44.

Congratulations to the winner of the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama. I vehemently disagreed with his positions and do not think he was the best choice, but the people have chosen and that's that. It's an historic occassion.

I will say, to his credit, throughout the election, Obama did look more presidential. It was the one thing that struck me during the debates, as I railed at the TV against his answers to the questions, he did answer them with poise and composure. I think that, and weariness of GOP governance, contributed to his victory.

Link to image source.

Truckin.'

It's a little corny, but oh so good...

(oh, and mild content warning)

Whither Conservatism? Part III.

This post is shared with BigDadGib.

The primary season for the 2008 presidential election has been a long and tiring one, both for political junkies and the politicians themselves. With the Republican race winding down, John McCain is the nominee apparent, his ascension a mere formality of garnering enough delegates, despite the continued efforts of Mike Huckabee.

The race has been a tough one for conservatives, as our best candidates fell by the wayside. Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney - each departure seemed to be a nail in the coffin of Reagan conservatism. But conservatism did not begin with Ronald Reagan, no matter how much each Republican candidate tries to be him; indeed, they’ve done everything short of eating a jar of jelly beans on national TV to convince us that they carry his mantle. Likewise it did not end when he left office, though it has certainly been on hiatus in those lofty halls of power.

Thus we have all sorts of conservative pundits coming out with “What now?” articles, while the liberal media chortles with glee over the right-wing crackup. The subjects of these missives run the gamut from discussing the cause of the GOP rift, to calls to rise from the ashes of the old conservatism, to calls to surrender. Even the old liberal standard of “Change!” is being trotted out. However, I reject the notion that American Conservatism needs to change with the times and become the new revolution; that’s just letting liberalism move the goalposts by saying that today’s status quo was yesterday’s innovation. While true enough, I think it’s a mistake to apply that definition of “conservative” to American Conservatism.

American Conservatism is not a stubborn insistence on maintaining the status quo, but rather eschewing change for changes’ sake. It is not resisting all change, but making changes with consideration, where needed, and with wisdom. It is recognizing that though not all are capable of greatness, all should be free to reach for it. It is acknowledging that we are all equal in the eyes of God, with rights that no man or elected body can take away. It embraces a desire to protect those values that anchored the American peoples’ march from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It recognizes that authority is dangerous, and that power corrupts, thus there must be safeguards to protect against a tyranny of the majority.

Thus, I think Michelle Malkin has it right: Get fired up! Let us not be revolutionaries, but let us stoke the fires of patriotism lit by our Founding Fathers. Government does not exist solely from the White House, but from Congress, and in the Statehouse, and from the people. We won’t get a conservative in the White House this November, that much is assured, so why not focus on getting conservatives in Congress? Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that individuals with the most ability will never run for political office, because they will be busy building wealth, and will not be beholden to the crowd. A politician’s primary goal is to get re-elected, so he is behooved to listen to his constituents. Write to your representatives, call them on the phone; demand that they work for conservative principles and values. American Conservatism is and always has been a grass-roots enterprise.

Stop pining for the Gipper, stop sulking over Fred Thompson, and don’t get despondent about John McCain. Take Michelle’s advice: Get fired up!

Whither Conservatism? Part 2.

Mark Steyn hits one out of the park at CPAC. There's no embed feature on the video, so alas, you'll have to follow the link. The first part is the speech, the second is the Q&A. Total time is around 45 minutes or so, but it's worth every minute.

Mark Steyn is one of the most eloquent and witty voices conservatism has, and here he offers up a picture of what the Republican party should be, rather than what it is fast becoming.

Whither Conservatism? Part I.

Via The Corner:

Breaking: Ann Coulter to vote for Clinton! Update: Video Added!

If the Republican nominee is John McCain, that is. Video, via HotAir:



I've been half-listening to Hannity and Colmes, and just heard Colmes wring this confession from Ann Coulter: that if John McCain is the Republican nominee, she'd actually vote for Hillary Clinton. I missed the exact reasoning, I was nearly as flabergasted as Colmes was, though I'd hesitate to call it an endorsement. But it's no secret that her candidate of choice is Mitt Romney (she admitted as much on the O'Reilly Factor months ago).

(I've been preparing some thoughts on the presidential race as it stands now that my man Fred has dropped out, and it seems that a two-man race is shaping up. I'll share them once I've gotten them into fairly coherent shape.)

Now, I'm no big fan of Ann Coulter, but I think it's interesting that stalwart conservatives are in such dire straits.

[Apologies for the Drudge-like headline. I just thought it was so funny I'd try to drum up a little traffic. Back to sanity next time.]

The Only Certainty. (Updated)

The new year is upon us and the holidays are over. Most people are looking beyond the remaining winter months to the coming spring, with its glorious explosion of color, life, and 1040s.

Now that I've brought your wistful reverie to a screeching halt, let's talk taxes. This is the time of year when most Americans start turning out their file cabinets and old shoe boxes (don't smirk, you know you have 'em), compiling the precious bits of evidence they'll need to protect their hard earned dollars from the grasp of Uncle Sam, or rather, with which to persuade him to return some of our hard earned income that he's been squandering for us the last twelve months.

Fittingly, The Christian Science Monitor has an article today about the Presidential Candidates' tax policies. It's a fair rundown of the differences and similarities of each camp's ideas, and pretty predictable: the Democrats, to a man (and woman) want to raise taxes, the Republicans (generally) want to lower them.

Then there's Huckabee and (gasp!) Paul. They favor something called the Fair Tax, and that is my major point of contention with this article.

The Fair Tax, simply put, goes back to the Constitutional requirement that all taxes should be equally applied. It entails eliminating the current tax code, income, business, FICA, etc, and doing away with the IRS. In order to raise revenue for the government, a 23% inclusive tax is set on all new goods and services, including food. This tax should not affect prices, since the Fair Tax theory assumes that with corporate income and other taxes abolished, the taxes that are embedded in products' prices (which all consumers pay) will no longer factor into the price of consumer goods. To ease the sting of paying taxes on necessities like food, the Fair Tax plan allows for a "prebate," mentioned in the article. Basically it is an advance reimbursement from the government to each household to cover the taxes they would pay on bare necessities, according to income level. All of this is spelled out in the 2005 book, The Fair Tax, by Neal Boortz.

Since reading the book I've become pretty interested in the Fair Tax, especially in light of the tax troubles we've been having here in Indiana. I feel that government must have some income to fulfil its duties to citizens and build infrastructure, but I have come to feel more and more displeased with our current tax system. As it is, our tax code punishes the middle-class heavily, and is often used as a means of income redistribution (see 'Earned Income Credit'). It seems to me that the only fair means of taxing people in this day and age is a tax on consumption. The Fair Tax fits that bill rather nicely.

The problem is that the media doesn't like it, or at least, mis-characterizes it as a sales tax. A sales tax is a surcharge added onto a product at the point-of-sale. The Fair Tax is inclusive, meaning the price on the tag is what you pay; it's also not a VAT, which is added incrementally at each step in the production and distribution process. This list of complaints in the article is pretty standard:

But other economists point out that some of those deductions, such as the
one for interest paid on home mortgages, are enormously popular. Sales taxes are
regressive – that is, they affect the poor, who must spend a higher percentage
of their income to live, more than the rich.

And there is debate over whether a 23 percent national sales tax,
as called for by Huckabee, would raise enough money to replace the taxes lost.
Some economists say the rate would have to approach 50 percent, particularly as
Huckabee's plan also calls for a "prebate" cash subsidy for poor taxpayers.

Let's address them a little. Firstly, the deductions are popular because they allow people to recover more of the taxes they've paid out of their paycheck the previous year. Under the Fair Tax plan, there is no income tax, so people already have the money, to spend or save as they wish.

Secondly, that sales taxes are regressive, and impact the poor unfairly: the poor may have to spend a higher percentage of their income to live, but the rich also buy more, and more expensive products. There's also this: with a tax on consumption, there's a simple way to avoid it. Don't buy anything. Let's have some personal responsibility, people. If you're poor, do you really need 18" rims on your car or the latest cell phone? In addition, the Fair Tax is only applied to new goods and services. Eschew the new car for a used one, on which the taxes have already been paid.

Lastly (and my favorite), revenue replacement: this is typically used by government as a dodge. We're hearing it now in Indiana. "We can't abolish property taxes because replacing the revenue would mean raising other taxes to prohibitive levels." What about addressing the real problem and cutting spending? That's why taxes are so high in the first place. Besides, eliminating the IRS means there's less revenue needed anyway.

I'm no shill for the Fair Tax, even though everything I've said is pretty much right out of the book. I think it places a little too much faith in manufacturer lowering prices when they no longer need to transfer their corporate tax costs onto consumers. I don't quite understand how it will be phased in, so that we're not paying the inclusive tax on top of the embedded taxes. I also am not sure how it will coexist with current state tax codes. Here's the rest of the story. I do know, however, that our current system is badly broken, and adding new exemptions and credits just makes the problem worse. Raising taxes on businesses just drives them offshore, taking jobs with them. Taxing property is an affront to the principle of ownership, and income taxes amount to government theft.

Nothing may be certain but death and taxes, but one needn't lead to the other.

Update (1/5/08): Ramesh Ponnuru poses an interesting question at the Corner:

"The notion is that getting rid of income taxes will cause prices to drop
to offset the impact of the new sales tax. My question in response: If this
theory of how the economy works is valid, then shouldn't wages drop 23 percent,
too?"

A very valid question. My feeling is that yes they would, however, that yes should be qualified by the statement that wages have been fairly stagnant for a while now. I know of people who have not gotten a raise in three years, and my own company's annual raises are nowhere near what is needed to keep up with cost of living. So, they probably wouldn't drop, per se, but the stagnation of wages would probably get worse.

Also, I should add another concern I have about the Fair Tax, and that is the so-called 'prebate,' designed to offset taxes a family would pay on necessities. The idea is that in order to keep the tax fair, you cannot allow exemptions for things like food. If one product was exempt, other manufacturers would demand exemptions, leading to a mess similar to what we have now. I'm not sure I agree. State sales taxes (in Indiana at least) exempt food, and I can't think of any other manufacturers clamoring to get their products exempt. Plus, I'm mistrustful of receiving money from the government for any reason, particularly on a regular basis.

Beatification.

As predicted, commentators of all stripes are hastening to raise Benazir Bhutto to political sainthood.

"Sipping tea with her was an experience I shall never forget. She knew the
risks of returning to Pakistan, but accepted them because, "I love my country
and my people." That's something else we don't see much of today: patriots.
There are many politicians who, for reasons of ego and a need to satisfy their
own narcissism, seek power, but hide their hunger with bows toward more noble
objectives. Like all politicians, indeed like all humanity, Bhutto was flawed,
but she was less flawed and more principled than many others in her country.
Women with a husband and children don't jeopardize comfortable and relatively
safe lifestyles for what awaited her in Pakistan. True heroism is to know the
risks and to take them in spite of danger."

She has been compared to the Aquinos of the Philippines for her determination to return home in the face of danger. The comparisons continue now that the inevitable assassination has happened. But the comparison doesn't hold water:

"Sytangco, who was also Aquino's spokeswoman when she was still president,
recalled that both Aquino and Bhutto came to power in 1986 as first women
democratic leaders.
She said that while Aquino did not make any state visit
to Pakistan when Bhutto was still prime minister, both leaders met twice --
first in 1989 when they attended the centennial of Paris and in Manila when
Bhutto paid a visit on Aquino after attending a conference here.

"They both
had similarities except that Aquino was never charged with corruption," Sytangco
said." [Emphasis added]

Further evidence comes from those who knew her, such as David Warren:

"She was my exact contemporary, and I met her as a child in Pakistan, so let me
jump on this bandwagon. I remember her at age eight, arriving in a Mercedes-Benz
with daddy's driver, and whisking me off for a ride in the private aeroplane of
then-President Ayub Khan (Bhutto père was the rising star in his cabinet). This
girl was the most spoiled brat I ever met."

Such testimony paints her less as a crusader for democracy than as a crusader for her own power. This is bolstered by the dynastic succession of her party's leadership.

The resistance to Marcos by the Aquinos was fueled by genuine democratic fervor and religious conviction, and change was largely peacefully. Saint Bhutto? I don't think so.

What's Next, Serfdom?

Hoosiers upset by the recent property tax hikes had better hope our sluggish legislature doesn't wake up and hear about this idea.

"The town is pushing a program that would let seniors work part-time, for
$7 an hour, to help pay off some of their property taxes.

"People shouldn't have to sell their house, move away to a place
with less taxes, leave behind their family and friends," said Town Supervisor
Paul Feiner."

Now, few government solutions to problems government has caused can ever be accused of being grounded in common sense, even in a place like New York, but this takes the cake!

The Hoosierpundit is right on target:

"I don't think that grandma should have to be a greeter at Wal-Mart just so
that she can pay the property taxes for a house she and grandpa built forty
years ago. And grandma shouldn't have to engage in indentured servitude to the
government just to pay off property tax debts either."

Indentured servitude is right. However, it is also no surprise when even local governments have swelled into monsters that must feed on themselves to survive.

Lunchtime Link.

I'm on lunch, skimming the blogs, and came across this excellent post at Conservative Propaganda. Enjoy!

Lieberman on National Security Politics.

Senator Joe Lieberman recently gave a speech at The Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Joe Lieberman is a rarity these days, a liberal who is able to rise above politics where our national security is concerned. You may remember he lost the Primary Election in Connecticut because of his support for the Iraq War, and subsequently kept his seat by running as an Independent.

In his speech, he talked about Paul H Nitze and his service to Presidents from Roosevelt to Reagan, and the strength of past Democrats on national security (I disagree with him on Clinton however, but nevertheless), and the dramatic shift that has occurred in the Democratic Party with the rise of the far-left anti-war, anti-Bush movement. This movement, led by the likes of Markos "Screw Them" Moulitsas and his DailyKos blog has exercised an undue influence on the Democrats in Congress. The money quote:

"But there is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all
of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how
the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about
the fact that Iran is murdering our troops."

He's right. National Security should not be subordinate to partisan politics. We are all Americans, regardless of our political stripes, and what our view of the government's role is. Anti-war activists decry those who question their patriotism; well I do question it, because their violent opposition, if brought to fruition, will only lead to defeat and more civilian deaths on our soil in another terrorist attack. I think the reasons for invading Iraq were a little hard to swallow, but I also think the deposing of Saddam Hussein was about 12 years overdue. I also don't think we were fully prepared or fully anticipated the nature of the fight after Saddam's regime was swept away. But I want us to win, and I agreed with critics of how we were conducting the war, and I welcomed the change in strategy. Such criticism is designed to ensure that we win. The radical Left only seems interested in defeat so that they can oust Bush and the Republicans.

This war is not like Vietnam, no matter how much the anti-war crowd wants it to be. We acted decisively in the interest of national security, not inserting ourselves into an already on-going civil war like we did back then. However, if we don't pursue victory, the outcome will almost surely be the same.

Fun with Statistics.

I'm running out the door for a while, but I wanted to fire this at you as a sort of lead-in for some upcoming posts. Watch the whole thing: it's fascinating (even if a little liberalism seeps in from time to time, the guy's Swedish after all).



Here's a follow up from this year:

Election Day. (Update): Ballard Wins!

Indiana voters went to the polls today, full of fire over property taxes and crime. Here in Indianapolis, the mayoral race is turning into a nail biter as Republican challenger Greg Ballard holds a slim lead over incumbent Democrat Bart Peterson. In the City-County Council races, the Republicans likewise leading in the four at-large seats, enough to give them the majority.

I'll be up watching the returns and will post updates here from time to time. Hoosier Access is live blogging the entire election. My focus is on the mayoral race here in Indy, because typically as goes the mayoral election, so goes the council. Here's the current numbers:

Bart Peterson (D) - 47.17%
Greg Ballard (R) - 50.51%
Fred Peterson (L)- 2.28%

Bear in mind, I heard radio reports earlier today about some problems with voting machines which could mean a block of votes that have to be hand counted. So there may not be a definitive result tonight. The good news is, that the polls opened without event, unlike the fiasco in the May primaries.

Update (9:51pm): Ballard's lead slipped for a while, but he seems to be building again.


Update (9:57pm): The Indianapolis Star's graphic shows that the Republicans have locked up 10 seats on the CCC to the Dems' 6. That includes 4 Dems who were running unopposed. Rather than constantly re-type numbers, I'm just going to change the ones above with each update.

Update (10:16pm): 100 precincts left to go, and Ballard still going strong. Considering that he had no money and didn't run a TV ad until 4 days before the election, this is a colossal upset in the making. The question is which precincts have yet to report. The Star still shows 10 seats on the CCC for the Good Guys; Hoosier Access shows 12. The at-large seats are too close to call, with the Republicans holding a slim (very slim) lead.

Update (10:34): Victory! Peterson concedes to Ballard. The Star calls it the biggest upset in local politics since 1967. This should also indicate good news ahead for the City-County Council races. The Democrats have been an absolute disaster in charge; hopefully the Republicans can provide some responsible leadership.

A Manly Stance on Health Care.

One of the sites I enjoy while surfing on Blog Explosion is Arthur's Hall of Viking Manliness. It's refreshing and always to the point.

Read their latest on the health care crisis in America. Nail. On. The. Head.

His language isn't always appropriate for Sunday School, but it's nothing we haven't heard on TV, so observe your mild content warning.

Diplomacy Needed; Diplomats Chicken Out.

Michael Yon's latest dispatch is sure to give the MSM palpitations. Sheik Omar Jabouri boldly proclaims that Al-Qaeda Iraq is defeated; a little premature perhaps, but events are definitely moving in that direction. Clearly, AQI's strategy of fomenting a sectarian civil war is failing. Tribal leaders, like Sheik Jabouri, are turning from AQI and are working with American forces to root out the terrorists. Now, pay attention:

"In fact, more and more meetings in Iraq are turning to day-to-day business, and
less time is required on military and security topics like targeting and
addressing intelligence-type matters, which until recently monopolized most
meetings across Iraq."

This means two things: 1) that the military is succeeding in its mission. 2) with the emphasis turning to non-military matters, more diplomats are needed to help work through these issues.

They're not exactly lining up in droves.

""It's one thing if someone believes in what's going on over there and
volunteers, but it's another thing to send someone over there on a forced
assignment," Croddy said. "I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death
sentence and you know it. ... Who will raise our children if we are dead or
seriously wounded?""

Indeed. Probably the same people who will raise the children of the nearly 4,000 brave men and women who have already given their lives. They already know the meaning of bravery and sacrifice.

Taking a Stand.

In the recent Democratic debate, Senator Hillary Clinton showed her mettle in the face of tough questioning. Apparently the words 'yes' and 'no' are not in her vocabulary. For all the Republicans disheartened by our own candidates (and I admit, I'm one of them), Charles Krauthammer has some good advice. Besides, do we really want this for the next four years?

Under God.

Over the past week or so, there has been a running argument in the editorial pages of The Indianapolis Star over whether the United States is a Christian nation or not. The argument has been among letters to the editor, not the newspaper staff, so I'm unable to link any specific examples to you. I also don't remember which article the initial letter-writer was responding to, but she proclaimed that we are not, in fact, a Christian Nation. Other respondents wrote stating that we are, or that we were a nation founded under Judeo-Christian values. One man even amusingly wrote that we owe our bicameral legislature to the Almighty. Strange gift, no?

Let me refer you to this article addressing this very subject. As Mr. Cherry states, our Founding Fathers, whether Christian or Deist, did believe in God, and that our rights as men are given to us by God, and not by government. Add to this the fact that all of them grew up in the Christian tradition, as opposed to say, a Hindu tradition, and it is easy to see that our national identity arises from Judeo-Christian values.

Nevertheless, the Founding Fathers understood that there is a power greater than Man, upon whom man is dependent for liberty and morality. Tocqueville (yes, him again) remarked on the religiosity of Americans and the importance of religion in democracy, echoing, as it were, John Adams:

""We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human
passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge,
or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes
through a net. Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious
people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.""

It is no surprise, then, that the immoral and irreligious Left continually try to distort the Constitution or ignore it altogether.

Rule the Waves.

Here's something that most Americans probably haven't heard about, and won't if the globalist Senators and MSM get their way. Even top conservative bloggers seem to be a little in the dark.

There is a new push to join and ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (appropriately condensed to LOST). This treaty, which Reagan rejected, and Bush is trying to revive, would place the United States in the hands of authorities created by the dysfunctional UN, infringing on our sovereignty and effectively crippling our ability to protect our interests around the world. Conveniently, it also opens the door for further encroachment by the UN, which will expect US taxpayers to fund all of this and which places us under the jurisdiction of so-called "international" courts, none of which have any ties to, nor sympathy for the US.

Since the time man first put boat to water, nations have understood that the true law of the sea is made and enforced by the country which has the strongest navy. Since WWII, that country has been us. Like Britannia of old, we've ruled the waves for the last 70 years, and the world has been better for it. Now the envious globalists, under the guise of world peace, are trying to pull the rug out from under us.

Babysitting.

This, my friends, says it all.

Link to image source.

FOP Endorses Republican Candidate.

An illustration of how bad things have gotten here in Indianapolis appears in this morning's Indianapolis Star.

"The union's Monday night vote to support Ballard in the November election
was unanimous."

Bart Peterson, mayor of Indianapolis, ran for office a few years ago pledging to hire 200 more officers to reduce crime. Since then, the administration has refused to maintain those levels of police manpower, and crime has risen dramatically in the past year.

In addition, Peterson pushed through his proposal to save money by consolidating the city and county police departments. This came after a more than year long contract dispute with the FOP about IPD's contract, in which our brave officers had to work without a contract.

I don't blame the FOP for turning against Peterson. I hope Ballard listens, and gives our officers the respect they deserve.