Tuesday, November 29, 2011

What will not be done to save the Republic

So earlier today, in discussion with my friend Maneesh, I indicated that I was planning on checking out, and watching the collapse of America from afar. Maneesh indicated that he would stay and fight for the Republic, and indicated that all was not lost. This has weighed on me since this morning, and I wondered if I was being a puss, or a realist. So after many hours of focused thought, which for me is quite an accomplishment, as I usually have 6 to 12 things going on in their at one time, I decided to determine exactly what could be done to fight for and restore the Republic. So here it goes. This is what I see as the most important issues facing the US right now, what could be done, and why I believe it can not be accomplished. Overall, my doubts as to what can be accomplished has more to do with what I have witnessed over the past 15 years of following politics, and over the past 7 years, where I have been following it with great interest. So without further ado...

To save the Republic.
1) Spending in the United States. Spending must be reduced. Since 2006 spending by the Federal Government has increase 40%. For those that are governmnet educated that's 5 years. What has occurred in the past 5 years, that has necessitated 40% increase in spending? Housing crisis? Banking crisis? Whatever the case may be, there is a very good possibility that we could save the Republic if we could simply undo the spending increases of the last 5 years. All this talk of "spending cuts" is all smoke and mirrors. Cutting 1.2 Trillion dolllars from the next 10 years projected spending excesses of 10 Trillion is like saying, I was planning on gaining 100 pounds over the next 10 years, but instead I will only gain 90 pounds. YAY! We lost 10 pounds!!! Can you see the lunacy in that? if not you are definitely a liberal or an idiot. You pick which one. So when the "debt ceiling" debate was going on, I said, "Call their bluff". There was no default going to happen, but the R's decided it was in their best PR interest to "compromise" and pass the Boehner Plan. A few reps and Senators, tried to hold out, but they were vilified by many on the right, just as they were vilified on the left. From the right, we were told that these people were extremist, hardliners, hobbits, etc. On Facebook, I was told that I supported Obama and Pelosi because I didn't support Boehner's cave. And remember what that "deal" was? It was we will increase the debt ceiling 3 trillion dollars, for 1.2 Trillion in cuts, to be determined by the Super Committee. So what exactly did Boehner gain? Meanwhile the left media decided to act as if just those cuts of 1.2 Trillion were disastrous and it was the Tea Party members of congress, that "held hostage" the deal, and they were to "blame" for the 1.2 Trillion in cuts. Does anyone else see the irony of all of that? The Tea Party members of congress, tried to stop this disastrous bill because it didn't cut enough, and unlike Cut Cap and Balance, which passed through the house with bi-partisan support, had no way of controlling the spending in the future, yet were blamed for the draconian cuts, which were minuscule.

So in conclusion: Reducing spending is the number one thing that could be done to save the Republic, but it will not be cut. Simply cutting 12% of the projected increases over the next 10 years couldn't get done. Republican leaders caved instead of fighting. They had overwhelming support from their constituents to stand firm, yet even with all that support behind them, they negotiated themselves into being blamed for no gains at all. So what makes one believe that they would EVER stand for real cuts? they wont, and eventually the spending will be so high that it is unsustainable, and the economy will collapse under it's own weight.

2) Tax Code- The tax code of the US is currently over 88,000 pages long. Why is it 88K pages long? Because this is where political favors are granted. Laws are written, and in those bills, an exemption for this company (now of course it doesn't say "GE is exempt" it will be a long description of a many different attributes that a certain company would have, or a certain municipality would have), a subsidy for that company, a special exemption for this type of person living in a certain area, or that buy a certain type of product. the list goes on and on. Just as the above spending is out of control, the tax code is another place where power is brokered. This is why in order to save the Republic the current tax code MUST be abolished. It can be replaced with a flat tax (a no exemptions across the board from making 1 dollar a year to making 10 billion dollars per year.), or a consumption tax. (again with no exemptions). I am a proponent of the FairTax, which repeals the 16th Amendment, and replaces ALL taxes with a national retail sales tax. I wont get into it here, but read the FairTax Book by Neal Boortz. Over 30 Million dollars of research has been put into this plan. All nooks and crannies of the pros and cons have been analyzed at length. It is indisputable, although many try to overcome that 30 Million dollars worth of research and 8 years of putting together it together, with a blog post with such esteemed opinions of Hugh Hewitt, who could't grasp that losing a mortgage deduction, when there are NO deductions, would not effect people's individual finances. Anyway. Fair or Flat, 88K pages must go.

So in conclusion: the current tax code is the number 2 issue facing the Republic, yet it stays convoluted because it allows Congress to retain power over the people. Any serious attempt to change it is met with opposition from both sides. It will not be changed. Even Newt 's plan, and Perry's plan for a flat tax is coupled with allowing the current tax plan in place. Why do you think that is? It's to lessen the opposition from the Congress, who can still pick winners and losers based on their backer's needs and wants. Therefore, since the current tax code will remain, the Republic will not be saved.

3) Entitlements- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the real bankrupters of the Republic. None of them are sustainable, and any attempt to reform them is met with fierce opposition, and even the Republicans that would like to reform them, cowl in fear from doing anything. Notice the opposition to Obamacare. Almost to a person, Republicans will say how Obamacare is the slippery slope to socialism, and is a socialist program. Yet if Obamacare is socialist, why is Medicare not socialist? Oh yeah, because it is so entrenched in American society now, that it is not seen as it really is. It is socialized medicine for old people. What people pay in does not equal what they take out. This is socialism, in that the extra that comes out, comes from the general funds (which we then borrow from China), which is also coming from a progressive income tax. I am not for letting old people die, but people should get what they pay for. If there is going to be a program to provide medical care for old people it needs to pay for itself. What one puts in should equal what they take out. A VA type of hospital system could be set up with the funds that have been put in. It would suck as much as the VA system sucks, but it should be available for old folks. You want a socialized type of medical care? That is it. Paying for that, but receiving an A+ best in the world, all measures taken to save and prolong life is not sustainable. Sorry. One's health is their responsibility. Taking the government OUT of the system, would force healthcare providers to compete for business, and the free market would prevail.
     Social Security is broke. It has been broke for about 30 years now. It is a Ponzi scheme, and should be ended completely, but it will not be ended. the folks that have paid all of their life into the system, should get their money back, and it should be ended immediately. I like Herman Cain's plan of the Chilean Model, and also the Galveston Plan. Both of these plans allow private accounts that are owned by the individual. that's better than what we have now, but frankly NONE should be mandatory. Now if the govt, wanted to offer up some sort of long term retirement plan that PAYS FOR ITSELF!!!, then people who are idiots can choose to allow the government to manage it for them. Otherwise, people should be responsible for themselves and their own retirements. There are hundreds of companies that will set up a variety of retirement plans for anyone doing any job, making any amount of money, and if people decide that they will do nothing to take care of their future selves, then frankly they would get exactly what they deserve. Do I want old people to be poor and dead? Well yes, if that was their choice. Medicaid? Also Socialism, and welfare. Should be done away with completely. Does that mean that I want people who are poor to die, because they cant afford medical care? Nope. But they should get their care from a charity, not the government.

In conclusion: The 3rd biggest problem that could be fixed to save the republic, is the reform/elimination of entitlements. Even the word "entitlements" is ridiculous. What makes anyone "entitled" to anything? At most all they should be "entitled" to is their money back from Social Security, whatever their contributions would buy them at a government VA style hospital, and in the case of Medicaid NOTHING. BUT, as you have seen in this presidential election season, all of them oppose doing away with Medicare, and Medicaid, and hold them up as "great programs" (Okay Ron Paul probably wants to get rid of them, but even he said that Medicare part D wouldn't be high on his list to cut.) that shouldn't be hurt. Social Security reform (lead by Herman Cain, and later picked up by first Perry and then Newt) is at best still a government managed program, and nobody says get rid of all of it and let the people actually be responsible for themselves. So if these are the biggest costs for the next 30 years, why are we not going to do anything to fix/eliminate them? Because it is politically unpopular, because even Tea Party darling Michelle Bachman, uses lines like, "obamacare stole 500Billion from Medicare" as if medicare was any different than Obamacare. Nothing will be done to reform the entitlements, they will continue to grow, will continue in it's aiding of healthcare skyrocketing in the US, and will eventually bankrupt the entire country.

4) Immigration- Any country should be able to control who comes in, and who resides in it. We have now come to the point where even Republicans say that we need to forgive their previous illegal actions, and let bygones be bygones, and POOF* 14 million democratic voters. Oh I know, you think that they will support the kindler gentler more diversity loving GOP. Well you are ridiculously stupid itf you think this. These are not political refugees escaping a Communist  country like Cuba, but people leaving a poor country looking for opportunity. That's great but most of these folks (at least the ones I have met and have talked to) are not the people trying to escape a communist country, they are those that would LIKE to live in a communist country. Just because they are socially conservative, does not mean they are fiscally conservative. What has caused California to go dark blue? Too much weed by the surfers? Look at the demographics of California, and the change from the 60's and early 70's Moderately Red state to the bluest of blues. Hmm. I'm not saying I dont want them to immigrate to the US. I want ANYONE, and EVERYONE who wants to come to the US to be able to. Make the system efficient and effective. Make the applicant pay for a full background check and health test. After passing them, they are allowed into the country. After being in the country for 3 years, with no issues, they can become citizens after showing a thorough knowledge of the constitution, a proficiency in the English language, and show gainful employment.

So in conclusion- A huge problem with this country is that in order to pander to certain groups, simple things like "what is legal, and what is illegal" is mushed to conform to political correctness. When such simple issues as this is bent, and caressed into meaning other things, what are we to do?

These are just 4 things that seem to be common sense, and not all that difficult to figure out, yet none of them will be done. If the first 2 were done, than the Republic could survive, but can you HONESTLY say that any one of the 4 will be done? Any of them that the Republicans could fight for? Any sign that the Republicans would ever take a stand on ANYTHING? Could you point to any example where they did? I mean stand for something significant. I can not. And therefore, I do not have any hope that they will. If we keep sending to Washington what we have ALWAYS sent to Washington, we will keep getting what we have always gotten from Washington.

So now that my guy is out, whom to support?

So Cain is out and done for, so who to pull for now?

Perry? I like Perry, and I really was looking forward to him being the nominee. When he got in, my guy was at 6% and not getting any traction. Perry had a great record, looked great, and after having read his book, I was pretty stoked. If my guy couldn't win, I was glad that Rick Perry was going to win. He was strong on state's rights, got out of the way of private businesses, and was all around great conservative candidate. Problem was that Perry actually had to talk, and couldn't just give speeches, put out position papers, and ads. After the first debate, I was worried about him. After the second debate, I wondered, "Where is the guy that wrote, "Fed Up"? After the 3rd "You have no heart" debate, I realized that he was going down in flames before our very eyes. Hmm? Then Bachman, jumped the shark with the ritarded Gardisil kids Mom. oops. In swoops Herman, who unlike all the rest of the folks, has a plan. A simple plan. it is attacked by the left, it is attacked by the right. WHY? Because it represented a fundamental change in the way Washington works. So count out most people in the establishment liking or supporting Herman. That is THEIR POWER, and they weren't gonna let some outsider with a simple tax code that is transparent and hard to tinker with win. But anyway, back to whom to support.
Perry is not going to win, and should probably do the respectable thing and endorse someone and get back to the business of being the best governor in the history of the United States.

Bachman? See Perry. Same goes with Santorum, although frankly his endorsement would only gain the endoresee what? 10 people?
Paul. He definitely is the only one left in the race that has any balls to change anything in DC. Too bad his foreign policy is so ritarded. Actually come to think of it it's  not his foreign policy that is ritarded, but actually his blame America first mentality. A lot like Obama in that. So no, not him either.

Mittens? Probably more conservative that Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher combined, but choosing to run in places like Massachusetts, one has to be a pantywaist scumsucking lib to even get the nomination there, let alone win. So who knows what the real Romney is like. He did pretty good at not screwing up the businesses he ran, and used the money he was born into to jump in at the top. So I like that part of him. I could give a shit about his positions on abortion. Romneycare. That's his achilles heel. So easy to shift a la Perry and say, Hey it's what the people of Massachusetts wanted, the legislature supported it, and I signed it. It sucks and was a horrible idea, but that's what you get from crazy libs in the Peoples State of Massachusetts. But instead it's the hill he wants to die on. Politically ritarded. How about a nice blanket statement from Mittens? "To all those people out there that would not vote for me, due to my ever shifting beliefs and positions: I am a fiscal, social, and defense conservative. I had to say those things before to fool the people of Massachussetts because they are idiots, easily fooled, and wont be voting for the Republican Nominee even if it's me, so fuck them. I'm with you, I've always been with you." The regular Mittens supporters would continue to support him, and the other 75% maybe he picks up 10% of them, and poof* he has enough to win. But he wont do that. No Bullworth moment from him.

Which leaves us with Newt. I like Newt, and thought he would make a good VP for Herman Cain. He is an asshole, and knows his way around the smoke filled back rooms of DC. That's what is needed there, in the position of VP. Now I am supposed to ignore the fact that of all the candidates, HE is THE most inside the beltway candidate, and even when he was out of office, he basically was there with his hand out smoozing and peddling influence for the likes of Fannie and Freddie, and now Medicare Part D. A million here, and a million there, for "consulting". Really? I guess some will buy that load of shit. Whatever. That's the way things work up there. Influence and power are the most valuable commodity in DC, and Newt had the connections, with the right, so companies on the left used him to get their support. Sure, it would be fun to see Newt battle in a debate. But the lingering question remains. Ask 100 people from around this country about the years from 1995-2000. Ask them about the budget "surplus". Ask them about the Clinton Lewisnky thing. Ask them about the economy prior to the dot.com bubble bursting. Ask them about the government shutdown. Then ask them who was to blame, and ask them why the economy was good. I bet at least 70% of people would tell you that Clinton was good, and responsible for the good economy and the budget surplus, and Newt was bad and to blame for Lewinskygate witchhunt, and  the government shutdown. newt always got the blame, and Clinton always got the credit. Why? Because the media framed it that way. You dont think they can do the same thing? They already did a pretty good job at blaming the recession on Bush, and letting Pelosi's takeover in 2006 and the rapid decline of the economy, and the increase in spending by 40% since, slide.

So... whom will I support for the nomination for the GOP for President of the United States of America? Who knows, and frankly you should not give a fuck as to whom I would support. Do your own research, come to your own conclusions and vote for the candidate that best represents YOUR beliefs, not the opinions of talking heads on TV, radio talk show hosts, or a loud mouth like myself, but take a bit of advice for me; Chose FOR someone, not against someone, nor for "the person most likely to beat Obama". It is so much more exhilarating to be FOR someone, than it will ever be to be against someone.

Ragnar Danneskjöld
Supporter of  Herman Cain for President, until such time that he officially withdraws from the race.