REQUIRING A PHOTO ID TO VOTE MAKES SENSE
There might be some fireworks to open the 2011 legislative session of the Missouri General Assembly because of an extremely questionable election that took place in neighboring Jackson County. You may not have followed this story closely because it is not an election that any Platte County voter or election authority would have a connection with. There has also been relatively limited news coverage considering the allegations that have been made.
The election in question is a race for the 40th Legislative District, which is essentially in the “historic northeast” area of Kansas City. The district is south of the Missouri River, east of downtown Kansas City, west of I-435 and mostly north of I-70.
The election has probably also drawn less attention because the fight is over a Democrat primary election in a district where the demographics are so bad for Republicans that there is no reason to spend the resources to run a Republican candidate. The fight is an all-Democrat fight between a legacy Democrat, John Rizzo, the son of the chairman of the Jackson County Legislature, and Will Royster.
This has been an interesting story to follow. One of the local bloggers was “reporting” (and I use that term loosely in the case of this blogger) on the election for the weeks leading up to the election. The election was much closer than any pundits thought it would be. The election night count was a 10 vote victory for Rizzo. However, the margin continued to shrink throughout the election reporting process. The margin of victory dropped to six and then to three and finally to a one vote victory by the time an automated recount was conducted.
There are a number of irregularities that have been alleged by Royster. However, there are two particularly ugly ones. Royster claims a large number of Somalis who could not speak English were brought to a polling place and assisted in voting by a Rizzo supporter. It is also alleged that several Rizzo campaign supporters, including relatives of Rizzo, voted in the election even though campaign documents list home addresses for these voters that are outside of the 40th District.
I have been intrigued by these allegations because I did not know how someone could vote if he or she was not registered to vote at that particular precinct and how someone could register to vote without being a U.S. citizen. I know whenever I go to vote, I always present my driver's license and they often look for a while before they can find me in the voter registration book. What I always think is humorous is the election judges know me personally and are normally asking me how my parents are doing in the course of checking my ID and looking me up in the book. Notwithstanding that personal knowledge of me, I still always present a photo ID.
A dispute over which Democrat will be seated in the House is not normally a fight the full House would get into. Normally the Democrat caucus would resolve the issue. However, incoming House Speaker Steve Tilley says he may refuse to seat Rizzo as a result of the allegations of voter fraud. This, of course, would be a prelude to again trying to force a photo ID requirement when voting in Missouri.
Requiring a photo ID to vote makes good sense. I know it would be inconvenient for that very small percentage of people who do not have a driver's license to obtain some form of photo ID, but that inconvenience is relatively small for the privilege of participating in the greatest democracy. Besides, I'm not sure how you really function without a photo ID anyway. Although Royster supposedly lost his election, he actually might do more to help reform election laws in Missouri by never actually being seated in the House. Thank you, Mr. Royster.
(Email James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
FORCED SPREADING OF THE WEALTH ISN'T CHARITY
Christmas is upon us again. Although the true meaning of Christmas is God taking on human form to become our Savior, the season is often thought of as the “season of giving.” This is natural. God gave us the best gift on that first Christmas. It is natural to want to show your appreciation for that special gift and for all of God's other gifts to us by giving gifts to others. Sometimes these gifts are for people we love and care about. Other times these gifts are for people we don't even know. Examples of the latter are food drives, coats for kids drives and general clothing drives.
Charity is great. However, liberals have the wrong idea about charity. The liberal idea of charity was summarized by someone who was filling in on the radio for the recently departed Chris Stigall a couple of weeks ago. He described it like this:
A liberal and a conservative are walking down the street. They come upon a homeless man on the street. The liberal quickly reaches into the conservative's pocket, pulls out a $20 bill and says “Look at how charitable I am.”
Liberals just don't get it. They think forced spreading of the wealth is charity. It isn't. That is socialism or, more accurately, theft.
That is what always irks me about liberals. They give little or nothing to charity, but they advocate for higher taxes to support social programs. For example, during the years 2000-2004, Obama gave less than 1% of his income to charity. Over a 10 year period prior to becoming vice president, Biden gave an average of only $369 per year to charities. Liberals “talk the talk,” but they do not “walk the walk.” They don't personally support social programs. Instead, they want to raise the taxes of hard working people and “redistribute the wealth” of those hard working people to others. That is not charity. That is theft.
Although I am adamantly opposed to forced charity or wealth redistribution, I am a strong advocate of voluntary charity or voluntary sharing of the wealth. I encourage you to do two things between Christmas and New Year's Day. First, stop and count your many blessings and consider what resources you have to voluntarily share with others. Second, and more importantly, also take a forward looking glance. While you are feeling the “Christmas spirit,” which may or not be religiously motivated, evaluate your family's budget for the upcoming year and decide how many resources that you plan to set aside for charitable purposes for the next year.
Related to this second thing, don't just think about what money you might want to give in 2011. Think about what special organization you may want to volunteer to help in 2011. Charities can certainly use your cash, but the personal touch of giving of one's time is often more valuable and meaningful than writing a big check. And, although you should be charitable because it is good for the people you are helping, I'll let you in on a little secret. It's good for you, too. You'll get a warm feeling inside knowing that you have helped another person. Don't do if for that reason, but it is okay to enjoy that feeling as a nice extra bonus.
I do have to warn you of something. Once you start giving, it is hard to stop. You'll just want to do more. However, there is one big difference than the liberals' way of giving. You are giving your own time and money and not someone else's.
Merry Christmas.
(James Thomas can be reached at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
A SMALL VICTORY FOR LIMITING THE REACH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The American people and the integrity of the U.S. Constitution won a minor victory this week. A U.S. District Court judge in Virginia struck down the provision in the Obama-Care legislation that requires every person to purchase health insurance or face penalties.
The theory of the mandate makes sense if you are going to have a national health plan. Otherwise any national health insurance package would fail because no one would actually buy the health insurance until they get sick. This would make the insurance plan cost prohibitive because no one but sick people are in the plan.
Even if a mandate makes sense, the ability of Congress to require that everyone buy health insurance has to be authorized by the U.S. Constitution. In many cases Congress has relied upon the “Commerce Clause” to give it authority to pass laws. The Commerce Clause is found in Article I Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. The clause states that Congress shall have the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The Commerce Clause is often linked with the Necessary and Proper Clause, which is found at the end of Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and says Congress has the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof.”
For many years the Commerce Clause was interpreted narrowly. In many cases the Commerce Clause was not interpreted to allow Congress to implement certain New Deal programs. However, early in FDR's second term, the U.S. Supreme Court changed its analysis to defer to Congress on what is meant by “commerce.” This opened the flood gates to a massive expansion of federal government regulation and programs.
The judge in this case said "An individual's personal decision to purchase or decline to purchase health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the Commerce Clause." This judge has apparently actually read the U.S. Constitution. (That is something I wish everyone in Congress would do once in a while.)
There are other cases that attack Obama-care that are pending in the courts. One of those cases is a case that has been filed in Florida which challenges whether the federal government can force states to expand their Medicaid programs. Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder is also one of the parties challenging Obama-Care in a U.S. District Court in Missouri.
The whole Obama-Care debate actually is a great opportunity to discuss the role of the federal government. If Congress would actually read the U.S. Constitution they would find that the role of the federal government has its powers limited by the U.S. Constitution and that it should have a very small role to play in our daily lives. The federal government should provide for the national defense and perform certain functions that only the federal government is in a position to perform. However, there are many government functions that are not the responsibility or even within the authority of the federal government. For example, public education is a very important government function. However, this should be a function of state and even more local governments and not the federal government.
This decision is only a U.S. District Court decision. The real weight of the decision won't be felt until the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court. But even a small victory for limiting the reach of the federal government is a step in the right direction.
(James Thomas can be reached at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
DEMOCRATS WRONGLY BELIEVE OUR MONEY IS THIER MONEY TO SPEND
The Democrats either read my November 17 column or they have hired some better political consultants. Three weeks ago I wrote:
“The only thing I can think is that the Democrats don't really want to extend the Bush tax rates for ANY taxpayers. Otherwise, they would force the Republicans hand and make them turn down an extension of the lower tax rates for the majority of taxpayers. In fact, if they were serious about extending the Bush tax rates for those taxpayers below certain thresholds, the Democrats would have pushed the legislation through prior to the election so they could have campaigned on the tax rate extension.”
Last week the Democrats in Congress did what I recommended. (Of course, they probably did this because they finally hired some political consultants that actually had brains in their heads rather than because they read my column, but I can still toot my own horn for predicting the strategy.)
The Democrats in the House passed a bill that would extend the Bush tax rates for those making less than $250,000. The Democrats in the Senate were up to their own shenanigans. They brought up two proposals. One proposal followed the plan adopted by the House to extend the Bush tax rates for those making less than $250,000. This proposal received a majority vote 53-36, but this was not enough to break a potential filibuster. The Senate Democrats then came back with a plan to extend the Bush tax rates for all taxpayers except for those making more than a $1 million. This too was rejected by a majority (53-37), but less than a filibuster-proof 60 votes.
This forcing of the Republicans' hand was a great strategy. It forced the Republicans to stay united and vote against an extension of the Bush tax rates because the upper income taxpayers were left out. As a political junkie --and not a tax policy analyst--the vote to extend the tax cuts for everyone except those making more than $1 million was a brilliant strategy. It made the Republicans stance of “tax cuts for all” an even riskier political position.
The problem is that the Democrats weren't smart enough to push these votes BEFORE the November Election. If the Democrats had actually voted on the extension of the Bush tax rates for the majority of Americans and forced the Republicans to vote “no” because the higher income taxpayers were going to face dramatic tax increases, the Democrats could have endlessly demagogued the Republicans in pre-election advertising. Now the vote will be old and stale before the next election cycle. So, the political impact of the “no” vote by Republicans will be dramatically reduced.
This really is a debate over two issues. First, the Democrats think the money we earn is THEIR money to spend as they want. They believe they are doing us a favor when they let us keep it. Republicans believe the money we earn belongs to us. Second, the debate is over how much is enough to pay to the government? Why should anyone pay a tax rate of over 42% (39.6% income tax rate and 2.9% Medicare rate) on the last dollar earned? And that 42+% is just the federal tax rate. There is still state income taxes and in many cases local income taxes. On top of this, you have sales taxes of 10% when you spend your money and high property taxes if you own real estate or personal property. Ouch! Congressional Republicans are trying to hold the line on this burden.
After the recent votes and after my deadline, the reports were that the negotiations were continuing. Stay tuned.
(Email James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
MISSOURI REPUBLICANS GET AN EARLY CHRISTMAS GIFT FROM DEMS
Missouri Republicans received an early Christmas gift this year. The gift is from a small group of Democrat activists in St. Louis. This group wrote a letter to Governor Jay Nixon in which they said “Today we pledge, as a group, that we will not get involved in campaigns for State and National candidates until we meet with you and we feel a more effective party is established.”
The report from a St. Louis blog says that these Democrats “were a bit stunned by how badly the Democrats lost on Nov. 2.” These activists really can't be that bright. Anyone who didn't see that train coming has no political savvy whatsoever. Obama, Pelosi and Reid have passed humongous spending that has increased the national debt in the last year by over $1 trillion (That's with a “T”!!!) while pushing for dramatic changes in the national health care system and seeking to dramatically increase our utility costs through cap and tax. This agenda might be fine with east coast and left coast liberals, but it is not fine with normal people in Missouri. These actions were taken by Democrats on a national scale and were not necessarily the bad acts of state-level Missouri Democrats. However, the local Democrats failed to distinguish themselves from the insanity of the national Democrats and got taken down with them.
The letter demands “a full-time paid Director, a publicist/message developer, and an outreach co-ordinator [sic] to reach all of our state's townships with our democratic objectives.” The group must not know much about what goes on in the Democrat Party. The Missouri Democrat Party has an executive director and a communications director. There is also a system to maintain contact with the local party committees and local activists. Of course, if the Democrat system for local contact is anything like the Republican system, I am certain it could use some improvements in this area. So, on this demand, these activists have a legitimate beef.
The really great thing is that these Democrat activists are self proclaimed “progressives.”That is a word they came up with to describe themselves because the word “liberal” has become a dirty word. However, they are still liberals even if they try to change their name.
The small group claims their priorities include “equal educational opportunities, a fair tax structure, civil rights, security, protection of the environment, basic health care and decent paying jobs.” All of those things sound great. However, of course, you have to know what that they mean by those things. For example, to them “a fair tax structure” means where the hard working people get to pay a disproportionate amount of tax while the freeloaders who are taking the most out of the system pay nothing or “decent paying jobs” means having employers paying employees based upon what the employee wants to make rather than based upon what value the employee gives to the employer.
The activist commented on Nixon to the St. Louis blogger Nixon that “It's been noticed that he's catering to the Republicans.” She better get used to it. Republicans have a super-super-majority in the State Senate (26-8) and a nearly two-thirds majority in the State House (106-57). Nixon can work politely and professionally with Republicans or accomplish nothing. That won't be changing over the next two years.
This is a win-win situation for Republicans. Nixon either bows to the demands of these self-proclaimed activists and moves the Missouri Democrat Party off the deep end to the left or angers a key component of his volunteer base and loses their support. Either way the Republicans win because Missouri Democrats follow the crazy liberals or the crazy liberal volunteers don't show up to work in the next election cycle. Merry Christmas, Republicans.
(Email James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
EARMARK SYSTEM NEEDS REFORMED BUT NOT ELIMINATED
Congress reconvened last week with both the current Congressmen and the incoming freshmen all traveling to Washington. The freshmen were going through orientation and the incumbents returned to begin finishing up incomplete business. A hot topic of discussion was earmarks.
At first it seemed that a potential earmark ban would be dead on arrival. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell initially provided a clear explanation of the point of earmarks. He asked the question whether it made sense for Congress to appropriate large sums of money without any instructions to the executive branch of how this money should be spent. This was a very going point. However, within a few days, Senator McConnell was collapsing under the pressure to adopt a ban on earmarks. Congressman-- soon to be Senator--Blunt was one of the few who stood his ground by refusing to sign on to a policy to ban earmarks.
There is a lot of pressure for Congress to ban earmarks. A Rasmussen Reports poll shows that 58% of those polled favor a politician who will cut spending over a politician who will bring federal money home for his district or state. Thirty-three percent favor a politician who “brings home the bacon.” It is easy to appreciate the general public's outrage over earmarks. There are a lot of stupid earmarks. Also, even if the earmarks all were for legitimate and important things, there is simply too much spending right now. Attacking earmarks is certainly seen as one way to curb this out of control spending.
Some of the general public's outrage may come from how they perceive politicians' reasons for pursuing earmarks. The Rasmussen Reports poll shows 54% believe that politicians pursue earmarks because they believe they will help them get re-elected. Only 29% believe that politicians pursue earmarks because the politicians believe the earmarks are what are best for the district. (The others were “not sure.”) I am guessing that nearly none of those polled have ever studied the federal budgets or any state or local budgets and have no idea how complex the process is. Furthermore, I suspect that nearly none of those polled have actually had to figure out how to fund a road or sewer improvement in their local community.
I fully appreciate the objection to earmarks. There have been a lot of really dumb earmarks over the years (e.g., an earmark to study the effects of cow flatulents on global warming). However, contrary to the thoughts of many, earmarks should not be a dirty word. When Congress includes an earmark in its budget, Congress is simply telling the executive branch or the states that this pot of money we have set aside is to be spent in this specific manner. What is wrong with that? Congress is simply being specific about how the money it sets aside should be spent rather than making a general allocation for unelected bureaucrats to spend.
Don't get me wrong. The earmark process could certainly use some reform. However, earmarking should not be entirely banned because of some of these deficiencies in the process.
Before succumbing to the pressure to ban earmarks, the public should be asked a different question than the ones proposed by Rasmussen Reports: Do you prefer (A) for Congress to budget money by specifically saying how that money is to be spent or (B) for Congress to set aside money for unelected bureaucrats to spend however they want? I'm guessing the overwhelming majority will prefer A.
If those who are opposed to earmarks want to say that federal spending is out of control, then I say I agree. Yes. Absolutely. Cut spending. However, Congress should not give up control over how budgeted money is spent by doing away with the ability to earmark the money that is spent for specific projects.
(Email James at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
WHAT WILL THESE DUCKS DO WITH THEIR LAME SESSION?
The lame duck Congress went back into session this week. One topic sure to be at the top of the list of issues to be addressed is how to deal with the income tax rate structure leading into 2011.
During Ronald Reagan's term, the tax rates were reduced to two rates -- 15% and 28% with a 5% surcharge on higher incomes to phase out the benefit of the 15% bracket for these taxpayers. George H.W. Bush was pressured into adding a 31% bracket. Then Bill Clinton gave us the 36% and 39.6% bracket. Our first post-Reagan rate reduction came in 2001 when George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress restructured the rates to create a new 10% bracket and adjusted the other brackets to 15%, 25%, 28% 33% and 35%.
Unfortunately, it was only possible to pass the Bush rates for a ten year window. That window is set to expire at the end of 2010. When the Bush rates expire, the 10% bracket will go away and the other rates will jump up to their previous levels.
The expiration of the Bush rates will have a dramatic impact on the economy. With the change in tax rates, billions of dollars will be shifted from the taxpaying citizens to the government. This will have a devastating impact on the economy.
The expiration of the Bush tax rates will also have a dramatic impact on individual taxpayers. For taxpayers who are currently only in the 10% bracket, the expiration of the Bush tax rates will trigger a 50% increase in their federal income tax bill. Taxpayers in the 28% bracket will experience the impact of the expiration of the 10% bracket AND incur a 12% increase in their current 25% marginal tax rate.
Ouch! The bottom line is that the expiration of the Bush tax rates will hurt all taxpayers even the ones in the lower tax brackets.
Democrats have a stupid love affair with higher taxes. However, while their ideas may be stupid, they are not necessarily politically stupid. They realize that a dramatic increase in the tax rates for ALL taxpayers is not going to go over well. It will hurt individual taxpayers and hurt the economy as a whole. That is why they have been talking for months about extending the Bush tax rates for taxpayers below certain income levels (i.e., $200,000 or $250,000 depending upon who you ask). What I have not figured out yet is why the Democrats have not brought an extension of the Bush tax rates for taxpayers below a certain threshold to a vote.
The Republicans support the extension of the Bush tax rates for all taxpayers. The dispute is whether the lower rates are extended temporarily or permanently for some of the higher tax brackets. If the Democrats had any political senses they would bring specific legislation up for a vote that would extend the Bush tax rates for the taxpayers below their threshold and then dare the Republicans not to vote for it because the legislation does not include an extension of the tax cuts for taxpayers at all income levels.
The only thing I can think is that the Democrats don't really want to extend the Bush tax rates for ANY taxpayers. Otherwise, they would force the Republicans hand and make them turn down an extension of the lower tax rates for the majority of taxpayers. In fact, if they were serious about extending the Bush tax rates for those taxpayers below certain thresholds, the Democrats would have pushed the legislation through prior to the election so they could have campaigned on the tax rate extension.
The quack, quack, quack of the lame duck session is under way. We'll have to wait and see what these ducks do with it.
(Email active Republican James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
WHEN IT COMES TIME TO CUT SPENDING, SUPPORT THE CONSERVATIVES
The lame duck Congress went back into session this week. One topic sure to be at the top of the list of issues to be addressed is how to deal with the income tax rate structure leading into 2011.
During Ronald Reagan's term, the tax rates were reduced to two rates -- 15% and 28% with a 5% surcharge on higher incomes to phase out the benefit of the 15% bracket for these taxpayers. George H.W. Bush was pressured into adding a 31% bracket. Then Bill Clinton gave us the 36% and 39.6% bracket. Our first post-Reagan rate reduction came in 2001 when George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress restructured the rates to create a new 10% bracket and adjusted the other brackets to 15%, 25%, 28% 33% and 35%.
Unfortunately, it was only possible to pass the Bush rates for a ten year window. That window is set to expire at the end of 2010. When the Bush rates expire, the 10% bracket will go away and the other rates will jump up to their previous levels.
The expiration of the Bush rates will have a dramatic impact on the economy. With the change in tax rates, billions of dollars will be shifted from the taxpaying citizens to the government. This will have a devastating impact on the economy.
The expiration of the Bush tax rates will also have a dramatic impact on individual taxpayers. For taxpayers who are currently only in the 10% bracket, the expiration of the Bush tax rates will trigger a 50% increase in their federal income tax bill. Taxpayers in the 28% bracket will experience the impact of the expiration of the 10% bracket AND incur a 12% increase in their current 25% marginal tax rate. Ouch! The bottom line is that the expiration of the Bush tax rates will hurt all taxpayers even the ones in the lower tax brackets.
Democrats have a stupid love affair with higher taxes. However, while their ideas may be stupid, they are not necessarily politically stupid. They realize that a dramatic increase in the tax rates for ALL taxpayers is not going to go over well. It will hurt individual taxpayers and hurt the economy as a whole. That is why they have been talking for months about extending the Bush tax rates for taxpayers below certain income levels (i.e., $200,000 or $250,000 depending upon who you ask). What I have not figured out yet is why the Democrats have not brought an extension of the Bush tax rates for taxpayers below a certain threshold to a vote.
The Republicans support the extension of the Bush tax rates for all taxpayers. The dispute is whether the lower rates are extended temporarily or permanently for some of the higher tax brackets. If the Democrats had any political senses they would bring specific legislation up for a vote that would extend the Bush tax rates for the taxpayers below their threshold and then dare the Republicans not to vote for it because the legislation does not include an extension of the tax cuts for taxpayers at all income levels.
The only thing I can think is that the Democrats don't really want to extend the Bush tax rates for ANY taxpayers. Otherwise, they would force the Republicans hand and make them turn down an extension of the lower tax rates for the majority of taxpayers. In fact, if they were serious about extending the Bush tax rates for those taxpayers below certain thresholds, the Democrats would have pushed the legislation through prior to the election so they could have campaigned on the tax rate extension.
The quack, quack, quack of the lame duck session is under way. We'll have to wait and see what these ducks do with it.
(Email active Republican James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
WHEN IT COMES TIME TO CUT SPENDING, SUPPORT THE CONSERVATIVES
It feels like déjà vu. I remember the excitement of and after Election Night 1994. There is a similar excitement and hope that comes with Election Night 2010. However, I have a slight amount of trepidation when looking to 2011. The challenge is whether the Republican-controlled House will be able to win the public relations battles throughout 2011 and avoid being made out to be the “bad guys” like President Clinton successfully did to the Republicans in Congress in 1995.
As you will recall, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in Congress came to power on the Contract with America. This was a list of specific things that Republicans promised to do if they won the House. Primarily, this Contract promised to bring a list of things to a vote in the House in the first 100 days after assuming office. Some who pay less attention to history may believe that the House did not do this. They did. Everything in the Contract was not only brought to a vote, but actually passed in the House and sent to the Senate. However, many of the Contract items died in the Senate. The most unfortunate casualty was the balanced budget amendment.
Some of the public confusion may be due to the media rallying to the rescue of Clinton. The American voters clearly said they wanted less spending. The Republicans in Congress in 1995 tried to give them that by holding the line on spending. However, Clinton rejected the smaller budgets of the Republicans which led to a budgetary impasse and a government shutdown that was painted as a negative on the part of the Republicans.
In part I blame this public relations nightmare for the Republicans losing their way. Fiscal conservatives had been victorious. They held the line on spending, but somehow were made out to be the “bad guys” when Clinton rejected the smaller budgets. This bizarre development made many Republicans, especially the less conservative ones, less willing to hold the line on spending.
Here is my proposed action plan for the incoming Republican Congress. First, extend the Bush tax cuts at all income levels. If the tax rates rise to the rates during the Clinton era, this will pull tons of money out of the economy. It will impact taxpayers from the smallest incomes to the highest incomes. This shifting of cash from the taxpayers to the government will lead to a double dip recession. Second, pass a bill that repeal s the health care bill in total, but at the same time creates a “blue ribbon” commission to study health care with a few politicians, but mostly professional experts, picked by the House, the Senate and the President. This way we reverse the extremely unpopular Obamacare, but show a willingness to work on well-thought-out solutions recommended by experts. Third, cut spending back to the 2008 levels. This is still too much spending, but it is still hundreds of billions less than where Obama has taken spending in the last two years. Fourth, push through a balanced budget amendment that requires the federal government to operate with a balance the budget unless a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress approve deficit spending, but include a phase in provision to allow the federal budget to absorb the shock of this change.
My hope is that the Republican-controlled House can win the public relations battles in 2011 and 2012 while holding the line on spending. If they can, we can restore America's greatness. If not, we will continue to dig the hole deeper and risk economic ruin for the world's greatest economy. This depends a little on the media spin put on the tough decisions required to balance the budget. However, it depends even more on the willingness of the American people to support the fiscal conservatives when it comes time to cut spending.
(Email James Thomas at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
DEMOCRATS GOT FULL CREDIT FOR THEIR ACTIONS
Phew! The mid-term elections are finally over. It has been an extraordinarily long mid-term election cycle. It seemed like the campaigning began all the way back in April 2009 with the Tea Parties in Kansas City and all around the country. (The first “modern” Tea Party was actually held a few weeks earlier on February 27, 2009 and protested both Bush's Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout bill and Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus bill.)
I'm sure we'll have lots of analysis over the next few weeks. Democrats have been trying to downplay for weeks the anticipated mid-term losses that were predicted. It is true that the party in power tends to lose seats in the middle of a president's first term. In fairness to the Democrats, above average losses should have been expected because unemployment is high and the economy is sluggish. However, the Democrats had huge control margins going into this election cycle.
I read a series of hilarious comments from Democrats before the election. President Obama complained “[I]t was very difficult for us to spend a lot of time doing victory laps and advertising exactly what we were doing, because we had to move on to the next thing.” One of the funniest was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who said, “[W]e haven't really gotten the credit for what we have done . . . .”
Huh? The election results reflect exactly the opposite of what Pelosi is saying. The voters know that Pelosi and crew have pushed through Obama's massive debt increasing stimulus package and a health care bill that a majority of Americans did not want. They also know that Pelosi pushed “cap and tax” through the House even though it luckily stalled in the Senate. No. I say the voters have given Pelosi and company full credit for what they have done. The problem for Pelosi and her chums is that the voters didn't like what they did.
The voters objected to Obama's stimulus package, but Congress passed it any way. The voters strongly objected to the health care bill, but Obama and Pelosi rammed it through any way. Obama announced plans to increase the national debt by over $1 trillion (with a “T”!!!) per year for the next several years despite clear public disgruntlement with out of control government spending. While doing these things that a majority of Americans did not want, Congress didn't bother to pass a budget.
In fairness to the Democrats, I don't believe that you should govern from polls. I think the right thing to do is to tell people what you believe in when running for office and then push those policies forward. However, when it becomes blatantly obvious that the policies you campaigned on are grossly unpopular, you may have to tweak those policies in order to achieve an effective governing consensus. This is particularly true when the public figures out that the kind of “change” you were selling in the last election was not what they want. When this happens, you need to show some respect to the voters.
Obama and the Democrats in Congress adopted a typical liberal elitist policy of “Let the voters be damned. We're smarter than them and know better than them.” This was obviously not a good strategy. No. Contrary to Pelosi's belief that she and her pals did not get credit for what they have done, they instead got full credit for their actions. Unfortunately for them (and fortunate for America), the voters didn't like what the Democrats have done.
Now that the election is over, let's hope that we can start towards a path of sound fiscal management by the federal government. Yeah. I know it won't happen, but I can still dream about it.
(Email James at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com)
WILL THE WHOOPIN’
OF DEMOCRATS
BE BIG ENOUGH?
Posted 10/29/10
There is less than a week to go until the mid-term elections. There is little doubt that the Democrats are going to get a whoopin'. The only question really is whether it will be enough of a whoopin' to put Republicans back in control of Congress.
There are 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 100 seats in the U.S. Senate. It takes 218 seats to hold a majority in the House. Right now the Democrats hold a 255-178 majority. (Apparently there are two seats currently vacant.) The Republicans need to pick up 40 net seats in the House to be in the majority.
Only a third of the U.S. Senate seats are up for re-election every two years. This year, there are a couple of additional seats up for election due to special elections to fill partial terms of Senators who have died or resigned prior to the end of their terms (e.g., Obama and Biden). So 37 of the 100 seats are up for election. The Democrats have a huge advantage in those seats that are not up for election this cycle 40-23. So the Democrats only need to win 11 of the 37 seats to maintain a simple majority and they only have to win one seat to maintain a 41 vote minority that could keep any filibuster from being broken on a party-line vote.
Rasmussen Reports has a steady stream of polling in the Senate races and uses that to maintain a “Balance of Power” ranking. As of Monday, Rasmussen had eight seats in the Solid Democrat category and 18 seats in the Solid Republican column. This would make the split 48-41 with 11 seats in play. Of these 11 seats Rasmussen lists none in the Lean Democratic category and five in the Lean Republican category (including Missouri). This would put the split at 48-46 in favor of the Democrats. The six seats listed as Toss Up are California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Washington. These numbers mean the Republicans have a legitimate shot at getting to 51 seats in the Senate, but they would have to win all the seats leaning their way and half of the seats considered Toss Ups to get there. This is certainly do-able, but not easy. What makes this seem less likely to occur is that so many of the Toss Up seats are in states, like California, that have been “blue” for many election cycles.
What is even harder to predict is whether Republicans will pick up the 40 net seats they need to get control of the House. One bit of exciting news for Republicans is that Rasmussen reported on Monday that its polling shows the generic Congressional ballot at 49% Republican, 40% Democrat. That is an amazing spread. However, the problem is that this is not a national election. It is a series of 435 smaller elections.
Of the 435 seats, many of the seats are solidly Democrat or Republican. For example, Billy Long in Mo-7th is in a very red district and Emanuel Cleaver in Mo-5th is in a very blue district. Polling by ABC shows 149 seats as solid Democrat and 161 seats as solid Republican. The remaining 125 seats are split 45 Lean Democrat, 45 Toss Up and 35 Lean Republican.
In Kansas and Missouri, we should see at least one pick up and possibly as many as three. Kevin Yoder should take the 3rd District in Kansas back to the Republican column. Vicky Hartzler in the 4th District in Missouri and Ed Martin in the 3rd District in Missouri have pushed two Democrat incumbents from solid Democrat to Lean Democrat. Everything would have to fall in favor of Hartzler and Martin for them to win, but polling has them in striking distance of victory.
We'll know if the whoopin' was big enough in less than a week.
(A longtime leader in area Republican politics, James Thomas can be reached at jamesiiiandsandra@kc.rr.com) |
