The Sleeping Giant Has Awoken

On Thursday June 28, 2012  the US Supreme Court issued a surprising decision that upheld the individual mandate of Obamacare, claiming it was a tax. (1)  Conservatives, like me, had the initial reaction of anger followed by disgust and frustration.  One of my co-workers even said that the United States was officially a socialist country.  However, as the day progressed I realized that this ruling was a huge wake-up call for conservatives and the tea party. 

I remember when this legislation was being debated in Congress and hundreds of thousands of people, people who had never protested before, were out front of the capitol letting their legislators know their dislike for this program. 

I remember that the final draft of the bill, which was over 2700 pages long, was rushed through Congress without giving anyone time to read it first.  Speaker Pelosi even stated, “We have to pass the bill in order to see what is in it.”  I wonder if she does the same thing when she signs a contract to buy a new home or car.  

The Congress did eventually pass the legislation against the wishes of the American people and the people showed their disgust by returning control of the House of Representatives back to the Republicans and taking away the filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  However, since that time, we have heard little from the tea party leading some to believe it was just a fad and had lost its effectiveness. 

According to Mike Flynn at Breitbart.com,” today's ruling will probably go down in history as the most effective GOP voter turnout operation ever.” (2)  The liberals may have thought they silenced the tea party but the truth is they were only taking a break in preparation for the November election.  In effect, this ruling has awoken the sleeping giant, the American People. 

I believe the American people are fed up with some faceless government official trying to tell them what kind of car to drive, what kind of light bulb to buy, what they can eat or not eat, and even how much water is in their toilet.  Liberals favoring gay rights constantly say that the government should stay out or the bedroom when the government is already there, in our bathrooms, kitchens, cars, and workplace.  Now, armed with Obamacare, they will be directly involved with every decision we make regarding our most valuable possession, our health. 

The house is set to vote on repeal of the legislation July 11 according to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.  (3)  There is little doubt repeal will pass the House but will no doubt be stalled in the Democrat controlled Senate and never see The President’s desk.  However, the Republicans, and even some Democrats, in Congress need to send a message to the American People letting them know there are still some in Washington who are on their side. 

The next step is in the hands of the American People.  We need to have the same energy this November as we had in November of 2010 and send Obama home, gain further control in the House, and gain control in the Senate, a filibuster proof majority of 60 seats would be sweet too.  Since Obamacare does not totally take effect until 2014, we have time in January 2013 to repeal this monstrosity and save this country from becoming the socialist country my co-worker thought we had become. 

1. Jess Bravin, Louise Radnofsky. Court Backs Obama on Health Law. online.wsj.com. [Online] The Wall Street Journal, June 28, 2012. [Cited: June 28, 2012.] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304898704577480371370927862.html?mod=e2tw.

2. Flynn, Mike. TODAY'S SCOTUS DECISION DOOMS OBAMA'S REELECTION. www.breitbart.com. [Online] Brietbart, June 28, 2012. [Cited: June 28, 2012.] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/28/todays-scotus-decision-dooms-obama-presidency.

3. Freedom Outpost. GOP Will Vote July 11 To Repeal Obamacare. freedomoutpost.com. [Online] June 

28, 2012. [Cited: June 28, 2012.] http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/06/gop-will-vote-july-11-to-repeal-obamacare/.

Making an Effective Law Ineffective

On Monday June 25, 2012, the US Supreme Court issued its long awaited ruling on Arizona’s Senate bill 1070 (1) (2).  The decision was a split decision with the court upholding the main tenant of the legislation while rejecting other components of the legislation.  The question to be asked is with the rejection of certain components of the law while upholding it’s main point, does this law remain effective. 

For a piece of legislation to be effective, it must contain three components

1.      Sound legal crafting by the legislature – this includes not only insuring the bill’s wording is constitutional but also insuring the legislature follows the rules governing them when crafting the legislation.

2.     The law must be constitutional – this insures the main tenants of the law are upheld should the legislation be tested in a court of law such as the US Supreme Court.

3.     The law must be enforceable – this means that law enforcement officials must be able to understand the legislation and given the tools necessary to enforce it.

Arizona Senate bill 1070 is effective as written by the Arizona Senate. 

1.      The legislation is constitutional – Arizona Senate bill 1070 does not override Federal legislation but only gives Arizona law enforcement the tools it needs to assist federal officials in enforcing federal laws.

2.     The law remains constitutional – Since the main tenant of the law, allowing law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of someone lawfully detained, for something other than the violation of immigration laws. (3)

3.     Gives law enforcement the tools they need to enforce the law – Section 6 allows law enforcement to “make warrantless arrests if they have probable cause to believe that the suspect is in the country illegally.  The person is then turned over to federal immigration authorities to deal with.”  (4) Section 4 requires illegal immigrants to carry alien registration documentation on them at all times.  (4)  Anyone who has done any international travel is aware that they are required to have their passport on them at all times, so this is not an unusual request for people in foreign countries.  Section 5C says, “Present aliens can’t knowingly apply for, solicit, or do work in Arizona.”  (4). This section is to insure citizens of the US living in Arizona have preference when applying for a job.  In this sluggish economy this section is very important. 

However, the US Supreme Court ruling removed sections 4, 5C and 6.  This means that once Arizona law enforcement officials have checked someone’s immigration status, they are powerless to do anything else except alert ICE that they have detained an illegal alien.  However, the Obama administration further restricted Arizona law enforcement officers by stating, “unless the illegal in question has committed a felony, they aren’t interested in hearing from Arizona law enforcement.”  (5)  This just reiterates the reason Arizona crafted this legislation in the first place, the failure of the Feds to carry out their constitutional duty of protecting Arizona’s border with Mexico. 

To add insult to injury, the Federal Department of Justice set up a hotline where parties feeling their civil rights were violated by the implementation of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 can call or email in their complaint.(6)  This means that Arizona not only cannot enforce its legislation, but must now face endless frivolous lawsuits. 

Mitt Romney must defeat Obama in the November 2012 election to put an end to the White House’s selective enforcement of laws to fit its political agenda.  He must vow to use federal officials to assist states like Arizona who face an invasion of illegal aliens from south of the border.  This is all that the State of Arizona was asking the Federal Government to do. 

1. State of Arizona Senate. Senate Bill 1070. azleg.gov. [Online] State of Arizona, 2010. [Cited: June 26, 2012.] http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf.

2. US Supreme Court. Supreme Court decision on Arizona immigration law. nytimes.com. [Online] The New York Tomes, June 25, 2012. [Cited: June 26, 2012.] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/26/us/scotus-immigrationlaw.html?smid=tw-nytimes.

3. Malcolm, John G. Supreme Court Backs Arizona’s Right to Enforce Immigration Laws. blog.heritage.org. [Online] The Heritage Foundation, June 25, 2012. [Cited: June 26, 2012.] http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/25/supreme-court-backs-arizonas-right-to-enforce-immigration-laws/.

4. Shapiro, Ben. AZ IMMIGRATION DECISION DISASTER FOR AMERICANS, WIN FOR OBAMA. breitbart.com. [Online] Brietbart.com, June 25, 2012. [Cited: June 26, 2012.] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/25/AZ-immigration-decision-disaster-for-conservatives-states.

5. Levin, Mark. Mark Levin: “we now have de facto amnesty in Arizona”. frontlines2011.blogspot.com. [Online] Front Lines, June 26, 2012. [Cited: June 26, 2012.] http://frontlines2011.blogspot.com/2012/06/mark-levin-we-now-have-de-facto-amnesty.html.

6. Susteren, Greta Van. DOJ sets up a hotline — and it is directed RIGHT AT ARIZONA! gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com. [Online] Fox News, June 25, 2012. [Cited: June 26, 2012.] http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/06/25/doj-sets-up-a-hotline-and-it-is-directed-right-at-arizona/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnewsinsider%2Fgretawire+%28Gretawire%29.

Legitimate vs. Illegitimate Executive Privilege

For the first time in his administration, President Obama this week exercised executive privilege (1) (2).  This move was an eleventh-hour move brought on by the pending vote in Congress to sanction Attorney General Holder.  The sanction of contempt was due to his failure to turn over to Congress documents regarding the botched “fast and furious” operation.

Fast and furious began in September 2009 and was finally shut down in January 2011.  The operation allowed the purchase of weapons from Arizona gun shows and then taking them across the border into Mexico.  The weapons then ended up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. (3)  The only logical reasons for such an operation would be to either hoping the drug cartels would use the weapons to take each other out, or, as some suspect, using this operation to create an uproar by citizens in the U.S. and Mexico calling for stricter gun control laws.  However, before either of these reasons could occur, one of the weapons killed U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry (3) bringing media attention to the program, al be it not the lame stream media which only started paying attention to the issue this week because of the hearings in Congress.

Executive privilege is constitutional but also has limits as do other constitutional items (i.e. the Supreme Court ruling that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater limiting free speech in the interest of public safety).  The legitimate purpose of executive privilege is in “ reinforcing the separation of powers and protecting sensitive deliberations within the executive branch, and it is especially strong when the president or his closest advisers in the White House are involved in the communication.” (4)  An example of a legitimate use of executive privilege is President George W. Bush's use of it in 2007 regarding the request of Congress for White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten’s testimony regarding the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys. (5)  Since the executive branch hired these U.S. attorneys, this is a legitimate use of executive privilege because it involves confidential conversations between the executive branch and the termination of some of its employees.  I am sure these U.S. attorneys did not want the reason for their firings aired publically because it would hinder, if not make it impossible, for them to get another job in the legal profession. 

However, Executive privilege is illegitimate when it used “to protect the president from political embarrassment stemming from grievous errors in judgment by members of his cabinet or officers of the departments over which they preside.” (4)  It is also illegitimate for the President to use executive privilege to cover up illegal acts (6) .  I believe Obama’s use of executive privilege falls under the illegitimate category for the following reasons:

1.       The motivation of this eleventh-hour move appears to be the administration’s desire to cover up errors in judgment by its Attorney General regarding the fast and furious operation.

2.       It appears that even though President Obama said he "had no involvement" in Fast and Furious, the use of executive privilege implies that the President is wanting to shield sensitive communications he may have had with members of the Attorney General’s office and therefore, President Obama was involved.

3.       The fact that a U.S. Border agent was killed (3) along with many innocent Mexican citizens means a crime is involved and the administration may be trying to cover up the crime.

4.       Even though the administration will claim its use of executive privilege falls under “deliberative process” (7), the fact that a crime or crimes may have occurred takes this out of the realm of “pre-decisional communications” (7)  and into the realm of covering up involvement in a crime.    

This is no different from when President Nixon attempted to use executive privilege during the Watergate hearings to cover up the break-in.  The only difference here is that the crime is murder, not breaking and entering. 

We as conservative political avengers must hold President Obama accountable for his, and his administration’s actions in the November election.  As conservatives, we may not agree completely with Mitt Romney but he is a marked improvement from the current occupant of the White House, and I believe would never authorize or be involved in an operation like fast and furious. 

Please feel free to share this post via Facebook, Twitter, or email and get the truth out on this matter.  As always, I have included sources in this topic and urge readers to view them and educate themselves on this topic.  Armed with the truth on this issue, we can begin to implement change in our leadership and the restoring of integrity to our government. 

1. Perez, Evan. Vote to sanction holder escalates gun-probe fight. online.wsj.com. [Online] Wall Street Journal, June 2012, 2012. [Cited: June 23, 2012.] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304898704577478370452447012.html.

2. Wendt, Teresa. Executive Privilege. congressionaldailynews.com. [Online] CDN, June 20, 2012. [Cited: June 23, 2012.] http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/06/executive-privilege/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=executive-privilege.

3. Spakovsky, Hans von. Fast and furious: Covering up the death of a U.S. agent. blog.heritage.org. [Online] The Heritage Foundation, June 20, 2012. [Cited: June 23, 2012.] http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/20/fast-and-furious-covering-up-the-death-of-a-u-s-agent/.

4. National Review Online. Hiding behind executive privilege. freerepublic.com. [Online] Free Republic, June 21, 2012. [Cited: June 23, 2012.] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2898062/posts.

5. Mears, Mariano Castillo and Bill. Executive privilege: A rocky legal and political road in U.S. history. articles.cnn.com. [Online] CNN, June 20, 2012. [Cited: June 23, 2012.] http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-20/politics/politics_executive-privilege-history_1_miers-and-bolten-executive-privilege-contempt-citation?_s=PM:POLITICS.

6. Gaziano, Todd. Fast And Furious: Executive Privilege Is Illegitimate to Shield Wrongdoing. blog.heritage.org. [Online] The Heritage Foundation, June 20, 2012. [Cited: June 23, 2012.] http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/20/fast-and-furious-executive-privilege-is-illegitimate-to-shield-wrongdoing/.

7. Sheffield, Matthew. Open Thread: Behind the Executive Privilege Claim. m.newsbusters.org. [Online] Newsbusters, June 21, 2012. [Cited: June 23, 2012.] http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/06/21/open-thread-behind-executive-privilege-claim?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter.

Legal v. Illegal Immigration:

Since President Obama’s grand announcement not to enforce immigration laws for selected illegal immigrants, the immigration issue is in the forefront of the news.  I believe this could not be coming at a worse time for the President.  Not only is he on the unpopular side of the issue, he circumvented the constitution by changing immigration laws through executive order instead of the constitutional channel of legislation.

Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution expressly grants Congress, not the President, the power to establish laws of naturalization (1).  Therefore, when President Obama overstepped his authority and decided through executive order not to enforce immigration laws, justly passed by the legislature, he is attempting to act as both the chief executive and legislature of the country.  President Obama thinks he is doing the right thing because it is unfair that someone should be deprived of the American dream just because of his or her country of birth.  He is also convinced that his tactics are correct (2) So, we must ask, is the President right or are our existing immigration laws right?

My family, like many others in our nation, immigrated to this country from Germany.  They did not come here to change this country to fit their own needs.  Nor did they come here looking for some sort of government handout.  They came here seeking a better life but understood that they had to find a job in our nation or start a business and become self-sufficient.  They also understood that they had to obey the laws of their new home or suffer the consequences of breaking those laws.  They also understood that in order to succeed in their new home, they had to learn the language of the land in order to conduct commerce and communicate with others.  This is generally the behavior of someone who legally enters the United States. 

The current crop of illegal immigrants (undocumented for my PC readers) believes they somehow have a right to expect the United States Government to take care of them and grant them all  the rights and privileges of those who either are citizens or legally here because they followed the immigration rules.  This warped logic would be the same as saying that just because I walked into a grocery store, I am somehow entitled to anything I need in the store without following the rules of paying for it first. 

I live in Arizona and see their behavior first hand.  They send their kids to our schools at an estimated cost of $44.5 billion (3) and expect us to teach them in their native language thus requiring schools to hire additional teachers to teach in their language, at taxpayers’ expense.  Of course, they will argue that they pay taxes too but even though they may have taxes withheld from their paychecks, when they file their 1040, they receive this money back plus additional refundable credits (i.e. Earned Income Credit, Child Tax Credits). Even though the tax laws prohibit them from receiving these credits, many use stolen Social Security Numbers to receive these credits  Is it any wonder identity theft is such a big problem in our country.  They also expect to attend college in our state run universities and only pay in State tuition. 

They go to our emergency rooms and expect hospitals and doctors to provide care for free or at taxpayer expense instead of paying for insurance and using that to pay their medical bills.  I understand that the law mandates that they receive care when going into the ER, but they should still be required to make payments to the hospital and doctors to pay their medical bills.  The truth is that these people go to the ER because the law mandates they receive care and do not intend to pay for their care.  This is a major cause of the raising healthcare costs for us all (4).

These illegal immigrants, who have no regard for the laws of our land, continue to break our laws after illegally entering our country, filling up our prisons, and putting a strain on our criminal justice system.  It is estimated that illegal immigrants account for 6.1 percent of crime at an estimated cost of $24 billion.  (5)  It would be better if the state were allowed to return them to their country of origin after they are arrested for a crime than to spend taxpayer money and resources to house them in our prisons.  Our prisons are already overcrowded so why exacerbate the problem. 

Governor Brewer and the Legislature of Arizona, in the interest of keeping the citizens of her state safe, passed and signed into law Senate Bill 1070 (6).  This legislation gave local law enforcement the authority to enforce Immigration laws when they arrested someone, who committed some crime other than breaking immigration laws, that they believe might be illegal.  Local law enforcement does not deport these individuals but turns them over to federal authorities.  This is not unusual for states already assist federal agents in the enforcement of drug laws and firearm laws, so what is the difference here. 

The difference is that the Obama Administration needs these people for their political gain.  They want to appear more compassionate then conservatives in order to attract liberal voters who vote with their emotions rather than logic and common sense.  I also believe they have intentions of granting these people the right to vote, which is why they oppose voter ID laws. 

It is time to act fellow political avengers by writing, calling, or emailing your representatives in Congress and the White House.  Let them know that you support legal immigration where people come to this country and make a positive contribution and do not support illegal immigrants coming here looking to take advantage of the citizens and taxpayers of our nation.  I believe it is time to end this insanity but what do you think? 

Please feel free to use the comment section of this blog to let me know your opinion on this issue.    

1. Legal Information Institute. U.S. Constitution. www.law.cornell.edu/constitution. [Online] Cornell University Law School. [Cited: June 19, 2012.] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution.

2. Friess, Steve. Obamas policy strategy: Ignore laws. Politico.com. [Online] Politico, June 16, 2012. [Cited: June 10, 2012.] www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77486.html.

3. Izumi, Lance T. Educating illegal immigrants is costly. ajc.com. [Online] Atlanta Journal and Constitution, August 17, 2010. [Cited: June 20, 2012.] http://www.ajc.com/opinion/educating-illegal-immigrants-is-594092.html.

4. Illegal immigration statistice. The Rising Cost of Illegal Immigration: Healthcare and Health Insurance. illegalimmigrationstatistics.org. [Online] 2012. [Cited: June 20, 2012.] http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org/the-rising-cost-of-illegal-immigration-healthcare-and-health-insurance/.

5. Rasmusen, Eeric. Illegal immigrants cause 6% of crime, which costs $24 billion. rasmusen.org. [Online] April 30, 2008. [Cited: June 20, 2012.] http://www.rasmusen.org/t/2008/04/illegal-immigrants-cause-21-of-crime.html.

6. Arizona State Senate. Senate Bill 1070. www.azleg.gov. [Online] State of Arizona, 2010. [Cited: June 19, 2012.] http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf.

Warning: Taxmageddon is Coming

Taxmageddon, the term speaks of a disaster of biblical and apocalyptical proportions.  Should we build bomb shelters, stock up on food, and run for the hills.  I am not ready to go that far but Taxmageddon is something that will have an effect on many Americans.  So let us take a few minutes to look at what Taxmageddon is, how it will affect us, and what we can do to protect ourselves.

Taxmageddon is a perfect storm.  First, the Bush tax cuts are expiring January 1, 2013 (1).  Since these tax rates have been in effect since 2003, individuals and businesses have planned their budgets according to these rates.  If they suddenly expire on January 1, 2013 it will have the same effect on the economy as increasing taxes would.  The sad part is that if Congress and the President simply do nothing, the increases automatically happen.  During this election year, one would think the Congress would be eager to pass legislation keeping tax rates right where they are but some in congress blame the runaway deficits on these tax cuts and view this as an opportunity to reduce the national debt and deficit.

In addition to this, the payroll tax holiday will sunset.  This is a 2 percent decrease in the FICA or social security withholding tax that all working Americans have deducted from their gross pay each payday (1).  If this tax cut is allowed to expire it will mean all working Americans will see a 2 percent reduction of their take-home pay in their first paycheck for 2013.  This will be in addition to the increase in withholding tax due to the tax increase caused by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. 

The convergence of these two events on January 1, 2013 constitutes a $494 million tax increase on Americans (2).  With the kicking in of the mandatory spending cuts under the debt-deal “sequester” one might believe that this combination of additional revenue combined with spending cuts is good for the economy.  However, that is only if we believe the American people and American businesses will not modify their behavior due to these tax increases and cuts. 

In reality, the tax increases will cause individuals and businesses to cut spending elsewhere in their budgets to come up with the additional taxes they will owe.  This will mean individuals will curtail their discretionary spending (go on fewer vacations, eat out less, buy fewer gadgets) all of which will further slow our stagnant economy.  Businesses will delay their plans for expansion and not be hiring any new people, resulting in continuing high unemployment. 

The mandatory spending cuts under the debt-deal “sequester” are mostly targeted at the defense budget.  This will result in the awarding of fewer defense contracts, resulting in more layoffs at defense contractors.  It also causes individuals and businesses to feel less secure.  These less secure Americans will be less apt to make long-term commitments such as buying a new home or car.  So, what is the current administration appear to be doing to address this problem.

It appears that the current administration would rather deflect attention away from this pending economic disaster by focusing attention on the Buffett Rule.  The Buffett Rule wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to reduce deficits and debt.  The truth is that the Buffett Rule would raise an estimated $46 billion over 10 years or about $4 billion a year.  At current spending levels, the government spends more than $4 billion a day (3).  The administration can go out and tout the Buffett Rule, which will do little to reduce deficits and debt because they know that Taxmageddon will automatically take effect on January 1, 2013 (3). 

To protect ourselves from Taxmageddon, we can do one of two things.  We could store up lots of cash so we will be prepared to meet our increased obligations.  However, the prolonged recession and sluggish economy has already exhausted the savings of many individuals and businesses (4).  This leaves us with only one solution, we must flood our Congresspersons, Senators, and the White House with calls, emails, and letters urging them to extend the current tax rates and either reduce them by 2% or extend the FICA payroll tax cut. 

This will insure individuals and businesses maintain their current income levels and we will not experience  further reductions in our economy.  We then need to take a serious look at changing our currently outdated tax policies to policies that fund the government without punishing achievement as our current progressive income tax does.  We also need to cut government spending by eliminating useless programs and departments.  Sure, this will result laying off  government employees but the reduction in taxes will result in job creation in the private sector for these employees plus the many chronically unemployed Americans.

You can go to www.whitehouse.gov to contact the White House, http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ to find your Congressional Representative, and http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm to find your Senators.  Let us flood their phone lines, email inboxes, and mailboxes so they will know what we want them to do.  Be sure to remind them that there is an election coming up in November and if they are not interested in what we want, we will replace them with someone who is. 

1. Mataconis, Doug. What happens if all the bush tax cuts expire? Outside the Beltway. [Online] May 18, 2012. [Cited: June 15, 2012.] http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/what-happens-if-all-the-bush-tax-cuts-expire/.

2. Payne, Amy. Morning Bell: How taxmageddon will impact you. The Foundry. [Online] The Heritage Network, June 15, 2012. [Cited: June 15, 2012.] http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/15/morning-bell-how-taxmageddon-will-impact-you/.

3. Rep., Scott DesJarias. DesJarlais: Buffett rule a distraction from Taxmageddon. washingtontimes.com. [Online] The Washington Times, June 12, 2012. [Cited: June 16, 2012.] http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/13/buffett-rule-a-distraction-from-taxmageddon/.

4. Mutikani, Lucia. Report shows carnage downturn caused to families' net worth. economywatch,msnbc.msn.com. [Online] MSNBC, 2012. [Cited: June 16, 2012.] http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170847-report-shows-carnage-downturn-caused-to-families-net-worth?lite?ocid=twitter.

What is a Political Avenger?

My family and I just watched the Avengers movie.  Okay, I know it has been out for a while but we are a little behind in our movie watching.  Actually, we usually wait until a movie comes out on DVD unless it is really something we want to see and then we wait a while until the crowd thins out.  This was important for this movie since it is currently the highest grossing movie of all time and the crowds were huge for several weeks. The movie was excellent but since this is not a movie review blog, let me get to the point of why I am writing this post. 

Watching the movie caused me ask the question, what is a political avenger.  If we are to look at each of the Avengers in the movie, we see components that are required for one to become a political avenger.  So let us take a moment to look at these components. 

1.       Captain America – Is a military person from the past when the United States valued the men and women of the military and held them in high esteem.  Marvel Comics created the character to give Americans hope during World War II.  Captain American symbolizes a strong military soldier who is committed to defending his or her country.  As political avengers, we too need to have a strong commitment to the safety of our nation from attacks from without and within its borders.  That is why political avengers support a strong military.

2.       The Hulk – The Hulk is a modern day version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  The Hulk is Dr. Banner’s alter ego who turns into the Hulk when something or someone makes him angry.  Political avengers are normally peaceful people who make an effort to solve problems in a peaceful manner using their intelligence and wisdom.  However, when the situation becomes egregious and they have exhausted every peaceful means of solving the problem, they can hulk-up and take action.  Our nation’s founding fathers were like the Hulk in that they attempted to peacefully address their complaints with the British Crown prior to taking up arms and going to war. 

3.       Ironman – Tony Stark, the man who becomes Ironman, is a successful businessperson who develops high-tech weapons.  He is a genius at using technology to develop weapons.  However, he would prefer using this technology for peaceful applications.  Political avengers know how to use technology to accomplish their goals.  They prefer using technology peacefully through the Internet, Social Media, Blogs, and Talk Radio.  However, the political avenger also supports the use of technology for weapons and defense when it becomes necessary.  This is similar to the Hulk and in the movie and in fact, these two characters do interact a great deal in the movie. 

4.       Thor – Is a demigod and brother of Loki, the bad guy in the movie.  I do not place Thor in the position of a deity and there is even a line in the movie where Captain America says that there is only one God and Thor is not him.  The lesson Thor teaches us as political avengers is that we have to believe in something greater than ourselves.  If we fail to do this, we can easily become discouraged in our political battles. 

I encourage all the political avengers reading this post to find the qualities of Captain America, Hulk, and Ironman in us.  I also encourage everyone to strengthen their faith in God and remember He is in control and that our rights come from Him and not the government. 

We have a great political battle coming up between now and election day in November.  We must remain strong and arm ourselves with the truth to win.  We must win and begin taking this country back to the principles that made it strong.  

Private Sector Economy Health Check-up

The jobs report from Thursday June 7, 2012 showed a 12,000-claim drop in initial claims for state unemployment.  This was good news in light of the fact that there had been increases in initial claims the previous 4 weeks (1).  However, is this a sign of a robust recovery?  In an economic speech given on Friday 06/08/2012, President Obama stated, “The private sector is doing fine.”  House Speaker Boehner responded by saying, “The private sector is not doing fine” and Mitt Romney said that Obama’s remarks show that Obama is out of touch (2).  So which side is correct?

In support of the President’s position, he cites the creation of 82,000 jobs in May and the fact that wealth in corporate America is at an all-time high in relation to GDP (2).  However, 82,000 jobs is not an impressive number when compared to the fact that there are almost 2 million fewer people working today than when Obama took office.  In addition, 82,000 jobs are only 1640 jobs per state. 

While corporate wealth may be at an all-time high, small business, the engine of job creation for the economy, net worth is declining.  Profit growth is also slowing and slowed to 6.5% in the first quarter of 2012.  Plus corporate cash flow growth  is also slowing, which is expected coming out of a recession, but at only 4% the showing for the first quarter of 2012 remains weak (2). 

In Obama’s favor, corporate balance sheets are awash in cash, though the Federal Reserve revised lower previous estimates (2).  It is good news that corporations have sufficient liquid assets to remain solvent but it also shows corporations reluctance to invest these liquid assets due to economic uncertainty.  So what may be causing this uncertainty?

1.       Taxmageddon (3) – The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are slated to expire on January 1, 2013.  This will result in a greater tax burden for corporations so we would expect them to be setting aside additional cash resources to meet this potential additional burden.  

2.       Obamacare (4) – Many of the regulatory requirements of Obamacare will begin kicking in on January 1, 2013 so corporations are also setting aside cash to meet these requirements.

If these corporations were able to invest their cash reserves in business expansion rather than paying additional taxes and compliance costs brought on by additional regulatory requirements, we would begin seeing some real job growth.  Obama, to his credit, did back off on his remark and now needs to follow through by making permanent the tax cuts and repealing Obamacare so companies are free to begin investing their excess cash reserves.  If President Obama, the Congress, and the Senate were to do this, we would begin to experience a real recovery as we experienced during the 1980’s.

In 1980, our nation faced another serious economic downturn.  We had the triple double (double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates).  A tired electorate seeking change ousted the incumbent president and voted in Ronald Reagan who promised a new direction for the nation.  His policies were the opposite of the Keynesian theories of the previous administration (5) in that they proposed decreasing taxes, government spending, and government regulations.  These supply side policies resulted in a robust recovery which compared to the current recovery, shows the current so-called recovery to be anemic (6).

President Obama needs to abandon his Keynesian policies, establish permanent tax policies, and begin curtailing the onerous regulatory requirements of Obamacare for real recovery to occur.  Then corporations can begin investing their excess cash reserves and real economic and job growth will occur. 

That is my opinion, now I am interested in yours.

1. Reuters. Weekly jobless claims fall for first time since April. Fox Business. [Online] Fox News, June 7, 2012. [Cited: June 7, 2012.] http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/06/07/weekly-jobless-claims-fall-for-first-time-since-april/?test=latestnews.

2.  Market Watch. Obama says private sector is fine -- see the charts. marketwatch.com. [Online] June 8, 2012. [Cited: June 9, 2012.] http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-says-private-sector-is-fine-see-the-charts-2012-06-08?link=MW_home_latest_news.

3. Dubay, Curtis. Taxmageddon: Masssive tax increase coming in 2013. www.heritage.org. [Online] The Heritage Foundation, April 4, 2012. [Cited: June 9, 2012.] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/taxmageddon-massive-tax-increase-coming-in-2013.

4.  Bedard, Paul. 6 pages of Obamacare equals 429 pages of regulations. www.usnews.com. [Online] US News and World Report, April 7, 2011. [Cited: June 9, 2012.] http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/04/07/6-pages-of-obamacare-equals-429-pages-of-regulations.

5. Wisegeek. What is Keynesian Economics. wisegeek.com. [Online] [Cited: June 7, 2012.] http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-keynesian-economics.htm.

6. Pethokoukis, James. Why the Reagan recovery was much more impressive then Obama's. Businessinsider.com. [Online] Business Insider, January 29, 2012. [Cited: June 7, 2012.] http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-29/news/30675210_1_quarters-economy-real-disposable-personal-income.

What the Wisconsin Recall Election Means

Governor Walker of Wisconsin became the first governor in U.S. History to survive a recall election last night.  By a margin of 53% to 46%, a margin almost identical to the margin of the 2010 gubernatorial contest between the same two candidates, Governor Walker retained his office as Governor.  This may have been a local statewide election in Wisconsin, but does is it a preview of things to come in the November general election?

According to today’s Morning Bell (1), “…reformers who come armed with the strength of their convictions can carry the day–even against mobs, labor unions, Hollywood, the media, academia, and everything else the left throws up these days. All reformers need to do is lead.”  Many believe this is a message to those unhappy with the current direction of our country that if they remain committed to their convictions and do not waiver, they can defeat Obama, regain control of the Senate, and gain a greater majority in the House.  It also leads many to believe that Labor Unions may talk big but are actually a paper tiger when it comes to winning elections. 

However, some also see this as only a local election that tells us little about how the electorate will vote as a whole in November.  Exit polling showed that “Just 27% said recall elections are appropriate for any reason (and Barrett won those folks, 90%-9%). By comparison, 60% said that recalls are legitimate only for official misconduct (and Walker won them, 68%-31%), while another 10% said recalls are never appropriate (and Walker won here, 94%-5%). Bottom line: Walker benefited greatly from the fact that many Wisconsin voters didn’t think the premise of last night’s recall was legitimate.” (2). 

In 2006, a war weary electorate upset with out of control spending gave control of the House and Senate back to the Democrats for the first time since 1994.  They then elected Barak Obama President believing that his message of hope and change was what the country needed.  However, after 3 ½ years in office, there is change but not the change the electorate was looking for.  Obamacare was forced down the country’s throat, the economy continues to falter, and cuts in the military have them feeling unsafe in the dangerous world that came to our doorstep on 9/11. 

In 2010, upset with the direction the democrats were taking the country in, the electorate returned control of the House to the Republicans and made gains in the Senate that took away the filibuster proof control the democrats had in the Senate.  Many believe that if groups like the tea party can continue to make their voices heard, the momentum of 2010 will carry forward to 2012.  In my opinion, the results in Wisconsin show that the electorate still dislikes the Obama version of change.  However, the electorate is fickle and can change as they did in 2006 and 2010.  Conservative and tea party groups need to keep up their grassroots efforts to ensure a massive turnout of conservative voters in the 2012 election.  The Wisconsin election showed that this strategy can be successful. 

Now, I need to know what you think.

1. Brownfield, Mike. Morning bell: A historic win for reform in Wisconsin. The Foundry. [Online] The Heritage Network, June 6, 2012. [Cited: June 6, 2012.] http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/06/morning-bell-a-historic-win-for-reform-in-wisconsin/.

2. Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, Brooke Brower. First thoujghts: Walker wins and labor loses. First Read. [Online] MSNBC, June 6, 2012. [Cited: June 6, 2012.] http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/06/12084891-first-thoughts-walker-wins-and-labor-loses?lite?ocid=twitter.

Warning Brain Drain

The economy continues to struggle and even though there is some job creation, there are currently 2 million fewer people in the workforce than there was when Obama took office.  One of the hardest hit demographics are recent college graduates.  Many of these graduates are working jobs that do not even require a college degree.  The average starting salary for 2009 and 2010 for recent graduates was $27,000 down from $30,000 from 2006 to 2008.  However, the most alarming statistic is that only 56 percent had held at least one job this spring.  This means 44 percent have little or no work experience.  Hardly the way a new college graduate wants to enter the workforce (1). 

In Greece, the situation is even worse.  With the possibility of a total economic meltdown and Greece’ potential exit from the European Union, college graduates in Greece find it virtually impossible to find a job.  Many are escaping to Germany where the economic outlook is much better (2).  This represents a brain drain for Greece since it is likely the brightest new graduates are going elsewhere at a time when Greece needs these people to offer solutions to their problems. 

If the United States does not address the problem of unemployment for new graduates, we too could experience the same brain drain.  In fact, in Dayton Ohio college graduates are currently leaving due to a lack of opportunity for them to utilize their skills (3).

What we need is a vibrant economy with an expanding workforce that not only restores the net 2 million jobs that have been lost but also creates new opportunities for these new graduates.  As a solution, I would propose a cutting or even temporary cessation of the corporate income tax.  Most corporations would take advantage of this opportunity to expand their businesses thus creating more jobs.  This is not rocket science, if a business has more capital they invest it in expansion so they can increase profits. 

In addition, we need to reduce regulations that bog businesses down with needless reporting and legal requirements that eat up capital they could use for expansion and job creation.  Again, this is not rocket science, businesses could use capital currently being used to pay attorneys and accountants to comply with regulations to hire additional employees. 

That is my solution, now I am interested in your solutions. 

1. Rampell, Catherine. Many with new college degree find the job market humbling. www.nytimes.com. [Online] New York Times, May 18, 2012. [Cited: May 31, 2012.] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/business/economy/19grads.html. 1.

2. Angerer, Andy Eckardt and Carlo. it is virtually impossible to find a job': Brain drain is new Greek tragedy. www.worldnews.msnbc.msn.com. [Online] NBC News, May 2012, 2012. [Cited: May 31, 2012.] http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/30/11933342-it-is-virtually-impossible-to-find-a-job-brain-drain-is-new-greek-tragedy?lite?ocid=twitter. 2.

3. Tavernise, Sabrina. A gap in college graduates leaves some cities behind. www.nytimes.com. [Online] New York Times, May 30, 2012. [Cited: May 31, 2012.] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/us/as-college-graduates-cluster-some-cities-are-left-behind.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto. 3.