It actually could be worse…

Anyone who reads my blogs obviously knows my strong conservative stances especially on economic issues.  I truly do believe that without economic prosperity the rest doesn’t matter because we will not have the resources to fight for what we believe otherwise.  Case in point we won the Cold War because of our economic prosperity in the 1980’s led by the greatest President of our time Ronald Reagan.  I know this blog is going to make some Huckabee supporters angry and possibly some McCain supporters will be happy I wrote this piece.  Who knows?  But I’ve come to the conclusion that Mike Huckabee actually makes John McCain look like Ronald Reagan reincarnated politically.

Ok before I go further I want to note that no John McCain is not and never will be utterly close to the smell of Ronald Reagan’s feet let alone his reincarnate politically.  Nor is John McCain an actual conservative.  I’m just comparing him to Mike Huckabee.  First of all Mike is good on pro life issues.  He’s also good on the protection of marriage.  He’s not a bad culture conservative.  However, he’s a big government tax increasing democrat as far as I’m concerned based on his record.  

As Governor of Arkansas early on in his tenure he actually did do some good things.  He fought for an 80 million dollar tax cut package in 1997.  He cut the state capital gains tax in 1999.  Then it pretty much all goes south and no I don’t mean south as in tax cuts.  He has supported a MULTITUDE of tax hikes throughout his tenure that includes: sales tax hike in 1996; an Internet sales tax in 2001; he opposed the repeal of sales tax on groceries and medicine; signed bills raising gasoline, cigarette, and beds for nursing home patients tax hikes; proposed another sales tax hike in 2002; he opposed a measure to ban the Internet taxes; and allowed a 17% increase in sales tax to become law in 2004.  Make up all the excuses you want this is not conservatism at work.  The wonderful Cato Institute gave Mike Huckabee a D grade on taxes.

Mike Huckabee had a net gain of 500 million in tax hikes.  I’ve seen him refuse to answer this directly when questioned about it.  He claims he cut taxes 94 times as Governor, but in actuallity they were minor tweaks in tax law.  The fact still remains a 500 million dollar net increase.  He not only not opposed many tax hikes he CAMPAIGNED for them.  I’m sorry, but where is Ronald Reagan Conservatism in all of this?  You know that fuel and gas tax hike he says the Arkansas people approved?  Well actually that part of it wasn’t subject to voter approval.  It was actually a bond issue that voters approved and the tax increases would have remained whether the bond issue was approved or not.  Also the Arkansas Supreme Court did not mandate for Mike Huckabee to raise taxes.  It mandated that Governor Huckabee spend more money on state education.  Instead of cutting government waste and finding the funds already in the budget Governor Huckabee’s first answer was to raise taxes.  Again I don’t see that as Reaganesque, but what do I know?

I understand he supports the FairTax now, but what people must not know is that he has only supported that since he got on the campaign trail for the Presidency.  Where in his history does he indicate by his record that he is for this reform?   Also while Huckabee criticizes Romney for “flip flopping” on signing the Americans for Tax Reforms anti-tax pledge Huckabee himself didn’t sign this pledge until after January of 2007. 

This is where I get the most angry.  It’s his record on spending in Arkansas.  From 1996-2004 government spending under Mike Huckabee increased 65%.  That was almost triple that of inflation.  The number of state workers increased 20% under Governor Huckabee’s watch as well.  The state’s obligational debt(money already spent for future years) shot up to a billion dollars.  Huckabee put together a number of Government programs which helps explains the massive increase in spending. 

I’m going to finish with regulation which is another pet peeve of mine as I’ve said in other blogs.  Not only is Huckabee a tax hiker, a big government republican, but also is bad on regulation.  He raised the states minimum wage from $5.15 to 6.25 an hour(to put this in perspective as Governor Mitt Romney only gave up a 25 cent increase in minimum wage to a liberal legislature that was demanding $1.75 increase).  On a state level this bad enough, but he then went on to propose that congress do the same thing on a national level.  Thankfully President Bush and the GOP congress apposed this measure.  He threatened to investigate “price-gouging” after 9/11 if gas prices went too high.  Oh, so he’s also for artificial price control in a price-coordinated economy.  This is further proven by the fact he signed a bill into law that would prevent companies from raising their prices 10% ahead of natural disasters.  Mike you should learn about supply and demand.  Demand goes up(which it would for those kinds of items before a natural disaster) then the price goes up.  He uses liberal rhetoric by saying “the line between capitalism and greed has to be very clearly delineated”.  That’s called class warfare, Mike.  It’s also a form of fascism(no I’m not calling Mike a fascist). 

I could easily go on about this guy’s record, but since he hasn’t a chance in the world to be the nominee I’ll stop here.  I do believe John McCain and Mike Huckabee are the two worst republican candidates we had running this year.  I’ve asked Huckabee supporters repeatedly to discuss his record with me.  No one stepped up to the plate.  I understand Huckabee supporters will be angry with this piece, but I welcome all of you to the table of discussion.  This is, after-all, a free country and debate is welcome.  However, given the choice between the two I have to say I am happy that it’s John McCain.  Ok I’m not “happy” per-say, but as Huckabee’s record indicates yes it indeed could be worse for us conservatives. 

Mending Fences

Well, Mitt Romney has just suspended his campaign and it was a  long shot for him to win the nomination from here on out anyways.  The question for many conservatives right now is “where do we go from here?” and that’s a valid question.  John McCain can talk up his “conservative” credentials all he wants and he does with the constant “83″ ACU rating they keep touting.  However, what they won’t mention is that in 2006 he received a 65 and in 2007 he received a 56 so his voting has gotten progressively left since 2000 if you look at the bills he tries to push through and some very key votes.  Since John McCain is the nominee at this point I am writing about how John McCain can mend  with conservatives in general.

First of all be very careful about who you choose for the vice presidential slot.  I would like to take this time right now to recommend Mitt Romney because of his economic know-how.  If you take Tom Ridge, George Pataki, Charlie Crist, or even Mike Huckabee you are already on the wrong path.  National security is very important, but impossible without economic prosperity.  None of the above even come close to understanding economy like Mitt Romney.  Frankly you should choose him and just forget about economic matters as to place that squarely in the hands of Mitt and then back whatever he says.  You will look smarter for doing so and frankly many will learn to trust you more. 

Second of all when it comes time to nominate judges to the supreme court you ONLY go get men like Alito or Roberts.  Nothing beneath that.  This isn’t about political conservatism, but rather judicial conservatism.  We do not want to be ruled by 9 people in robes that are unelected.  You want to call yourself the maverick so don’t be afraid to put up a fight with a democrat congress in order to get them through the process.  I put this as a second priority because I believe within the first two years of the next President’s term they will be choosing 1-2 new judges on the court.  I truly believe it’s going to be pretty immediate and this issue is always extremely important.  In fact it may be this reason alone that I vote for McCain in the fall. 

Third when it comes back to economic issues do not raise taxes.  Ever.  There is no excuse for it.  No matter what tax you raise it will slow or “cool” as they like to say certain pockets of the economy.  This includes you’re idiotic stewardship act bill.  Drop it completely.  I am with you on nuclear power, but while that takes any kind of hold within the next 20 years you can not tax people on energy and bring caps on carbon emissions as this will drastically hurt our economy well before we are able to rely more on nuclear energy.  You have an uphill battle with that one in the first place with all of the eco-freaks out there that use fascism to get their ideas across and they don’t even know it.  I would say keep taxes low, but they aren’t low now.  Lower them even further.  Much further.  Do not put caps and regulation in our economy and lower taxes. 

Fourth keep your word on spending.  Fighting pork in our spending bills will make you a conservative hero.  It’s one thing to have a vote in the senate, but another being the leader of an executive branch and in charge of a budget.  Bush has failed miserably with this, but to be fair most of it was national security reasons.  Pork is a drop in the bucket compared to the funds are paying now and are already promised to pay in the years ahead with entitlements.  Romney wasn’t kidding when he said within the next 8 years 70% of our budget will be entitlement spending.  THAT is where we need to attack as conservatives.  You need to show an urgency in reforming social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and others.  These are issues that are facing our nation that are nearly as important as the war on terror.  If these issues are not addressed then your mantra on spending has become a shadow of what’s really needed and your complaints are no longer relevant or valid. 

Fifth you need to change your stance on illegal immigration.  You say you want to build the frence now, but your rhetoric and votes in the past leave a lot to be desired.  It’s hard to trust you on this matter.  You need to focus major resources on securing the border and other energy on how to stop the other aspects of illegal immigration such as chain migration and anchor babies.  No more liberal fascist rhetoric such as “I refuse to send an 80 year old woman home” because frankly that’s irrelevant.  No one is advocating mass deportation(although it’s more possible then people think) and stop assuming the issue is about LEGAL immigration.  No one has a problem with legal immigration.  We understand we are the greatest country in the world and that many millions of people wish to come here.  It’s about the rule of law.  It’s about incentive and fairness to those who wish to come here and be citizens.  You can’t become a citizen by breaking our laws to start your life in this country.  You talk about compassion and the rule of law IS compassionate to the American people whom are here now and forever.

Sixth you need to protect our culture as our leader.  Respect the sanctity of life and the tradition of marriage between a man and a woman.  I know there are separations in the conservative movement about these issues such as are they state issues vs culture issues.  To me they are culture issues, but I can come to a happy compromise with this on one platform.  Do not let the judges have control over these issues.  It is not for them to decide.  They are unelected officials and do not have say over what American culture is or was or will be in the future.  Protect the culture by doing whatever you can to keep the courts in check.

These are just a few things that would be a start to mending the fences with conservatives everywhere.   I didn’t mention the war on terror because that is one of the things that most conservatives actually trust you with right now.  I don’t want to downplay how important that issue is, but it’s a non-issue for John McCain as this is one of his strengths.  These are the issues that conservatives care about that you have not shown a lot of strength.  If we conservatives are to trust you and fight with you then you must show a pro-growth, tempered mindset toward being the President.  It was a nice start at the CPAC speech, but it needs to go much further.  You need to show it in your actions and in your plans.  Plans are promises that we can hold you accountable.  Not only are these policies right for the direction of our party, but right for the direction of our country as well.  Senator McCain we are willing to embrace you should you understand conservatism and adopt it as your philosophy.  Believe me when I tell you we would much rather vote for you rather than against a democrat.

Republicanism

It was an ordinary night last Saturday night on February 5th, 2008.  I strapped my mp3 player to my arm and put on my headphones.  I then put on my jacket to go for my nightly walk.  I usually put on all kinds of music from Boyz II Men to Avenged Sevenfold.  I use these times to reflect on my own life and of course my passion that is conservatism.  I can’t separate the two because I believe no matter how we all vote we actually in fact live our lives in the fundamentals of the conservative principles.  As I was walking down the street it dawned on me.  What the hell is Republicanism?

How can one call themselves a Republican without being a conservative?  These principles are rooted in right and wrong.  They are rooted in logic and common sense.  Without these foundations then we are led by our emotions and our emotions take us places where we won’t want to be once that emotion changes.  I can tell you what classic liberalism means and I can tell you what FDR/LBJ liberalism means as well.  I can tell you what it meant to be an old school Democrat.  I can easily tell you what it means to be a conservative(which is very close if not the same as classic liberalism).  For the life of me I can’t tell you the principles of being a Republican.  I’ve been a Republican for so long BECAUSE of conservatism and this being the party that most identifies with those beliefs. 

It furthered my thought this morning when I heard on the Glenn Beck program a woman call in saying how ashamed she was to be a Republican.  She is ashamed because of how we are treating John McCain because he is a war hero.  She then went on to say that she’s not a conservative, but rather a republican.  This is exactly what I’m talking about.  Where is the set of principles?  You’re electing a man based on the fact he’s a war hero?  We have a couple hundred thousand war heroes RIGHT NOW overseas.  They are all wonderful people.  However, does this qualify them all to be President?  Conservatives reject him because we have a set of principles that we bounce his policy ideas off of and come to the conclusion that he isn’t fit to be our leader.  We can put away emotional jargon such as “but he’s a war hero” which means literally nothing in regards to leading the country in all areas of concern.

I also had a woman email me.  She said to me “you are not where I want our party to go” meaning she didn’t want it to go further to the right.  She listed no principles that she believes in.  Just that she didn’t want the party to go in the conservative direction(she said in my direction, but since I’m a conservative I assume that’s what she means).  As far as I’m concerned there is no party without conservatism because without the basic principles we believe in the party seems to fall left every single time either because of emotional purposes of political expediency. 

The founding Fathers were the perfect examples of conservatives.  Even when they disagreed on the foundation of our government it was always about how to protect individual freedom from unilateral power.  This explains the Bill of Rights and the three Branches of our government.  It’s the primary reason for checks and balances because they understood the nature of man and without the principles of self governance and individual freedom we will always succumb to the will of government instead of the will of the people.  This is why I’m not even sure what the principles to the left of conservatism in a supposed “right wing” party are anymore.   To abandon conservative principles is to abandon what this country was founded upon.  Conservatives are beholden to the founders.  We are beholden to a set of principles that guide nearly everyone in their life in some way or form whether they recognize it or not.  We are not beholden to a party and frankly those in that party that wish to lead will need to cater to us for our vote because they won’t see us begging to join the club.  It’s a club of politicians and some supporters that seem afraid of what others think of them.  This may sound arrogant to a lot of people, but really it’s not.  It’s just conservatives sticking to America’s principles.

We Never Learn…

Sometimes I have to wonder to myself where I belong.  I’ve have considered myself a conservative for quite some time now in my young adult life.  I’ve read so many different takes on what conservatism means and conservative philosophy.  The way I see it we believe in maximizing an individuals freedom within the boundaries of the constitution.  Without that very basic principle our country ceases to exist because there is nothing that goes beyond the foundational document of our great country.

I’m not going to go into all of the principles right now.  I will at some point, but right now I’m wondering if I even have a political party anymore.  I used to feel the republican party best identified with my ideas of America.  Now, I’m not so sure.  If I would have pulled a liberal and gone completely on emotion after John McCain won my home state of Florida I may have quit the party right then and there.  I’ll be honest at one point I said I would support John McCain out of fear of Hillary, but should it factor into my decision that I fear a McCain presidency as well?  John McCain represents almost literally nothing about conservatism.  Nearly every single liberal newspaper has endorsed him.  That doesn’t make me too confident in his conservative principles.  I keep hearing all over the news the question of “How does McCain win over conservatives?” and frankly if that doesn’t ring any bells with McCain supporters whom claim to be conservative then I don’t know what will to be honest. 

I’m normally an eternal optimist(as most conservatives are) and I can find the good in any republican candidate.  Any republican candidate including John McCain.  I agree with him about the war.  I agree with him about spending(although I doubt he really gets where the spending needs to be cut).  I also agree with him for the most part about his pro life voting record(even though he supports embryonic stem cell research).  However, it ends about right there.

The Senator votes against two vital tax cuts when our economy was hurting and uses liberal rhetoric to justify his votes.  He even teamed with senators Tom Daschle, Russ Feingold, and Jay Rockefeller to vote on amendments that would undermine the tax cuts. Did you get that?  He did all of this when our economy desperately needed these tax cuts.  I’m supposed to trust his judgment?  I’m supposed to believe he’s a conservative?  Tax cuts are more than just an economically intelligent approach.  It’s a moral good.  Letting people keep more of their money.  You are in a sense controlling their life when you have the power to judge whether their budget goes up or down.  How a “conservative” could vote against these cuts I do not know. 

He teamed with Ted Kennedy to co-sponsor a bill intended to seal the border.  However, this bill would have provided amnesty for millions upon millions of illegal immigration.  Conservatives are for the rule of law.  Conservatives are for their country having tight borders.  Conservatives are for the fairness of those who wish to play by the rules and get in line.  We don’t give those amnesty and say it’s not because we try to make them “pay a fine” and learn English.  They still get to stay here the whole time.  How do we enforce these laws?  The majority of people rejected this bill and he still tried to pass it quickly through the senate with as little debate as possible.   Is that the sign of a statesmen?  The bill wasn’t conservative in the first place, but then pushing it on an overwhelming majority of people that reject it?  Then on top of that he voted for Arlen Specter’s amendment to kill the border fence.  That doesn’t fall in line with common sense conservative views.

Finally what I’m going to mention in my short list verses the really, really long list of awful anti-conservative acts by Senator John McCain is the Stewardship act co-sponsored by Joe Lieberman.  This further shows me he needs to read a book on economics and quickly.  This is one of the most massive bills for government intervention into the private sector that I have seen.  This would be a disaster for the American economy.  According to the EIA phase 1 of this plan would increase gasoline prices by 9 percent in 2010 and 19 percent in 2025; natural-gas prices in the industrial and electric-power sectors by 21 percent in 2010 and 58 percent in 2025; and electricity prices by 35 percent in 2025.  As this plan was originally proposed in 2003 phase 1 would reduce GDP by $760 billion during 2004-2025.  It would also produce emission caps on major industries.  This would further change US policy towards the private sector.  Never before has the government regulated the emissions of carbon content of fuels or emissions.  Coal, oil, and natural gas provide America with over 80% of it’s energy and all are byproducts of carbon dioxide.  This will open the door to more government regulation and intervention into how we conduct business in this country.  It will also drive many jobs offshore to countries that do not have these kinds of standards.  This really isn’t rocket science, but once again McCain fails to understand some very easy to understand economic principle.  This kind of massive expansion in regulation is far from conservative principle.

So you’re probably wondering why I’m writing this piece.  I’m writing it because it seems that the republican nomination is headed towards John McCain.  I have shown a few reasons as to why John McCain is not, in my opinion, a conservative.  Is this the direction the republican party wishes to go?  Do we give up principles in order to work with liberals and appease the center?  If that’s the way we are going as a party then please drop me off at the next stop.  Hopefully in the future a conservative leader will rise up in the republican party, but it’s becoming more apparent that there isn’t enough room on this wagon for any conservatives.

Backing Mitt Romney(Part 5)…

Ah, where to go next in discussing Mitt Romney’s record and stances?  Oh yeah!  Tort reform and school choice.  Two issues that are important, but usually go by the way side in elective politics.  Two issues that are difficult for a politician to take on and to be honest usually that’s our fault.  This is a message that does not get communicated enough.  We need to apply conservative principles to these two issues and I’m going to talk about Mitt Romney’s stance in these areas. 

Governor Romney is on record supporting charter schools, school vouchers, and home schooling.  He really did focus more towards charter schools during his tenure as Governor.  He pushed to eliminate a state cap on the number of charter schools(why would there be a cap on this sort of thing in the first place?  Oh yeah it’s Massachusetts) and successfully vetoed a delay on the opening of new charter schools in the state.  Good he’s leaning towards more private education, but this is just a very small step in the direction we need to go.   Acknowledging that fact it was probably more wise of him to spend political capital on more attainable goals.  However, we need to go much further than these schools that are still publicly funded.  Where I disagree with Romney is as a Governor he has warmed up more to the department of education.  Before he became Governor he believed it needed to be abolished.  Alas, such is the total republican party flip it seems once they reach the legislative or executive levels of the government. 

 Romney has always been a strong proponent of tort reform.  He supported capping personal injury claims in automobile related cases and advocated for overhauling the state’s ridiculous malpractice system.  Massachusetts is known for having some of the highest malpractice insurance rates in the country.  Translation: Doctors are leaving the state.  I promise you that’s not a good thing although I don’t see liberals complaining about THEIR insurance rates.  Figures.  I can imagine this was a thorn in the side of the liberals in that state.  In 2006 Governor Romney proposed specific tort reforms such as reducing lawyer fees from 25% for verdicts over $500,000 to 15% for verdicts over $600,000.  Ah, this takes incentive down to go to court over everything.  Usually people go to court based on bad information given to them by attorneys.  He also proposed to tighten the states tribunal system so that only the most deserving malpractice cases go to trial.  I will freely admit that is a bit too open for interpretation for me personally, but the idea is right.  One proposal of his I do like very much is to reduce lawsuits by allowing doctors to disclose medical errors without fear of admissibility in court.  Folks, it’s time we started getting in the corners of our doctors in this country.  They are people and they make mistakes just like everyone else.  We need to give them more freedom in helping their patients without fear of malpractice lawsuits(you listening John Edwards?).  We need to come back to the table and be reasonable.  Doctors by vast majority are compassionate people that want to help their fellow man.  I believe some of Governor Romney’s tort reform proposals would go a long way in achieving a better doctor-patient relationship. 

The Flip-Flopper?

Recently I’ve seen a gain in the McCainiacs attack on Romney(rightfully so it’s down to these two for the republican nod) about his supposed “flip-flopping”. Some of it is valid I must admit. However, as I go on and learn in politics that many politicians seem switch or adjust their positions. This is true even amongst men of conviction such as…John McCain?

Yes, it’s true. Even John McCain himself has flip-flopped on a few issues. I have to believe John McCain has forgotten this fact or else has chosen to forget considering he has attacked Romney on flip-flopping. However, I have no problem refreshing his memory as well as educating some McCain supporters.

First of all I start with the obvious. The Roe v Wade comments. He said he would not support the overturn of Roe v Wade on the ground that “women in America would be forced to undergo illegal and dangerous operations.” Well if that were his firm stance then I’d have to respect that even though I disagree. However he then said on the campaign trail in 2006 “but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support” so now it’s a state decision? Wouldn’t that open up the possibilities of women undergoing illegal and dangerous operations? And if you believe it’s a matter of states rights then what makes it legal or illegal on a federal level if Roe v Wade is repealed anyways? I have no problem with the change, but it is in fact a flip-flop.

Another obvious one is the Bush tax cuts. He opposed them in 2001 and 2003 on the grounds of liberal talking points. He goes on to say “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.” He not only voted against them, but worked with liberals on amendments designed to undermine the cuts. He co-sponsored an amendment with Tom Daschle to limit tax reduction in the top tax bracket to one percentage point. He also voted for an amendment sponsored by Senator John D. Rockefeller to prohibit a reduction in the top tax rate until Congress enacted legislation to provide a prescription drug benefit. However, now he says he was against those tax cuts because of improper spending cuts yet wishes to make the tax cuts permanent. Wow, with the rhetoric he used at the time I guess he’s ok with going against his “good conscience” now? Though I’m glad he’s on board now. Sincerely.

Speaking of good conscience why is McCain all of a sudden now chums with Sam and Charles Wyly? Didn’t he refer to their actions as illegal and to them as prairie carnivores? Didn’t he lash out at them publicly in 2000? Why is he now reaching out for their support? He called for them to keep their “dirty money” out of politics. Now he just calls to keep their ”dirty money”. I know, I know he gave the money back, but that was only after they found out there was a federal inquiry into both of them. Before that he attended a fundraiser co-hosted by the brothers. Fact is he warmed up to these brothers at least a month before they found out about the inquiry despite the accusations made by McCain himself in 2000. I’m not trying to imply corruption by McCain. Personally, I don’t believe he is a corrupt man. However, the self-righteousness has to stop. No one in politics is above this sort of thing.

Obviously he supported the awful legislation of McCain-Fiengold campaign finance reform. It appears, however, that he is unwilling to run on that part of his record when running for President. In 2006, he basically abandoned the issue all together even though the new bill was largely identical to the one proposed in 2003. Now if he had a change of heart I’m glad, but it’s still a flip-flop considering how he championed this issue for years.

There are other somewhat multiple stances such as: the confederate flag; gay marriage; saying the war in Iraq would be easy at first then saying he knew it would be tough and hard; not embracing Kissinger in 2000 and now embracing him etc etc etc. These all are at the very least debatable and thought provoking in regards to McCain’s stances. None of these are a crime. Nor do they make McCain a bad man or a bad candidate(in my opinion his policies make him a bad candidate overall). Again I’m not trying to imply that McCain is somehow corrupt by any of this. I’m not indicting him on a personal basis. If you want him to be President that’s your right and I respect that, but don’t come to me about Romney’s “flip-flops”. McCain is no better than any other politician in this case(other than John Kerry whom literally changed his mind depending on the crowd he was addressing at that time). All I ask is for the self-righteousness on this issue to stop because no politician is innocent of flipping and on that criteria none of these guys are “men of conviction”. All politicians evolve or even sometimes change their positions over time.

Backing Mitt Romney(Part 4)…

I am writing this installment of my “Backing Mitt Romney” series in regards to regulation.  Regulation is a big pet peeve of mine as it should be any conservative.  Regulation really halts economic growth.  We have somewhere from 60 to 80,000 pages of regulations on the free market today.  As I’ve always said the free market really is just a shell of what it was 80 years ago.  I’m looking for a candidate that will be AGAINST regulations as they come through the federal government.  Not one that sees it and says “hmm that’s a good idea” like some “other” candidates have proposed.  It’s long overdue to finally start repealing many of these regulations. 

Mitt Romney’s record on regulation in Massachusetts is good.  It’s not as successful being that it’s Massachusetts legislature, but his proposals were pretty good.  Anyone else notice a trend here?  See when I first heard of Mitt Romney a year ago I immediately dropped him from consideration because he was the governor of a state where I can’t stand it’s legislature.  However it’s become more and more apparent that he was really at odds quite often with the likes of the Ted Kennedy’s and John Kerry’s.  For that I have to praise him.  He did fight for republican and conservative issues.  That’s worth commending.

Now onto his record.  First of all he supports drilling in ANWR.  Thank you!!  Anyone listening?  To get energy independent we are going to have to drill in our own land.  That’s just factual.  His efforts on the state level were to better improve the conditions for a constitutional relationship between government and free enterprise.  As conservatives we have to support these kinds of individuals.  He vetoed an increase in minimum wage from 6.25 to 8 dollars.  He compromised on a .25 cent raise while saying that a raise in minimum wage causes the loss of jobs.  Minimum wage is another form of artificial pricing.  Wages are a cost to do business. 

On other measures he vetoed a bill limiting the ability of out-of-state wineries to ship directly to Massachusetts consumers, calling the legislation “anti-consumer” and I have to agree.  That also interferes with those business’, but more-so with the consumer.  He supported and signed a bill that offered a less turbulent path through the state’s burdened permitting process for new business.  Translation: less red tape.  He proposed the easing of price regulations on retailers.  This is that artificial pricing I was talking about.  Very impressive for him to stand up this because this is not usually politically viable or the politically correct thing to do.  However, it’s the RIGHT thing to do not only to help business, but to help the consumer as well.

He also called for the privatization of Massachusetts Medical School.  He proposed measures to eliminate civil service protection for all municipal workers except police and firefighters and exempt low-cost public construction jobs from the state’s wage law.  This is something I really like about Mitt Romney.  He understands prices and the damage that price control does and showed it in regards to exempting construction from the state’s wage law. Mitt Romney pushed to deregulate Massachusetts’ auto insurance industry. Massachusetts is the only state in which the government mandates maximum insurance rates and requires insurers to accept every applicant.  Can anyone say communism?  Mitt was right to fight this and I applaud him for his stance.  Good Job, Mitt!

That isn’t to say that Mitt has no flaws.  I wish to be objective and I realize that no candidate is 100% what I want in a conservative or republican.  While Romney did not impose this position, he does support indexing the minimum wage to inflation.  Eeeek, Mitt.  Have to disagree there.  He also signed into law banning smoking in the workplace INCLUDING bars and restaurants.  Can anyone say…Huckabee?  However, at least this was state law and I don’t believe he would push this federally.  Either way it’s an infringement on the rights of the business owners to make these decisions. 

Overall taking the bad with the good I think Mitt Romney’s record on regulation is impressive.  He does push for many conservative principles in regards to the relation between government and the free market.  I feel he understands business very well as well as understands basic economics(I feel stupid even saying that considering how much more he’s achieved than I might ever accomplish in a lifetime).  Mitt Romney is an excellent choice for economic reasons, but also understanding in large where the line is drawn between business and government regulation.  This just strengthens my view of how he would govern as President. It’s becoming more and more clear to me that he very much favors the businessman and individual in the private sector over government control.  The next installment will be about School Choice and Tort Reform all in one. 

Backing Mitt Romney(Part 3)…

I want to start off by saying No, Mitt Romney is not perfect by any means.  Frankly I think Fred was VERY close to what I’ve wanted in a candidate for a long time and now with Fred gone I am forced to go with my number two candidate.  That happens to be Mitt Romney if you couldn’t tell already.  I actually feel he’s very, very intelligent.  Very knowledgeable on most of the issues.  As I’ve said before I think all of the republican candidates left viable would be fine on foreign policy so I turn to domestic and Mitt seems the best to me.  I want to continue this series talking about his views on Free Trade and Entitlement reform. 

I’ll be honest.  His record on Free Trade is scarce considering he was a governor.  However his talking points are very supportive of the concept of Free Trade.  A concept I happen to agree with very much.  We need a President, in my opinion, that understands the relationship between a strong, growing economy and free trade.  In a speech in 2005 Romney encouraged Corporations to trade aboard rather than fall towards protectionism.  Romney was quoted as saying “We must move ahead in technology and patents. I don’t like losing any jobs but we’ll see new opportunities created selling products there. We’ll have a net increase in economic activity, just as we did with free trade. It’s tempting to want to protect our markets and stay closed. But at some point it all comes crashing down and you’re hopelessly left behind. Then you are Russia.”  I know many do not like the CAFTA decision.  They see some jobs leave because of it and it becomes a panic.  However, to counter China’s growing demand it was necessary to open these trade agreements especially in our own backyard.  He was quoted as saying “It does make me chuckle, when you see Congress struggling about whether we should open our trade with Central America. When Asia is looming off the horizon, we’re worried about El Salvador and Guatemala?”  China is a much bigger threat and I believe Romney understands it and knows how to battle them economically.

Entitlement reform is something that excites me when candidates talk boldly about it.  It’s something that needs to happen and happen now.  It’s an albatross on our country and of course liberals wish to expand these ridiculous programs.  BRILLIANT!  Anyways, now on to Mitt Romney’s record.  Romney helped push state legislation to not only by increasing the number of hours required to work in order to receive welfare, but also placed a 5 year limit on receiving benefits.  I LOVE this kind of thinking.  Romney also to the dismay of liberals successfully pushed for medicaid recipients to pay for some of the services.  He also successfully pushed for workers to pay 25% of their health-care costs which was up from 15%. 

As far as social security goes he has not embraced any known plan yet.  Personally, I think the Galveston plan is wonderful.  How do I know this?  The government rejects and will not permit it, anymore after 1983.  However, Romney refuses to raise social security taxes.  He also supports personal accounts and reducing the growth rate of future benefits.  Truly I feel if anyone can look at this problem and fix it in a practical manner that Mitt can based on his knowledge of these types of issues.  However, I would like to see more talk about this very important subject.

Now we get into an issue which Romney and I differ a little bit on, but I understand in part about why he had to go the route he had to go.  This, of course, is his health care ideas.  He has received much scorn for this from republicans and probably rightly so.  However, we have to consider the fact that he was working with a massively northeastern liberal legislature(which he has been pretty decently successful with in pushing right wing values) and the fact that he was also facing a Bush threat to cut off $385 million per year in federal Medicaid funds unless the state reduced the number of uninsured people. 

He does deserve credit for attempting under these conditions to move a bad system more towards the free market.  Many of the health-care problems are because of federal law in which Romney’s hands are obviously tied.  He proposed a plan that encourages individual-owned health insurance and that would bypass some of the unfairness in the federal tax code(the tax code impedes individual ownership of health insurance).  Frankly it’s not a plan I feel he should brag about, but maybe brag about any of the actual gains he made under those conditions.  In contrast to subsidizing hospitals he chose to subsidize individuals in the way of an assistance program.  I really dislike programs in general, but this in a way seems to move toward encouraging private ownership of health insurance instead of just giving the hospitals money.  Romney’s original proposal offered the individual the option of forgoing insurance and posting a bond in an interest-bearing account.  This is more the direction we want to go, but the liberal legislation shot it down.  This alone tells me he’s not in any kind of favor of universal health-care and I was harsh on him at first hearing about this plan not taking into account what kind of legislation and pressure from the Bush administration he was dealing with so I have to credit him at least that much. 

The health plan that did come to pass certainly is not the total direction we want to move toward that’s for certain.  However, judged by earlier proposals that were shot down I have to believe he truly is for free market health-care and individual ownership of health insurance.  That being said he needs to stop bragging about that plan in Massachusetts in my opinion.  However, thanks to research it’s not nearly as much of an issue for me anymore in supporting Mitt Romney.  Some of Romney’s ideas for reform(especially on welfare) are fairly exciting.  I like that he has that mindset.  However, I wish he would get on the ball with tax reform and more-so social security reform.  That being said he does lean in the right position on most of these issues and that is encouraging for me in a candidate.  The next installment will be about regulation.  Another touchy issue with me.

I Am Pro Choice…

Yes, it’s true.  I figured on this day being the anniversary of Roe V Wade that I would announce how pro choice I am.  I mean it’s time we conservatives set the standard on what pro choice really means anyway.  For the longest time it’s been the liberals who hold that claim, yet I think it’s undeniable that conservatives are the fighters for choice for a free people.  I intend to show everyone how.

So yes, I am in fact pro choice.  I believe in the right for a person to choose to speak freely however they wish.  Yet we are faced with liberals whom constantly cry political correctness to everyone whom says something that might be offensive to someone, somewhere in the galaxy.  As we all know we must control what we say because others just can’t possibly live their lives without knowing that we are punished for the offensive things we say to each other.  That being said I also believe in the person choosing whether or not they wish to own a gun.  This is, after-all, a basic God-given right.  I don’t own a gun myself, but will never infringe on my neighbor’s right to own anything gun he wants.  I don’t even care if he owns more than one.  Yet, here we are today.  Some psycho blows away 30 people and EVERYONE has to have their basic rights taken away by liberals. I mean hell we all know the few that actually break the law certainly represent the majority of law abiding citizens in this country.  Who can argue with that logic?

I also believe in a person’s right to choose their sexual preference.  Honestly I do not care with whom you choose to have those kinds of relations.  That’s no one else’s business(and please let us keep it that way).  To further that point I do not care how you choose to spend your free time.  That is your privacy right guarded by our constitution.  Frankly we don’t even need a document to tell us that we have these kinds of rights.  They are given to us by God.  Our founders just verified that when creating this wonderful country.  Like these wonderful people I am a believer in self government which involves all kinds of choices that are neither my business nor anyone else’s.  However, leave it to liberal politicians that create price controls, regulations, mandates, higher taxes in the name of “compassion” because we are all too stu-stu-stu-stoopud to make these decisions ourselves.

However, I do have a problem with people that feel it’s their choice whether or not to end an innocent child’s life when that child can’t even so much as speak for itself.  We talk about being good stewards of the land and that is important, but let us not forget that we are to be good stewards of future generations as well.  We are blessed with that responsibility.  It’s not being pro-choice vs pro-life.  It’s about being pro-convenience or pro-irresponsibility.  That’s a sad way to choose which innocent has to die and which innocent gets a chance at life. Hell making that choice in any situation is sad.  Frankly I’m saddened I even have to put it in those terms, but it’s true.  What might even be worse is that our government “by staying neutral” favors that value(and yes it’s a value) by helping women(mostly young) proceed with this process.

I won’t even get into how bad the Roe v Wade law actually was far as the constitution is concerned.  As relevant as that is I’m talking about innocent human life.  I know, I know I hear all of the arguments about how it’s only a “blob” or a “fetus” and not really a child.  Let’s lower ourselves down to that basis of argument for just a second.  So what if it is?  We ABSOLUTELY know WHAT it is developing into.  It is going to be a human baby every single time.  It’s not going to be a unicorn or a model T Ford.  You are stopping the life and growth of an innocent child.  YOUR innocent child.  It’s rather hypocritical to worry about having control over your own body when you don’t even hold the same standard for the body growing inside of you.  As I have said before I AM pro-choice.  I’ve just so happen to have chosen innocent life over the “alternative”.

My Reasons for Not Voting McCain…

I’ve written four blogs on Governor Mike Huckabee.  I will probably write more as the primaries wage on.  However, I feel the need to touch on John McCain’s record as well as few conservative testimony’s about McCain in the senate.  It’s not a very pretty sight.  This pains in me in a way because I do have good friends that support John, but I’m sorry I have to speak my mind about someone I consider a moderate republican at best.

This is not a personal indictment against The Senator.  I’ve never met him and I’m certain he and I could get along personally.  A lot of people seem to like him so I imagine he’s a fun personality.  However, while this is important a good personality does not make a good President.  I will concede that John is very good on spending. That being said I don’t know how much John is into entitlement reform which is the bulk of our overspending.  Earmarks are just a drop in the bucket and good for him that he opposes him, but that’s barely a start.  He is also very good about the war on terror although him taking credit for the surge is getting a little old.  You can brag about questioning the President in a time of war all you want, but you weren’t in the drivers seat.

First of all John’s record on economic issues is troubling.  As we all know he opposed the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.  It’s not even that he just opposed them, but as to HOW he apposed them.  He used liberal talking points and class warfare.  Not to mention inaccurate class warfare.  Rick Santorum(former conservative republican senator) says the tax cuts would have been even larger had John McCain gotten on board.  This is very, very troubling to me and knowing this would make it more difficult for me to vote for him in the general should he win the nod.  He was wrong then and thankfully he did not get his way completely. 

Also in regards to the economy he seems to me almost anti-big business.  He seems to take the narrow road of slightly demonizing “big oil profits” and believes big oil should re-invest in alternate sources of energy.  I’m sure many read that and say “yes, Cory that makes perfect sense” and if big oil chooses to do that I would certainly agree.  However, what business is it of the government?  Well, at least he’s consistent I guess because he did vote to ban drilling in ANWR.   He does not have a very good record on energy independence.  In fact he has about a 17% voting record on energy independence by CAF.  So it makes it that much more interesting to me when he says “We have got to achieve energy independence.”  Well, John I think we all agree with that, however you don’t seem to want to follow through.  At a recent debate he said something that concerned me deeply.  About some jobs that have gone overseas he said “we are responsible” for those jobs as to imply that government should replace those jobs.  Excuse me?  Do we want to open THAT door?  So anytime someone loses a job it needs to be replaced? This is the structure of a free market economy.  Jobs are lost as technology and efficiency grows and with new responsibilities by private business new jobs are created.  It’s cyclical and no amount of government intervention will change that fact.  It will actually make it worse and tougher for those new jobs to come about in a timely manner.

Obviously he’s been very, very poor on illegal immigration.  He is rated an 18% voting record by the US Border Control which indicates an open border stance.  Not only did he help author and support the disaster known as Kennedy-McCain, but he kept pushing down the throats of the American people after they overwhelmingly rejected it.  He says “the reason the American people reject the bill is because they do not trust government anymore” and while that may be true we don’t trust government anymore you are absolutely wrong about that being the reason the American people rejected it.  We reject it because it’s a bad bill.  It’s as simple as that and I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand.  He votes YES on allowing illegal immigrants to participate in social security and voted YES on giving guest workers a path to citizenship.  He voted YES on limited welfare to illegal immigrants.  He also said he’d have to “seriously consider” changing the constitution to allow immigrants to run for President.

Let’s not forget McCain’s assault on political free speech.  I don’t mean to sound that it was intentional.  Once again I don’t know because I don’t know McCain personally.  However when he says “I’d rather have clean government than free speech” I get a little concerned.  Frankly I don’t see how one is possible without the other.  The McCain-Feingold bill obviously was a possibly unintentional attack on political free speech. This, of course, includes a 60 day restriction on political free speech.  It also serves incumbents who are usually more well known than their opponents by restricting the quantity, regulating the content and timing of political speech.  Let’s not forget that this thing was a complete failure as it was passed in 2003 and more money than ever was spent in elections in 2004. 

It seems McCain has also fallen into the typical liberal global warming crowd with the McCain-Lieberman stewardship act.  Ah, more government intervention.  Definitely sounds like conservatism to me.  He also said he wanted to sign the Kyoto protocol.  Let’s forget what kind of damage for a second this would do to our economy.  Here’s a look at what it would do in this article http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lewis200406160854.asp I guess this also goes with his economic record as well.  Frankly, I don’t believe personally that McCain knows a whole lot about economics. 

I haven’t even gone over another majority of the list of awful legislation either sponsored of co-sponsored by McCain such as McCain-Kennedy-Edwards(the supposed patients bill of rights which trial lawyers everywhere are crying tears of joy).  Also  McCain with the re-importation of drugs which is bad for pharmaceutical research and consumer protection.  I could also go into the gang of 14 disaster during appointment of judges selected by our President.  The list goes on and on and well you get the point.

He’s currently running on his record as a war hero.  Good.  That’s good politics I can’t blame him for that.  God Bless him for serving.  God Bless him for his sacrifice.  However, that doesn’t mean I feel he could make a good President.  Tom Coborn has recently endorsed John McCain.  Tom is a very respectable conservative and he has his right to endorse whom he wants, however I’m going to have to disagree with him on this one.  Rick Santorum says No.  George Allen says No.  Robert Bork says No.  Jim DeMint says No.  Pat Toomey says No.  Tom Delay says he may not even be able to vote for McCain in the general should he win the nod.  The vast majority of conservative talk radio says No to McCain.  I also say No to McCain.