Utah Senate Race 2010
Friday, 19 March 2010 23:08
Suze
Saturday night we went to a meet the candidates event for US Senator Bob Bennett's seat for the State of Utah. The evening was orchestrated by a friend of Reality Slate, Scott Wallace. You'll remember Scott as our guest who has the substantial plan to reform Social Security. To review his plan, go to our website, www.realityslate.com. While Cherilyn Eager has been the front-runner for our support, we have continually disagreed with her Buchananite ideas...on Free Trade and Foreign Policy, and tonight was no exception. While she is an extremely powerful woman with an incredible presence, excellent communication and campaigning skills, and strong socially conservative values, she is missing the point in these two very
Last Updated on Friday, 19 March 2010 23:12
Read more...
Lessons from Romney
Sunday, 14 March 2010 00:18
The Conservative Arhant
The lessons of Romney’s governorship and Presidential run are still being learned, but the legacy of his Health Care Plan is one that makes Conservatives uncomfortable and Liberals gleeful with Mitt’s apparent contradictions.
Mitt’s latest tour promoting his book, No Apologies, is in full thrust. He has been making the entire interview circuit. Interviewers are often quick to ask the former Massachusetts Governor about Romneycare, hoping to make Mitt squirm. His answers are calm and often specific. He speaks of more people being covered under his plan, skyrocketing costs slowing down per year and his plan being a real bipartisan approach to a problem. .
To be honest, I supported Romney over McCain or Huckabee for the Republican nomination, and if the election were being held today with the same three front runners, I would do the same thing. I believe that he still would have been the best of the three and that he would have had the best chance for defeating Obama. Obviously, there is no way to prove my theory. Having said that, I am uncomfortable with Mitt’s Health Care Reform. From a Conservative (dare I say slightly libertarian) view the Massachusetts plan is simply too big and too intrusive for me. The strange thing is that there was little attempt at a more free market attempt to do the same thing but without forcing everyone to buy insurance, without the dependence on federal money that Romneycare needs to stay afloat. Federal money comprises fifty percent of the Massachusetts Health Care budget.
On several points the Romney plan sounds like the President’s Obamacare, except nobody is calling the Health Care plans before Congress, “bipartisan,” while keeping a strait face anymore. Still Mitt has some trouble with his message, when he criticizes Obamacare and defends Romneycare. He can try to dance around the issue, and joke around it but the issue still stands there, looking back at the well qualified former Governor. The only argument that can be made in support of Romney Care that carries any weight, is despite the short coming of the Massachusetts Health Plan, it is only in Massachusetts. This could be the only comfort to Conservatives, in that Romney insists that any such decision should be left to the States.
If you don’t like Romneycare, move to Connecticut, New Hampshire or some other surrounding State, or you can flee to the other side of the country. If there is a Federal attempt at the same thing, where will you run?
Last Updated on Sunday, 14 March 2010 00:20
|
Economic Freedom in Peril
Thursday, 18 March 2010 00:26
Christian J. Riehle and Alphis
Far too often, we hear of new regulation, new taxes and new fees coming out of Congress. Too often these “new” ideas are simply ways to complicate or destroy the accumulation of wealth and creation of needed products and services. All of us should stand up to intrusion into our lives, as well as intrusion into business and the markets.
Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut) graced us all with his new financial reform bill. He took the point on which many concur, e.g. that “too big to fail” must end (interestingly excluding auto companies, while in typical democrat fashion, creating new expensive bureaucracies (Consumer Financial Protection Agency) and excluding Fannie/Freddie and other politically favored entities.
Conservatives should oppose Dodd’s overreach as they should have fought Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, but did not. That congressional overreaction has slowed US innovation and sent more business creation and employment off shore than is measurable.
Dr. Edwin Feulner, president of The Heritage Foundation, opined concerning another overstepping regulation. He spoke of the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting regulations (March 16, 2010),
“Before the law took effect, the SEC predicted it would cost American business about $1.2 billion to comply. “In fact, the total cost has been more like $35 billion of direct costs of compliance,” Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., told a Heritage audience a few years ago. “It’s been almost 30 times what the estimated costs were.”
“Even one of the bill’s authors had to admit its shortcomings. “It was difficult to legislate responsibly in that type of hot-house atmosphere,” Rep. Michael Oxley told a group in London. “If I had another crack at it, I would have provided a bit more flexibility for small- and medium-sized companies.”
“While Sarbanes-Oxley increased costs to American companies and drove business overseas, it didn’t solve the problems with our financial markets. Now policymakers are poised to inject another dose of bad medicine.”
The new Dodd financial regulatory scheme will harm consumers and the economy by eliminating the innovations that create better, less expensive financial products.
Feulner wrote further, “Beyond expanding the bureaucracy, lawmakers also want to: 1) give the FDIC (or another agency) broad power to seize and close failing financial institutions, and 2) establish a government fund to “resolve the affairs” of firms it takes over.
This makes little sense. In effect, this would create a new and permanent TARP, making future bailouts more likely. Meanwhile, it would strip private businesses of the protections currently available in bankruptcy courts, leaving them at the mercy of Washington bureaucrats, who could order them to be shuttered.
As usual the Washington D.C. prescribed cure is worse than the disease.
Last Updated on Thursday, 18 March 2010 05:39
Read more...
I Want Health Care Talk and More Paterson
Thursday, 04 March 2010 18:08
The Coservative Arhant
Is it just me, or am I the only one who wants Paterson to stay on in New York as a feckless Governor? I am also in favour of The AAAAAhnold staying on as Guuvinah in California. I think it is great that President Obama is continuing to push an unpopular Health Care Bill. Why would I be in favour of these things that are so bad for their states and the country? I would because Patterson, Schwarzenegger, Reid, Obama, Pelosi and countless others are doing tremendous damage to Liberalism.
The Republicans don't need a "real leader" right now. Unfortunately, they don't even need to defend conservatism; all they have to do is shine the spot light on the liberal implosion that is going on. New York and California are classic examples of how liberal "budgeting" works. Now as these states have to confront the expensive programs that they promise, it doesn't even occur to their leaders to cut back on goodies. Instead, they cut back on services, like fire and police, and each of these States are increasing taxes. Then the wealthy that get soaked, run like a fat kid from tofu.
As far as the silly health care initiative, which Obama holds onto like a little girl to a Barbie,
Last Updated on Thursday, 04 March 2010 18:18
Read more...
|
