Cash for Clunkers - What Do You Think?

No doubt many if not all of you have heard about the cash for clunkers program that is about to end after this weekend. Some of you may have even used the opportunity to get a new car. My question to you is, did you see it as a successful program?

The reason I ask is you have to consider what the point of the program was to decide it if was successful or not. Was it to improve the environment? Was it to filter more money to the auto companies? And if so, how much of that money have they gotten? Was the purpose something else?

My next question is how many, if any, of the new cars purchased do you think will be repossessed in the near future? If any are repossessed, does that change your opinion of whether or not it was a success or failure? Does it matter if the money went directly to the car companies or those that purchased the cars?

I don't quite know where the money came from. I just assume that since I didn't have a car to trade in, I'm somehow paying for it. Which I obviously don't care for. I can think of better ways to handle this, but again, it really depends what the point of the program was.

Just curious to hear other assessments of the program.

President Obama Just Made My Last Point

Without intending to, President Obama just made the same point of my last post. Check it out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care_overhaul

"As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said."

"'They do it all the time,'" he said. "'UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems.'"

Seriously, do you want the government running your health care?

Are Politics More Polarizing Now than 20-30 Years Ago?

I was watching a stand-up comedy routine from the early 80's and it was filmed in Washington D.C. So a brief comment was made about Reaganomics and the crowed booed. They didn't stay on it long but enough was said that the predominate feeling in the room was that Reaganomics was bad. Now I know Ronald Reagan wasn't a perfect president and no president is. However the conservative (not Republican) belief is that Reaganomics was really good for this country. His economic policies stimulated the economy that many say Carter and whoever sent spiraling downward.

I wasn't alive back then, so I don't know what the general political feeling was. Was it really all that different than today? Did people pick their side and no matter what the other side did, it was disastrous, or wrong, or sending the country to hell in a hand basket? All I hear from the other side, no matter who's in power, is doom and gloom. And you find yourself starting to buy into the hype of doom and gloom.

That said, there are some dangerous policies being discussed and voted on, i.e. cap and trade and government run health-care that disturb me greatly. But what disturbs me even more, is that either people are laissez-faire when it comes to voicing their opinion about politics and policies to their representatives, or that our representatives just aren't listening. I happen to think it's a combination of both. If everyone in this country took 10 minutes on each major issue to contemplate how it will affect them and their family, maybe more people would take another 10 minutes to call or email the government to let them know how they want their representative to vote on certain issues. Instead it seems like people can't be bothered with this as they are too busy enjoying their lives.

Reality Check!! The reason we have the freedom to enjoy our lives is because people stood up and voiced their opinions!! And fought for freedom. But slowly over the years, our freedoms have been encroached upon and we let it happen in the name of safety and compassion or charity (no matter how mismanaged), among other things. Before you know it the government will be telling all of you what you are allowed to buy to feed your family while taking 50-75% of your check each month. But you'll be so dependant upon their "free" health care, "free" food, and "free" housing, that you won't be able to see how much better quality lives you could have if only you could make your own decisions. They want everyone to become so dependant on them that we do their bidding. When the government is in charge, quality and efficiency are drastically reduced. But sheep don't know the difference. Sheep will be convinced it's wonderful because they have food to eat and a place to sleep.

Let's not become a mass of sheep being herded by wolves!! Fight back, get involve, voice your opinion!!! Don't become complacent. The more that happens the more powerful they get. Please care enough to not let this happen!

Is a Commencement Speech the Appropriate Time to Get Political?

The President gave the commencement speech at Notre Dame this weekend, and it's apparently very controversial because he chose this time to give a speech about abortion. When I was trying to figure out what to write about, (Pelosi's fiasco...everyone knows she's a nut-job liar, budget cuts...can you really brag about your cuts if the overall budget increases?) I was very hesitant to even discuss this as one of the two discussions to have about this story involves abortion, which I generally planned to stay away from. However, I decided to buck it up and have the two discussions. The first will be about the topic of abortion and what he said, and the second will be about the title of this post as that's what really drove me to discuss this, even though it's the shorter of the two discussions.

So the title of the referenced CNN article is "Obama calls for common ground on abortion at Notre Dame," and while I may agree with the sentiment, it's as idealistic as banning or outlawing abortion. This is because I think people are very passionate about this issue,which it's very black and white to most people; right or wrong. I am of the opinion that there are people that are so passionately for abortion rights that they get come across pro eugenics more than pro-choice. If you don't know what eugenics is, click on the link I've provided for a more in depth discussion on it. Basically it's the belief that the human species can or should be improved though the elimination of inferior members. I take great offense to this. I don't believe that all pro-choice people hold this belief, but I think it's a fine line some walk when they discuss reasons to have an abortion with someone who has simply proclaimed she wouldn't choose it for herself. Pro-choice should be as much about choosing not to have one as it is about choosing to have one.

Here are the comments Obama made in the speech that I agree with taken from the CNN article:

"He urged supporters and opponents of abortion rights to 'work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term.'"

"He also endorsed the drafting of a 'sensible conscience clause' to 'honor the conscience' of doctors and other medical workers opposed to abortion."

I think we need to focus on working to reduce the number of people that make the choice by encouraging, perhaps even incentivizing adoptions. I'm sure private citizens that are looking to adopt would be willing take part in some incentive program for girls trying to make up their mind. And while I believe that health care workers shouldn't be forced to participate in abortions if they don't agree with it, they also shouldn't got seeking employment in abortion clinics and then refuse to do the job based on their beliefs. They should be made aware of the situation surrounding the impending abortion, whether it is essentially "elective" or "medically necessary" for the life of the mother and make their decision from there, and appropriate staff should be available.

I also believe there should be intensive counseling for elective abortions that lasts longer than 20 minutes where alternative options are discussed as well as the reasons for the decision. There should be at the very least a 48 hr waiting period that involve 2 8 hour days of counseling. I abhor abortion as a form a birth control and eugenics, but people will use it for these two purposes and the decision shouldn't be made lightly. They need to understand in both cases, there are people that want to adopt. There are people that will adopt special needs kids and these parents need to be made aware of this. I think the ultimate decision is between them and God. Our job is to encourage the right decision, not demonize the wrong one. (this does not include abortions that happen to save the life of the mother, there is no right decision there as a baby will either die or grow up without a mother. Anyone self-righteous enough to condemn either decision made in a case like this will also have to answer to God...We all have to answer to God in the end for our actions and words)

Now onto the point that really riled me up to write about this story, which is discussing a political agenda during a graduation ceremony. Isn't that a downer? Isn't the commencement speech supposed to be about the graduates' futures as they are about to step into the "real world?" How is bringing politics into the day accomplishing this? Not to mention it's offensive to some people whether they agree with his views or not. I would feel robbed of what should be a perfectly joyous moment in my life.

What do you think? Should politics be a "hands off" topic for giving a commencement speech?

More Evidence People NEED the Government to Step In

That title is meant sarcastically. Read on.

Take a look at this story from across the ocean in Wales.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Tanning-Burns-Girl-10-Suffers-70-Burns-At-An-Unmanned-Tanning-Studio-In-Port-Talbot-S-Wales/Article/200905115273238

This story caught my attention because the Texas legislature, currently in session, is considering a bill that will make it illegal for anyone under 16 1/2 to tan in a tanning salon. Apparently currently if they are under 18, they have to have a permission slip. As if they can keep them from frying themselves outside in the sun. Before you know some genius will propose legislation making it illegal for anyone under the age of 14 to be out in the sun during the day.

My point of bringing up this discussion is to bring up the point of passing laws to make other people responsible where parents should be. Do we really need a law to prevent anyone under the age of 16 1/2 from tanning? Can't parents make those decisions for their kids? Should parents be responsible for teaching their kids and instilling common sense in them? I'm not saying tanning is bad, but I don't know a teenage girl that didn't learn the "don't get burned" lesson either from a tanning bed or from the sun several times while growing up.

You might be asking why 16 1/2 as opposed to 18. The cynical opinion here in my neck of the woods has to do with moms of cheerleaders not only supporting this bill, but wanting their cheerleader daughters to be able to tan in their last couple of years on the varsity squad. Also, they need to be able to tan before prom. Because these moms are living vicariously through their daughters. So they came up with the magical age of 16 1/2. I guess at 16, some other girls might become competition for their daughters???

In the above story the mom doesn't want to use this as a lesson teaching opportunity for her 10 year old daughter. She just wants someone to sue if it happens again. Just as something happened here in Texas I'm sure to prompt this legislation. Someone wants to be able to sue a tanning salon if they're daughter gets burned. You know what's funny is that on the fiscal note that I could find for HB 1310 they are claiming no fiscal impact to the state. I'm not sure this is the final version of the bill, nor could I find the associated senate version. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Search/DocViewer.aspx?K2DocKey=odbc%3a%2f%2fTLO%2fTLO.dbo.vwCurrBillDocs%2f81%2fR%2fH%2fB%2f01310%2f1%2fF%40TloCurrBillDocs&QueryText=hb1310&HighlightType=1
They say it can be absorbed into the existing budget. BS!!! If they are given an excuse to increase the budget, add an employee or two, they will use it. It may take some time, but they'll find a way to "justify" it. That's just the way government works. They will have to have someone take the phone calls, and investigate complaints. Gradually it will grow over time to start inspecting tanning salons and writing citations. That's just the way government works. So

I oppose laws like this. We have to take personal responsibility for the choices we make. What's your take?

Pimps and Unions; Aren’t They Really the Same?

This is actually a reprint of a post I made on another blog, but I believe it was before it was getting any regular traffic. I also thought it was appropriate in light of the continuous government decision (they don't ask us) to give GM billions of dollars just to make it a few more months. Whether you agree with trying to save the American car companies or not, I think we all have to agree that there's got to be a limit. And what point do we cut off the addict and say enough is enough?

The reason I'm reprinting this article is because from my perspective you can't place expectations on the car companies to succeed with the billions of dollars we are giving them, without giving them the freedom to restructure the way they do business. Being forced to deal with the union is what's hurting them and the employees that are getting let go. So here goes, I hope you like it...

So before I get to what I feel are the obvious similarities between Pimps and Labor Unions, I have a very important question that I know many of you have discussed or thought about and one time or another. How is it that Pimps talk themselves into a job in the first place? Do they go up to prostitutes on the street and say “I got a proposition for you. You go find work and give me 70% of your money, and I’ll beat the crap out of you when I feel like it.” Is that how the negotiation works? Because let me tell you, agents only get 10% if I’m correct, and they actually find you work. If I were that prostitute I’d slap that pimp upside the head and tell him “hell no. Why would I give you 70%, 50%, or even 10% when I can keep 100%?” That seems like the obvious response from all prostitutes to wanna-be pimps. But somehow, there’s still a profession of pimps out there. Makes no sense to me.

Now that we’ve established that Pimps will take your money and beat you senseless, let’s look at just exactly what labor unions do for people. So they tell you they that they will negotiate your salary and benefits on your behalf. But this is obviously not a free service. Rather than charging you a one-time finders fee, they charge you in the form of union dues. And this comes directly out of your pay check either every time you get paid or once a month. And correct me if I’m wrong, in most union run companies, you don’t get the opportunity to opt out of the union to handle your own negotiations. You’re either in or you’re unemployed. Correct?

Next comes the negotiations, so after they’ve been taking everyone’s money for so long they have to make it look like they are doing more than just collecting dues every month. They need to justify their existence. So they rile up the payers of the dues and convince them that they need more of this, that, or the other and if they don’t get it, it’s worth striking over. So the union leaders go to management and make generally unreasonable demands and insist on their way or the highway. This is all in spite of the fact that management is telling them they just can’t afford all of that. But the union leaders refuse to budge because they want to look like heroes in an effort to justify their existence. So they force a strike and all the dues paying workers are forced to walk the picket line, which means they are no longer earning a paycheck. Well most of these people can’t afford to go without a paycheck, but nonetheless, this is expected so strike they must.

What happens if you try to cross the picket line? Haven’t you all seen Hoffa? And isn’t that when they were actually doing the workers some good? They beat them senseless. But since they probably have media outlets and the cops on the payroll, it’s not a big story. The only story is that they are on strike and management is being unreasonable and the union won’t budge because it is only “fair.” I tell you this, is it fair for them to take your money and then force you to not take a paycheck for a while? Is it fair for them to bitch-slap you if you disagree with them?

So then they go back to the negotiating table after a few days, weeks, or months and concede some of their demands but miraculously strike a deal with management and they are heroes, who by the way weren’t technically on strike since they were working for the strikers. So their incomes didn’t take a hit. Had you not paid them one bit of dues and not gone without a check while on strike, you’d probably be better off financially than you are with their “help.”So let’s sum up the comparison between the two:

Pimps
-Take money from the hard working Prostitutes
-Force Prostitutes to do as they say
-Beat them if they try to run away
-Provide nothing of value for Prostitutes

Unions
-Take money from the workers actually doing the work for the company
-Force union workers to follow union rules
-Beat workers who dare cross the picket line
-Provide nothing of value for workers

I think I’ve made my point.

Keith Olberman and Janeane Garofalo...Really??

I really don't want to give these two the time of day, but I feel I must since they felt it was important enough to discuss in spite of declaring that only 10s of people showed up to the tea parties across the country. If you haven't seen it, feel free to watch otherwise I will address some of their quotes below.





JANEANE GAROFALO: "Thank you. You know, there's nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they're not quite certain what he's saying. It sounds right and then it doesn't make sense. Which, let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they'll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become -- it's like showing Frankenstein's monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile...."

I for one would like to know what her version of what the Boston Tea Party was about. But I find it interesting how she couldn't even address that and went straight to name calling and making up a ridiculous preposterous point that everyone there was ignorant, hateful, and mindless. They couldn't possibly be furious about the taxation without representation that has been going on in Washington prior to this administration as well as during this administration, on both sides of the aisle. If we don't agree with them and we assemble we are misinformed, hateful, morons. Never mind that beauty that we live in a country where we have a right to free speech even if we don't always agree with each other. Wait I suppose my disagreeing now is disrespecting their right to free speech huh???

GAROFALO: "I don't think you do, for most of them. This is a -- it's almost pathological or elevated to a philosophy or lifestyle. And again, this is about racism. It could be any issue, any port in the storm. These guys hate that a black guy is in the White House. But they immigrant bash, they pretend taxes and tea bags, and like I said, most of them probably couldn't tell you thing one about taxation without representation, the Boston tea party, the British imperialism, whatever the history lesson has to be. But these people, all white for the most part, unless there's some people with Stockholm syndrome there."

So now if you showed up and you were anything but white you suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. Which means you feel sympathy and empathy and an emotional attachment for your captors. Look up Stockholm syndrome if you're not familiar with it. But she's saying you're too stupid to have a mind of your own. I'm just a dog and I love everyone so I'm not an expert on racism, but is her comment racist? Is anyone offended yet? Well I'd like to emphasize that it is a beautiful thing to live in a country where we have the right to free speech. We don't want to loose this liberty so I will defend her right to say whatever she wants and I will defend your right to rebut with anything you want to.

GAROFALO: "Here's what the right-wing has in, there's no shortage of the natural resources of ignorance, apathy, hate, fear. As long as those things are in the collective conscious and unconscious, the Republicans will have some votes. Fox News will have some viewers. But what else have they got? If they didn't do that, who is going to watch -- you know what I mean? They have tackled that elusive clam -- you know, the clam, the 18 to 35 clam -- klan. Klan. With a k demo. But, you know, who else is Fox talking to? I mean, what is it urban older white guys? And the girlfriend, and, you know, the women who suffer from Stockholm syndrome gain. There's a lot of Stockholm syndrome, is what I'm saying ultimately. What else do you want to know?"

More with the Stockholm Syndrome and now it's women. Where is the feminist outrage??? Wait feminism is about how evil men are and the women that love them, depend on them, care for them, etc. are weak and mindless. So that explains why feminist groups aren't outraged. And women that don't identify with feminists are too busy having lives to care that Janeane Garofalo reverts to Stockholm syndrome to insult them and every other group that doesn't fit into the "white male" category. Come on...New material...

This isn't about hating Obama. This dates back to the original bill that was passed before the election that both of my senators voted for (my representative voted against it in the House) when me and my fellow Americans called and wrote their representatives and senators begging them NOT to bail out the banks. But they passed it anyways with the patronizing excuse that they had to do what was good for America. One of my senators was the face for Republicans that were going to vote for it. The only part Obama had to do with it was his vote for it. Bush is the one that was pushing it and our congressmen passed it. This is about a collective government spiting in the face of Americans and saying we don't care what you think, we are going to do what we want in the name of power. And now the government is in the banking business with your tax dollars and mine. And they will never get out of that business.

With all due respect Ms. Garofolo and Mr. Olberman, I'll keep my Stockholm syndrome and you can keep your wretchedly unhappy lives.

Happy Tax Day!!!

Are you excited to have a national due date to pay your taxes??? How do you plan to celebrate tax day this year? Still love our tax policy? Have any ideas to change it? Until I hear a better idea, I support the fair tax. It eliminates income tax and institutes a national sales tax from a basic standpoint. Anyone who consumes in this country, legal or illegal, citizen or visiting, pays taxes. It eliminates all the loopholes that only the rich people seem to have access to and taxes those who have historically been tax evaders.

The only thing I don't like about it so far, is that it doesn't address the spending problem. But we the people have to take care of that by getting involved and voting out the good ol' boys and getting fresh blood in there. If they won't impose term limits on themselves, we'll do it for them!!! Let your congressmen know that you intend to impose a term limit on them.

Political Parties - Constitution

Ok I'm going to break from my lecturing on contacting your representatives and caring about the economy and national debt and get back to reviewing the various political parties. Today I'm going to discuss the Constitution Party. Here's why this party is interesting to me. Politicians have to swear to uphold the constitution, so it seems to me that all politicians should be constitutionalists, but as we all know, that is not the case. What we do know, is that all parties have a few issues that they perceive are the most important and the Constitution party is no exception.

On the home page they list their 7 principles.
Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

What I will say about the list is that I think that focusing on a couple of them (Ok I'll say it, 1 & 3) distract from the common good of people in our nation. It really doesn't matter if I agree with them or not, fighting over these issues distract from the importance of the other 5. Many people will say that 2 contradicts what they say about 1 & 3 and so they may want to rethink their approach or their focus on 1 & 3, unless they want to give up the importance of liberty, which is what this nation was founded on.

The full platform can be found here and I will discuss some of them in more detail. http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
As always feel free to ask me my opinion on any that I don't call out here.

Bring Government Back Home
"Over time, the limitations of federal government power imposed by the Constitution have been substantially eroded. Preservation of constitutional government requires a restoration of the balance of authority between the federal government and the States as provided in the Constitution, itself, and as intended and construed by those who framed and ratified that document"

"We pledge to be faithful to this constitutional requirement and to work methodically to restore to the States and to the people their rightful control over legislative, judicial, executive, and regulatory functions which are not Constitutionally delegated to the federal government.We stand opposed to any regionalization of governments, at any level, which results in removal of decision-making powers from the people or those directly elected by the people."

I Lola for president, do completely agree with this. The representatives in the federal government have gotten so power hungry, on every side of the aisle, that average people feel powerless to do anything about it. Yeah you can go vote and you can contact your representatives, but the reality is they can ignore you if they feel like it. That said get out and vote and write your representatives and encourage your family and friends to do the same. If you elect me, I will work to fight this nonsensical abuse of power.

Cost of Big Government
"A legitimate and primary purpose of civil government is to safeguard the God-given rights of its citizens; namely, life, liberty, and property. Only those duties, functions, and programs specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution should be funded. We call upon Congress and the President to stop all federal expenditures which are not specifically authorized by the U. S. Constitution, and to restore to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has usurped."
.....
"We call for the systematic reduction of the federal debt through, but not limited to, the elimination of further borrowing and the elimination of unconstitutional programs and agencies.
We call upon the President to use his Constitutional veto power to stop irresponsible and unconstitutional appropriations, and use his Constitutional authority to refuse to spend any money appropriated by Congress for unconstitutional programs or in excess of Constitutionally imposed tax revenue."

"The debt could be more rapidly eliminated if certain lands and other assets currently held by the federal government were sold, and the proceeds applied to the debt. This policy should be employed, and funds from the sale of all such assets should be specifically applied to debt reduction."

I don't really have anything to add to this other than the sale of certain federal assets being applied to the debt is a fabulous idea. Too bad that takes away power/control in their minds, so the likelihood of that happening....pretty slim in this puppy's opinion. But I support it completely.

Health Care and Government
"The Constitution Party opposes the governmentalization and bureaucratization of American medicine. Government regulation and subsidy constitutes a threat to both the quality and availability of patient-oriented health care and treatment."

"Hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers should be accountable to patients - not to politicians, insurance bureaucrats, or HMO Administrators."

"If the supply of medical care is controlled by the federal government, then officers of that government will determine which demand is satisfied. The result will be the rationing of services, higher costs, poorer results - and the power of life and death transferred from caring physicians to unaccountable political overseers."

Don't kid yourselves, this is a fact. If you're deemed too old or you're not considered a "national hero," you'll be bumped down on the list for something you need that is in demand. You want to be able to make your own health care choices not depend on the government to make them for you. They can't do it as well as you can.


This is where I'm going to stop as these get long, but I encourage you to take a closer look at their platform. But these 3 are a start that would get this country on the right track. My theory is some of the issues will be a little hard for some of you to take since we have been brainwashed to drift further and further from the constitution. I even stated my concerns with the focus. So even people that consider themselves conservative might find themselves disagreeing with some of the stated positions. Whether you agree completely or not, it is a fact that elected officials are supposed to swear to uphold the Constitution and the fact is they haven't been for years and years and years. Long before many of you were born.

Political Parties - Libertarian

I'm back to my quest for a political party identification and my secondary quest to educate those who care to learn about the various beliefs of the different parties regardless of how minor or major. I hope you all had a Merry Christmas and I hope you have a Happy New Year.


Today I will discuss the Libertarian party and their issues and my opinions agreeing or dissenting. My discussion below is in red. For a complete list of their platform, please go to the following link as I will probably remove some in the essence of time if I feel they are somewhat repetitive or if they are issues that I tend to ignore when making my decision on who to vote for. Feel free to ask me my opinion on anything I've left out, related to the Libertarian Party.


http://www.lp.org/platform


1.0 Personal LibertyIndividuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.


Yes I agree with this completely. You'll have to ask me specific questions if you want me to expand on this.



1.2 Personal Privacy: We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.


I tend to agree with this until someone can present me with a good example of a victimless crime that should be prosecuted. The government shouldn't be responsible for trying to protect people from their own bad choices that hurt only themselves and not others. However I believe the libertarian party has historically been labeled as the party that wants to "legalize drugs" so much so that the other issues aren't even taken seriously. They need to focus on repositioning themselves as crusaders for limited government, balanced budgets, and reduced spending.



1.5 Crime and Justice: Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.


I also agree with this statement, which expands on the last statement beyond drugs.



2.0 Economic Liberty: A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.


Absolutely. The government needs to return the free market back to freedom and quit interfering. By the poll results on the left, most people agree with this whether they realize it or not.



2.1 Property and Contract: Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

I concur...


2.3 Energy and Resources: While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

I tend to agree with this unless cost of the absence of government control exceeds the cost of government intervention. However subsidizing corn for ethanol is absolutely a ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars, which leads me to believe that any government intervention is a complete waste.


2.4 Government Finance and Spending: All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.


Yes. I agree. However this is idealistic to make such major cuts even for republicans who were formerly the party of small government. The lack of compromise or support for ideas like the Fair Tax isn't helping them. They need to be open to suggestions that are a step in the right direction rather than vehemently oppose such things on principle. Because let's be honest, probably 95% of Americans, regardless of party affiliation are going to vote away Medicare, Medicaid, and social security even if you show them that it won't be available to them until they are 85 or 90.


2.6 Monopolies and Corporations: We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

I absolutely agree with this.

2.7 Labor Markets: We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

Yes I agree with this, as long as there is no pressure political or otherwise, for a company such as oh GM and Ford, to continue negotiating with the unions at all cost. Remember the bailout is going to the unions. But if people want to unionize so be it as long as they are reasonable and expect reason from union leaders.


2.8 Education: Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I believe in school choice, money follows the kid not the kid following the money.

2.9 Health Care: We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.

I believe the free market works better than the fiasco system we have now. That said health care is the responsibility of the individual not the government.

2.10 Retirement and Income Security: Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

I agree that retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, however the individual has been relying on the government for this for so long that if it weren't automatically taken out of their check, many wouldn't save a dime for retirement. What I favor is complete privatization of the compulsory system. Part of privatization includes allowing individuals to choose the government as a manager of their account. But only those tax dollars will go to support the government bureaucracy in place to manage their accounts. What you want to bet they would still outsource to a private company?

3.0 Securing Liberty: The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

I generally agree with this. There are exceptions to this, but as a general rule this is a good principle to follow. The thing to remember is some governments want no reasonable/rational relationship with other governments and if they refuse to operate on this principle, it's likely impossible to adhere to this principle in the name of protecting the liberty of our nation.

3.1 National Defense: We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

I generally agree with this as well, however please see my previous response. It applies here as well. I do oppose compulsory national service in spite of the the good it could do in helping a lot of people grow up and become disciplined respectful people.

3.3 International Affairs: American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

This is a complicated issue, but I generally agree with it in theory. Sadly it may be a bit idealistic. My question is why do some people insist we get involved in places like Darfur and Rwanda but want us to stay out of Iraq? It would be one thing if they opposed intervention in both places but they don't. People were being terrorized in Iraq. People are being terrorized in Darfur. What's the difference? I'm not a foreign policy expert so I welcome reasonable feedback addressing my questions. When I say reasonable, I mean avoid hateful, irrational, swearing. If you can't form a thought without swearing at me, I don't want to hear it.


3.4 Free Trade and Migration: We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.

I disagree with this. I believe sanctions on other countries are at times necessary. I believe complete monitoring of who's coming across our borders and why, not just of those who pose a threat to security, health, or property. I believe in legal immigration and legal border crossing. I oppose open borders. For a detailed analysis on why open borders is a threat to our nation, read or buy this book on CD. "State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America" by Patrick J. Buchanan.


3.6 Representative Government: We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.

Yes, if you want further explanation, you'll have to ask me to expand on a specific point. Let's just say I haven't felt represented very well over the last year of my life.


3.7 Self-Determination: Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

Absolutely!

I find it interesting that more people don't identify with the libertarian party. I don't think anyone agrees to "T" on every issue of any party. I also find it amusing how people on the far right see libertarians and way liberal, and people on the far left see them as too conservative. In reality, so far I think they are the most moderate party out there. They just haven't done an effective job of presenting their ideas, or coming across to most people as anything but unyielding, unopen to discussion, nutjobs who only care about legalizing drugs. Sometimes they are seen as only caring about the economy. But I find it interesting that many elections are decided on the economy. The sad thing is they are probably the party of personal responsibility and that leaves a bad taste in many peoples' mouths.

They are also very unorganized. They seem more concerned with getting numbers of candidates running rather than quality candidates in a few good positions. Our local election for example was littered with libertarian candidates who either barely had a website, or who posted only the libertarian talking points on their website rather than stating what they believe even if it did deter from the libertarian platform at times. Although I have seen some progress. Look at Ron Paul. He's basically a libertarian, but had the foresight to see that he'd only get elected (to his senate seat) running on the republican ticket. However once he starts running his mouth, most people see him as a crazy nutjob and don't take him seriously. If you were to read anything he writes with any other unknown name on it, you'd say he's dead on. Unless you're fascist or communist.

I'm not declaring a party yet as there are many other perhaps unknown parties out there to explore.

Political Parties - Democratic

Welcome to Part 2 in our series exploring the various positions of the political parties and what I agree with and disagree with. This week we will explore the platform of the Democratic party as found in their platform on their website http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html.
I will do my best to abbreviate the positions listed as this is a 59 page document. Feel free to read it in it's entirety if you so desire.

Excerpt from their Preamble
"We believe that every American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the chance to get a good education, to work at a good job with good wages, to raise and provide for a family, to live in safe surroundings, and to retire with dignity and security. We believe that quality and affordable health care is a basic right. We believe that each succeeding generation should have the opportunity, through hard work, service and sacrifice, to enjoy a brighter future than the last."

"Today, we pledge a return to core moral principles like stewardship, service to others, personal responsibility, shared sacrifice and a fair shot for all –values that emanate from the integrity and optimism of our Founders and generations of Americans since."

Jumpstart the Economy and Provide Middle Class Americans Immediate Relief "We will provide an immediate energy rebate to American families struggling with the record price of gasoline and the skyrocketing cost of other necessities – to spend on those basic needs and energy efficient measures. We will devote $50 billion to jumpstarting the economy, helping economic growth, and preventing another one million jobs from being lost."

I'm going to sound really redundant after awhile, especially when you consider all their talk of reducing taxes for 95% of Americans. How are they going to pay for this? How does $50 Billion prevent one million jobs from being lost?

Affordable, Quality Health Care Coverage for All Americans "If one thing came through in the platform hearings, it was that Democrats are united around a commitment that every American man, woman, and child be guaranteed affordable, comprehensive healthcare."

"Ensuring quality, affordable health care for every single American is essential to children’s education, workers’ productivity and businesses’ competitiveness. We believe that covering all is not just a moral imperative, but is necessary to making our health system workable and affordable. Doing so would end cost-shifting from the uninsured, promote prevention and wellness, stop insurance discrimination, help eliminate health care disparities, and achieve savings through competition, choice, innovation, and higher quality care."

I like the idea of affordable health care for everyone, but only in the context of personal responsibility and free market competition. My theory is that the insurance companies have become and overwhelming middleman in the health care business. Providers have to pay large staff to bill insurance companies and are also subject to contract rates with insurance companies. The insurance companies have the leverage in negotiating these rates since they are the ones essentially providing the clientele. The insurance companies in turn have to make enough and pay out little enough to pay their employees and make a profit. Think about the cost of health care when you eliminate this kind of overhead created by a middleman.

In reality Walmart's push to start the prescription drug plan for $4 generics is the right idea. Other pharmacies followed suit. Drug companies aren't going to participate if they aren't making money, and neither will the pharmacies. This type of push ought to be made in provider care as well. In reality, it is available. Patients without insurance can negotiate self-pay rates for procedures with the doctor and the facility. Places like Walmart and other superstores are opening up preventative care clinics in their stores that offer low cost preventative screenings.
Main stream providers could move this direction by essentially running "cash only" businesses and listing their prices for various services. I've also heard of a doctor charging one yearly fee that will cover all visits for the year regardless. It's ideas like this that will revolutionize health care and help to eliminate the bloated middleman system.

That said there is a need for catastrophic insurances for accidents, or a buffet type, choose your insurance coverage. For example, if you know cancer runs in your family, you might opt into a cancer policy for life or at a certain age. But the providers that need to take them are generally specialty providers.

"We must fight HIV/AIDS in our country and around the world. We support increased funding into research, care and prevention of HIV/AIDS."

I disagree with government funding of HIV/AIDS research. I also disagree with government funding of Cancer research and stem cell research. I do, on the other hand, support privatized funding for research of all of these. St. Jude's successfully raises money every year from private donors like you and I. I am not opposed to government funds being used to educate and prevent any disease, but within reason.

"Fiscal Responsibility. As we improve and strengthen our health care system, we must do so in a fiscally responsible way that ensures that we get value for the dollars that are invested."

I would agree, however I think we have to come to an agreement on the definition of "fiscal responsibility."

Retirement and Social Security "We will make it a priority to secure for hardworking families the part of the American Dream that includes a secure and healthy retirement. Individuals, employers, and government must all play a role. We will adopt measures to preserve and protect existing public and private pension plans. In the 21st century, Americans also need better ways to save for retirement. We will automatically enroll every worker in a workplace pension plan that can be carried from job to job and we will match savings for working families who need the help."

How can you possibly pay to match savings for working families who need help? how do you define "needing help." Is there incentive for them to rise above "needing help." This sounds like income redistribution which I am vehemently opposed to. I do support private entities and churches providing help to those who "need help."

"We reject the notion of the presumptive Republican nominee that Social Security is a disgrace; we believe that it is indispensable. We will fulfill our obligation to strengthen Social Security and to make sure that it provides guaranteed benefits Americans can count on, now and in future generations. We will not privatize it."

I would privatize Social Security. I think Social Security is great for everyone if they get to keep what they put in. But they should own each and every penny that they put into it. When you get a chance look at Galveston County's model. This is a link to one of many articles discussing it. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-03-15-benefits-reform-galveston_x.htm

Good Jobs with Good Pay "Democrats are committed to an economic policy that produces good jobs with good pay and benefits. That is why we support the right to organize. We know that when unions are allowed to do their job of making sure that workers get their fair share, they pull people out of poverty and create a stronger middle class. We will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions and fight to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. We will restore pro-worker voices to the National Labor Relations Board and the National Mediation Board and we support overturning the NLRB’s and NMB’s many harmful decisions that undermine the collective bargaining rights of millions of workers. We will ensure that federal employees, including public safety officers who put their lives on the line every day, have the right to bargain collectively, and we will fix the broken bargaining process at the Federal Aviation Administration. We will fight to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so that workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods."

I support the right to organize, but I also support the right of any company to refuse to negotiate with unions at any time. Look at the auto bail out now. It is a bailout to support the unions not the auto companies themselves. Unions are a bureaucratic hierarchy that suck money out of the company in the form of dues from the employees. Companies have to be able to cut the fat out of their business to succeed.

"In America, if someone is willing to work, he or she should be able to make ends meet and have the opportunity to prosper. To that end, we will raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation, and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit so that workers can support themselves and their families. We will modernize the unemployment insurance program to close gaps and extend benefits to the workers who now fall outside it."

I disagree with raising the minimum wage. The majority of the people making minimum wage are high school students. If you can't rise above minimum wage, then you probably aren't worth more. Raising minimum wage unnecessarily puts a strain on businesses and subsequently consumers in the from of increased prices for goods and services. Even people working in many of the fast food restaurants are making more than minimum wage. When you raise minimum wage the above unions talk their workers into going on strike because they need to have their wages adjusted to follow suit with minimum wage. So any company dealing with unions are also affected drastically by raising the minimum wage.

Opportunity for Women "We will pass the “Lilly Ledbetter” Act, which will make it easier to combat pay discrimination; we will pass the Fair Pay Act; and we will modernize the Equal Pay Act. We will invest in women-owned small businesses and remove the capital gains tax on start-up small businesses. We will support women in math and science, increasing American competitiveness by retaining the best workers in these fields, regardless of gender. We recognize that women still carry the majority of childrearing responsibilities, so we have created a comprehensive work and family agenda."

Notice the statement "remove capital gains tax on start-up small businesses." Small businesses don't pay capital gains taxes woman owned or not. They pay income taxes. So don't buy into this rhetoric. Next, I believe we are already at a point where men and women are equal in the work place. If women are making less, is it possible it has to do with them leaving the work force for a few years to raise their children? Or if their children are in daycare, are they leaving work more often than men to go pick up their sick kids? I think any kind of absenteeism is fair to consider with men or women.

"We will work to combat violence against women."

I'd revise this to violence against people, not just women. What happened to the mantra, "we are all created equal?"

A World Class Education for Every Child "We must set high standards for our children, but we must also hold ourselves accountable–our schools, our teachers, our parents, business leaders, our community and our elected leaders."

I agree with holding oursleves accountable.

"We will make quality, affordable early childhood care and education available to every American child from the day he or she is born. Our Children’s First Agenda, including increases in Head Start and Early Head Start, and investments in high-quality Pre-K, will improve quality and provide learning and support to families with children ages zero to five. Our Presidential Early Learning Council will coordinate these efforts."

This is essentially free daycare in the form of "education." I oppose funding daycare because when you choose to take on the responsibility of children, you should be responsible for caring for them or paying for their care. And remember free daycare isn't free. So how are they going to pay for this one?

Support Small Business and Entrepreneurship "Encouraging new industry and creating jobs means giving more support to American entrepreneurs. We will exempt all start-up companies from capital gains taxes and provide them a tax credit for health insurance. We will provide a new tax credit for small businesses that offer quality health insurance to their employees. We will help small businesses facing high energy costs. We will work to remove bureaucratic barriers for small and start-up businesses–for example, by making the patent process more efficient and reliable."

Again with the capital gains taxes for start-up companies. They don't pay capital gains taxes so this is an empty statement. However I like the tax credit idea for offering health insurance to their employees. I also agree with removing the bureaucratic barriers, but for more than just the patent process. For all of it.

Real Leadership for Rural America "Rural America is home to 60 million Americans. The agricultural sector is critical to the rural economy and to all Americans. We depend on those in agriculture to produce the food, feed, fiber, and fuel that support our society. Thankfully, American farmers possess an unrivaled capacity to produce an abundance of these high-quality products. In return, we will provide a strong safety net for family farms, a permanent disaster relief program, expansion of agriculture research, and an emphasis on agricultural trade. We will promote economic development in rural and tribal communities by investing in renewable energy, which will transform the rural economy and create millions of new jobs, by upgrading technological and physical infrastructure, by addressing the challenges faced by public schools in rural areas, including forest county schools, supporting higher education opportunities and by attracting quality teachers, doctors and nurses through loan forgiveness programs and other incentive programs. All Americans, urban and rural, hold a shared interest in preserving and increasing the economic vitality of family farms. We will continue to develop and advance policies that promote sustainable and local agriculture, including funding for soil and water conservation programs."

This is fancy talk for farm subsidies which I stated last week that I vehemently oppose. If people can't support themselves on farms and in rural areas, they should go somewhere that they can support themselves.

Restoring Fairness to Our Tax Code "We must reform our tax code."

I agree with restoring fairness to our tax code and reforming it. Nothing that followed supported these statements. I suppose there might just be a fundamental disagreement on what "fair" means. The Fair Tax is the fairest method I've discovered so far.

Revitalizing and Supporting the Military, Keeping Faith With Veterans "To renew American leadership in the world, we must revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace."

I agree with a strong military being necessary to sustain peace.

Allow All Americans to Serve "We will also put national security above divisive politics.... We support the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and the implementation of policies to allow qualified men and women to serve openly regardless of sexual orientation"

I agree. Qualified people who perform and act professional in their jobs should be able to serve in the military as they are in every other job in the country.

Stewardship of Our Planet and Natural Resources "Global climate change is the planet’s greatest threat, and our response will determine the very future of life on this earth. Despite the efforts of our current Administration to deny the science of climate change and the need to act, we still believe that America can be earth’s best hope."

I find it interesting that this party denies science that disproves man made climate change. That said I agree with stewardship of our planet and natural resources.

Children and Families Fatherhood "Too many fathers are missing–missing from too many lives and too many homes. Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and are more likely to commit crime, drop out of school, abuse drugs, and end up in prison. We need more fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to understand that what makes a man is not the ability to have a child–it’s the courage to raise one."

I agree whole-heartedly with this statement and the need to work towards correcting this. I have a theory that mandatory birth control would fix this, but it generally goes against my strong belief in liberty as well. I don't have a solution but I highly respect the efforts of high-profile people like Bill Cosby and others in this area.

Open, Accountable, and Ethical Government "In Barack Obama’s Administration, we will open up the doors of democracy. We will use technology to make government more transparent, accountable, and inclusive."

"We will lift the veil of secret deals in Washington by publishing searchable, online information about federal grants, contracts, earmarks, loans, and lobbyist contacts with government officials."

"We will put all non-emergency bills that Congress has passed online for five days, to allow the American public to review and comment on them before they are signed into law."

I want you all to watch in the new administration and see just how transparent and accountable they become in these areas. Because I agree with every one of them, but on the last one, if the representatives and senators don't listen to the public before casting their votes, why would we expect the President to? I suppose, if he cares about getting reelected, he'd care. So watch out for this and utilize it if they truly follow through on this.

I leave you with one final thought, with all the ideals they want and without explanation on how they will fund these programs, how do they plan to pay for it and still give 95% of Americans tax cuts?

Political Parties - Republican

I intend to do a series of posts covering various political parties and where they generally stand on the issues as related to their various websites or perhaps previous candidates. The point of this exercise is to help educate you on the various beliefs of the parties as well as where I stand in comparison to those beliefs. I intend to discuss what I agree with and what I disagree with in an effort identify myself with a party, even if that means creating a new one. This is because independent candidates for president rarely if ever get taken seriously. I will start with the Republican party as that is the party that just lost in a big way. I don't consider myself a Republican, which may come as a surprise to many of you. That doesn't mean I don't agree with some of their philosophies.

In an effort to abbreviate this, I'm going to reference the McCain's presidential website.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/
However for the official Republican party platform for 2008, feel free to read this.
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/

Energy
"Our nation's future security and prosperity depends on the next President making the hard choices that will break our nation's strategic dependence on foreign sources of energy and will ensure our economic prosperity by meeting tomorrow's demands for a clean portfolio." I agree that we have to break our dependence on foreign sources of energy, which means utilizing our own resources. Oil comes from the earth, it's part of the earth. It's natural. It's not going to hurt our earth to utilize this oil. Nuclear war will hurt our earth way more than drilling.

National Security/Homeland Security
"the highest priority for any President is protecting the lives of American citizens, defending their personal freedom, and securing our land and resources." - I agree with this, however I believe National Security and Homeland Security is redundant and has been unnecessarily bloated. The department of defense is sufficient to coordinate this effort. Maybe money saved could be redirected towards the care of our veterans and towards enforcing immigration laws.

Health Care
"the rapidly rising cost of U.S. health care. Bringing costs under control is the only way to stop the erosion of affordable health insurance, save Medicare and Medicaid, protect private health benefits for retirees, and allow our companies to effectively compete around the world. " I'm not really sure what this says. What I believe is that the government is not the answer to health care. People need to understand that health care isn't a right, they need to make it a priority if they don't want to go bankrupt by it. The problem is that people don't want to take responsibility for it because it's expensive. So they moan that they can't afford it, but they sure can afford cable, cell phones, and that new car, etc. It's about priorities. At the very least everyone needs to make a priority for some kind of catastrophic policy and save enough to preventatively see the doctor every other year or so. They have self pay rates. Find out what they are, it might not be as expensive as you think. Find a clinic to go to that offers low cost care. Most pharmacies now have a low cost prescription plan for generic drugs. Companies making big moves like this will help to bring affordable health care to everyone. But people have to make it their priority over cable, cell phones, new clothes, new cars, etc.

Education
To sum it up, his site says "excellence, choice, and competition in American education."
I agree with that but have seen no effort in my state, a traditionally republican state, to make a move towards this. And I haven't seen a federal push for it either. The department of education should go. Education should be left to the states. Perhaps the cost would go down if there wasn't a bloated department of education sucking up valuable dollars that could actually go towards education rather than wasteful administration of it.

Agricultural Policies
"America's agricultural industry is the best in the world. John McCain will expand access for U.S. agricultural producers to foreign markets, providing a great and lasting benefit to American farmers. He will work tirelessly to ensure our farmers receive fair prices for their products. "
I don't believe it is the responsibility of the government to get involved with "fair prices" for corn or any other agriculture. It should be left up to the free market. If a someone can't make money as a farmer, it means he wasn't meant to be a farmer and should look for a new career. I can't make money as an actress, it doesn't mean the government should pay me money because I declare myself an actress if I can't make a sufficient living at it. I vehemently oppose farm subsidies.

Immigration
"our border must be secure and that the federal government has utterly failed in its responsibility to ensure that it is secure." I agree with this statement, and quite honestly I feel this falls under the realm of national security. Enforcing the laws and rules we have now will take care of much of this problem.

Environment/Climate Change
"John McCain will establish a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mobilize innovative technologies, and strengthen the economy. He will work with our international partners to secure our energy future, to create opportunities for American industry, and to leave a better future for our children." The republicans fail to effectively turn the climate change discussion into something we can all agree on, clean air, clean water, a clean world. McCain took the position that climate change is within our control and backed policies that took on man-made global warming.

My position is that it is arrogant to sell that mere humans can control the global climate. Sure there are temperature cycles, but we ourselves are not big enough collectively to control that. Policies that unnecessarily attempt to control this by taxation, or carbon credits are useless and wasteful. What I do believe is that we been given a responsibility to care for this earth. I believe that it is not our right to tell Brazil they can't cut down trees that are creating jobs in that country. But we should offer to teach them our methods of replanting, if in fact they are not already replanting what they cut down. It is not our right to tell people in 3rd world countries living in the bush that they can't build fires to boil water and cook their food any more than we can tell cows to stop pooing.

Getting in the way of progress in 3rd world countries is doing more to harm the environment than butting out and letting them handle it and offering assistance. For example, malaria is non existent in this country and most other industrialized nations, but it's killing hundreds of thousands of people every year. The U.S. was sprayed long before I was born to get rid of the mosquitoes that were passing it around. Why can't the same be done for them? Just give them all masks to wear during this time. They didn't cover their faces here and people lived.

Home Ownership
"America's families are bearing a heavy burden from falling housing prices, mortgage delinquencies, foreclosures, and a weak economy. It is important that those families who have worked hard enough to finance home ownership not have that dream crushed under the weight of the wrong mortgage." I believe personal responsibility is the right of every family who has worked hard enough to finance a home, meaning it is their responsibility not to get in over their head. It is also their responsibility to work with their lenders if they are in trouble. The banks often made bad lending choices and they should also make efforts to keep to work with clients to avoid bad loans. Neither should come running to the government for pay for their mistakes, they should work towards a solution without government dollars.

The Economy
Generally the republican position has been keep taxes low, small government. They haven't practiced this in years that I no longer believe that they really believe this. I think they use this as a talking point to convince their base to "trust them" to get reelected. Here's the problem I have; take a look at your local state government. What are your republicans doing? Here in Texas they actually passed a steroid testing program for public schools. Are you kidding me?? They are behind much of the "nanny state" legislation that gets passed or at the very least are supporting it. The thing is it's about making sure someone else's kid isn't doing steroids, giving them and "unfair" advantage. Is it really necessary to waste state dollars on this to find a few kids? So I have a problem with "small government" belonging to the republicans because they don't practice this at all. So I'm taking it for my own. I really mean it when I say small or limited government intervention.

Let me sum up a couple of other beliefs that I share with the republicans. Right to carry and constitutional judges. I believe you have a right to bear arms. I think if we all assumed every one we met was also carrying a weapon, we'd think twice about how we treated each other. Criminals would think twice about robbing a place if they assumed that every house and convenience store had a gun to protect them. They don't even want to deal with someone who will fight back which is why they look for weak victims.

Judges should not legislate from the bench, it is their duty to uphold the constitution.

There were a few other topics covered that I chose not to go into, but if you have questions about where I stand on an issue, feel free to ask. Next week I'll attempt to cover the Democratic party.

Let Me Introduce Myself and the Purpose of this Blog

Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls of all ages. My name is Lola and as this political season is gaining momentum, I've decided to throw my hat into the ring, since there is mass cynicism and mistrust of humans to lead this country. My hope is to write at a level kids can understand so that parents can use this site as a tool to help teach their kids about politics and the key issues surrounding politics.

One thing that won't be discussed on this blog is abortion. Other than the poll on the left. That is because I don't believe that most people can sit down and have a rational discussion about it if they have extreme views on either side of the issue. People feel passionate about this issue, but I feel it is a topic that side-tracks us from discussing issues that we can work together to improve our lives, this country, and our personal responsibility. I just won't debate this issue, but you are entitled to your choice and opinion on the topic as I am.

You can see a summary of my beliefs in the "About Me" section to the left.

From time to time there will be polls on the left, so check them out. I will also try to put fun things on here from time to time to help get your kids interested.

Feel free to ask me questions or comment on things you agree with or disagree with or leave a comment in my guest book to the left.

I look forward to sharing more with you over time, and hope to win your vote in November.