Why Herman Cain Would Be a Good Pick

Here are my thoughts why Herman Cain would be a good pick to run against Obama:

1. Obama couldn’t play the race card. He would have to defend his record which he doesn’t want to do. He might still play the race card but it would look lame. Obama would have to pick another personal attack.
2. Herman Cain could, being black, go on the offensive without being called a racist. I am not so sure any of the other Republican candidates would go on the offensive as hard. John McCain sure didn’t.
3. Mr. Cain is highly intelligent. He has a masters in computer science. That should be enough. Ha! Also, having a computer science degree means you are a logical thinker and can solve problems. Don’t have enough that in gov’t.
4. A friend to businesses. So are the other candidates, but they did not save any business from bankruptcy. He saved Godfather’s Pizza. Obama and FDR by the way did not have any businessmen for advisors.
5. Not a politician. Yea, he was on the Federal Reserve Bank of KC. But I am talking about being a Congressmen.
6. Newsweek said he sabotaged Hillarycare. So, what do you think he will do to Obamacare?
7. He doesn’t have a bad singing voice. (Okay, I just threw that one in.)

Does he have a chance to get the nomination? Sure, why not. A lot of pundits think he doesn’t have a chance though. Mainly that’s because of name recognition. Interestingly enough, Dick Morris isn’t counting him out yet. 

Herman Cain supports the FairTax—that I am not so sure about. First, you have to repeal the current income tax. And that isn’t going to happen so soon.

So you know, I wasn’t paid or compensated in any way by Herman Cain or anyone associated with him for this blog entry. 

The “Do-Nothing” Congress

In 1946 President Harry Truman called the Republican Congress back then the “do-nothing” Congress. This is what they did and you can decide for yourself if they deserved the nickname or not.

• The 18th Congress passed the first balanced budget since the Great Crash. [Great! Too bad this Congress can’t do the same thing. Maybe voters can make the Senate a majority Republican too?]
• They chopped taxes by nearly $5 billion (while at the same time exempting millions of low-income working-class Americans from taxation). [Yes! Always like tax cuts.]
• The Congress quashed a socialist national health-care scheme. [Now, you are talking! It looks like the Left has to always bring up socialized medicine. Then again they tend to be composed of socialists or wannabe-socialists anyway.]
• Passed the Taft-Hartley freedom-to-work act over the president’s veto. [Truman hated this act—and I bet most unions did too.]
• The Office of Price Administration was demolished. [You can kind of guess what the agency did. Sounds like a gov’t agency Obama would like. Glad the Congress scrapped this FDR program.]

“Do-nothing” really? I think they did quite a lot. The authors of A Patriot’s History of the United States said the Congress did nothing that Truman liked. Probably so. But good for them. They did some other things like creating the CIA and the Dept. of Defense but these five I particularly liked.

Declaration of Rights & Responsibilities

This snippet is from radio show host Glenn Beck’s website:
Thus, we the people do hereby declare not only our rights, but do now establish this bill of responsibilities.
1. Because I have the right to choose, I recognize that I am accountable to God and have the responsibility to keep the 10 commandments in my own life.
2. Because I have the right to worship as I choose, I have the responsibility to honor the right of others to worship as they see fit.
3. Because I have freedom of speech, I have the responsibility to defend the speech of others, even if I strongly disagree with what they’re saying.
4. Because I have the right to pursue happiness, I have the responsibility to show humility and express gratitude for all the blessings I enjoy and the rights I’ve been given.
5. Because I have the right to honest and good government I will seek out honest and just representatives when possible. If I cannot find one then I accept the responsibility to take that place.
6. Because I have the God given right to liberty, I have the personal responsibility to have the courage to defend others to be secure in their persons, lives and property.
7. Because I have the right to equal justice, I will stand for those who are wrongly accused or unjustly blamed.
8. Because I have the right to knowledge, I will be accountable for myself and my children’s education…to live our lives in such a way that insures the continuation of truth.
9. Because I have the right to pursue my dreams and keep the fruits of my labor, I have the responsibility to feed, protect and shelter my family, the less fortunate, the fatherless, the old and infirm.
10. Because I have a right to the truth, I will not bear false witness nor will not stand idly by as others do.
Unconditionally, while maintaining my responsibility to compassionately yet fiercely stand against those things that decay the natural rights of all men. And for the support of this declaration, and with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence we mutually pledge to each other our lives, fortunes and sacred honor.
There is more to the Declaration. You can read it at his website. Good stuff.

The Causes of the Great Crash of 1929

What caused the Great Crash of 1929?

1. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff had important disruptive effects. (Tariffs in general are a bad idea.)
2. Few people knew exactly what form those disruptive effects would take. (Sounds like most bills Congress passes especially if they are real complex.)
3. Unknown to anyone at the time, the Federal Reserve made the harmful effects even worse though its policy of deflation. (Has the Fed done anything right, really?)
4. President Herbert Hoover tried to prop up farm prices, creating another new federal agency with the Agriculture Marketing Act of 1929. (Yes, this Republican was a Progressive. He followed the Keynesian knee-jerk response of using big gov’t to try to solve problems.)
5. Hoover taxed [my emphasis] bank checks. (WTF?!) This accelerated the decline in the availability of money by penalizing people for writing checks.
6. The Hoover admin. created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC). It provided $2 billion in funds for financial institutions that were teetering on the brink. Federal regulations required publications of the names of businesses and banks receiving RFC loans. This sent depositors scrambling to remove their money, weakening the banks even further.
7. Hoover then signed the largest peacetime tax increase in history. A sales tax at that. (That was basically the last nail in the coffin.)

Source: A Patriot's History of The United States.

Small Businesses and Employment

If politicians want the more people to be employed by the private-sector then they have to stop punishing (over-regulating and over-taxing) small businesses for wanting to grow bigger. It’s only natural for them to want to grow bigger (although if they don’t want to it’s not a sin.  A business owner has to know their capabilities and ambition to grow the business.). The bigger they get the more profit they will make. And if they grow naturally they will hire more people to help with the growing customer base. But once they stop becoming a small business and start becoming a medium or even big business then government pushes them for trying to be successful. I think that is twisted logic.

There is only two way to increase employment: One, let any small business grow so it can hire more employees or two, increase the number of small businesses. In other words say a politician wants a town to increase its employment to 1,000 more employees. The leaders can either let the existing businesses grow so they can hire 1,000 more people or find a way to increase the number of small businesses so they can hire 1,000 more people. Or the leaders could do both. Good luck with increasing the number of small businesses. I think it would be easier to make it so the existing businesses to grow. I am not talking about subsidizing them. To be fair you would have to subsidize every small business or you’ll be playing favorites. Also, giving them money may or may not help the business to grow anyway. It depends on the owner’s business sense and ambition and only the free market can determine that.

According to the SBA.gov website 51% of small businesses survived five or more years. The rest fail for various reasons. And government wants to make matters worse by over-regulating and taxing? Not everyone is cut out to be a business owner. It’s hard work and you have to know what you are doing.  I applaud anyone who has the drive and know-how to make a business succeed. So, increasing the number of small businesses is fine in theory but in reality I think it will be a lot harder. Besides if a politician has never ran a business how would he ever know how to increase the number of businesses? An economist doesn’t even really know. Who could predict a Thomas Edison or Graham Bell or even a Benjamin Franklin? Even if you increased the number of business courses in high school that may or may not produce a Thomas Edison if it is not within them. In the end government can only create an environment to let businesses grow and not discourage anyone from starting a business. Government can’t make a small business appear like magic like it can with gov’t agencies. You will hardly ever hear that from a politician.

One last thought. If a society wants prosperity then it has to keep the free-market alive and well.  You can do this by not denigrating businesses and the free-market to children and have them respect private property. Or else you could wind up with riots like in England. God help this country if that happens here.

Advice for Politicians

An older priest told a newer priest when living in a community to remember three things:

1. You’re not God.
2. This isn’t heaven.
3. Don’t be an ass.

Yea, that pretty much says it all. Even though this advice was meant for clergy I think it applies really well to any politician especially those who believes in big gov’t. I could not have said it better.

Source: The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything: A Spirituality for Real Life (2010) by James Martin, SJ

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 22

• It would be refreshing to hear one Congressman say (s)he would take a pay freeze until America is out of debt.  Actually I would love to hear all members of Congress say that. I can dream can’t  I?
• I don’t remember a Democrat in Congress (or anywhere else) complain about President George W. Bush’s over-spending when he was president. Now, they bring up Bush’s spending when people talk about Obama’s over-spending. That’s funny.
• In Star Trek they had a Prime Directive. But would have been so bad if Captain Kirk or anyone in his crew left the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights on a developing planet?
• Lotfi Zadehs Law of Incompatibility: As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning & meaningful statements lose precision. Yea, that pretty much describes God.
• If the executive branch and Congress are both progressive politically then the country is in trouble. Then you want some fiscally responsible politicians to counter them. But if the executive branch and Congress are all fiscally responsible then no harm can be done.
• Maybe we need a right-to-work country. Just thinking out loud. (Big Labor would absolutely go nuts if anyone actually proposed that.)
• Time waits for no man. But it waits any woman, especially if they are shopping or in the bathroom.
• The love of power is also the root of all evil. Probably more evil than the love of money. Because power involves relationships with people.
• What you might never see: Flash robs ransacking book stores.
• A religion that has no doubts about anything is in my mind a cult.

Top 10 Reasons to Support Rep. Connie Mack's Penny Plan

1. It Would Cut Federal Spending By One Percent for Six Consecutive Fiscal Years.

The Penny Plan would require Congress to cut just one penny out of each dollar it spends every year for six years. These gradual cuts over the next six years will balance the federal budget.

2. It Would Cap Overall Spending at 18 Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Starting in
Fiscal Year 2018.

Congressional spending consumes approximately 25 percent of GDP. Federal revenue from taxes over the past 40 years has averaged about 18 percent of GDP, making 18 percent a reasonable limit for spending if Congress is in fact interested in balancing the budget for the long haul.

3. It is a Very Simple Plan.

The Penny Plan is simple and straight to the point. Cutting federal spending by one percent every year for six years is clear enough for everyone to understand. Unlike many Washington schemes, it's not a complicated proposal.

4. It Would Reduce Overall Federal Spending by $7.5 trillion over the Next Ten Years.

Federal spending has risen to unprecedented levels which threatens our economic freedom. The Penny Plan would significantly cut government spending overtime and set us on the path towards fiscal responsibility.

5. It Would Balance the Federal Budget by 2019.

The current U.S. budget deficit is an unprecedented $1.6 trillion. The Penny Plan would bring the federal budget into balance this decade. 

6. It is a Modest Plan.

The Penny Plan is far from radical. These gradual cuts are more likely to gain bipartisan support rather than a big dramatic cut. With our national debt at $14.4 trillion, everyone should agree that we can cut just one percent of federal spending over the next six years.

7. The Plan Contains No Gimmicks or Budget Tricks.

The Penny Plan would cut real spending. Many other proposals only ìcutî spending from a bloated Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline. The CBO baseline predicts what would happen over the  next decade given current projections of taxation and spending. These plans don't actually reduce spending since these “cuts” are just reduction in the amount they had hoped to increase spending. The Penny Plan would cut from current amounts being spent and not anticipated spending off a phony baseline.

8. It Gives Congress Some Discretion on What to Cut.

The one percent spending cuts will be achieved one of two ways. The first way is that Congress and the President could work together to cut federal spending by one percent each year. This will allow them to prioritize what cuts are the most important.

9. It Will Trigger Automatic, Across-the-Board Spending Cuts If No Deal Can Be Reached.

The second way that the Penny Plan reduces spending is through an automatic, across-the-board cut. If Congress and the President are unable to reach a compromise, the bill triggers automatic, across-the-board spending cuts to guarantee that the one percent reduction is met. This plan would then force lawmakers to cut any of their sacred cows.

10. It Will End Washington's Unprecedented Spending Spree.

The Penny Plan will ensure that Washington cuts spending and balances the federal budget. We cannot afford to continue Washington's reckless spending spree. It's a good step in the right direction to get our fiscal house in order.

All talking points are from FreedomWorks.com

Top 10 Reasons to Support Lee-Walsh’s Balanced Budget Amendment

1. It Would Require the Federal Government to Balance Its Budget Every Year.

The federal budget deficit is a record high $1.6 trillion---more than 10 percent of the nation’s entire output, or Gross Domestic Product (GDP). We face such an enormous deficit because we spend too much, not because we tax too little. The Lee-Walsh Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) would force Washington to live within its means.

2. It Would Prevent Tax Hikes.

The Lee-Walsh BBA would require a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers to raise taxes, which would help prevent the prosperity-killing tax hikes that years of trillion dollar deficits, as proposed by President Obama’s budget would surely bring. The Lee-Walsh BBA would achieve a balanced budget by cutting spending instead of raising taxes.

3. It Would Make it More Difficult to Raise the Debt Ceiling.

The Lee-Walsh BBA would require a three-fifths majority vote in both chambers to raise the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling has been raised ten times in just the past decade. It’s clear that we need to make it more difficult to raise the debt ceiling. The Lee-Walsh BBA does this to ensure that Congress cannot raise the debt ceiling so carelessly.

4. It Would Limit Spending to 18 Percent of GDP.

Congressional spending currently consumes approximately 25 percent of GDP. Federal revenue from taxes over the past 40 years has averaged about 18 percent of GDP, making 18 percent a reasonable limit for spending if Congress is in fact interested in balancing the budget for the long haul.

5. It Would Reduce the Size and Scope of Government.

If we want economic growth to return and be a permanent part of American life, it is imperative that we dramatically reduce the size and scope of government. The Lee-Walsh BBA would put real restraints on the amount of money Washington can spend.

6. It Has a Good Chance of Passing.

The Lee-Walsh BBA has a very good chance of passing the Republican-controlled House. In the Senate, the BBA has unanimous support from all 47 Republicans. It's likely to gain bipartisan support in both chambers.

7. The Lee-Walsh BBA Has Teeth.

Some proposed BBAs have numerous loopholes that make it easy for Congress to override the amendment. The Lee-Walsh BBA has real teeth that would require Washington to balance its budget each year.

8. Americans Overwhelmingly Support Balanced Budget Amendments.

Balanced Budget Amendments have always been popular with the American people. By 72-20 percent, most voters favor a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, according to a Fox News poll. 

9. It Would Prohibit Congress from Perpetual Deficit Spending.

Deficit spending is simply a hidden tax on future earnings. It is irresponsible for Washington to continue to borrow now and tax us more down the road. The Lee-Walsh BBA would help end our deficit spending and our debt culture.

10. It is a Good Start to Restoring Fiscal Sanity to Washington.

A Balanced Budget Amendment may not be a cure all. But it's a step in the right direction to rein in excessive spending. Enactment of this amendment will go a long way in ensuring Washington never gets so carried away with reckless spending again.

Who says Republicans don’t have any plans to balance the budget?  All in all a good plan especially reasons 2, 3, 5, 9, and 10. What I want to know when is the debt ceiling never raised? Or is it a meaningless term like so much phrases in politics.

These talking points are from FreedomWorks August Action Kit.