2012 is an ominous year. Does anyone else find it interesting that the Mayan calendar supposedly predicts the destruction of the world right after the possible reelection of Barrack Obama? While I don’t believe in the Mayan calendar I do believe an Obama second term is too real of an apocalyptic scenario that I find myself looking for signs of the end of Conservative hope. When the Jewish temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70AD, Josephus claimed that a cow gave birth to a lamb as a sign of the destruction that was to come (The Wars of the Jews 6.5.3). As shocking as this is, we have a similar phenomenon in this race. No, they didn’t give birth to anything odd or of another species (yet), but Republican candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have transformed themselves, almost overnight, from stalwarts of the conservative movement into class-warfare spouting, anti-capitalist Democrats. While this doesn’t foretell the end of the world, it does foretell the end of their campaigns and possibly heralds an Obama second term.

A couple days ago a Gingrich Super Pac came out attacking Romney because when his venture capital firm took over a company to transform it, many of the workers would be laid off. Gingrich could have distanced himself from the remarks, because by law a Super Pac can say what they want and raise as much money as they want, but it is illegal for them to coordinate with the candidate. However, instead of doing this Gingrich has come out in agreement with these anti-capitalistic charges. Never one to be outpaced in a race to the stupid-line, Rick Perry took the same course calling Romney a “Vulture Capitalist.”
Before going any further, let me assure you that I am no Romney supporter. I agree that Obama-care is simply Romney-care writ large, and I see him as too moderate to even imagine him as the conservative/libertarian firebrand this country needs. However, to have two supposed conservatives using such emotional charges to attack free market capitalism is appalling. I could hold my nose and cast my vote for Romney, Paul, Huntsman or Santorum (yes, it would take overlooking serious problems to vote for any of them). This would be a vote of “Anyone But Obama!” I might be able to hold my nose enough to vote for Gingrich, if he were to win the nomination—about as likely as the Colts making the Super Bowl. As for Perry, I have decided that I could not vote for him for dogcatcher.

When Perry first entered the race I had problems with his record, but was willing to overlook them. The biggest problem I had was the way he tried to force a new vaccination for HPV on the girls of Texas. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that his views on federalism would prevent him from trying such things on the national level. When voters are willing to overlook some things, it is helpful if the candidate doesn’t keep stacking on things to overlook. Pile crap high enough and it can no longer be overlooked, and much of what was coming from this campaign is pure crap. It is so bad, when a Perry ad comes on TV our houseplants get a fresh burst of life—as if they’ve been fertilized.

In a national debate, Perry, when questioned about his support for in-state tuition for children of illegal aliens, said that anyone who disagreed with him did not have a heart. I disagree with him and I have a heart—I keep it in a jar on my desk, so I can look at it. By doing this he alienated the whole other side of the argument. While many who disagreed may have figured that they could overlook his position, it is hard to overlook his stereotype of the opposition.

Perry soon found he was in trouble after this, and after he forgot his talking points in another debate (He couldn’t remember the departments he pledged to cut—it’s hard to trust you to keep your promises after the election if you can’t remember them during the election). To fix this he decided to pander to the basest feelings of the electorate. He came out with a promise to transform Congress into a part-time legislature. According to him, elect him as president and all Congressmen would have to return home to make a living between sessions. Their pay and benefits would be pared down to their new part-time status. While I agree our freedom is greatest when Congress is deadlocked or out of session, Perry forgot a little document called the Constitution. Congress makes its own rules, sets its own schedule and its own pay. He could recommend legislation along these lines, but who thinks a majority in both houses would support such a thing. This was the type of promise a politician loves—impossible to keep, so failure is not your fault.

As if these were not enough to give the finishing blow to the Perry campaign, he attacks Romney by smearing free-market capitalism. While many readers may agree with this assessment of venture capital and the process used in taking an unprofitable company and turning it around, you have to understand the reason such companies exist and why they do what they do.

Corporate revenues and resources can be broken down into outgoing and incoming. Incoming includes all revenue received from customers for product. Outgoing is everything needed to keep the doors open, the lights on and to produce the product that will bring in the revenue. A company is profitable when incoming is greater than outgoing—it must cost less to produce the product than is received through the sale of it. When failing to turn a profit a company can either cut its outgoing expenses or increase its incoming revenues. To increase income a company can develop (i) a new product line, (ii) a new customer base for its current products or (iii) raise prices. Note that the first two options will also increase the outgoing as new production lines must be opened and new employees hired, etc. The third is the easiest, but is only possible when the market will permit the new price. All three are tied to the market. If there is a market for a new line, one can be developed; if there is a greater market for the old line, it can be expanded; if the market will tolerate higher prices, they can be increased. The free market rules.

The other side of the corporate coin is outgoing expenses. These include facilities, equipment, materials, and wages. If unprofitable a company may move into smaller facilities to save on rent or mortgage. They may find more efficient equipment or a material supplier that is cheaper. Of course, these do not only go down. Over time they go up. Land, materials, equipment and wages are all inflationary, so a company’s profitability is affected, on both the outgoing and incoming side, by market forces. It is not uncommon to have a company pinched by falling prices for their products and rising prices for the materials to make the product. In time a free market balances these out if everything is left fluid to the demands of the market, but if even one area is unmovable then the market must take drastic action to set things right. This brings us to wages. Wages are usually contractual and while increases are easy to implement, cuts in wages are very difficult. Because of this wages tend to ratchet up.

In time the immovable nature of the wages may increase the cost of production beyond any hope of profitability. When this happens there are limited options. One, the company goes under and the employees are forced to take other jobs. These new jobs often involve a pay cut, which permits the price of wages to be adjusted back to market levels. The other company is for someone to take over who is not contractually obligated to the wage structure. This new management can offer to let employees keep their current jobs, if they accept cuts to pay or benefits. Those who will not accept are free to take their skills elsewhere. Either way, the market is balanced and wages settle back to where they should be according to the free market. The unchanging nature of wages in a company make these last two options necessary. We could do away with the corporate “takeover and turn around” if we set wages to fluctuate with the market, but this would not be popular—nor really even desirable.

Rick Perry should rethink his view of capitalism. While he and Newt Gingrich would be shocked to be accused of attacking capitalism, this is exactly what they have done. This type of pandering might work on the Democratic ticket of victimization and class warfare, but is out of place among Republicans. Republicans understand, in the words of Milton Friedman, “Capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom.” Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, in an attempt to undermine Mitt Romney, have each leveled their guns at freedom.

Last night Republicans in Iowa spoke out about the future of this country. The final results are interesting because the party mainline candidate won, but only by eight votes (according to the numbers published by Fox News). Right on the tail of the winner was Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Santorum is so close their results are almost indiscernible and Ron Paul slipped ahead enough times to cause the mainline GOP pundits to develop a twitch.

It is of course easy to tell what happened. A set number of those attending decided their primary qualification was a sense of electability and held firm for Romney. Then the ideologues were split among Santorum and Paul. Of course, this was inevitable. Santorum appeals more to the evangelical, social conservative, while Paul appeals more to the fiscal conservative. Being libertarian many of Paul’s views on social issues would be seen as libertine and unacceptable to most evangelicals. Sometimes I think I am the only libertarian evangelical in the world—though I know a couple others who may qualify.

Since Iowa is a state where voters can show up at the caucus and change their affiliation to vote, a large number of independents supported Paul. This of course skews the numbers for Santorum because it means the lion’s share of rock-ribbed conservative GOP voters in Iowa must have voted for him. Had Paul not been in the race, it is likely many of his GOP supporters would have selected Santorum as the anti-Romney candidate, giving Santorum a runaway evening.

Last night is a perfect example of what will happen if there is a third party run by a serious candidate. Unfortunately, Paul refuses to take such a run off the table. He did so early in the race declaring that he would not go third party but would run as a Republican, but recently on a late night talk show he said a third party run was still possible. In Iowa, Santorum was the candidate closer to the values of the state. Don’t get me wrong. I am not a Santorum supporter and believe he has much to answer for and could be very vulnerable in a general election, but Iowa is not the beltway. He should have been a shoe-in, but with the addition of another ideologue candidate taking away a large enough number of the base and a good number of independents, Iowans ended up with a candidate they have little in common with—one whom the majority of the state did not want.

This scenario is going to keep playing itself out. State by state, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum (or Perry in some) will split the conservative vote and Paul will bring in enough independents to pad his numbers until we end up with Mr. Romney as the official candidate for our party. I fear the skewed numbers will convince Paul that he has a shot and he’ll leave the GOP at the last moment to run a third party candidacy. If this happens get ready for four more years of Obama.

How to Win a Local Election

Barack Obama rode a mantra of “Hope” and “Change” into the Whitehouse. The Republican Party was disappointed by leaders infected with the neoconservative heresy. Eight years of majority dithered away as Republicans acted like Democrats to buy votes. Instead, they alienated their base, lost their majority along with the White House.

In 2008 the GOP ran a candidate ill equipped to inspire the base. While he could promise little more than four years of the same, Obama promised something different. Of course it would be different. He was using the word “Change,” wasn’t he? He said he would change things. Of course there was little said about what he would change beyond such bromides as “share the wealth” and “fairness.” His Senate record of voting “Present” was no help pointing out the direction he would take the country. Yet he was able to inspire people and assure them that he was the savior they had awaited for so long.

This election we have a chance to make real changes in Washington. We have the House already, and a Senate majority is within reach. Hopefully both will be dominated by rock-ribbed conservatives. The problem is our ticket for the White House. None of this lot really inspires the base, in general. Sure each has their supporters, but none seem able to coalesce the base into a political machine. Each will have to rely on a fear of four more years in the Obama wasteland to keep their detractors in check, pushing them to show up at the polls, nose held tightly to cast their ballot. But show up they must. This is because while there they will vote for something even more important than the butt parked in the Oval Office. Every member of Congress and 1/3 of the Senate are up to reelection. Remember, the House initiates all appropriations bills (they hold the checkbook) and the Senate must approve all court nominees and treaties (they hold the keys to our freedoms).

The most important thing the GOP candidate can do is motivate. Rather than running as the Anti-Obama, this person must run as America’s answer—inspiring hope. Ronald Reagan did not simply run against Carter. Yes, his quip about a recovery being defined as Jimmy Carter losing his job was funny and creative—and oh, so very true! However, he spent most of the time playing up America and the bright future that was ahead for her if only the people would put him in office. We had just ended the long bloody Vietnam conflict. Inflation was rampant, unemployment through the roof. Things were so bad that previous laws of economics were rewritten giving us the previously unknown “stagflation.” After Nixon’s shenanigans, Ford’s questionable pardon of him, and Carters general ineptitude, people had a deep distrust for politicians. Well guess who is back. We have Jimmy Carter the sequel. It is time to send this guy off into the private sector, once and for all. The way to do that is to take a play from the Gipper and inspire. Don’t play on our fears; draw from our hopes.

President Obama plans to tell your kids to study hard and stay in school. In a national address to school children scheduled for Tuesday September 8, he plans to tell them this and a bit more. While this is not unusual for presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush did the same thing, the original plan tells us a great deal about the man who now sits in the Oval Office.

Though changes have been made due to outrage, the lesson plans accompanying the speech originally included having the children write letters describing how they could help the president. While other presidents saw the value of inspiring children to stay in school, President Obama seems to have no problem using this as a tool for an American Jungvolk. Now, I know he did not write the speech, nor did he create the lesson plans to go with it, but the sycophants he surrounds himself with have shown no reticence to presenting him as the Messiah and Deliverer and he shows no sign of reigning them in.

No other president in modern times has demonstrated such a propensity for forceful expansion of government influence. He has increased government power in the financial industry through bailing out companies that were faltering largely due to liberal congressional meddling. Before long the opportunity came to seize control of a huge portion of the American auto industry. Once powerful GMC was bailed out with a huge chunk of the stock in the hands of the government after years of being pillaged by excessive union demands—unions that backed Obama and his cronies.

I’m not an apocalyptic conspiracy theorist, so I do not believe in an orchestrated attempt to get the nation to this point so at the right moment Barak Hussein Obama could bring us into some near future dictatorship. Please don’t regale me with your theories of the Illuminati or the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations. Neither do I want to hear misguided theories about how Obama is the Antichrist. Such discussions are useful for inspiring fear but have little use in meaningful and useful political discourse.

What I do see is a man who seems to have believed his own press. He seems willing to do whatever it takes to expand government influence (with him at the reigns) into all areas of our lives. Whether it is indoctrinating children to seek ways to support him—not the country, not the Constitution, but him personally— or taking control of industry, redistributing wealth from the productive to the unproductive, determining who gets paid what or bankrupting our children, grandchildren and beyond, his opinion of himself shows through.

Mr. Obama, my children and I do not need a Messiah. We already have one. You are the president which means you have been hired by the American people. Just as you can be hired, you can be fired. It is my greatest hope that in the next Congressional election the teeth of your presidency (control of both houses of Congress) will be lost. In the next presidential election hopefully the American people will tire of their venture into political idolatry and will send you back to Chicago.

In the debate on healthcare one of the chief arguments being given by the Obama administration is that the government option will be voluntary and those who currently have coverage will be able to keep it. It is also claimed that this is not an effort to do away with private coverage, but to care for those who cannot currently afford coverage. A few days ago I downloaded a copy of the bill (all 1000+ pages). I did this because whenever someone tells me that the bill says this or that, in this section or that, I like to go directly to the source and find out what it says or does not say.

In perusing the bill I found section 102: Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage. This section must not be missed by anyone who considers this issue. In this bill those who have current coverage will be allowed to keep it. However, 102(a)(1)(A) forbids those offering coverage from enrolling any new clients on or after the first day the law goes into effect. This means that you can keep your coverage, but anyone who does not have coverage will be put into the government system with no option for private insurance.

When this happens the insurance companies will find that they have all the customers they will ever have. They cannot expand their businesses and according to 102(a)(3) they can never raise rates on those who are covered or according to 102(a)(2) can never change what they do or do not cover. This last one also prevents them from entering into any new cost-sharing arrangements to reduce costs. The companies can never expand, or raise rates to offset inflation or higher expenses. The only time a new policy could be written is when someone with private insurance, before hand, changes policies.

Understand what this means, if this bill passes those who are not covered by private insurance will have no choice but the government system—none other can be sold. Those who have coverage can keep it until the company goes out of business or they lose or drop the coverage another way—job change or economic downturn. Once this happens they too will be on the government system, for life, and the government that has proved its inefficiency and incompetence in so many areas will be able to let us down where it matters most. Higher prices, rationing, lower quality and early death for millions will be the legacy of this president. How’s that for Change!

Sometimes the national news takes on a life of its own. This last week we saw this with the story of The Policeman, the Professor and the President. When Connecticut Police arrested Professor Henry Gates, the president of our supposedly post-racial society could not help chiming in and accused the police of acting stupidly.

(more…)

I hope he is as good as this ad makes him look. Could this be a candidate for us to rally behind?

As a child I was taught: “If you can’t find anything nice about a person then say nothing at all.” In an effort to conform to the manners my mother repeatedly (and futilely) tried to instill in me, I have decided to find something nice about President Barack Obama and the current leadership of the United States Congress.

(more…)

President Obama is going to Saudi Arabia in June to meet with King Abdullah. On this trip I would recommend one piece of essential equipment for his kit:

With this he will be able to bow even lower than last time to better humiliate himself and the American people.

So, what is wrong with following custom of bowing to a King? The problem is one of sovereignty. When one bows to a monarch it is a recognition of your subjection and their superiority. In a monarchy the monarch is sovereign and the people are subjects. In our nation the people are sovereign and the leaders are employees.

It would be nice if Mr. Obama would remember why he is the most powerful man in the world—because he was chosen to lead the most powerful nation on earth. The Saudis need us to buy their oil more than we need them to sell it to us. Hopefully Mr. Obama will remember the sovereign to which he owes allegiance and acts of respect—the American people.