What Biden's Gaff Says About Modern Day Politics

So let me conjecture that the President will cave to the left's demands and announce that he is no longer opposed to gay marriage. My next question would be: What's next? DADT is no more, the Defense of Marriage Act is effectively gone with the solicitor general being instructed not to argue in favor of the law before the courts. What exactly would the legislation that the administration would propose with this newfound (or evolved) position? Short of a constitutional amendment mandating states to recognize gay marriage I honestly don't know what will change. Maybe you could argue that the administration could publicly come out against "gay marriage bans" in states like North Carolina...oh wait, already did that.

Biden's Gaff (and yes, I think it was a gaff) is an example of where politics has become less an issue of governing and much more an issue of feelings and yes, it goes both ways. Republicans are constantly under pressure to say that America was founded as a Christian nation. Okay, let's say it was and thereby making America a "Christian Nation". What next? Are we going to pass a constitutional amendent to mandate crosses and crèche's on all public land? Are we going to mandate a christian prayer at all high school graduations? Reinstate bible studies in public schools? I seriously doubt it, but the acknowledgement that a politician views the United States as a "Christian Nation" is apparently important to a large body of the electorate.

Has it always been this way? I don't know, probably. But what does it matter? I really think this type of debate is pointless when it comes to the mandate that our elected officials are sent to Washington to do and that is GOVERN. 

On a side note, am I the only one who finds it interesting that we now have a party who elected a president, all the while knowing his position on a highly controversial social issue, a position that is not shared by the vast majority of his party and all the while, his party accepts the idea that the president does not actually hold that view privately. Can anyone think of a similar position a president has taken and his party has essentially given him a pass on it? I honestly cannot. 

oh and i'm not going to proofread this. i'm tired.

It's Been A While...

Sorry, Grad School calls.

I could write about so many different things, but I thought in light of the recent issue of contraceptives and the Catholic Church I would talk about that.

First off, wow, if you would have said that contraceptives would have been an issue in 2012 I would have said you were crazy. But, the Administration obviously mishandled this one. That being said, Republicans aren't going to have a slam dunk in terms of this issue.

If Republicans even mention the word "contraception" during this election, they are going to loose on this issue. Conservatives have to wake up to the fact that contraceptives are probably the most popular form of birth control in this country. There are only two segments of society that don't use them. Deeply religious Christians and Jews (possibly Muslim's too, I'm not sure) and young people who should be using them. If the GOP makes this an issue about birth control, they are going to loose and you can already tell that the Democratic playbook will be to frame the issue as Republican's being in favor of denying women birth control. All in all, I think this was probably a good move on the part of the Democrats.

While I think their bringing up the issue of how many Catholics don't hold to the tenants of Catholicism in terms of contraceptives is a really stupid strategy and will most certainly hurt the Democrat Catholic vote, in the end Democrats will come out ahead on this issue. Why do I say that you ask? Because the winning issue for Republicans is to bring up the fact that it is outrageous for the government to force a religious organization to go against the teachings of their faith (and the compromise is a joke by the way), when the debate is between that and denying women "reproductive rights", the later argument wins.

At the end of the day, the lesson that Republicans have got to learn is that they cannot run Rick Santorum as their candidate. I like Rick. I admire his willingness to give no-nonsense answers to questions. You have no doubt on his view on social issues because he absolutely wears them on his sleeve. You also don't have to question his views on the constitutionality of the Griswold case which by the way is in keeping with the vast majority of Republicans and conservatives alike. For this reason, he would make an outstanding law professor. But, he isn't running to be a law professor, he's running to be the Republican Party's nominee for President in an election year where they have a decent chance of winning back the White House. Talking about your own personal views on birth control (which judging by the number of children that Mitt Romney has is probably not so much different from Rick's) and condemning the Griswold decision which has made the use of contraceptives essentially a right in the United States is nothing more than political suicide. Undoubtedly, it would make for an interesting and passionate general election campaign, but would result in another 4 years of Democratic rule. Republicans really need to ask themselves if this is the outcome they truly want. 

My Biggest Issue from the GOP South Carolina Debate

I really don’t want to make this a Newt Gingrich bashing session because I’m almost certain that all of the candidates (with the possible exception of Ron Paul) are just as guilty in one way or another, but Newt just really did a great job of it at the recent debate in South Carolina.

I’m talking about deviating from the conservative belief in Federalism by bringing up Newt’s idea of allowing high school students to take over light janitorial duties of their local high schools, namely those students who are economically disadvantaged. Now for the record, I don’t see any problem with this idea. I agree with Newt wholeheartedly that it greatly benefit students by allowing them to earn some money at the same time requiring them to stay in school for the entire school day, etc. The benefits of a program such as this are undeniable.

The problem, aside from the bad press he has received by the left is that this type of program would not and should not be something that a candidate for President of the United States should be taking, especially a candidate for the Republican Party. Why do I say this? One word: Federalism. Federalism is based upon the idea that the U.S. Constitution sets up a system by which there are powers and responsibilities granted to all forms of government, namely between the States and the Federal government. Now I know Newt believes in a much more limited role for the federal government, at least in theory, but by bringing up this idea during a Presidential campaign, he is playing into what GOP primary voters want to hear (as evidenced by the rupture of applause the other night) instead of educating those voters and the general public on how the Federal government needs to be limited.

Now I will agree with Newt that in order to make these types of programs work there would need to be a re-working of current childhood labor laws, which probably are too restrictive if you can’t even have high school students stay after school in order to do light janitorial work, but to say that in this particular election that it’s an issue worthy of this much fanfare is a stretch. Stick to the issues Newt (and the rest of the GOP candidates, one of which who will most likely be the nominee). The federal government, at a minimum should be involved in interstate commerce, transportation and law enforcement issues, monetary policy through the Federal Reserve, national defense, immigration policy and international trade. Beyond those programs, there really isn’t any role for the Federal government and if our country has any hope of trimming the deficit, Republican’s MUST be campaign on these issues and these issues only!

I'll Make This Quick

Everyone is up in arms about Mitt Romney saying he probably pays around 15% of his gross income to taxes. Sure, i'll agree that's too low for a multi-millionaire.

The problem with the left railing against this is that President Obama's tax plan of raising the top marginal rate from 35% to 39.whatever% would have no impact whatsoever on how much Mitt Romney pay's in terms of taxes because, as Mr. Romney said, the majority of his income is on investments which he only pays capitol gains taxes, which are currently at 15% for long term held assets, the same type of assets that Mr. Romney is cashing out year to year to pay for his lavish homes and yachts and whatever else rich dudes have. If his income tax rate was increased to 39.whatever%, he's still only going to pay around 15%. If we believe that the only other income revenue he got was from speaking fee's which totaled around $360K, then he would pay 35% (I believe I'm right here) on all income above $250K and around 25% on the rest. That's about $38.5K plus $62.5K so about $101K and this is assuming he isn't using the home mortgage deduction, charitable giving (coming from his book sales and his 10% tithe to the church), etc., etc.

So you can say all you want about Mitt for paying his taxes legally, but at the end of the day, his Democratic rival's tax plans wouldn't change anything about how much Mitt pay's in taxes.

Now I know, President Obama also said in his campaign he wants to raise capital gains taxes, but that would actually decrease tax revenue as shown in one of the democratic debates by I believe Charlie Rose. You want to talk more about that? Please, reply!

GOP Voters Could Benefit from Reality TV

Yes, if Jon Huntsman would just have a good old fashioned fist pumping time with The Situation and Vinny he could certainly firm up the tri states vote and maybe if Newt would be in an episode of Wife Swap...okay let's not go there.

For what seems like the past decade, the GOP's 2012 Presidential Candidates have been going from stump to promising only the most grandiose promises imaginable as long of course as it fits within the poll tested language that their campaigns have researched. The problem is that the average GOP primary voter doesn't seem to realize that there are 3, count them, 3 branches of government, all with their own degree of power.

So when Ron Paul and Rick Perry say they will shut down entire departments (Commerce, the EPA and ummm I can't remember the 3rd one) the next sentence out of their mouths really should be how they expect to do this without a 60 vote majority in the Senate (assuming the reasonable assumption that the GOP will also keep the House).

Of course when this type of poll tested rhetoric is regurgitated at rallys, it is met with raucous applause and merriment (when booze is served) because it has was developed by poll testing!

I don't blame the candidates though. As I watched just part of the Fox News Forum 2 with Mike Huckabee, it was obvious that candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, having had many years in government, KNOW the realities of working in government as shown in their candid answers from pretty tough questions from the South Carolina audience. The reason that these and other candidates are so quick to fall back into their improbable talking points is because it is what the GOP primary voters WANT to hear. And WANTING to hear something is very different from NEEDING to hear something.

We already know American's love watching Reality TV, maybe the GOP can gin up some programming of their own.

Inaugural Blog Post

After a glass of wine at dinner followed by an Oklahoma quality Shiner Blonde (~3% Alc. by Volume, blasphemy I know) and two Tequila and Tonics (an amazing drink by the way) with friends at the bar, all of this preceded by a rigorous work out session; as I sit here in my undies with a post drinking glass of wine in hand all I can say is thank God for spell check and more importantly, I had no clue that picture was so big. I'm sure that eventually I will change it to something more appropriate...or maybe not.

This blog used to be something to the effect of nick's super duper blog, but now I have decided to switch to discuss the issues that I care about, issues that I believe that most American's really and truly care about whether they know it or not. Most of us (us being post college professionals) pay taxes and are trying to be exceptional in our own ways and when it comes to the issues of the day, fiscal policies dominate and social policies are interesting to debate, but at the end of the day have little to no impact on our daily lives.

So, this blog will attempt to 1) discuss the issues most near and dear to "our" hearts (i.e. social issues) while adding a caveat that the majority of "us" truly don't give a....shit. Yes, there might be some cursing on this blog, be warned. Oh and 2) I will write blogs that deal with fiscal policy because folks, fiscal policy is the way in which all forms of government have the greatest impact in our daily lives.

That's all for now, time to pass out.