Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Government Enhancements
I am struggling to find a reason as to why any government would NOT pay for a breast enhancement when they already hand out disability checks for "back pain" or "anger management issues." After all, isn't $5,000 for a new rack less than the prescriptions the government will have to pay for in order for this woman to manage her depression?
It is time to ban large dogs
I don't want this story to serve as another reason to lose faith in humanity, but it is difficult to wake up and look at the news day after day and see stories about hyper-aggressive dogs attacking people or other animals completely unprovoked. Unfortunately, this is one of those stories.
Gabrielle Giffords’ husband pulled his daughter’s dog off of a sea lion in Laguna Beach over the weekend.I think the only solution to this problem is to ban all dogs over a certain size that look a certain way. Why do we need to have 65-pound dogs? When an animal that large becomes aggressive bad things can happen. I understand there are a lot of responsible dog owners out there, but there are some who simply cannot handle a dog of this size. Also, what does a 65-pound dog do that a 10 or 15-pound dog does not do? Did they get the dog because they liked it? Because it made them feel safe? Because it made their daughter feel safe? That's not a good enough answer.
The incident, which was captured on video, happened around 1:40 p.m. Saturday at Goff Cove Beach by the Montage Laguna Beach.
Retired astronaut Mark Kelly’s 18-year-old daughter, who was on vacation with her father and Giffords, was walking the American bulldog on a leash when the 65-pound dog saw the sea lion, ran off and attacked.
Nathan, who declined to give his last name, happened to be having lunch nearby when he started to film the chaotic scene on his cellphone.
The graphic video, which he later posted on YouTube, showed the young girl screaming while her dog had the sea lion by the neck.
Two other women tried to help until Kelly finally arrived and forced the dog off of the animal.
The sea lion later died.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
A few thoughts before CPAC 2013
Originally I planned a long-ish post before CPAC, but why? I
may as well wait until after this weekend before making too many proclamations
about where the conservative movement is at in 2013. That is not to say CPAC is
the be all and end all of conservative activism, but it’s the first major
gathering of conservatives since the election that is hopefully serving as the
kick in the ass we needed on the right.
Now, onto the things I hope to hear and not hear this weekend.
1.
Which brand of conservatism gets the most
airtime from speakers? Is it solely a
fiscal conservatism going forward? Is it a shift towards embracing the
libertarian wing of the movement? What role are social issues going to play for
us going forward? What about immigration? What about foreign-policy? It seems like a
broad question, but I think the conservative movement is at one of those points
where stepping back and looking at the 30,000 foot view is required at this
point. Conservatism has always been about opportunity, so how do we get
that point across?
Along this same point, what is our elevator
speech? We live in a seven-second soundbite world. Even more than our short
attention spans is the fact that the majority of this country does not actively
follow the news on a daily basis. Low-information voters do exist and we do
need to take a crack at winning them over. How do we describe conservatism to
them in the 7 seconds we might have?
2.
ObamaCare. – For the past few years ObamaCare
has been target number one for conservative activists. Well guess what,
ObamaCare isn’t going anywhere over the next 4 years and the more time we focus
on that the less time we spend on problems that we have a chance at solving.
The amount of time spent on ObamaCare and not every other issue will determine
how successful this gathering ends up being.
3.
Technology – I work in the digital advertising
world and if there is one thing I hope the GOP has learned it is that
technology is not how you win an election, but it can be a powerful tool when
used properly. In short, email can be used for purposes outside of raising
money.
4.
Are we going to divide the country into groups
as well? – Lots of the focus after the election has been on the youth and
Latino votes. There seem to be two sides – one side is tailor our policies to
where these groups stand today (i.e. move left) or find new ways to engage with
everyone, including the youth and Latino voters of America, and start moving
them back to our side. One common complaint I hear about us on the right is
that we do not bother to take the time to reach out to different ethnic and
social groups. I, for one, believe that moving left will be the beginning of
the end of the conservative movement and that another group will pick up the
pieces. Evangelizing conservative philosophies to everyone needs to be the
focus, but to get there we need to focus on points 1, 2, and 3.
That is basically it. I would be lying if I said I expected
to be blow away this weekend. CPAC knows it needs to do something to stay relevant.
This is a time for self-reflection and self-improvement for the conservative
movement. Why our policies work should be the focus. Everyone in the room knows
that Obama sucks and that Hillary won’t be much better. The only way we will
get others on our side is if we start to hone a new positive and affirmative
message that focuses on our solutions. Three days spent bashing Obama will be three
days wasted.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Everything that is Wrong with Elements of the Conservative Movement in one Sentence
It is not hyperbole when Erick Erickson markets his Morning Briefing with the tagline "What Conservatives Read First." For the most part he is right; this is one of the newsletters that is opened regularly by many in the conservative movement before moving on to the rest of the day's business. It's not so much that this email serves as the talking points for conservatives but rather the email does what most good, must-read email newsletters do -- it gives you a few thing to chew on throughout the day. It is because of this platform and the influence/reputation that Erickson has in the conservative community that makes this one sentence stick out from this morning's email.
From Faulty Premises and Outlooks Formed:
The other theory that came to mind as to why someone in the conservative movement would openly advocate for a Democrat to win over a Republican (no matter how moderate/squishy) is that because the mainstream media primarily caters to low-information voters, having a Republican willing to slam his party repeatedly on camera would give the Democrats an edge is the public relations war that surrounds every policy decision. It's easy to see how the media would portray this "sensible Republican" as a "North Star of sanity in a town where compromise is the new 'c-word'" in an effort to further President Obama's agenda while taking a shot at Republican "grandstanding" (no matter how legitimate the opposition may be).
I can also see why, if this seat is not the difference between a majority position (or a filibuster-proof majority) and that if on big issues there is little daylight between the moderate Republican and the Democrat candidate, that you would prefer the Democrat win.
Actually, no, I can't.
Theories aside, I cannot read this sentence as anything other than one of the main reasons why the GOP is struggling to find its identity in the 21st Century. We are now apparently entering a period where you are only a true conservative if you vote for only staunch conservatives and it is ok to let the Democrats take a few seats if the other option is a guy who will only side with the Conservative movement 60% of the time? That unless you are backed by Red State and Jim DeMint and Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Club for Growth you are a squish and it would be better if the left wins? Correction, in the words of Erickson it would be far better.
I understand that tea party conservatives are tired of being ragged on for Palin and Christine O'Donnell and more recently Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin considering that the successes of the tea party far outweigh the failures. I understand that it is important to get more people for whom conservatism is their natural language and philosophy to enter and win poltiical races. The key is knowing which battles to pick. Delaware wasn't one of those battles and the longer people think it was (and drag their heels in and write, frankly, stupid and unhelpful sentences like the one quoted above) the longer it is going to take for conservatives to get a battle plan for 2014 ready.
The larger point of the piece, about the Conservative Victory Project (whatever the heck that means) is spot on, but if this one sentence is indicative of how many conservative leaders and grassroots activists feel - that GOP primaries should be what the conservative movement focuses on and whatever happens in the general election is just gravy, then 2014 is going to be one bad year for conservatives.
P.S. - I'm not going to work Bill Buckley's oft-quoted line about nominating the most conservative, electable candidate, into this post because it is too obvious to throw in and it is a line that both the grassroots and establishment will use continuously until the end of time.
Also, I acknowledge that Erickson ends his piece with three paragraphs that are almost completely contradictory of the one I quoted...which is why I took the time to write this because even he knows that what he wrote is not the road map for a conservative resurgence in 2014.
From Faulty Premises and Outlooks Formed:
In Delaware, many conservative, myself included, made the conscious decision that it would be far better to have the Democrat win than Mike Castle because of what Castle would do whispering in the ears of Republican leaders.Take your time to read that again. It would be far better to have the Democrat win.... I understand the logic behind the argument. If you have an influential squish, as Erickson would put it, then potentially the rest of the party's elected leadership will listen to said squish and steer the party towards more squishy stances that will result in bad policy, fewer votes, and at the end of the day a stronger Democratic party and a weakened America. This thinking also assumes that in this particular instance 1. Mike Castle had influence over Mitch McConnell and 2. Had enough influence to not only convince McConnell that the GOP should not challenge Obama on ANY front but also the rest of the GOP senators.
The other theory that came to mind as to why someone in the conservative movement would openly advocate for a Democrat to win over a Republican (no matter how moderate/squishy) is that because the mainstream media primarily caters to low-information voters, having a Republican willing to slam his party repeatedly on camera would give the Democrats an edge is the public relations war that surrounds every policy decision. It's easy to see how the media would portray this "sensible Republican" as a "North Star of sanity in a town where compromise is the new 'c-word'" in an effort to further President Obama's agenda while taking a shot at Republican "grandstanding" (no matter how legitimate the opposition may be).
I can also see why, if this seat is not the difference between a majority position (or a filibuster-proof majority) and that if on big issues there is little daylight between the moderate Republican and the Democrat candidate, that you would prefer the Democrat win.
Actually, no, I can't.
Theories aside, I cannot read this sentence as anything other than one of the main reasons why the GOP is struggling to find its identity in the 21st Century. We are now apparently entering a period where you are only a true conservative if you vote for only staunch conservatives and it is ok to let the Democrats take a few seats if the other option is a guy who will only side with the Conservative movement 60% of the time? That unless you are backed by Red State and Jim DeMint and Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Club for Growth you are a squish and it would be better if the left wins? Correction, in the words of Erickson it would be far better.
I understand that tea party conservatives are tired of being ragged on for Palin and Christine O'Donnell and more recently Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin considering that the successes of the tea party far outweigh the failures. I understand that it is important to get more people for whom conservatism is their natural language and philosophy to enter and win poltiical races. The key is knowing which battles to pick. Delaware wasn't one of those battles and the longer people think it was (and drag their heels in and write, frankly, stupid and unhelpful sentences like the one quoted above) the longer it is going to take for conservatives to get a battle plan for 2014 ready.
The larger point of the piece, about the Conservative Victory Project (whatever the heck that means) is spot on, but if this one sentence is indicative of how many conservative leaders and grassroots activists feel - that GOP primaries should be what the conservative movement focuses on and whatever happens in the general election is just gravy, then 2014 is going to be one bad year for conservatives.
P.S. - I'm not going to work Bill Buckley's oft-quoted line about nominating the most conservative, electable candidate, into this post because it is too obvious to throw in and it is a line that both the grassroots and establishment will use continuously until the end of time.
Also, I acknowledge that Erickson ends his piece with three paragraphs that are almost completely contradictory of the one I quoted...which is why I took the time to write this because even he knows that what he wrote is not the road map for a conservative resurgence in 2014.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
A Fresh Update
Nothing has happened in the past 6 weeks has it?
Good. Anyways, today seems as good a day as any to get this back on track...or at least dump some of my recent musings that i have stored on my computer but not on this blog....
But instead of random thoughts that I have while riding the metro I want take the time to write about something that bothers me. Bailouts.
Without engaging in my standard Austrian influenced rants, let me target two news stories that are connected and a third that exacerbates a problem that led us to where we are today.
This first story is titled Why I'm Not Hiring. In short, it is the story of a small business owner in New Jersey who is not hiring any more employees because the government has created an uncertain environment for the private sector.
The second story is about today's new state bailout bill. $26.1 Billion for teachers...for children...how can you be against that? Well it is easy. Putting aside that taxpayers in one state should not be bailing out the reckless spending by a different state and that $16 Billion of this is going to Medicaid (Welfare), this bill still makes zero sense. What this bill assumes is that there is no possible waste that any of the 50 states could cut in order to find money to pay for teachers, firefighters, and police officers. Instead of forcing states to look for waste, reform pension plans, or cut programs, the House Democrats selflessly came back from vacation to close a tax loophole (raise taxes on US businesses) in order to fund runaway spending in individual states.
And that brings us to our third story. The protection of public sector jobs that happened at the expense of the private sector today is only another instance of the disdain that the left has for business. Guess which sector has taken the hit during the recession...yup, that's right, the private sector. While government employees get to enjoy healthy raises and job security unlike no other, the real driving force of this economy (and the people who pay the bloated pensions of many government employees) is left to get hit by tax hikes...like the one that was signed into law today in this "Manufacturing Jobs Bill". Only 43 members of the House voted against this bill. You want to know why? Because on the surface it looks like a tax cut. Hidden in the details however is a tax increase on corporations that bring in over $1 Billion in revenue each year.
As GDP growth, productivity, and consumer confidence fall we can only wonder one thing. How will redistribution solve this problem when there is nothing left to redistribute?
Good. Anyways, today seems as good a day as any to get this back on track...or at least dump some of my recent musings that i have stored on my computer but not on this blog....
But instead of random thoughts that I have while riding the metro I want take the time to write about something that bothers me. Bailouts.
Without engaging in my standard Austrian influenced rants, let me target two news stories that are connected and a third that exacerbates a problem that led us to where we are today.
This first story is titled Why I'm Not Hiring. In short, it is the story of a small business owner in New Jersey who is not hiring any more employees because the government has created an uncertain environment for the private sector.
The second story is about today's new state bailout bill. $26.1 Billion for teachers...for children...how can you be against that? Well it is easy. Putting aside that taxpayers in one state should not be bailing out the reckless spending by a different state and that $16 Billion of this is going to Medicaid (Welfare), this bill still makes zero sense. What this bill assumes is that there is no possible waste that any of the 50 states could cut in order to find money to pay for teachers, firefighters, and police officers. Instead of forcing states to look for waste, reform pension plans, or cut programs, the House Democrats selflessly came back from vacation to close a tax loophole (raise taxes on US businesses) in order to fund runaway spending in individual states.
And that brings us to our third story. The protection of public sector jobs that happened at the expense of the private sector today is only another instance of the disdain that the left has for business. Guess which sector has taken the hit during the recession...yup, that's right, the private sector. While government employees get to enjoy healthy raises and job security unlike no other, the real driving force of this economy (and the people who pay the bloated pensions of many government employees) is left to get hit by tax hikes...like the one that was signed into law today in this "Manufacturing Jobs Bill". Only 43 members of the House voted against this bill. You want to know why? Because on the surface it looks like a tax cut. Hidden in the details however is a tax increase on corporations that bring in over $1 Billion in revenue each year.
As GDP growth, productivity, and consumer confidence fall we can only wonder one thing. How will redistribution solve this problem when there is nothing left to redistribute?
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
A Topic Left Alone
Gen. Stanley McChrystal stole the headlines today because of insanely stupid remarks by himself and his staff in front of a reporter from, of all places, Rolling Stone. Congratulations Joe Barton, your news cycle was exactly 5 days long. Anyways, more things happened than comments that should not have been made by a General in charge of a war that, let’s face it, might not ever be won in the traditional sense of winning. McChrystal is out, Petraeus is in, and the War in Afghanistan goes on.
This situation, even though it is not the best news story for the White House, does draw attention away from one of the major story lines of the Obama Administration- the economy. This is what the major economic news has been over the past 36 hours since the McChrystal story broke…
- There will be no budget this year
- There will be no discussion about the long term budget objective of the US until December (this means a VAT is coming)
- -New Home Sales dropped 33% in May
- The Canadian Banking System is the envy of the world and Canada has a more stable economy that the US has
- President Obama is considering price controls for health care
- Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has told Obama that cutting the deficit will help growth, not stunt it
- According the Federal Reserve, non financial companies have stock piled $1.84 Trillion in cash and liquid assets
I can go on and on, but the problem is that almost no one is talking about this news, especially the top two stories listed, because at the end of the day- the economy is just not sexy to talk about when we have a General resigning and an oil spill that is destroying the gulf coast. However, next week, specifically next Friday, we get a new jobs report (I bet continue to see almost no private job growth because of that last bullet point, which I will tackle soon) and that means for one hour we get to talk about the failure of the stimulus once again.
This could easily develop into a book- the mishandling of the economy by the Obama Administration, but I think the most telling point about the economic failures of the regime comes from a member of his economic team- his Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors Christina Romer. This is the same Christina Romer that wrote a paper 6 months before he appointment to the Administration that cutting taxes is a great way to stimulate growth…Romer and her husband estimate the GDP multiplier from 1 dollar of tax cuts to be 3 while the models the Obama Administration ran said that the GDP multiplier for taxes is .99 and the multiplier for government spending is 1.54 (Want the in depth to this from a brilliant economist who gives a much deeper look into the issue?… http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/crisis-economics)
My question is- why isn’t the administration listening to her? It is clear the stimulus, which was supposed to keep unemployment at 8% or lower (their models also indicated that if the stimulus was not passed unemployment might reach 9%…gasp!) is not working. It is also clear that they should recheck their models and maybe get some more opinions on how to fight this recession. Are they? Nope, they claim their models are correct and that we just need to spend more of the government’s income. Did I say Government Income? I meant money they will take from the taxpayers and redistribute your money the way Congress sees fit…without your say. Remember, the Government does not create wealth, it only finds ways to spread it around.
Of course the answer is simple…she disregarded her own findings to write the Obama plan for recovery… http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf
So which is it Romer…is your paper wrong, or are you giving in to political pressure to push a stimulus that is costing the American people jobs while allowing the Administration to push for higher taxes? I think it is time for some answers on this contradiction. Maybe the Obama Administration thinks the multiplier for each dollar of their stimulus is greater than 3? I would like to know what is exactingly going on while the private sector continues to flail in the wind.
Oh boy I cannot wait for the fight on the VAT.
This situation, even though it is not the best news story for the White House, does draw attention away from one of the major story lines of the Obama Administration- the economy. This is what the major economic news has been over the past 36 hours since the McChrystal story broke…
- There will be no budget this year
- There will be no discussion about the long term budget objective of the US until December (this means a VAT is coming)
- -New Home Sales dropped 33% in May
- The Canadian Banking System is the envy of the world and Canada has a more stable economy that the US has
- President Obama is considering price controls for health care
- Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has told Obama that cutting the deficit will help growth, not stunt it
- According the Federal Reserve, non financial companies have stock piled $1.84 Trillion in cash and liquid assets
I can go on and on, but the problem is that almost no one is talking about this news, especially the top two stories listed, because at the end of the day- the economy is just not sexy to talk about when we have a General resigning and an oil spill that is destroying the gulf coast. However, next week, specifically next Friday, we get a new jobs report (I bet continue to see almost no private job growth because of that last bullet point, which I will tackle soon) and that means for one hour we get to talk about the failure of the stimulus once again.
This could easily develop into a book- the mishandling of the economy by the Obama Administration, but I think the most telling point about the economic failures of the regime comes from a member of his economic team- his Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors Christina Romer. This is the same Christina Romer that wrote a paper 6 months before he appointment to the Administration that cutting taxes is a great way to stimulate growth…Romer and her husband estimate the GDP multiplier from 1 dollar of tax cuts to be 3 while the models the Obama Administration ran said that the GDP multiplier for taxes is .99 and the multiplier for government spending is 1.54 (Want the in depth to this from a brilliant economist who gives a much deeper look into the issue?… http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/crisis-economics)
My question is- why isn’t the administration listening to her? It is clear the stimulus, which was supposed to keep unemployment at 8% or lower (their models also indicated that if the stimulus was not passed unemployment might reach 9%…gasp!) is not working. It is also clear that they should recheck their models and maybe get some more opinions on how to fight this recession. Are they? Nope, they claim their models are correct and that we just need to spend more of the government’s income. Did I say Government Income? I meant money they will take from the taxpayers and redistribute your money the way Congress sees fit…without your say. Remember, the Government does not create wealth, it only finds ways to spread it around.
Of course the answer is simple…she disregarded her own findings to write the Obama plan for recovery… http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf
So which is it Romer…is your paper wrong, or are you giving in to political pressure to push a stimulus that is costing the American people jobs while allowing the Administration to push for higher taxes? I think it is time for some answers on this contradiction. Maybe the Obama Administration thinks the multiplier for each dollar of their stimulus is greater than 3? I would like to know what is exactingly going on while the private sector continues to flail in the wind.
Oh boy I cannot wait for the fight on the VAT.
Monday, June 21, 2010
My Speech Should Be Protected...Yours Not So Much
The DISCLOSE Act (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending Act) has been a source of contention between the left and right over the past few months (though it has obviously taken a back seat to oil spills, SCOTUS nominations, and basically everything else in Washington because anything else is more exciting than the DISCLOSE Act.). According to the three cosponsors- Chuck Schumer, Russ Feingold, and Patrick Leahy, the DISCLOSE Act aims to accomplish these 7 things (directly cut and pasted from discloseact.com)…
1. Enhance Disclaimers
Make CEOs and other leaders take responsibility for their ads.
2. Enhance Disclosures
It is time to follow the money.
3. Prevent Foreign Influence
Foreign countries and entities should not be determining the outcome of our elections.
4. Shareholder/Member Disclosure
We should allow shareholders and members to know where money goes.
5. Prevent Government Contractors from Spending
Taxpayer money should not be spent on political ads.
6. Provide the Lowest Unit Rate for Candidates and Parties
Special interests should not drown out the voices of the people.
7. Tighten Coordination Rules
Corporations should not be able to “sponsor” a candidate.
It seems benign at first. However, what this really does is tell corporations and advocacy groups on both sides of the aisle that your voice does not matter. This is directly against the First Amendment. If my fellow citizens want to pool their money together to advocate for a certain interest they should be allowed to, just as I should enjoy that right as well. This is one of those bills there their heart is in the right place, but the execution is just not there. I think corporations and unions should be 100% OUT OF ELECTIONS. That’s right, only the money of the individual should matter. There is no reason why any company, let’s say BP, should be allowed to give money to a politician. There is also no reason why, let’s say the SEIU, should be allowed to give money to a politician. The problem with the DISCLOSE Act is that it imposes restrictions ONLY ON CORPORATIONS and lets unions act as they may. This is break from decades of precedent, which treated unions and corporations in the same way. If GE cannot give to a candidate, neither should the AFL-CIO.
However, this Act also applies to special interest groups, such as the NRA. It just so happens that the NRA, like many organizations (Chamber of Commerce being another notible one) is against the DISCLOSE Act. That is, until this…
The Disclose Act would exempt organizations that “have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members from all 50 states and raise 15% or less of their funds from corporations”
Interestingly enough, along with the AARP and the Human Society (which did not take a stance on DISCLOSE) the NRA just happens to fall into this category. This is not a mistake, as Democrats threw this little passage in to solidify the support of the Blue Dog Democrats who are traditionally pro-gun rights. It also happens that the NRA has now stopped opposing the Act, so long as this sentence stays in the bill. Shameless politics? You betcha. What is worse is this comment from the NRA…
“There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That’s easy to say—unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.”
That is from nraila.com, which is the lobbying arm of the NRA. In short, they are all for the first amendment when their rights are being infringed upon, but as long as they can lock and load, the government could shoot people for disagreeing with official government positions. I have several questions for Mr. LaPierre….
1. What other parts of the Bill of Rights do you believe America can do without?
2. Why are the rights of 4 million Americans more important than the other 300+ Million?
3. Why do you hate corporate America?
I also propose interrupting him constantly in order to show him that silencing speech is as annoying as it is un-American. It is odd that he would be at odds with Elena Kagan on gun rights, but right by her side on restricting free speech. Then again, nothing about being against the first amendment is anything but odd. Congratulations Mr. LaPierre, when the tyrants come to silence us, we know which building in Virginia to stop at first in order hold those accountable for the destruction of freedom in America- yours.
1. Enhance Disclaimers
Make CEOs and other leaders take responsibility for their ads.
2. Enhance Disclosures
It is time to follow the money.
3. Prevent Foreign Influence
Foreign countries and entities should not be determining the outcome of our elections.
4. Shareholder/Member Disclosure
We should allow shareholders and members to know where money goes.
5. Prevent Government Contractors from Spending
Taxpayer money should not be spent on political ads.
6. Provide the Lowest Unit Rate for Candidates and Parties
Special interests should not drown out the voices of the people.
7. Tighten Coordination Rules
Corporations should not be able to “sponsor” a candidate.
It seems benign at first. However, what this really does is tell corporations and advocacy groups on both sides of the aisle that your voice does not matter. This is directly against the First Amendment. If my fellow citizens want to pool their money together to advocate for a certain interest they should be allowed to, just as I should enjoy that right as well. This is one of those bills there their heart is in the right place, but the execution is just not there. I think corporations and unions should be 100% OUT OF ELECTIONS. That’s right, only the money of the individual should matter. There is no reason why any company, let’s say BP, should be allowed to give money to a politician. There is also no reason why, let’s say the SEIU, should be allowed to give money to a politician. The problem with the DISCLOSE Act is that it imposes restrictions ONLY ON CORPORATIONS and lets unions act as they may. This is break from decades of precedent, which treated unions and corporations in the same way. If GE cannot give to a candidate, neither should the AFL-CIO.
However, this Act also applies to special interest groups, such as the NRA. It just so happens that the NRA, like many organizations (Chamber of Commerce being another notible one) is against the DISCLOSE Act. That is, until this…
The Disclose Act would exempt organizations that “have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members from all 50 states and raise 15% or less of their funds from corporations”
Interestingly enough, along with the AARP and the Human Society (which did not take a stance on DISCLOSE) the NRA just happens to fall into this category. This is not a mistake, as Democrats threw this little passage in to solidify the support of the Blue Dog Democrats who are traditionally pro-gun rights. It also happens that the NRA has now stopped opposing the Act, so long as this sentence stays in the bill. Shameless politics? You betcha. What is worse is this comment from the NRA…
“There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That’s easy to say—unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.”
That is from nraila.com, which is the lobbying arm of the NRA. In short, they are all for the first amendment when their rights are being infringed upon, but as long as they can lock and load, the government could shoot people for disagreeing with official government positions. I have several questions for Mr. LaPierre….
1. What other parts of the Bill of Rights do you believe America can do without?
2. Why are the rights of 4 million Americans more important than the other 300+ Million?
3. Why do you hate corporate America?
I also propose interrupting him constantly in order to show him that silencing speech is as annoying as it is un-American. It is odd that he would be at odds with Elena Kagan on gun rights, but right by her side on restricting free speech. Then again, nothing about being against the first amendment is anything but odd. Congratulations Mr. LaPierre, when the tyrants come to silence us, we know which building in Virginia to stop at first in order hold those accountable for the destruction of freedom in America- yours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)