SO MUCH FOR A QUIET LOCAL PRIMARY SEASON
Posted 7/30/10
We are less than a week away from the August primary. I actually drafted my column last Friday and planned to comment about how this was a quiet primary season. I started out noting some of our more interesting primaries like the 1994 county clerk's race or the 1996 sheriff's race.
However, the Republican primary to succeed Charlie Shields as state senator for the district that covers Platte and Buchanan Counties has gotten heated. This race was an early prospect for excitement. It was originally anticipated that it would pit two term-limited State Reps, Jason Brown and Rob Schaaf, against each other. However, after campaigning for the State Senate for most of 2009, Brown moved over to the Presiding Commissioner race after Betty Knight announced her plans to not seek re-election. For a few weeks it looked like Rob Schaaf would be the only candidate in the Senate primary. However, as the close of filing approached, local businessman John Destefano got in the race.
In my original draft, I said that I would have preferred that DeStefano win this primary because of his decades of business experience, but said that Schaaf would still be better than the do-nothing Democrat candidate. DeStefano's experience has not just been with running a little t-shirt shop. His business experience is as a member of the senior management team of a multi-billion dollar business. That is what state government is: a multi-billion dollar business. I would prefer someone with private sector experience of a similar magnitude to be making the difficult financial decisions that need to be made in Jeff City. That is especially true in these difficult financial times.
However, since last Friday, Schaaf and his allies have resorted to numerous lies and half-truths which caused me to seriously question his integrity. This conduct also reminded me that right up until the time he was hauled off to jail, Schaaf's campaign advisor was Rod Jetton, the former speaker of the house who is surrounded by as many corruption allegations as any Democrat speaker and who is being prosecuted for allegedly drugging and violently sexually assaulting a woman. No. Schaaf's dishonesty has caused him to go from an okay second choice to a horrible choice. So much for a quiet local primary.
There are three state-wide items on the ballot: the U.S. Senate primary, the state auditor primary and Proposition C. Although anything can happen, it is presumed that Roy Blunt and Robin Carnahan will win their respective U.S. Senate primaries. Each of them have millions in the bank and neither of them have opponents who have two nickels to rub together.
Two Republicans are duking it out to face incumbent State Auditor Susan Montee. One of the candidates, who has never even run for dogcatcher before, actually thought his first ever political campaign was going to be for the U.S. Senate before he was “paid off” to switch to the state auditor's race. I laughed at first, but this candidate is backed by big dollar donors, including a donor who offered Sandra $100,000 in 2006 if she would support human cloning. (She said “No!”) The other candidate, Allen Icet, has substantial knowledge of state government having served as chair of the House Budget Committee for several years. However, neither of them is a CPA. (I'm not sure how you effectively supervise an office of CPAs when you aren't one.)
One bit of fun is Proposition C, which gives Missourians a chance to express their lack of support for Obamacare. The technical point of Proposition C is to amend Missouri law to prohibit a citizen from being penalized for not buying health insurance or making or receiving direct payment for health care services. However, the real point is to vote “Yes” to say you don't like the federal government taking over our health care. Please join the fun by voting “Yes” on Proposition C.
(James Thomas is chair of the Sixth District Republicans. Email him at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
NAACP SHOULD BE PROMOTING A MESSAGE OF OPPORTUNITY
Posted 7/22/10
I'm going to do two risky things this week. First, I am going to be critical of the positions taken at the recent NAACP Convention in Kansas City. (There is always a great risk that criticism of a group like that will be misinterpreted and labeled as racist.) Second, I'm going to rely on reporting in The Kansas City Star as the basis of my comments. (That might be a more risky thing to do.)
The NAACP Convention unanimously adopted a resolution demanding that the leadership of the Tea Party movement denounce its racist elements. That is just stupid. Why should the NAACP be telling those in the Tea Party movement what to do?
Some in the Tea Party movement suggested that the NAACP denounce the New Black Panther Party and its racist agenda and comments. The NAACP refused. Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP said that the New Black Panther Party “. . . is a mere flea compared to the influence and size of the Tea Party. And the New Black Panther Party is not a member of the NAACP. What we are asking the Tea Party to eschew is not the racism of some outside organization, but the bigotry within.”
That is just silly. All rational people can agree that communicating through “hate speech” is not an effective way to communicate. Very little is accomplished by groups of people shouting rude comments at each other. However, the NAACP is apparently only upset when it is a few unauthorized comments from Tea Party members rather than the official position of the New Black Panther Party.
There was another disturbing theme reported from the convention. Rosyln Brock, the new chair of the NAACP's board of directors, was reported in The Kansas City Star as saying the NAACP has a vested interest in improving the plight of all Americans who live in poverty, lack sufficient health care coverage and face mortgage foreclosures, and whose children attend inadequate public schools. She went on to say “The silence in America has been deafening as individuals who feel locked out of a prosperous society repeatedly ask the question 'Is anybody listening . . . does anybody care?'”
Brock just doesn't get it. No one is out there listening and caring about giving anyone prosperity. The Declaration of Independence plainly said it was the “pursuit of happiness” and not happiness itself that was a man's unalienable right. It is up to the individual to get off his butt, go out there and make a future for himself. The gift of America, the true beauty of America is that this is the land of opportunity. It is not supposed to be the land of someone giving you stuff for nothing.
Don't get me wrong. I fully appreciate that I had a huge head start in the race of life. I had great parents. They told me from the time I was a small child that I could be anything I wanted to be. They taught me that hard work, education and responsible personal financial decisions are the tickets to a more secure financial future. I also had the benefit of attending a rural/suburban public school where the farm/blue collar work ethic and the message of make good grades and make something of yourself was reinforced.
If the NAACP really wants to help the poor and the downtrodden, it needs to promote the message of opportunity. Tell people not to wait for someone else to care. Tell them to care enough to get off their butts and change their own lives. Promote self reliance and independence. Be sure to teach the “love of your neighbor” along the way, but don't teach that individuals should rely on their neighbor to carry them. And, teach them to have fun along the way. Remember it is the pursuit of happiness. Enjoy the journey. I sure am.
(James is chair of Sixth District Republicans. Email him at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
THESE DAYS, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT USES A DIFFERENT WEAPON
Posted 7/15/10
The Fourth of July Weekend is the anniversary of something besides the Declaration of Independence: a three-day battle concluding on July 3, 1863 in a little town in Pennsylvania called Gettysburg. I was thinking about this over the Fourth as I was finishing up the alternate history Civil War trilogy co-authored by Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen.
Civil War buffs know well that on July 3, 1863 General Lee ordered General Pickett on what is famously known as Pickett's Charge. It was like Fredericksburg in reverse with the Confederate troops being cut down as they attempted to take Cemetery Ridge. The failure of Pickett to take the ridge is considered to be the turning point of the Civil War. Many historians have discussed the “what ifs” of that day.
The trilogy essentially begins on the first day at Gettysburg. Just like what really happened, the brave Union cavalry holds the high ground until infantry support can arrive. Then, late that night on what was the first day at Gettysburg the story changes. I won't spoil the trilogy for you except to say that after Lee failed to take the high ground on the first day his entire army executes a dramatic maneuver similar to Chancellorsville and slips around the Union Army and gets between it and Washington. This forces Union generals to fight on Lee's terms rather than theirs. The story unfolds from there over the three-book series.
The books do a great job of telling the story from the perspective of various officers (like General Lee and General Grant), from the perspective of some ordinary soldiers and even from the perspective of President Lincoln. This gives a personal connection to the unfolding saga. The story captures the glory and the horror of the conflict. However, an interesting aspect of the story was that after each major battle, the troops of each side sought to provide aid to their wounded opponents and in some cases even wept over the opposing casualties.
The story does a good job of expanding upon some of the underlying reasons for the conflict. Some of the politicians in the Confederacy may have been fighting to preserve slavery, but that was not what most of the southern men and even the generals were fighting for. Some of the Union men were fighting to end slavery, but according to the story most of them were fighting to preserve the republic. There is even an effort by certain senior southern leaders to abolish slavery on both moral grounds and on practical grounds of seeking to bring France and England into the war as allies of the Confederacy.
Mostly the story captures the strategic and tactical movement of troops to achieve a military objective. There is a certain romanticism to the gallant men of the Army of Northern Virginia as they fight a foe that dramatically outnumbers them and with far superior manufacturing and transportation capacity. I was intrigued by the efforts of the generals to outmaneuver each other and put their men in the right place to be successful.
The Civil War was the greatest American tragedy. ALL the casualties were Americans. And, the war was fought exclusively on American soil so that the collateral damage and civilian casualties were also ALL American. The Civil War battles make for great study of military history and maneuver. And, with a little twist, an alternate history of the Civil War makes for some great fiction.
One hundred fifty years later the federal government uses a different weapon to force states to bend to its will: its checkbook. In order to entice states to conform to its bidding, the federal government gives out or withholds what it seems to believe is a limitless source of cash. Another American tragedy for our children and grandchildren, but at least no brave men have to die in this conflict.
(Email James at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
AMERICA STANDS AT ANOTHER CROSSROADS
Posted 7/9/10
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
I re-read those opening words of the Declaration of Independence this past 4th of July weekend and marveled at their eloquence and the power they expressed. The eloquence continues:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
The Declaration goes on to list a litany of specific acts of the King of Great Britain that the Continental Congress was upset about, to note that the colonist had petitioned many times to have these grievances addressed and that those petitions were denied or ignored and to state that the colonies relationship with Great Britain is dissolved and they are “free and independent states.”The closing line is another expression of pure elegance:
And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
America is at another crossroads. Our government has adopted policies that are “destructive” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” As the Declaration of Independence states, “it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish” that government and “to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
Fortunately for us, the unique structure of our Constitution allows us the opportunity “to alter or to abolish” our government at the ballot box instead of at the point of the bayonet. Let us “mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor” to elect in November only leaders who will preserve our rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
(James Thomas is chair of the Sixth District Republicans. Email him at jamesiiiandsandra @kc.rr.com)
HOLD ON TO YOUR WALLET, THE LEGISLATURE IS BACK IN SESSION
Posted 7/1/10
Are you frightened? You should be. The General Assembly is back in session. Any time the legislators are in Jefferson City, they can spend more of your money.
The regular session ended as usual in mid-May, but Gov. Nixon has called the legislators back for a special session to consider the Manufacturing Jobs Act and a bill that makes changes to the public employee retirement system. The Manufacturing Jobs Act does not say “Ford Motor Company,” but it is clearly designed to give tax incentives to Ford.
I am a little torn about this bill. I really don't like government picking winners and losers by giving some businesses special incentives while not giving those incentives to other businesses. However, if Missouri doesn't give incentives to Ford, there is a very real risk that Ford will take its good-paying blue collar jobs to another state that will give it tax incentives. So, Missouri is stuck. It can either play the government giveaway game or lose the Ford plant jobs to another state.
The tax incentive allows a “qualified manufacturing company” (a carefully defined term that everyone understands is supposed to mean Ford) or a “qualified supplier” to retain the withholding taxes from retained jobs instead of depositing these withholding taxes with the government. The percentage of withholding taxes that can be retained and the number of years these taxes can be retained varies depending upon whether the manufacturer manufactures a new product or modifies or expands the manufacture of an existing product.
Assuming that state government is going to give tax incentives of some sort, this is not necessarily a bad plan. The publicly-stated goal is to keep good-paying jobs in Missouri. By tying the calculation of the incentive to the amount of the withholdings from the retained jobs, the legislation connects what it is trying to preserve (i.e., good-paying jobs) to the amount of the incentive. So, IF state government is going to give an incentive to retain good-paying jobs, this is a good plan that connects the benefit to the manufacturer to what the government is trying to accomplish.
The problem with this $15 million per year giveaway to Ford is that the government needs to find the money to pay for it. There were new funding proposals made earlier this week, but the initial proposed source of the money to give to Ford was to require new government employees to pay part of the costs of their retirement benefits.
I don't like funding a government give-away on the backs of the state's employees; however, this pension proposal does open the door to a desperately needed reform of the state's pension plan. Right now the government pension benefit is typically a defined benefit plan which pays retirees a percentage of their salary after retirement. A better proposal would be to convert the current defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan where a set percentage of current compensation of state employees is contributed to an account for each employee. This account could be fully contributed by the state or part contributed by the state and part contributed by the employee. However, instead of the employee having a stream of retirement payments funded by the government, the employee would have a “pot of money” that the employee could use, control and enjoy. This type of plan gives a state employee more freedom to control their own retirement and the freedom to work for the government for a while either before or after working in the private sector without tying their pension benefit to a specific number of years spent in a cubicle in some state government building.
The special session is under way. The specifics of the two bills are changing on a daily basis. Regardless of what happens over the next few days, just remember to hold on to your wallets because the legislators are back in Jefferson City.
(Email James at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
GENERIC BALLOT STRONGLY FAVORS REPUBLICANS
Posted 6/24/10
Predicting an election nineteen weeks out is already difficult because so many things can happen in the 130+ days leading up to Election Day. However, contradictory polling data is making it even more difficult to predict the outcome of the November elections.
Some signs look very good for Republicans. The generic Congressional ballot polling by Rasmussen Reports strongly favors Republicans. This polling asks voters the question of “If the election were held today would you be more likely to vote for the Democrat candidate for Congress or the Republican candidate for Congress?” The question does not involve matching up specific candidates against each other. The generic Congressional ballot currently favors Republicans by a 10 point margin of 46% to 36%. It is my recollection that this is more favorable than the polling data right before the Republican Revolution of 1994. This is also a dramatic shift from the generic Congressional ballot polling right after Obama's inauguration, which favored the Democrats by a 7 point margin of 42% to 35%. That is a 17 point swing over the last 17 months.
While this signals great news for Republicans, polling by Rasmussen Reports from last week also shows that 72% of Republican voters believe the GOP members of Congress have lost touch with the party base throughout the nation. Only 21% disagree and say that Republican Congressmen have done a good job of representing Republican values.
In stark contrast to this polling data, 61% of Democrat voters think their representatives in Congress have done a good job of representing Democrat values over the last several years. Only 29% of Democrat voters believe Democrats in Congress have lost touch with Democrat voters throughout the nation.
The polling has consistently shown for months that large percentages (i.e., in the 75% range) are angry with their elected officials and the direction government is going. Interestingly, a Rasmussen Reports poll from last week shows that 66% of voters describe themselves as at least somewhat angry at the media, including 33% who are “Very Angry.”
Voters believe a liberal bias exists with the media. Polling from just before Election Day 2008 showed that 51% said most reporters were trying to help Obama win the election while just 7% thought the media was trying to help McCain win. Polling from last week shows that 48% of voters believe most reporters are trying to help Obama pass his agenda when they write or talk about Obama. Only 18% believe that reporters are trying to block the passage of Obama's agenda.
Reporters are certainly not seen as objective. Sixty-eight percent of those voters polled say most reporters when covering a political campaign try to help the candidate they want to win. Fifty-four percent of voters polled think reporters would hide any information they uncovered that might hurt a candidate they wanted to win.
Voters also think the media has too much influence on Congress. Sixty-two percent say what the media thinks is more important to the average member of Congress than what voters think.
The shift is slowly occurring over who is perceived to be to blame for the economic crisis. In May 2009 62% said that Bush was to blame for our economic problems. That number is now down to 47%. The percentage who blame Obama's policies is now up to 45%.
What does that mean for November? My guess is that Republican candidates who have been consistently conservative, like our own Congressman Graves, will win big. Republican candidates who do not support the conservative message are going to have a hard time being successful if there is a “conservative-sounding” Democrat. (I use the quotations because I don't think there are hardly any actual “conservative” Democrats.) Of course, a lot can happen in 130 days.
(Email James at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
ANGER REMAINS IN GOP FOR VOTES ON TARP
Posted 6/17/10
At a recent Republican meeting I learned that people are still angry about those Congressmen, including some Republicans, who voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program or “TARP.” Actually, I'm also angry about anyone who voted for TARP.
As you will recall, TARP was the “bailout” plan that was developed in the fall of 2008 to address the credit crisis. At the time we were all told that the credit markets were frozen and that no financial institutions were going to be lending any money to anyone for anything. A key stated reason for this is that these institutions had a bunch of “stinky” assets, in particular “sub-prime” mortgages, on their balance sheets. The inability of these institutions to loan money was driven in part because some claimed that these “stinky” assets were “hard to value” and in some cases were actually worth zero. If these institutions had these big zeros on their balance sheets, they would not be able to continue to loan money.
I personally was against any sort of bailout. The free enterprise system gives investors the freedom to choose their investments and keep the rewards of those investments, but investors also bear the risk of failure. If big banks invested in risky loans in pursuit of higher interest charges received from the borrowers, then that was their decision. However, they also must accept the risk of failure. For it to truly be a FREE enterprise system, people need to be permitted to fail. If institutions made bad loans or purchased bad loans that were bundled with other loans that was their fault and they should suffer the consequences. The rest of us should not have to pay because these institutions were stupid.
However, IF, and that is a HUGE “if” to me, the government was going to do something, then the stated purpose of TARP, as described by its name (“Troubled Asset Relief Program”), was appropriate. The plan was for the government to buy up these “troubled assets” that were on the books of these financial institutions. The institutions would then have cash instead of troubled assets and they could then loan that money out and the credit crisis would be averted. So, IF the government was going to do something, the buying up of these “troubled assets” was a reasonable approach.
Unfortunately, language in the bill allowed the use of the TARP money for anything else the Secretary of Treasury deemed appropriate. This led to all kinds of other things other than just buying up bad assets like bailing out car companies and making capital investments in banks.
Some reasonable precautions were put in place when TARP was passed in the fall of 2008. First, it was broken in two components with half the money appropriated up front and a second vote required by Congress to release the second half of the money. Second, early versions of the bill included a bunch of other junk (e.g., money for ACORN and other pork barrel projects). Most of these were eliminated before the bill was passed.
It also needs to be remembered that at the time the experts were claiming we were in an “end of the world” scenario. President Bush and Congress did not want to appear to be doing nothing in response to the crisis. So, they did something. I disagreed with doing something, but if you were going to do something this was not an unreasonable something, on its face.
Our Congressman Sam Graves voted “no” on the original bill and “no” on the authorization of the second half. Good for him and good for us. Unfortunately, some Republicans voted “yes” on the original bill in response to the hysteria at the time. However, before throwing these Republicans overboard, you should ask whether they voted “no” on the second part after it was shown that the first part was not used as intended.
(James Thomas is chair of Sixth District Republicans. Reach him at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
IT'S A CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION, NOT A REPUBLICAN ONE
Posted 6/11/10
Perception is reality. In politics that is truer than in many other areas. Based upon the validity of the statement that “perception is reality,” Republicans may have some problems in November.
I have said repeatedly that the revolution that we are anticipating this fall is not a Republican Revolution.It is a conservative revolution. I have also shared with you polling data from a few months ago that shows that three-fourths of Americans are angry. Based upon the perceptions of some that at least some Republicans have not been conservative or “conservative enough” the Republicans can not necessarily count on the support of these “angry” voters. This assumption is based upon polling data from Rasmussen Reports on who is to blame for the deficit.
A Rasmussen Reports nationwide telephone survey shows that 49% of adults say that former President George W. Bush and the Republicans are responsible for the size of the current federal budget deficit. This same survey shows 43% blame President Obama and the Democrats. The break along party lines is fairly understandable. Seventy-nine percent of Democrats blame Bush and the GOP. Eighty percent of Republicans blame Obama and the Democrats. However, the perception of the unaffiliated voters, who are the ones who really decide elections, is what is critical. Of those voters not claiming to be part of either major political party, 53% blame Bush and the Republicans and 36% blame Obama and the Democrats.
This perception may be severely damning to Republicans even though it is not necessarily supported by the facts. In his new book, Courage and Consequence, Karl Rove notes that in Clinton's last budget he grew domestic non-security discretionary federal spending by a whopping 16%. Bush cut that to 6.2% in his first budget, 5.5% in his second budget, 4.3% in his third budget, 2.2% in his fourth budget and below inflation on average for his second term. As a percentage of GDP, Bush's deficits ran an average of 2% of GDP, which is close to the 1.7% average deficit since WWII.
The truth is that Republicans and Democrats elected leaders are both to blame for the out of control federal spending. Of course, they are not the only ones to blame. Much of the American electorate is to blame for letting our elected leaders keep spending so much money and not requiring the federal government to operate with a balance budget. The American electorate is (or at least the local leaders we elect are) also to blame for always going to the federal government with a hand out asking the federal government to fund a large portion of capital projects or social programs without considering where does this “mysterious federal money” come from, anyway?
Notwithstanding the joint blame for the federal deficits, I still prefer to support Republicans who at least on some occasions serve as a “speed bump” for this out of control spending. However, based upon the perceptions that are shown by Rasmussen's poll, Republican candidates have their work cut off for them to prove to November's voters that they really want to control spending.
(Email James Thomas, jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
WE GET UP IN THE MORNING, GO TO WORK, SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS
Posted 6/4/10
I had to travel to St. Louis for a client matter two weeks ago. As usual, I listened to a book on CD while I was driving.This trip's selection was a novel called “The Lost Constitution.”
The book was about an early draft of the U.S. Constitution that included annotations handwritten by many of the New England delegates. This annotated draft was stolen. The book discusses two parallel paths of searching for the stolen constitution. One path follows a track dating from 1786 until after the Civil War during which the person from whom the draft constitution was stolen and his descendants seek to find it and get it back. The story is also told from a present day perspective where an antique bookseller is searching for the annotated draft.
While the plot was entertaining, the reason I am writing about this book is a great saying that was repeated many times in the book: “This is America. In the morning we get up, go to work and solve our problems.”
That truly is one of the great things about America. We do have the ability to get in the morning, got to work and solve our problems.
As a kid growing up my mother repeatedly told me I could do anything I wanted when I grew up if I worked hard, got good grades and stayed out of trouble. You know what? My mother was right. I am doing exactly what I always wanted to do with my life and loving doing it.
I tell my kids the same thing my mother told me. I emphasize to them that hard work, especially while they are in grade school, will set the stage for future academic success in high school and college. That academic success will give them choices in life so they can follow career paths that are intellectually rewarding and, hopefully, sufficiently financially rewarding that they can be happy with the career choices they make.
To me finding something you love doing and making a sufficient income that you can meet your personal financial goals is the American dream. [Keep in mind that not everyone has the same financial goals or the same passions.] However, the American dream is under attack from two sources.
First, the American dream is under attack from liberals who want to destroy the incentive to be successful and who want everyone well, everyone except the “elite people” like themselves to be at nearly the same level. For example, confiscatory tax policies are designed to prevent wealth accumulation and allow the government to take money from one group of people and give it to another.
The American dream is also under attack by Americans who have grown lazy and don't want to work for a living or who want things they don't pay for. A case in point is an alarming article from the New York Times, “Owners Stop Paying Mortgage . . . And Stop Fretting About It,” that someone e-mailed me. This article described folks that simply stopped paying their home mortgages and don't care. Some of them have continued to live in their homes for more than a year, but have not paid a nickel towards the mortgage payments. These folks are taking the money that should have gone for their mortgage payments and instead are spending it on going out to eat, taking their airboat out for the weekend or visiting the Hard Rock Casino. Guess who bears the burden of the folks who refuse to perform their commitments? You guessed it. Us: the hard-working, commitment-keeping folks who pay our obligations.
Notwithstanding these liberal attacks and these lazy Americans, America IS still the greatest country in the world if we will fight to keep it that way. To do that, we need to get up in the morning, go to work and solve our problems.
(James Thomas, chair of the Sixth District Republicans, can be reached at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
For earlier columns
For columns from 2008
|
