The U.S Treasury Department calculates the federal debt held by the public. The federal debt is the money government borrows from those willing to buy U.S. Treasury notes–investors, or as the liberals like to call them: the wealthy. Those funding the federal debt, the wealthy, are the enemy of every liberal. Liberals hate the wealthy though they have no problem spending their money. Just a problem with the people who provide it. But, I digress.

For the first 200 or so years of our country’s history, from the administration of President Washington to that of President Reagan, the federal debt grew to approximately $2.1 trillion. That’s a great deal of zeros to be sure. But, President Obama, proving that he is truly the first post-sound economic policy president, among other things post, generated $2.5 trillion in publicly held debt in just 19 months raising the total debt outstanding to $8.8 trillion. In one insatiable spending binge Obama beat all the records of the first 200 years of our history in just 19 months.

Yes he did.

And what did we get for all that spending? A chicken in every pot? A BMW in every garage? Not exactly. Despite record spending and promises from the president’s economic advisers that if we spent the money unemployment would not rise above 8%, 19 months later unemployment hovers at 9.6%. The economy is growing in single digits rather than the robust growth the very same economic advisers and the president and the vice president advertised in their Summer of Recovery.

And now our economic-savant president has proposed more spending to get our economy rolling again. If that almost $900 billion stimulus bill didn’t do the trick, how about $50 billion to rev things up? That’s his plan. Oh Yes It Is.

Will it work? Not on your life.

This economy needs jobs. Private sector jobs. And to get those jobs employers need some certainty that they will not be taxed into usurious oblivion by a hostile federal government. And to increase investment in the private sector the government needs to stop sucking every last available cent out of the markets to fund its profligate deficit spending.

In short, we need tax cuts and an iron clad spending freeze. Government needs to shrink, not grow bigger.

Oh Yes It Does.

“This is Nero at his worst. As for the Constitution, it does not seem too much to say that it is gone. “

Justice James McReynolds in his opinion on the Roosevelt Administration’s Gold Policy

Justice McReynolds’ indictment against Roosevelt rings true today. Every time we turn around government grows bigger and we lose a little more liberty. The Constitution was painstakingly crafted to protect “we the people” from the government. But somewhere along the line, something went seriously awry. And, based on my read of history, a good deal of it began with FDR.

Return with me for a moment to Amity Shlaes’ remarkable history of the Great Depression: The Forgotten Man.

Frances Perkins of Labor was worried that the Supreme Court would reject the social insurance system she working to put in place–what we know today as Social Security. She stated her concern to Justice Harlan Stone who advised: “The taxing power of the federal government, my dear; the taxing power is sufficient for everything you want and need” (Shlaes229). His words were meant to assure. If the Social Security Act was formulated as a tax rather than a government insurance program it would clear the Constitutional hurdle (229).

Fast forward: This is now one of the tact’s the Obama Administration is taking in response to the many lawsuits against ObamaCare. Flimsy at best. But, more importantly, right out of the playbook.

In the famous Schechter Brothers case, where the justices ruled unanimously in favor of the Schechter Poultry Corporation and against the constitutionality of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NRA), Justice Hughes read the opinion: “Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power” (emphasis mine, 242).

The corruption of the Constitution had gone far enough. Too far.

Justice Brandeis sent the message to FDR via two of the New Dealers’ lawyers: “This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the president that we’re not going to let this government centralize everything. It’s come to an end” (243).

Roosevelt’s response? To “castigate the press and the court” (244). Sound eerily familiar?

If congressional Republicans do not understand they are enjoying a tidal wave of support in their direction because the population overwhelmingly desires repeal of ObamaCare and the government’s sudden lurch to the left, they will squander the greatest opportunity to preserve what’s left of the Constitution in the history of this country. According to yesterday’s Rasmussen polling 57% of Americans disapprove of the President’s performance. 47% strongly disapprove. The numbers are remarkable to be sure. Additionally, 56% of likely voters favor repeal of ObamaCare though only 39% believe repeal is likely.

Republicans need to muster up the courage to do the right thing. They need to send the message that the American people are fed up. That “we’re not going to let this government centralize everything.”

Amen.

The future of our planet is at stake! That’s what you’ll hear from proponents of cap and trade legislation. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Cap and Trade, let me explain what it is and what it is designed to accomplish.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Cap and trade is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply.” That sounds a little vague. Over at Wikipedia, they explain it a bit better: “Emissions trading (also known as cap and trade) is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.” Not bad, although it sounds voluntarily. Here are the facts from a pretty fair article over at Now Public:

• Cap and trade legislation “aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020.”
• Cap and trade legislation would “cap” or limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by industrial industries.
• If companies go above their limit, they have to buy pollution permits.
• If companies stay under their limit, they can sell their additional permits to companies that need them.

The idea of limiting carbon emissions with a system of rewards and penalties sounds like a great way to help keep our planet clean and ensure companies make our environment a priority. The bill passed the Democrat-super-majority-controlled House of Representatives 219-211 (Democrats control 255 votes, and only need 218 to pass a bill). The bill has yet to pass the Senate.

Many conservatives and Republicans are against this bill. In traditional fashion, these “anti-climate,” “anti-environment” conservatives are being painted as “hating green jobs” by proponents of Cap and trade legislation. So do conservatives hate the environment? Or are there other reasons why they’re against Cap and Trade?

First, opponents of Cap and Trade extend beyond the Republican Party. After all, 44 Democrats voted against the bill and 8 Republicans voted for it. I haven’t seen a news story asking why those 44 Democrats hate the environment, but I’m sure it’s in the works. Like all pieces of legislation, there are both good and bad components. When evaluating whether a bill should be passed, we should take a look at how good and how bad these provisions are. Let’s do just that.

Reducing greenhouse gases 17% by 2020 is a noble goal. What are greenhouse gases? According to the National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) they include water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane among others, in order or importance. According to their website, “the feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.” So we know water vapor is important, we just don’t know how or why.

The site also tells us that carbon dioxide has increased 30% since before the industrial revolution, but that is to be expected. It has risen from 310 parts-per-million (ppm) to 370 ppm since 1955, hardly a giant leap. However, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recommends an exposure limit of 5,000 ppm. If the current rate of increase continues (roughly 1 ppm per year), we will reach unsafe limits in the year 6640.

Methane, which we’re told is the most dangerous by-product of the cattle industry and our dependence on beef, has not increased significantly in our atmosphere since 1990. According to the NCDC, “there is no scientific consensus on why methane has not risen much since around 1990.”

While reducing greenhouse gases is a respectable objective, it hardly seems as though we are in the throes of an environmental catastrophe.

Limiting the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by industrial industries also sounds practical. However, no one will argue that reducing the output of every carbon emitter in the country by 17% will result in problems. To address this problem, pollution permits have been created. Companies that must go over their allotted emissions can purchase these carbon credits from companies that have extra. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is one greenhouse gas emission registry which will trade these carbon credits between companies, no doubt for a tidy profit, as the European Climate Exchange (ECX) is already doing. Companies like Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management will seek to make money from the exchange of these credits, by charging fees to their clients. This amounts to nothing more than penalties for going over the cap; penalties that will undoubtedly be passed on to consumers.

In 1975 we learned of impending doom in the form of Global Cooling. The last 15 years has been dominated by talk of Global Warming. In the end, there is so much inconsistency among scientists, including evidence of scientists falsifying information to prove warming trends. If there’s no real emergency, why is Congress trying to pass a bill that the Obama Administration admits could cost families almost $1,800/year?

While conservatives are being vilified for opposing Cap and trade legislation, Americans should take the time to learn about exactly how this bill will affect them. Our nation is $13.4 Trillion in debt, unemployment remains near 10%, and Congress continues to spend money on bill after bill. Would passing Cap & trade help us solve these problems, or would it simply create more?

Imagine a nation where our industries are restricted by arbitrary limits on emissions, and penalized for not complying with potentially unrealistic goals for reduction. This will happen while China and India, the world’s top polluters, would have no such restrictions! How does this help America? If the playing field was level, and America was not forced to operate at a huge disadvantage, this bill would be worth taking a second look at. Until that happens, how can we honestly support Cap and Trade?

Rahm Emanuel is known for having said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” It is with that philosophy that President Obama, and his Democrat-controlled Congress, is using our current economic crisis to pass trillions in new spending. These policies will have long-term effects on our country and taxpayers, and it’s time to start analyzing whether we need this spending now giving our economic challenges.

Al Gore, the most prevalent advocate of Cap and Trade and other global warming legislation, doesn’t even follow his own advice. He routinely travels via private jet, keeps his motorcade’s engines running, and lives in a mansion, four-times the size of the average American’s home – resulting in energy consumption 12-times higher than the average American family according to Associated Press. He even plagiarized a clip from the disaster movie “The Day After Tomorrow” in his environmental epic “Inconvenient Truth” to advance his views.

Conservatives don’t hate the environment, but they do hate government expending by trillions of dollars, if taxpayers are on the hook for something we don’t need. Saving our planet shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but has been made one by environmentalists hell-bent on using government to achieve their goals. These liberals blame conservatives for fear-mongering, while they scare Americans into supporting bills like Cap and Trade with Global Warming doom and gloom scenarios. It’s hypocrisy, and should be treated as such.

“The Party of No” continues to be vilified by the Left, but they never take the time to explain why “yes” is the right answer. Today, being “The Party of Yes” means supporting:

• Government-imposed penalties for emitting pollution, costing us money and jobs.
• A complete government takeover of the health care industry via the public option, which Democrats are still trying to pass.
• Limitless bailouts for everything and everyone, regardless of how much debt we accrue.
• The immediate end to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell without allowing the military to weigh in and assess the impact on our military readiness during wartime.
• A mandatory reduction in salt at restaurants.
• Taxes on soda and candy.
• Removing toys from Happy Meals at McDonalds.
• Mandating equal time for conservatives and liberals on the radio.

If saying “No” to this stuff means conservatives are the bad guys, so be it!

How much of your income should the government be able to take? Think about your answer as you read the rest of this post.

The first permanent, broad-based federal income tax went into effect in 1913 and placed a 7% tax on the top 1% of wage-earners in the United States. Within five years it had risen to be a 77% tax on the top 6% of income earners. In 1913, Americans paid between 1% and 7% on income over $20,000. However, in 1918 every American paid the tax, and those making less than $4,000/year paid 6%. Once the door was opened to an income tax, the government abused the privilege. For the record, the top tax bracket reached 94% in the mid-1940s. Imagine having to fork over 94% of your income to the government.

So here we are almost a century later, and the top income tax bracket pays 35% with those earning less than $16,750 pay only 10%. However, with the Earned Income Tax Credit, deductions for children and dependents and the ability to write-off health care costs, real estate taxes, charitable donations and other expenses many Americans earning less than $25,000/year pay no federal income tax. Some Americans who pay no taxes actually receive a refund, meaning the government sends them a check simply for being a low-income earner.

The federal government does need revenue in order to pay for the services it provides, and it certainly doesn’t have the ability to earn money of its own. Therefore, it is up to Americans to cover the costs of these services in the form of taxes. Since it is our hard-earned dollars being used by the federal government, there are obviously disagreements on which services the federal government should provide. Many on the Left believe that the government should be a force for good, and use those dollars to help people whenever possible. Those on the Right believe the Constitution outlines the responsibilities of the federal government, and anything outside of those duties should be handled at the state level or through individual choice.

The position taken by many on the Left isn’t a bad one in theory, but where do you draw the line when it comes to helping people? Does the federal government have an obligation to ensure all Americans have access to food and shelter? The answer is “yes,” as we have Section 8 housing and programs like welfare, food stamps and WIC. But how far should the federal government go in taking care of its people? Should the government be providing homes and cars for those who can’t afford them? How about computers with internet access? This is where opinions begin to divide.

Conservatives tend to believe the U.S. Constitution provides a clear-cut answer on the role of government. When our country was founded, the 13 colonies-turned-states created the federal government to handle matters of national interest. They were clear, however, through the 10^th Amendment, that the states reserved the right to handle everything else. Matters of national interest include protecting us from foreign invasion, defending us against foreign threats and maintaining a three-branch government including the Presidency and his cabinet, Congress and the federal court system. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the right to meddle in education, the environment, health care, automobiles, and many other areas where their presence is very obvious today. Those issues were historically handled at the state level, until such a time when they weren’t.

So back to my original question: How much of your income should the government be able to take?

The appropriate answer to that question depends on how much the government spends, because the more it spends, the more you’ll have to pay. Now both liberals and conservatives have good points when it comes to the role of government. It would be great for the government to be able to take care of everyone, but we must remember that they are paying for that care with the hard-earned dollars of working Americans. It would also be great if government was small so that all Americans were free from government intervention in their lives, and can keep more of the money they earn. But we must also remember that there are programs that are necessary and they must be paid for with our tax dollars. We must find ways to address legitimate problems without unfairly hurting others in the process.

Just like the federal government abused their ability to tax Americans in the first half of the 20^th Century, Americans are noticing a disturbing trend today. In addition to paying federal income taxes, most Americans pay a state income tax. They also pay half of a 2.9% Medicare tax, and they pay into Social Security, which may not be around in a decade. We are not only taxed on our income, but we are also taxed every time we move. We pay taxes on our property, a home that we own. We pay taxes every time we pay our bills for electricity, water, gas, cable, internet, phone and other utilities. If we want to leave our house, we get taxed on our car in the form of registration fees, inspection fees and of course the gas we use for fuel. If we go to the supermarket, we are most likely taxed on prepared foods and most non-edible items. If we go to the liquor store we are taxed on all alcohol, from as little as $1.50 per gallon in Maryland to $26.45 in Washington State. For everything else we buy, there is a state sales tax between 2.9% and 8.25%, depending on where you live. We are taxed every time we turn around and usually on goods and services purchased with money we’ve already paid taxes on. Doesn’t that sound oppressive to you?

Here’s a simple exercise to show you how crazy this all is:

You are a single person living in California. You earn $34,000 per year, or $2,833 per month. The federal government takes 25% for income tax, 1.45% for Medicare and 6.2% for Social Security. The state of California takes 6.25%. Let’s say you spend a generous $100/week on groceries, which are tax-free. The rest will be spent on utilities, gas for the car and other small purchases. These purchases are ALL subject to tax, which is a double tax. The state sales tax is 8.25%, so let’s use that as a basis. You still have to pay one month’s share of your yearly property taxes and motor vehicle registration fees (roughly $275), leaving you with $943, plus your $400 in tax-free groceries.

You earn $2,833 per month, but you actually receive $1,343 in tax-free profit, a whopping 47% of your income. That means your $34,000 per year only amounts to just over $16,000 per year in your pocket, with which to pay bills. It should be noted, that even with tax rates at this level, the federal government is $13 trillion in debt and our example state of California is bankrupt.

How have we arrived at a point in our lives where we only get to keep 47% of the money we earn, and our state and federal governments are in debt? These numbers are disturbing, and it only gets worse the more money you make! If you earned $82,400 you’d pay an additional 8% in taxes, taking home only 39% of your income.

So is it unreasonable for conservatives to feel there needs to be a limit on how much money the government can take in taxes? Can we really keep creating more programs that rely on our tax dollars?

Today, our national debt sits at $13.4 Trillion. That comes out to be $43,173 per citizen – every man, woman and child in America. That figure does not include our unfunded liabilities including Social Security and Medicare, which totals another $110 Trillion ($355,296 per citizen). Good thing that’s not due yet! It also doesn’t include state debt, which is as high as $16,296 per citizen (New York).

The current administration, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, passed a trillion-dollar health care reform bill which doesn’t go into full effect until 2014, a $26 billion bailout to the states, and a failed $878 billion stimulus bill. They still have plans to pass Cap & Trade ($200 billion/year), a bailout for Fannie & Freddie ($148 billion), and a potential second stimulus bill ($50-$80 billion). Citizens Against Government Waste also identified $16.5 billion in pork in 2010 (and $19.6 billion in 2009), from an administration that promised to reform the earmark profess and cut wasteful spending.

So, how much of your income should the government be able to take? Maybe the better question is: How much should the government be able to spend?

Either way, it’s currently too much. And sometimes the “Party of No” is saying the right thing.

I’m going to be blunt and up-front. I am unable to be objective about talking about the murder of Alicia Debolt. This has hit me personally, as well as the people of Great Bend.  I grew up and went to school in Great Bend.

Great Bend is a farming town of about 15,000 people in central Kansas.  It has about 3 or so cattle feedlots near by. It has about 3 grain elevators. One of the elevators  is actually a block from downtown, seemingly out of place. A Missouri Pacific branch line used to run from Hoisington (8 miles north of town) to GB and fed that grain elevator.

It’s said that everyone knew everyone. It’s not quite like that, but we are very protective of one another. However, neither I, few of my neighbors, nor my aunt and uncle who still live in Great Bend know much of the suspect.  Adam Longoria, who was arrested earlier this week,  within the past month moved into a house at the corner of 8th and Baker. This house is only two houses from my own childhood house in Great Bend!  Also,  these houses are two blocks away from Riley Elementary School (a K-6 public school).  I attended Riley Elementary as well as Great Bend High School, the same school that DeBolt attended her first year prior to her vicious killing.

I have seen the various forum postings, particularly on Fox News.  Many of these posters apparently seem to think they know a lot about the DeBolt family and about this case.  They are claiming that her parents are guilty of allowing her to go with an older man to a party. These posters do not know what in the world they are blabbering about! We all know what happens when one assumes, folks! These same people have never stepped first in rural Kansas, never mind  Great Bend.  We have to remember this from the Holy Bible, “Ye who is without sin cast the first stone.” Before people start running their mouths, they better have the facts first!

This also applies to Nancy Grace. She had a piece about this murder earlier this week. She was interviewing the Editor of the Great Bend Tribune. She has absolutely no right to accuse the Great Bend Police Department nor the Kansas Bureau of Investigation for taking two days to identify Alicia’s severely charred body. She fails to realize that Great Bend is a small rural town. It is NOT a metropolitan area city like Wichita or Kansas City. Great Bend does not have the resources needed to make the proper identification. Thus why her body had to be brought to a facility in Wichita, 120 miles away.

My aunt, who does advertisements for the Great Bend Tribune, flat out calls Nancy Grace an unethical “journalist” (with quotes around journalist) and a vulture. My aunt is right.

Grace is indeed a vulture. She is not a journalist. She does not care about the town that is deeply affected, nor about the law enforcement. Both the GBPD and the KBI is to be commended for their swift action in apprehending the suspect in this case.

One of my friends back in Great Bend told me yesterday he heard that Mr. Longoria and 4 others gang-raped Alicia, and threw her  into an asphalt incinerator alive. If they are found guilty, they ought receive the same treatment that they did when they killed her! But, realistically, I pray that Kansas’ Jessica Law is applied to Longoria et al to its fullest extent.

Attorney-General Stephen Six has said that his regional office will be fully prosecuting this case. It’s rare that I support Six on anything. I’m pretty much opposed to his actions as of late, but I commend him for his swift involvement in Alicia DeBolt’s case. Six has spent no wasted time for his part in swiftly searching for her killer and apprehending Longoria.

– Derek W.

“How can health care for everyone be a bad thing?”

Several months ago, one of my friends uttered this quote in an attempt to combat the negative press surrounding President Obama’s health care bill as it was being considered by Congress. The answer to that question, of course, is that health care for everyone is not a bad thing, it is a great thing. Sadly my friend missed the point, and so did many Americans: How do you pay for it when we’re $13 trillion in debt? Health Care Reform gripped the nation as yet another non-partisan issue was politicized for the sole purpose of damaging political opponents. In the end there was no winner; only losers: The American People.

Every issue has an upside and a downside. In 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act required hospital emergency rooms to treat anyone in need of care, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. The upside was that patients were not turned away from needed health care. The downside is that “about half of all emergency services go uncompensated.” The best intentions of government resulted in a huge unfunded mandate to emergency departments nationwide and a loss of $4.2 billion in revenue in 2001 according to the American Medical Association. Nobody wants to see patients denied much-needed care, but how can the government pass laws that help some people and completely destroy others?

Health care reform divided the nation along lines defined by views of big government versus small, and compassion versus fiscal responsibility. At a time when the economy was the top concern for Americans, not health care, Congress unveiled a $940 billion bill which was passed into law on March 23, 2010. Republicans were once again labeled “obstructionists,” even though they didn’t have enough votes to stop the Democrats from passing the bill. Democrats called Republicans the usual names, accusing them of being racists, hating the poor and defending the rich.

Today, 60% of Americans favor repeal.

It seems as if every issue where Democrats and Republicans disagree ends with more Americans believing that the GOP is racist, anti-poor and pro-rich. Why are Democrats so good at convincing Americans of these stereotypes? I believe it is because Democrats tend to politicize with emotional buzzwords and headlines, while Republicans do it with logic. So, are Republicans heartless to oppose a bill that would extend health care benefits to 32 million Americans? Well, let’s consider some of the objections.

The government is notoriously inefficient. In a previous post I went over the resume of the U.S. Government in detail, including the tremendous successes (read: failures) of Amtrak, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, the Ryan White CARE Act, and Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Even recipients of government funding like Planned Parenthood operate without oversight, as they apparently can’t account for $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars received over the last decade. This isn’t a partisan problem. The government is inefficient under EVERY administration, which is why a majority of Americans prefer a smaller government. As it is, the bill is already estimated to cost $115 billion more than anticipated, and it hasn’t yet gone into effect.

It is simply a bad law. The health care law is designed to increase access to health care and lower costs so more Americans can afford to purchase health insurance. Correct? Does taxing the manufacturers of medical devices and brand-name prescription drugs help lower the cost of health care? Those increased costs will undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer, who is now forced to carry health insurance because of the mandates in the health care law – no matter what the cost! In fact, nothing in the new law controls the rising costs of health care. It does, however, force businesses to file a 1099 form for every vendor transaction of $600 or more, which creates a pile of paperwork for even the smallest businesses. What purpose does this serve in a health care bill? None! It has nothing to do with health care.

Going forward, individuals will no longer be able to claim medical expenses on their taxes that exceed 7.5% of their income. The new number is 10%, resulting in roughly $800 less in deductions for someone earning $25,000/year. President Obama said those earning under $250k/year wouldn’t see their taxes increase by a “single dime,” but if you can’t claim an additional $800 in medical expenses on your tax return, I think you’re out more than a dime. Medicare payroll taxes are also going up 2.35% for those earning more than $200k, and revenue from the increase in Medicare taxes will not be going to help save or fix Medicare. Medicare, in fact, is being cut by $500,000,000,000.00!

Then there are the mandates. Individuals will now be required to carry health insurance, whether they can afford it or not. Your coverage must also meet minimum government standards to “qualify” as an acceptable health care plan. The penalty for not complying will be as much as $750 per year for an individual, $2,250 for a family, or 2% of your income – whichever is higher. The employer mandates could cause some series damage. Employers who cannot afford to offer health insurance to their employees will pay fines, which could amount to $3,000 per employee, per year. This will unquestionably cause jobs to be cut and businesses to close. That’s a fact that cannot be ignored.

Of course we can’t forget luxury health care plans, called “Cadillac Plans.” These are plans that cost more than $8,500 per year for an individual. They’re great plans, but there will now be a 40% excise tax on them. Yes, that’s right – 40%. It is designed to go after the rich, but it is not indexed for inflation, which means in 10 years when all plans cost $8,500/year or more, everyone will be paying the 40% tax. Many union-negotiated plans are considered “Cadillac Plans,” but if you’re in a union you don’t have to worry about it. President Obama exempted unions from this 40% tax. For the record, only 8% of Americans are in unions.

The new law also allows the Department of Health and Human Services to create “qualified non-profit health insurance issuers” to offer health insurance, with federal grants, and exempt from federal taxes. It requires health care coverage information to be reported to the IRS, and provides funding to hire 16,000 additional IRS agents to ensure compliance with the individual and employer mandates.

What’s not in the bill? Tort reform for starters. We live in a lawsuit-happy society, and doctors must carry expensive insurance policies to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits and mega-million dollar settlements. Those costs get passed on to patients, contributing to the high costs of health care. Republicans wanted tort reform included. Democrats argued it would not result in a significant savings, however it should be noted that trial lawyers donate almost exclusively to the Democratic Party. Another provision not included in the bill was the ability to purchase health care plans across state lines. This would increase competition and help lower costs, as we’ve seen happen in the auto insurance industry. Again, Democrats refused to include it after it was proposed by Republicans.

The House of Representatives requires 218 votes to pass a bill into law, and when the health care law was passed 253 were Democrats. The Senate requires 51 votes to pass a bill into law, and when the health care law was passed 57 were Democrats. Once again, I need someone to tell me how Republicans were being “obstructionists.” In reality, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi didn’t get to pass the law they wanted because conservative Democrats were pressured to oppose the bill. That’s why the far-left liberals today feel as though the law doesn’t go far enough. Republicans, who opposed the bill almost unanimously through the entire process, didn’t even have to show up for the final votes.

In the end, not a single Republican in the House or Senate voted to pass what is now referred to as ObamaCare. After the Senate passed the health care law, the San Francisco Chronicle stated, “The passage of Health Care Reform means the death of the Republican Party. Can you imagine any Republican effectively explaining to an electorate why they voted against help for the uninsured?” Help for the uninsured, at the expense of the remaining 90% of Americans? This issue is not as black and white as the Chronicle would have us believe.

Nine months later, a clear majority of Americans favor repeal and Democrats face the possibility of losing the House of Representatives. When you politicize a non-political issue like health care, emotions get in the way and eventually you have to start looking at the facts. Almost everyone agrees that our health care system is in need of reform, but if Congress is going to spend years and trillions of taxpayer dollars reforming it, shouldn’t we do it right? “It’s better than nothing,” is simply not good enough.

The simple truth is that President Obama and Democrats in Washington thought health care reform would be their golden moment, ensuring victories in 2010 and 2012. They completely underestimated the political cost of going against the majority of Americans, and I’m happy to see our nation waking up and paying attention to important issues again.

Someday we may even see Americans paying attention to the details of those issues. I welcome it.

New unemployment numbers are in, and the national rate held firm at 9.5% while the state with the worst rate broke its own record. Nevada, the hardest hit state in the nation when it comes to foreclosures and per capita bankruptcies, has led the nation in unemployment since it overtook Michigan in May. Unemployment in Nevada rose to 14.3% in July, while unemployment in Nevada’s largest city, Las Vegas, rose to 14.8%. July marks the 16^th consecutive month Nevada’s unemployment rate has increased. Ignored in all of this is underemployment, which includes those who are working part-time due to a lack of full-time jobs, and is estimated at 18.4% nationally, and 21.5% in Nevada. Unemployment among teens is at 26.1%, while underemployment for African-Americans is estimated at 25% and unemployment for Black teens hit 40.6% in July.

In light of these facts, different people have different views on how to solve the problem. Democrats in Washington, along with President Obama, are committed to a strategy that includes stimulus packages and federal spending to boost the economy. Republicans in Washington disagree, and prefer options that include keeping taxes low and creating incentives for businesses to hire. These differences have turned into an ideological battle where Republicans call Democrats “socialists,” and “Marxists,” while Democrats call Republicans “obstructionists,” and “for the rich.” Name-calling may be an effective way to damage your opponent politically, but it doesn’t do much to educate Americans on the issues, or explain why there is such disagreement.

One of those points of disagreement is the extension of unemployment benefits. Every time Democrats try to pass bills to extend unemployment benefits, Republicans say “No.” And every time Republicans say “No,” they are labeled “insensitive,” “cold-hearted,” etc. So what’s wrong with Republicans? Why do they “hate the unemployed,” as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow claims?

Two things are important to consider here. First, Democrats passed H.R. 2920, the Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010 (PAYGO), in February. Under PAYGO, any new spending or tax cuts must be budget-neutral, or offset by cuts elsewhere (Read: New spending must be paid for before it is passed). Democrats in the House passed the unemployment extension without paying for it with an equivalent amount of cuts, ignoring their own statute, and blaming Republicans for wanting to follow it.

Second, many Americans currently receiving unemployment benefits today are doing so based on wages they were earning when the economy was much better. The result is that their unemployment earnings are often higher than jobs are currently paying. As an example, let’s say Mary was laid off in Nevada while making $700/week. She is currently receiving roughly $350 per week in unemployment benefits, just under the $362/week cap. Looking for work today, Mary may not accept a job unless it comes with a paycheck higher than her unemployment check. Currently in Nevada, minimum wage is $8.25/hr. for jobs that do not offer health insurance, and $7.25 for those that do. This means Mary needs to find a job that pays $8.75 in order to make more than unemployment pays her to stay home. That doesn’t factor in the cost to get to work, like gas for the car. Employers simply aren’t able to pay employees today the same wages as they did one or two years ago, and unemployed workers have no real incentive to take a job that doesn’t pay more than unemployment.

Now, when Democrats extend unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 99 weeks, which they have done, it enables people to remain on unemployment for close to two years. There’s no doubt that unemployment is needed, especially at a time when jobs are hard to find. However, I’ve seen many examples of people turning down jobs because they don’t pay as much as their unemployment benefits. To make matters worse, all you need to do to collect unemployment here in Nevada is visit a website weekly to file your claim. You have to answer some questions, but you never have to meet with anyone to prove you’re actually out looking for a job, let alone not turning them down. Nevada is practically bankrupt, and there’s virtually no accountability in the unemployment system.

So do Republicans “hate the unemployed,” as Rachel Maddow suggests? Or rather, do Republicans see the financial strain caused by indefinite unemployment benefits? Perhaps Republicans understand that revenues won’t return to state governments and profits won’t return to businesses until people start returning to work – and a 99-week safety net isn’t exactly motivation. Now unemployment is hardly a vacation. It’s demoralizing, and extremely challenging to make ends meet on such a meager income. However, there are jobs out there, and we need to make sure we are not rewarding people who pass them up to remain on unemployment. That part is not cold-hearted. It’s fiscally responsible.

Republicans are often hit hardest for favoring tax cuts and incentives for businesses. Democrats have convinced people that any benefits for businesses, small or large, only help rich people. However, the opposite is true. Small businesses in America represent 99.7% of all employers, and have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs over the last decade. If these businesses are not hiring today, it is because they are afraid to spend the money, not knowing what the future holds. Every tax we add to the shoulders of job creators in this country will result in more lay-offs, less new jobs, and higher costs passed on to consumers, all at the worst possible time.

Perhaps the most frustrating part of the unemployment issue is how Democrats have politicized it. Let’s be clear: Democrats have a super-majority in the House of Representatives. They can pass ANYTHING they want, as the Republicans do not have the votes to stop them. That means if Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats wanted to pass Polish as the official language of America, they COULD! PERIOD! In fact, the only reasons Democrats CAN’T pass everything they want is that conservative Democrats who won in the 2008 Obama wave now represent traditionally Republican districts, and don’t want to lose in November. So let’s get off this narrative that Republicans are obstructionists. The truth is that Democrats prefer to have Republicans support their unpopular bills like Health Care Reform, Cap and Trade, and others, so they’re not alone in receiving heat from voters come November. If listening to the American people is considered obstructionism, we have a problem.

I talked to a voter today who told me the Republican Party was “The Party of ‘No’,” and that they oppose everything President Obama tries to do because he’s black. Earlier this week, the following statistics were featured in a National Republican Senatorial Committee ad:

-          57% think Democrat Agenda is “extreme.” (Rasmussen Poll, 8/11/10)

-          60% favor repeal of ObamaCare. (Rasmussen Poll, 8/16/10)

-          56% disapprove of Obama’s job performance. (Rasmussen Poll, 8/16/10)

-          61% favor Arizona-like law in their state. (Rasmussen Poll, 7/8/10)

-          68% oppose Ground Zero Mosque. (CNN Poll, 8/11/10)

-          65% angry at Federal Government policies. (Rasmussen Poll, 8/16/10)

-          65% say America is on the wrong track. (Rasmussen Poll, 8/11/10)

With these numbers, why shouldn’t Republicans be “The Party of ‘No’?” This clearly illustrates that President Obama and the Democrats currently controlling Washington are in direct opposition to the American people, regardless of skin color.

But it’s not this voter’s fault she feels that way. It’s what the media has been telling her for two years, every chance they get. It’s the standard attack from the Democrat Party. Whether it’s the Mosque at Ground Zero, unemployment benefit extensions, terrorism, immigration, gay marriage, health care, energy issues, education issues – if a Republican has an opinion on it, he or she is labeled a:

Choose One: [racist, homophobe, xenophobe, elitist, bigot, Islamophobe, fearmonger, hatemonger, warmonger]

…who hates…

Choose One: [Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Muslims, the poor, children, women, the elderly, the middle-class]

Pay attention next time, and you’ll see it for yourself. The attack is always the same, and it is never based on the actual issue. That needs to change. We have to talk about the issues and work together to do what is best for our country. We need to educate voters on the issues, so Americans can make the right decisions based on accurate information. And we must start using logic, and not emotion, to determine the direction our country takes as we move forward.

As for unemployment, remember: The government has no money. The only money it has comes from taxpayers. When a private company creates a job it is paid for with profits. When the government creates one, it is paid for by YOU.

I can still remember walking up on September 11, 2001, and being told to turn on my TV. As I put the news on, I saw chilling images of a single plane, which had crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers. It would be another 10 minutes or so until the entire country witnessed the second plane hit the South Tower. There was little doubt at that point that our nation was under attack.

I tell you this as a reminder. September 11, 2001 was a day that every American, and many around the world, will never forget. A defining moment, when we will all remember exactly where we were and what we were doing. It was the most deadly terrorist attack against Americans anywhere in the world, and certainly on our own soil.

Enter, the Cordoba House. This $100 million Islamic cultural center will be built a mere 600 feet from where the Twin Towers stood. Included in this 15-story monument to Islam are a mosque, a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, restaurant, and bookstore. The Imam behind the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, who was quoted on March 24, 2010 as saying “I do not believe in religious dialogue,” insists on the Park 51 location despite uproar from many organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, the Center for Islamic Pluralism in Washington, and the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. These aren’t exactly right-wing organizations. Less than three weeks after the September 11^th attacks, Imam Rauf went on 60 Minutes and said, “United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened,” and that we have been “an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world.” He went on to say that “Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” He would not answer a question about whether Hamas is a terror organization, and he made it clear that “The U.S. must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end.”

Funding for the “Mosque at Ground Zero” will come from Arab and Muslim nations around the world, according to Imam Rauf. Which Arab and Muslim nations? It doesn’t matter according to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who believes it is not the government’s concern.

These are the facts. There are no emotions, no buzzwords – just facts.

An Imam who blames America for 9/11 and refuses to classify Hamas as a terror organization, will raise $100 million from Arab and Muslim nations, to build a 15-story Islamic cultural center which contains a mosque, 600 feet from Ground Zero where 3,000 died at the hands of Islamic extremists less than 9 years ago. It’s called the Cordoba House, a reference to the great mosque at Cordoba, which was built on the foundation of a Christian cathedral after Muslims conquered what is now Spain. Is the name symbolic of triumph? Perhaps. At the very least, it is one of the worst marketing concepts of all time in light of the circumstances surrounding the location. It certainly does not reassure opponents of the mosque that there are no hidden motives.

Enter New York Governor David Patterson, who offered to help find an alternative site for the mosque, on state-owned property further away from Ground Zero. The Cordoba organizers declined the offer. At the time of this writing, there was renewed hope that an arrangement could be made between the parties to give up on the Park 51 site. Only time will tell.

Last week, Greg Gutfeld, host of Red Eye on Fox News Channel, announced that he was planning to build a gay bar next to the proposed mosque location. The bar, potentially known as “Dialog” (Gutfeld is building ‘Dialog’), would cater to Islamic young men, and help “reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world,” through dialog. After refusing comment, the organizers of the mosque issued a comment via Gutfeld’s Twitter page: “You’re free to open whatever you like. If you won’t consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you’re not going to build dialog.” If those behind the Cordoba House won’t consider the sensibilities of Americans, New Yorkers and the families and victims of 9/11, why should Greg Gutfeld consider the sensibilities of Muslims? Doesn’t this approach hypocrisy?

So should the Islamic Community Center (and mosque) be built at the Park 51 location? While this is not a political issue, like everything else in our country it has become one. Republicans are largely opposed to it, and Democrats are mostly supportive. Polling shows that 68% of Americans oppose the mosque, while only 29% are in favor, clearly illustrating which political party is more in-line with mainstream America. Given the insensitive nature of the location, only 600 feet from Ground Zero, I believe it would be better if those behind the Cordoba House project chose a different location.

So is this issue about religious freedom, as many on the Left maintain it is?

Do Christians have the religious freedom to oppose same-sex marriage? Not if you ask those on the Left. Were the Prop 8 opponents who protested outside Mormon temples in California in 2008 adhering to the freedom of religion clause? Or those who refuse to allow prayer in schools, including a moment of silence set aside for that purpose? Let’s face it, modern-day liberals have been trying to remove God from our currency, our Pledge of Allegiance, our schools, government buildings, the presidential oath of office, and just about everything else they can think of. Why now, is freedom of religion so important to them?

Could it be that yet another issue, like gay marriage, health care reform and so many others, has become more about winning than doing the right thing?

Conservatives and Republicans who have weighed in on the issue in opposition of the mosque have been accused of racism, xenophobia, and even hypocrisy for dismissing the freedom of religion clause in our Constitution. Most of these charges have been levied by those on the Left (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here are just a few examples) who believe this mosque is anything but an affront to American culture and sensitivities surrounding the 9/11 attacks. How can 68% of Americans all be xenophobic bigots?

This week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and New York Representatives Michael Arcuri (NY-24), Mike McMahon (NY-13), Steve Israel (NY-2) and Tim Bishop (NY-1) – ALL DEMOCRATS – came out against the proposed mosque. Are they also xenophobic bigots? And what about Islam? Arab and Muslim nations in the Middle East who practice Islam and subscribe to Sharia Law routinely condone honor killings, the abuse and oppression of women, and the murder of those suspected of being homosexuals. Does that also fall under religious freedom? Are mosque supporters homophobes?

Once again, those on the Right are painted as racists, bigots and other unflattering terms by those on the Left, simply because of a disagreement in ideology. The views of most conservatives, and 68% of Americans, are not rooted in hatred, but in common sense and decency. Because many on the Left can rarely win over mainstream America with facts, they resort to name-calling and emotions to win the war of messaging. Unfortunately, they win that war far too often.

A grandiose Islamic community center (with mosque) built 600 feet from the spot where 3,000 died on 9-11-01 is simply offensive to many people. Even if the goal is to build dialog, it won’t happen if it is built at the Park 51 location. Proponents of the mosque will continue to claim that this is an issue of religious freedom obstructed by the fear of Islam, but the reality is much simpler. Rational people are not questioning the legal right to build a mosque, only the location. The fact that those behind the Cordoba House project are thus far unwilling to accept an alternate location shows their true level of desire to build dialog and foster a good relationship with the community.

The Left has glommed on to this issue as a vehicle to further label the GOP as racist and bigoted. But this time, they will fail, because Americans rightfully don’t see this as a partisan political issue. For some reason, these newfound fans of religious freedom in America cannot understand why people wouldn’t want something built in the neighborhood around Ground Zero.

Maybe they’d understand if it was a Wal-Mart.

For a variety of different reasons, many Americans believe that the 2010 mid-term election is one of the most important in our country’s history. Republicans and Democrats are engaged in an ideological war of words, spinning their versions of reality for the entire nation to witness. For those who are not news junkies or political fans, most election cycles can be frustrating experiences as they navigate a sea of information trying to make the right decision in November.

As someone who is involved in politics, I have noticed a disturbing trend develop over the past decade. Politicians have seemingly stopped talking about the actual issues and how they affect us as Americans, and instead choose to solely focus on winning. Candidates now spend millions nationally, tens of thousands locally, on consultants to shape their campaigns. Their goal is to find the right strategy, the perfect messaging, to turn out voters and outsmart their opponents. Winning is important, but it’s difficult to get anyone to follow you if you can’t explain why they should. This is true in both parties, but how does this help the average American understand what is going on?

It doesn’t.

As a conservative Republican, I have seen my party take for granted that people understand what they’re talking about. When we refer to “free market solutions,” or “small government,” we expect the average voter will know exactly what we mean, when many simply do not. Many Republicans act as though conservative values are “common sense,” and that people will “come around” when they realize it. Unfortunately this laissez-faire attitude, combined with poor messaging, has left us playing right into the hands of crafty Democrats.

If we oppose the unfunded extension of unemployment, we are labeled “insensitive.” If we oppose illegal immigration, we are called “racists.” If we believe marriage is a rite instead of a right, we are labeled “bigots.” If we support tax cuts, we’re accused of being “for the rich.” This happens because we continually lose the battle when it comes to messaging, at a time when many Americans don’t read past the headlines.

The rift between the Left and Right in this country is wide, but it pales in comparison to the chasm between the political class and the average voter. Most Independents, Non-Partisans, Libertarians and other third-party or unaffiliated voters have walked away from the major parties because they no longer engage the average American in civil discourse.

For example, calling President Obama a “socialist” may rile up a crowd of conservatives, but that’s preaching to the choir. Meanwhile, many people who aren’t as knowledgeable when it comes to government and politics will be immediately turned off to any message that follows, and take their votes with them. Sadly, there is rarely a message that follows. Instead, we need to detail exactly what we feel is wrong with a policy position, piece of legislation or new law – and present it well.

Americans, despite their growing apathy toward government and politics, tend to have good judgment when acting as a group. They want to do what’s right, even if some of us don’t agree with their decision. But they need the facts, not the rhetoric. Politicians today spend so much time scaring their base in an attempt to mobilize them that they are immobilizing so many others who want nothing to do with those tactics. It’s a losing strategy long-term.

“Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” – Thomas Jefferson

It is for these reasons that I have decided to write a series of posts on the issues affecting us – as Americans – from a common-sense conservative point of view. I will explain how many on the Left routinely mischaracterize the GOP position to paint us as radicals and racists, instead of simply disagreeing on logic and methodology -  and how the Right continues to fail at messaging.

Stay tuned for Part I: The Mosque at Ground Zero!

http://www.wiseandfrugalgovernment.blogspot.com

The Democrats and their profligate spending indicate clearly that they are motivated by the question: How much money can we spend?

Not how many jobs can we create.

And their spending, rather than slowing, is gaining momentum like a snowball rolling down a hill. Faster, more furious, unstoppable. Trillion after trillion after billions zoom by to the point of eyes glazing, minds numbing. A giant blur of dollar signs. Expansive, exploding, multiplying like a deadly virus, unreal in its magnitude and potential for calamity.

Yet despite the spending, the unemployed remain so, in fact their numbers have ballooned. The job creators are punished by irresponsible, class-warfare rhetoric of this Administration and the looming threat of higher taxes in 2011. Still, the worse things get, the more they spend. Despite the breathtaking ignorance of the current ruling class, they are unrepentant and unresponsive to the will of the people. Their Keynsian model only prolonged the suffering during the Great Depression but that doesn’t stop them, in fact, it seems to embolden them. Today’s spending, is a puffed up version of FDR’s, like a cream puff on steroids.

In today’s Wall Street Journal we read that for the 22nd straight month the government spent more than they took in. A deficit of $165 billion. The second highest monthly deficit since last July. Another historic achievement for President Obama–the two highest deficits in the history of our country. Impressively historic. Don’t you think?

The cumulative deficit is even grimmer. Again from the WSJ, “For all of fiscal 2009, the U.S. ran a record $1.42 trillion deficit. Fiscal 2010 might run a little higher—the Obama administration sees $1.47 trillion. ” And this is before health care is funded.

Yet they spend more. At almost breakneck speed. Nancy Pelosi hauled the House members back to DC to pass ever more spending this week; wearing her ignorance like a crown. Christina Romer, of the stimulus bill fame told us that by spending we would keep unemployment from rising above 8%. Bye bye Ms. Romer. Adios to $787 billion in “stimulus”spending. And hello to almost 10% unemployment and another 7% of out of work Americans who have simply given up looking.

The democrats think if the $787 billion didn’t do the trick it is because we didn’t spend enough. Follow their logic. If one or two Vicodin don’t halt the pain, three or four, five or six, seven even, just might.

Or they just might kill you.

The hope and change we were promised didn’t materialize. Instead we got more of the same. Much more and much worse. Unprecedented corruption has infected this White House and Congress. Leadership is no where to be found and the Constitution has been shredded in the interest of self-interest and brazen power grabs unlike any we have seen in our history. I still believe in the ingenuity and the determination of the American people to succeed “in spite of.” But we will be digging ourselves out from under this Everest of debt for generations.

Frankly, I won’t be happy until those who voted for these failed and damaging policies apologize to all of us. Publicly and sincerely.

But that’s just me.