy necessary to achieve those goals. Voters should choose me because it is leadership, not "experience," that Illinois needs right now. If Illinois was in moderately good condition, the ideology of a “competent manager” might make sense. In its current condition, however, something newer and bolder is in order. I am running on well-thought out and bold ideas (Check the “Issues Tab at www.adamforillinois.com). I have led on Transparency, calling for opening and auditing the books for Illinois taxpayers. I chose transparency and aggressive reform as the foundation of my policies because I can achieve many of my goals with out having to ask the legislature for permission. Through the use the powers conferred on the Governor's office, I can re-organize, rescind, and amend portions of the legislation that is sent to me. I promise that I will use those powers to challenge the foundations of the existing Illinois power structure while showing the citizens the workings of their government. I have led on giving Illinois citizens a real property tax cap by calling for the repeal of the numerous exceptions that allow for continuous increases. I have called for abolishing the cap on charter schools so that children across Illinois have access to more dynamic, and more efficient, schools. I have called for the zeroing out of entire agencies to balance the budget, and I have proposed meaningful pension reform that ends the legislature's almost yearly raid on Illinois' pension funds. As I travel across the state, I find that citizens are ready for these bold reforms. They interested in good policy, not warmed-over platitudes. In closing, let me say that any of my Republican challengers are probably preferable to the job-killing Democrats, Pat Quinn and Dan Hynes, who are hungry to institute a steeply graduated income tax to transfer more of your wealth to their powerful spending interests. The problem with my opponents is that they can't win against the Democrats, and I can. You see, collectively, my opponents have decades of "Illinois political experience," all of which the Democrats will be able to exploit against them in the General Election. I am free of that Illinois political baggage. My background is in business, where I built a business with my brother. We went from scratch to $20 million / year in sales in 10 years by taking on a monopoly that was under-performing and overcharging - just like Springfield. With your help, we can accomplish great things for this great state and its citizens. Vote for Real Reform. Please support me (Adam Andrzejewski) on February 2nd, 2010.
Responses to a Chicago Tribune questionnaire.....
and just for the record, The Tribune endorsed Andy McKenna
Q.Previous Political Experience
A.My first experiences was assisting in my Father's 1976 and 1978 campaigns against then State Representative George Ryan at the ages of 7 and 9. My dad, a teacher at that time, was ultimately unsuccessful in those efforts, but I learned at a young age that people need to step up and do what they can to make Illinois a better place, regardless of "political experience." Following founding a successful business, I founded and funded For the Good of Illinois (www.forthegoodofillinois.org), which spearheaded transparency in government. From November of 2007 until February of 2009, I identified and worked with volunteers to ask their local units of government to post their checkbooks. This movement brought scrutiny to public spending and gave the taxpayer respect. The result the posting of over $1 billion in checks detailing the spending of taxpayer money. This includes the vendor spending and salaries in the $140 million operating budget of College of DuPage. In January of 2009, I was a resource for Bob Grogan, Auditor of DuPage County, who made DuPage County the first of 102 in Illinois to post their spending. I was also a resource for Cook County Board Commissioner Tony Peraica, who spearheaded the vote to have Cook County post its checkbook(s). I can confidently state that I have brought meaningful reform to Illinois even before holding elective office. Imagine what I will do as governor.
Q.Education
A.B.A. from Northern Illinois University
Q.Illinois is struggling to balance its budget this year and may face a $12 billion deficit in 2010-11. Please answer the following questions:
Do you support an income tax increase? At what rates would you set the income tax for individuals and for corporations?
A.I do not support an income tax increase. Any increase in the Illinois income tax would remove one of the last vestiges of competitive advantage Illinois has over other states. This made even more clear when one understands that a) Illinois has 2 business taxes, and b) that the business income tax is tied to the individual income tax rate. Increasing the income tax will create more incentives for high earners to leave Illinois, and the 5/8th individual to business tax ratio will allow the Democratic legislature to quickly raise the business tax rate, which will chase more businesses and jobs out of the state. Illinois income tax rate may be "relatively low" compared to states that have a tax, but there are other competitive disadvantages relative to other states. Your readers can look here to see how we compare. http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.html If anything, Illinois needs to cut spending and balance the budget so it can begin removing/lowering various taxes. I would start with the 2.5% replacement tax and double taxation of gasoline.
Q.Should Illinois create a service tax or raise other taxes? Please explain.
A.No. While broadening the sales tax base to services might be the least damaging tax (according to some experts) relative to other taxes, the fact remains that Illinois is fighting 50 other states for jobs and investment. Any tax that lowers what little competitive advantage we have would be bad for Illinois. As for "other taxes," I've heard from businesses around the state regarding the numerous fees, add-ons, and Workers Compensation costs that are "nickel and diming" businesses. These nickels and dimes add up to the loss of jobs and investments. The Illinois political class that has hiked Illinois unsustainable spending fails to understand just how many jobs are created or destroyed "at the margins." When workers comp. costs rise based upon some administrative or court decision, the business costs associated with that prevent the creation of the next job or cause the destruction of the last person hired. The sharp rise is local property taxation and state and local debt has the same job-destroying effect.
Q.What should be the top priorities for spending cuts? Can the state balance its budget without a tax increase? Please explain
A.Anything non-essential to the most basic needs of Illinois citizens should be looked at as an opportunity to cut. While it will be very politically difficult to cut spending, the actual process is not. I've led with the policy of first putting "every dime on line in real time." This means 100% budget and process transparency for every line item in the budget. This will allow Illinois citizens to see exactly where the money is going. Next, I've led with the policy of auditing all the spending (agencies and every grant) to see if it meets the goals of the program/need it is designed to meet. Everything that can be cut or consolidated should be, including agencies that are not necessary. I've called for the following specific options for where can cut spending. 1. I would zero out the DCEO 2. Illinois Health Facility Planning Board 3. Possible reduction in Municipal revenue sharing until budget improves. 4. Review and audit every grant. Any grant that can’t show definite metrics of success on its stated goal should be zeroed out or consolidated. I also support the idea of "Zero-based budgeting" put forth by others in this race.
Q.Health care for state employees and retirees costs Illinois $2 billion a year. Active employees pay less than 20 percent of premiums; retirees with fewer than 20 years of service pay less than 10 percent; those who worked more than 20 years pay nothing. Should state employees and retirees contribute more for the cost of their health care? Please explain.
A.Yes. They should pay more. I enjoy hearing Democrats use the words "shared sacrifice" when extolling the benefits of their steep tax increases. It is time that "shared sacrifice" meant cuts in benefits for the public sector employees who have had a relatively nice run up in their payroll, pensions, and benefits over the last 10-20 years. While everyone is waiting to see just how bad the Federal Government plan will be, we have an opportunity to reduce costs in Illinois while keeping the level of care the same (or better) by following the lead of Mitch Daniels in Indiana. Gov. Daniels introduced an innovative, consumer-driven health care option for state employees for plan year 2006. The initiative consists of a traditional health plan with a health savings account tied to it. The plan’s deductibles are $2,500 for individual coverage and $5,000 for a family plan. Preventive services are not subject to the deductible. Employees pay nothing toward the plan’s premium. The state deposits money into each employees account, giving them more control over their health care. I would use every power conferred upon the office of Governor to implement such a plan in Illinois.
Q.Illinois has an unfunded pension liability of $80 billion. Would you favor reducing pension benefits for new state employees and/or require higher pension contributions from current employees? Please explain.
A.First, you have to understand the problem, next you have to stop the bleeding. Then you start paying for the promises made. My pension plan does that. First, any solution would likely require changing the benefit and contribution structure for all non-vested employees. The existing system is unsustainable. Everything has to be on the table. Funding of Illinois pensions is based on three components, employee contributions, and the state contribution and growth of investments. For decades, the state has not made its required contribution to the pension system. This has resulted in the low funding levels of the various pension systems. According to the most recent analysis, the state had to fund more than 68% of the 5 major systems. This was before the current market meltdown. The main problem is that the state’s contribution is done through the appropriations process in the General Assembly. When legislators want to lavish state funds on pet projects and special interests, they cut corners on the pensions and Medicaid to make ends meet. The General Assembly has been a poor steward of the pension obligation ever since the 1970 Constitution was ratified. While the state constitution requires that pensions be paid, it does not require that pensions be funded. This loophole – most likely intentionally placed in the Constitution by design – created one of the most clever and egregious examples of “taxation without representation” yet devised by a governmental body. There is nothing preventing High-level bureaucrats lobbying for, and receiving, rich pension perks from the Legislature. The General Assembly has intentionally under-funded the pensions for decades and has thus shown that itself to be untrustworthy. Unfortunately, there is no legal recourse to cut existing vested payouts. The only solution is to restructure the pension system. My plan would include the following. 1. Pension payments should be the obligation of the employing agency directly out of their own budgets. Saddling future taxpayers with unknown liabilities is immoral. 2. The employing agency’s contribution to worker pensions shall be paid at the same time employee contribution is taken out of the checks. 3. All pension benefits will be negotiated directly with the employing agency with no ability of the state to “add” benefits across the board. 4. A legal “cause of action” will be created so any employee, union, or pension system could sue the employing agency for non-payment of pension contributions and compel payment. 5. Pension benefits and calculations can be modified for future employees as economic circumstances dictate.
Q.Should the state expand or reduce eligibility for Medicaid? Do you favor or oppose moving the state's Medicaid system to managed care?
A.The state should not expand eligibility at this time, particularly given the current structure of the system. "Managed Care" is one solution, but the best person to manage health care is the patient and their doctor, not State or Federal Bureaucracies. Along with making Illinois Health Care spending and much more transparent (outcomes, cost of procedures, application of resources), I would spearhead reforms that put the patient in control of as much of their health care dollar as possible. For more details on how I would approach this complex issue, visit http://www.adamforillinois.com/Health-Care/
Q.Former Gov. George Ryan has been imprisoned on ethics charges. Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich is scheduled to be tried in 2010 on ethics charges. Does Illinois have a culture of corruption that encourages unethical behavior?
A.Yes. Illinois has a serious "culture of corruption" problem. Much of this problem stems from a political class that views a good portion of the state budget as a slush fund to pay out pension bumps, patronage hires, and state contracts to a connected set of insiders and powerful special interests. Ending this "culture of corruption" will require 100% transparency on the part of the state (and any entity receiving state money), as well as an ethics standard far beyond what is being discussed in Springfield. I support bringing the "Jindal Standard" to Illinois. To see the size and scope of these reforms, go to the link below. http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/Louisiana/Government/Text_of_Louisiana_Gov_Jindal_Ethics_Reform_Legislative_Call__5752.asp To illustrate my seriousness on this issue, I have posted my tax returns on my website, and asked that all the Republicans in the primary do the same. So far none have done so, with Bill Brady calling it a "gimmick." Tribune readers should know that this "gimmick" resulted in the mass resignation of Louisiana officials, including many on the board of ethics. Illinois needs this type of aggressive ethics reform.
Q.Illinois will vote in 2010 on a constitutional amendment to allow the recall of a governor by citizen initiative. Do you support this amendment? Should all public officials be subject to recall?
A.I support Recall for all elected officials in principle, but the proposed Recall Amendment is not worthy of support. Illinois citizens should know that the proposed Amendment requires that 20 house members and 10 senators, equally balanced from 'both parties,' must sign before any signatures can be circulated. This means that the Proposed Recall Amendment is useless, as party politics would prevent Recall in virtually any circumstance. This Amendment, therefore, is more window dressing from a political class used to getting away with playing games. Like everything from Springfield, it reserves all power to the Government officials and none for the people. This is why I support a far more effective and robust Reform. It's called the Put-Back Amendment, and it re-organizes the legislature through a full legislative re-write. If it gains enough signatures and passes in November 2010, it will dramatically change Springfield for the better. It term-limits all legislators, strips legislative leaders of their undue power, ends Gerrymandering, along with other reforms. Your readers can find out more at www.putbackamendment.com.
Q.Do you favor or oppose limits on campaign contributions by individuals and interest groups? Should limits apply to contributions made by political parties and by funds controlled by the leaders of the House and Senate? Please explain.
A.Limiting campaign contributions at the Federal level has done nothing to improve ethics in Washington DC. Most campaign finance laws that pass a legislature is, by design, incumbent protection for those legislators. A system of far more rapid and effective disclosure is preferable to contribution limits. Anything that limits the power of House and Senate party leaders is good policy.
Q.Should the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts be drawn by an independent, nonpolitical organization, or should that power stay with the legislature? If you support a change, explain how that should be done.
A.Again, I am the only candidate who has endorsed the Put-Back Amendment (http://www.putbackamendment.com/?page_id=3), which effectively addresses the legislative boundary issue. (see Section 3 Amendment) It reforms redistricting so that legislative maps are drawn on objective criteria instead of the current method where politicians pick their voters to ensure their reelection. The methodology prevents the legislature and political class from controlling the process, and allows for a transparent process that empowers citizens groups to submit their own maps, using the tools that are now available on the internet. Most importantly, it also empowers citizens to challenge the map directly, circumventing the power of self-interested elected officials. Every citizen should be encouraged to support this amendment.
Q.Lawmakers this year approved revisions in the Illinois Open Meetings Act. Do you believe those changes were sufficient? If not, what other changes should be made?
A.Virtually public meetings should be virtually 100% public. The abuse of the "closed session" portion of meetings needs to be dramatically curtailed. The recording of these sessions is a good first step. As with many Illinois laws that purport to improve transparency, the exceptions often eat the rule.
Q.Illinois ranked 48th out of 50 states in job growth between 1997 and 2007, according to the 2009 Alec-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index. What specific steps should Illinois lawmakers take to enhance job creation, expand the economic base here and stem the flow of jobs to other states? What do you see as the greatest obstacle to job creation here?
A.As I noted in the tax section, jobs are created and lost "at the margins." As governor, I will aggressively fight to lower the cost of employment for ALL Illinois businesses. This is done by lowering the cost of government across the board. This means a reduction in state spending and regulation. The greatest obstacle to job creation is the cost of doing business in Illinois. This high cost retards job creation and repels businesses from moving (or forming) here. Again, this all comes back to the Illinois Budget and the overall business climate. Any business or entrepreneur can read the headlines and see that moving here will put them on the hook for over $100 billion in debts and unpaid bills. Couple that with the high cost of owning property (business and residential), and you have the perfect incentive structure to bleed jobs and investment while keeping new jobs out. All of the schemes for paving contracts and tax credits merely redistribute jobs from one place to another. If you are taxing citizens to "create jobs" you are merely destroying more jobs than you could possibly create. If you are offering tax breaks to one company to locate here, you are merely increasing the tax burden on the existing tax base. There is no way around the political reality. The to prosperity for Illinois lies in opening up the Illinois budget to the light of day and using that openness to dramatically reduce spending, thereby lowering the cost of doing business in Illinois.
Q.Illinois is competing with other states for the Obama administration's $4.35 billion Race to the Top education reform funds. The winning states must adopt higher educational standards, track student achievement, improve the quality of teachers and principals and turn around failing schools. What specific actions would you take to achieve those results?
A.I would abolish the cap on charter schools and begin the process of moving from a system that funds bureaucracy (890+ districts) to one where funds follow the student. The more the money follows the student directly, and the more choices that student/family has, the more effective the education system. Of course, to achieve even the smallest of these reforms, one must stand up to the special interests that have used our education dollars (now over $10,000/student) as a funding mechanism for their personal gain. For more details on my specific education proposals, go to http://www.adamforillinois.com/Education/
Q.In an essay of no more than 500 words, tell us why voters should choose you for this office and your goals if elected?
A.It is my goal to take Illinois from next to last in job creation, ethics, and reputation to first in all of those categories. I believe the citizens of Illinois are ready for this. I believe they are ready for the dramatic and bold changes in policy necessary to achieve those goals. Voters should choose me because it is leadership, not "experience," that Illinois needs right now. If Illinois was in moderately good condition, the ideology of a “competent manager” might make sense. In its current condition, however, something newer and bolder is in order. I am running on well-thought out and bold ideas (Check the “Issues Tab at www.adamforillinois.com). I have led on Transparency, calling for opening and auditing the books for Illinois taxpayers. I chose transparency and aggressive reform as the foundation of my policies because I can achieve many of my goals with out having to ask the legislature for permission. Through the use the powers conferred on the Governor's office, I can re-organize, rescind, and amend portions of the legislation that is sent to me. I promise that I will use those powers to challenge the foundations of the existing Illinois power structure while showing the citizens the workings of their government. I have led on giving Illinois citizens a real property tax cap by calling for the repeal of the numerous exceptions that allow for continuous increases. I have called for abolishing the cap on charter schools so that children across Illinois have access to more dynamic, and more efficient, schools. I have called for the zeroing out of entire agencies to balance the budget, and I have proposed meaningful pension reform that ends the legislature's almost yearly raid on Illinois' pension funds. As I travel across the state, I find that citizens are ready for these bold reforms. They interested in good policy, not warmed-over platitudes. In closing, let me say that any of my Republican challengers are probably preferable to the job-killing Democrats, Pat Quinn and Dan Hynes, who are hungry to institute a steeply graduated income tax to transfer more of your wealth to their powerful spending interests. The problem with my opponents is that they can't win against the Democrats, and I can. You see, collectively, my opponents have decades of "Illinois political experience," all of which the Democrats will be able to exploit against them in the General Election. I am free of that Illinois political baggage. My background is in business, where I built a business with my brother. We went from scratch to $20 million / year in sales in 10 years by taking on a monopoly that was under-performing and overcharging - just like Springfield. With your help, we can accomplish great things for this great state and its citizens. Vote for Real Reform. Please support me (Adam Andrzejewski) on February 2nd, 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)