Entries Tagged as 'Politics'

Mr President, now is the time to be a president.

There is a good article on CNN.com by Donna Brazile on what President Obama could (and should) do to get the economy back on track.

I think she’s got the right idea, but I think she really stops short of just outright saying that the problem isn’t necessarily Obama’s failed programs, it’s his failed leadership.

Now is not the time to sit on the fence Mr President; you’ve tried to build a consensus with congress (you failed to do that when your party had control of both houses, and you’ve continued to fail to do that now that your party doesn’t)… it’s time for you to lead — or to step aside and let someone else do so.

The problems this country has are solvable; but every day we wait to start moving down a path that is likely to put us on the road to get American’s working and to pay down the enormous debt that Republicans and Democrats alike have saddle the current (and future) generation(s) with we simply make the problem harder — and at some point there will not be a solution, the US will simply drift into the fray of third world countries never likely to regain it’s position as a real world leader again.

So, Mr President — be the president; make the hard choices; and move this country forward… it’s not the time to be a politician or a two term hopeful, it’s time to be a president.

 


4 ways Obama can take control to get America back on track by Donna Brazile on CNN.com

Originally posted 2011-08-17 02:00:42.

The Most Conservative and Liberal Cities in the United States

Detroit, Michigan and Provo, Utah each top the Bay Area Center for Voting Research’s (BACVR) lists of the nation’s most liberal and conservative cities, respectively. Surveying United States cities with a population over 100,000, BACVR found that the top twenty-five most liberal and conservative cities in America come from a wide variety of regions across the nation.

Of the most liberal cities, Detroit heads up the list with 93.96% of voters casting votes for liberal candidates in the 2004 presidential election, followed by Gary, Indiana with 93.08% of the voting going to liberal presidential candidates, and Berkeley, California in third with a 92.76% total for liberals. Other cities in the top twenty five in descending order are the following: the District of Columbia; Oakland, CA; Inglewood, CA; Newark, NJ; Cambridge, MA; San Francisco, CA; Flint, MI; Cleveland, OH; Hartford, CT; Paterson, NJ; Baltimore, MD; New Haven, CT; Seattle, WA; Chicago, IL;  Philadelphia, PA; Birmingham, AL; St. Louis, MO; New York, NY; Providence, RI; Minneapolis, MN; Boston, MA; and Buffalo, NY. Provo, UT heads up the top twenty-five conservative cities with 86% of the vote going to conservative presidential candidates in 2004, followed by Lubbock, TX at 74.81% conservative support, and Abilene, TX in third with 72.80% of its voters choosing conservative candidates. The remaining cities in the top twenty-five in descending order are: Hialeah, FL; Plano, TX; Colorado Springs, CO; Gilbert, AZ; Bakersfield, CA; Lafayette, LA; Orange, CA; Escondido, CA; Allentown, PA; Mesa, AZ; Arlington, TX; Peoria, AZ; Cape Coral, FL; Garden Grove, CA; Simi Valley, CA; Corona, CA; Clearwater, FL; West Valley City, UT; Oklahoma City, OK; Overland Park, KS; Anchorage, AK; and Huntington Beach, CA.

America’s voting patterns are split by region, with the Midwest and Northeastpredominantly voting for liberal candidates, and the West (with the exception of the coast) and South voting for more conservative candidates. These results confirm the preconceived notions that many have about the conservative nature of the South and liberal nature of the Northeast, but also surprisingly found conservative trends in the West and liberal leanings in the Midwest that defy traditional stereotypes about these areas of the country.

A number of important demographic factors determine whether cities vote for liberals or conservatives, with race being the most important factor. Cities with predominantly large African American populations ended up as the most liberal cities in America, while the cities with the largest Caucasian populations wound up as the most conservative. These strong correlations seem to indicate that African American votes continue to support primarily liberal candidates. A survey of income and economic status indicates that poorer and less educated than average regions also tend to vote for liberal candidates at a higher rate than their conservative counterparts, indicating that liberal candidates may be ahead in capturing those with concerns about the state of government run social programs and poverty.

Another major correlation appears between marriage rate and the tendency to vote for conservative candidates, as liberal cities appeared to have more single voters than conservative cities with marriage rates at or above the national average. This data indicates that family centered voters surprisingly voted more for conservative candidates, demonstrating the success of conservative candidates to appear as the more moral, family oriented candidates in a way that did not appeal as much to single voters. Population size also seems to have a significant effect, with larger urban environments tending to favor liberal candidates by a wider margin than those with smaller population sizes, demonstrating the success of liberal candidates in large metropolitan areas where concerns about social programs and poverty spoken of against theincumbent Bush administration were most salient. Suburban or mid-sized cities were on the whole more conservative and split in the 2004 presidential election, with conservative candidates receiving more votes in these areas than from their urban counterparts. These demographic issues indicate that racial makeup, income rates, regional location, marital status, and population size all combine to affect the propensity of American cities to vote on either side of the ideological spectrum.


The Twenty-Five Most Conservative Cities in America The Bay Area Center for Voting Research finds that the top twenty five conservative cities in America share many common characteristics, including larger that average Caucasian populations, a large percentage of married couples, smaller city size, and higher income and education level than average. The top twenty five conservative cities come primarily from the South, non-coastal areas of the West, and Southern California, which is indicative of a conservative voting trend in these two regions.

The city of Provo, Utah tops the list of the twenty-five most conservative cities in the United States. Located approximated forty-five minutes from Salt Lake City, Provo is a relatively small city by the scale of this study, with a population of 105,166. Founded by Brigham Young, Provo has a strong Mormon background, with Brigham Young University located in its city limits. Provo’s religious background, small town feel, and large Caucasian population all combine to make it the most conservative city in the United States. Analysis of current voting data shows that 86% of registered voters in the city voted for Bush or other third party conservative candidates, while 14% voted for Kerry or other third party liberal candidates.

Lubbock, Texas came in second place, with 75% of the registered voter population voting for a conservative candidate, while 25% of the population voted for a liberal candidate. The city of Abilene, Texas came in third place on the list, with 73% of the registered voter population voting for a conservative candidate, while 25% voted for a liberal candidate. The city of Hialeah, Florida followed in fourth place, with 71% of the registered voter population voting for a conservative candidate, while 29% voted for a liberal candidate. The city of Plano, Texas completes the top five, with 68% of the registered voter population voting for a conservative candidate and 32% voting for a liberal candidate. Rounding out the top ten are the following five cities, in descending order: Colorado Springs, Colorado; Gilbert, Arizona; Bakersfield,California; Lafayette, Louisiana; and Orange, California. All of these five cities displayed results of over 64% of their registered voter population voting for a conservative candidate and over 32% for a liberal candidate.

The next set of seven cities all display over 62% of their registered voter population voting for a conservative candidate and 37% for a liberal candidate. They consist, in descending order, of the following: Escondido, California; Allentown, Pennsylvania; Mesa, Arizona; Arlington, Texas; Peoria Arizona, and Cape Coral, Florida. The next set of six cities all display over 61% of their registered voter populations voting for a conservative candidate and over 38% for a liberal candidate. They consist, in descending order, of the following: Garden Grove, California;  Simi Valley, California; Corona, California; Clearwater, Florida; West Valley City, Utah; and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The remaining three cities all have over 60% of their registered population voting for a conservative candidate and over 39% for a liberal candidate. They consist, in descending order, of Overland Park, Kansas; Anchorage, Alaska; and Huntington Beach, California.

Altogether, the top twenty-five most conservative cities are composed of twelve cities from the West: seven cities from California, three from Arizona, and two from Utah. There are two cities from the mid-west that are located in Colorado and Kansas. There are nine cities located in the south: four from Texas, three from Florida, one from Louisiana, and one from Oklahoma. Finally, there are one city each in Pennsylvania and Alaska. Below is a chart of the twenty-five most conservative cities in America with the percentage of votes for either liberal or conservative candidates.

• The Bay Area Center for Voting Research • www.votingresearch.org • 510-528-0110 •

The Most Conservative and Liberal Cities in the United States (full report)

Originally posted 2011-05-22 02:00:13.

Tea Party

The Tea Party has been holding a number of rallies to make people aware of how government is misusing their tax dollars…

Damn straight!

Remember, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not in the budget; the wars were entered into based on lies told to the American people (and the House and Senate — which you would have hoped would have been a little more savvy than the average taxpayer and ask for proof).

So let’s start by getting that nearly trillion dollars that was misappropriated ack; from the defense budget (after all — gotta cut to pay, right Tea Party — and best to cut from the same programs that used misappropriated money than a program that didn’t).

Am I serious… well, I’m as serious as the Tea Party.

If you want to look for places to get money to help this country make ends meet; here’s the short list.

  • Wall Street
  • Banking
  • Oil & Gas Industry
  • Defense

Seems like these are the areas which have taken far more than they have put in for the past several years…


And honestly, no, this isn’t the way I’d try and balance the budget.

I’d look at fixing what’s broken…

Health Care — the Obama health care plan is a waste; let’s move to a single payer system (much like our neighbors to the North) that _all_ US citizens are a part of; and that government employees and elected officials have no option but to use (and have no special access).  Of course any business or individual could elect to pay for private insurance, but that would be using after tax dollars.  Medicare and medicaid would simply be a part of the national health system; and the only difference would be that very low income individuals would get at least some number of co-pay waivers per year.

Social Security — definitely needs to be looked into, but a program that many Americans over 50 have been expecting to be there when they retire cannot continue to change…  I’m not sure how to fix this, but we probably need to view all the different parts of the Social Security system separately and deal with solutions based on the needs of each.

Defense — definitely needs to be trimmed.  We simply cannot spend 20% of every tax dollar for defense (40% of what the world spends on arms — six times that of China)… and that money doesn’t need to be wasted on weapons programs that aren’t needed (or wanted by most Americans).  Let’s keep it in perspective, military spending is what caused the implosion of the Soviet Union, the US need not continue to escalate the arms race.

Taxes — there’s a simple solution, throw out the old tax code (and the IRS) and institute a simple code.  Something like: no tax on earnings to poverty level,  5% on everything above poverty level to say 2x poverty level; add 5% percent on each 1x poverty level beyond that to a maximum rate of 50%.  That’s it, no other Federal tax (everything comes out of one tax stream).  No American entity pays 50% of their earnings in tax; and very few pay anywhere near that.  If the tax rate is too high, just adjust the single 5% number on each band, and instantly the earnings amount the cap applies to goes up.  Plus, as poverty is eliminated, the tax bracket broadens.

Term Limits — any elected official needs to be bound by the same term limits as the President; no more than two terms in the same office.  And we need to make sure that these officials are paid the US median salary — after all, they should represent the views of an average American, and that they have the exact same safety net as the rest of America (Social Security)… no special retirement plan.  Now I would certainly agree that they could be considered government employees, and count their time in office toward a retirement — the same as the clerks in their offices do.

Education — we definitely need to consider education as a national issue, not a local one.  Standards need to be more consistent and graduates need to be functional in our society (if you don’t think education is closely tied to economics, you’re living in a cave).


None of this is what’s being talked about — the Tea Party is completely politically motivated, and are only interested in imposing their regressive (misguided) Christian ultra-right views on the process; and don’t want to work towards any real solution since they view failure as the way to gain control.

The first step to fixing the problem is change — and I subscribe that change starts by sending the signal that we as Americans just won’t put up with the way in which business has been done too long.

Perhaps the American Spring isn’t far off.

Originally posted 2011-09-26 02:00:49.

NO INCUMBENTS!

Several weeks ago I posted a “NO INCUMBENTS!” logo on my web site and BLOG.

What does it mean?

Simple, it means that if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.  And clearly our elected officials are not part of the solution — they are in fact the problem.

Look at our politicians and you will find one of the largest collections of self-centered, self-serving, egocentric, out-of-touch, power-hungry, whats-in-it-for-me group of people you will ever find.

Time and time again our politician make policy and law that benefit themselves and their friends, but not the common person who’s vote is necessary for them to gain and retain their office.

Join me and many others in deciding that their should be term limits, and impose those term limits by always electing to vote against the incumbent.

Take back your country, and once we have it back — we’ll take back all the special privileges the past politicians gave themselves (and if you think it’s not fair to them to take away something they promised themselves, why don’t you ask the people who they promised things to and took them away from).


INCUMBENTS

Originally posted 2010-04-15 02:00:40.

Spending chill…

Obama may propose a discretionary spending freeze for three years.

Hopefully he’ll fully define what discretionary means; I remember the budget surplus (you know, “extra” money when the country had a trillion dollar debt) so I don’t make any assumptions what politicians in Washington mean by any term that they don’t have a clear track record using.

Of course, he’s already exempted the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs (sound like he’s playing to the political right) from the freezes.

I think it’s great to implement “new” ideas to reign in government spending — of course I’d like to see some the “old” ideas (you know — those campaign promises Obama made that got him elected) implemented.

In the back of my mind I see this a yet another failure looming for the Obama presidency.

Originally posted 2010-01-25 20:00:46.

Barack Obama, The 44th President of the United States of America

I didn’t start out in the last election as an Obama fan, and I guess I’m still not a “fan” — I do have a great deal of respect for the man; he’s kept a very consistent stand on almost all the issues, he speaks well, he thinks through problems, and he surrounds himself with the best and the brightest (even when they may not be the closest aligned to him and his way of thinking).

But that’s not really the reason.  If you look at Obama, who he is, what his background is… and consider the American public — he shouldn’t have won the election by the margin he did (in fact, you could argue he shouldn’t have won).

The American people have reached a point where it’s clear they don’t want to continue down the same path; they don’t even want to be going the same direction — by reaching out to Obama they’re signaling their desire for change, major change.

My personal feeling is that the course of this country was irrevocably changed by FDR, but it wasn’t his band-aide approach to the problems that really turned the country around, it was WW2… but the “grand society” became well entrenched, and grew and morphed and consumed… but never really addressed the core problems with our society.

Obama appears to be willing to re-invent the “great society” and change it so that it addresses the fundamental needs of Americans, and provides them with programs that work, rather than programs that reward them for not working.

While I’m far from a Socialist, this country is far from a free-market capitalist society — we’re already fairly far down the road to socialist programs on a number of fronts — the problem being is that once you start down that road, you need to insure that you have controls and safety nets in place on all the roads, or those who are looking to take advantage of the system have outs (and let’s face it, the reason that pure Socialism doesn’t work is greed… and that’s really what you have to put checks and balances in place to moderate).

Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with greed, it’s been a great motivator in our society; however, those that reap must sow — and those that make money at the expense of society must be ready to pay back for the damages they cause.

Also, Obama keeps reinforcing that we are part of a global community, so he seems to understand that we (America) can’t solve the problems of the world, nor can we even solve the problems of America without working with the rest of the world.

The biggest problem I see, is that Obama, like Hoover, takes over a country on the brink of economic and social failure — and the American people are not known for patience, consistency, or commitment…

I guess there’s a little optimist left in me that’s winning over the realist — I think he will be re-elected in four years, and he will begin to lay a new foundation to give our society a second chance, and break the historical stereotype of failed civilizations…

Originally posted 2009-01-20 12:00:07.

Political Change

I’ve seen a few articles about voters sending a signal of change this last Tuesday with an “anti-establishment” vote… the headlines sound great (along the lines of my “no incumbent” philosophy), but looking at the primary results makes me feel like the declaration of change is more comparable to ice melting in Antarctica in the Spring than anything truly significant…

Real change requires that Americans understand that we are where we are because of the short sightedness and the self-servings of  those we elect — though that said, each and ever American needs to shoulder responsibility for supporting our political leaders and our frenzied consumerism.

Simply put, there’s no such thing as a free lunch — and along with that, you can’t have everything right now.

If we American are to effect real political change, and put this country back on a track that insures our children a safe and prosperous future we need to commit to begin making changes now and pass on to each generation the responsibility and understanding of living in the present while planning for the future.

It’s not going to be an easy path, and we Americans will likely continue to have to address social ills and internal and external detractors; but we must move forward with our economy, society, and environment in a sustainable way with open hands and hearts to help the rest of the world do the same.

Originally posted 2010-05-21 02:00:42.

Religious Intolerance or Insensitivity?

One has to ask the question, why would a US Congressman choose to use a facility with a religious affiliation when a public facility is only a few blocks from the chosen site and many public facilities exist within a short distance from the chosen structure?

While this is not a violation of the US Constitution (Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or Article VI) it is an extremely poor choice and one can only conclude that the intent is for it to be a public endorsement of a single religious belief and a rejection of the beliefs of those whose are different.  My guess is the congressman would never ask a christian to step foot into a mosque (there is a mosque not far from the church that was chosen — perhaps he might decide to hold another meeting there soon).

It’s easy to see how hate is promoted in American society when elected official either actively feed it or are just insensitive to the differences that once made this country strong…

I object to any pandering of intolerance.


Congressman Miller Townhall Meeting
Tuesday, August 16
7:00 p.m. CT

Marcus Pointe Baptist Church
Main Worship Center
6205 North W Street
Pensacola, FL 32505

 

Original Link: http://jeffmiller.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=KV2BK2PRUC2HK6XTHVVK6ONOY4

Originally posted 2011-08-12 02:00:36.

Tax on the super rich.

There is a good read in The Fiscal Times, an article by Bruce Bartlett that looks at the argument over Warren Buffet’s statement about raising taxes on the super rich.

It’s a one-dimensional argument; but it does bring into question the pillar of the argument has been used to support lowering the tax rate on the super rich.

One thing I will note before sending you off to read this — it’s not the tax rate so much we should be thinking of, but the effective tax rate.  When large corporations and wealthy individuals pay their taxes they often take advantage of numerous deductions that ordinary people cannot (so called loop-holes)… so their effective tax rate ends up being near zero.

I personally think that a tiered flat tax (with no deductions/exemptions), or a value added tax (assessed at each point a good or service is transferred) are the better solutions to creating a tax system that is far less expensive to implement/enforce, and much fairer overall to everyone.

If the current system is kept, not only do the tax brackets need to be changed (as well as the way they work), but the entire tax code needs to be overhauled to remove the loop-holes (and simplify it).

Buffet May Be Right, but the Top Tax Rate is Wrong by Bruce Bartlett, The Fiscal Times

Originally posted 2011-08-20 02:00:28.

Boeing

I’ve seen a number of initiatives from Boeing that are targeted at trying to get a US DOD contract for supplying tankers to the US Air Force.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Boeing as a potential supplier for tankers (though I would like everyone to review why we need to build tankers period); but Boeing seems to be forgetting that with government contracts, it’s the lowest bidder who wins.

Boeing talks about American jobs, know-how, unfair competition from Air Bus (well, Boeing probably thinks any competition is unfair)… but they don’t highlight the fact that they simply aren’t competitive.

Welfare capitalism to large is just another form of socialism — and part of the “trickle down” philosophy (the question is how much get’s skimmed of with huge executive bonuses and how much really does trickle down).

We need to think global; and keep moving forward to creating a global economy and global society rather than trying to make sure the grass in our own yard stays the greenest (of course we can talk about this on a state-by-state basis just as easily as a nation-by-nation basis).

I say, the the low bidder win; and let’s make sure that the defense budget is treated with the same scrutiny and cuts that other budgets are — waste is waste, and “saving” our troops (who were put in danger by a lie by George W) just isn’t a reasonable excuse to keep spending on destruction.

Originally posted 2010-04-29 02:00:45.