Saturday, February 28, 2009

How to Contact Your Representative in Congress

If you ever feel the need to make your voice heard, you can find contact information for you Senators and Representatives at the following link:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Friday, February 27, 2009

Hartford Tea Party Largely a Disappointment

I attended the "Hartford Tea Party" today during lunch. It was the first time I've attended something that might be classified as a political protest. I'm sorry to say that my worst fears were confirmed. Don't get me wrong, the people at the event were good people. I believe in the ideals of the event. However, the event was just not that well attended. There were maybe 200 people struggling with forced group chants. Although there are few people as anti-big-government as I, I have to admit I felt mostly silly standing there among the meager crowd of patriots adorned with signs, bells, and costumes. If this event was going to be effective, it would have needed closer to 200,000 people, rather than 200.

The purpose of the event was the protest "pork" spending. However, one problem is that so-called pork is not the only government over-indulgence. Even if all the pork were removed from the state and federal budgets, we would still be spending unseemly sums of money. Even with all the pork trimmed, the expanding reach of government would continue to tighten its grip on our personal liberties. We need more than a fat trim. We need a serious roll back of government. Unfortunately, we are getting just the opposite with the current administration and congress.

I, like many responsible citizens out there, fell helpless. That's why I went to the Hartford Tea Party. I thought, perhaps if we band together we can make a difference. It was reassuring to know that even in a deep blue state like Connecticut, there are still some sensible citizens out there. It was reassuring to hear people blow their car horns in support. The print, TV, and radio journalists were there to cover the event (with a special appearance by Jim Vicevich), so perhaps the message reached some new people. Maybe, but I fear that in reality it was just a waste of a lunch hour.

Hartford Tea Party -- TODAY (2-27-2009) 12-1 -- Directions

Political protest against big government.

Gathering on the Supreme Court steps at 11:45 AM.

Directions:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/directory/directory/directions/supremecourt.htm

Friday, February 20, 2009

Liberals – Is this REALLY what you wanted?

An open plea to liberals:

Liberals, you finally got your wish. You got your liberal in office, and not just any liberal. Not John Kerry, or Al Gore, or even Bill Clinton. You got the uber-liberal, the leftist, the socialist, Barack Hussein Obama. You got your big government man.

I want to hear from HONEST liberals – is it everything you thought it would be? Big, wasteful government. Rewarding failure. Punishing achievement. Stoking class envy. Turning a blind eye to corruption. Wallowing in hypocrisy.

Liberals, I want to hear from you! Please tell me why I should be happy. Make me hopeful. Make a case for your big government plan. Use some logic to convince me that this spending bill will work! Please! I need some of that audacity of hope to rub off on me.

Many proclaimed that the Obama election would be the “end of conservativism”. If this is liberalism in action, it’s quite possible that just the opposite may come to pass. People are more fearful and distrusting of the government than ever. It’s possible that liberalism will fail miserably and the illogic of liberalism will come to light to the masses that are doped by the liberalism opiate. I’m not making any predictions. I have too much respect for the political savvy and tenacity of liberals to make any predictions. I’m merely pointing out the possibility.

Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Government Violated A-Rod's Trust

Note: Author is a Red Sox fan.

Alex Rodriguez has a right to be mad. Out of 104 players that tested positive in the supposedly secret and anonymous 2003 MLB steroid testing, his was the only name leaked from the court sealed results.
The government and MLB is presently on a steroids witch-hunt with pending criminal investigations against retired star pitcher Roger Clemens and out-of-work star outfielder Barry Bonds, as well as actual charges filed against all-star infielder Miguel Tejada. However, investigation into the government leaks of supposedly anonymous tests that were sealed under court order have been slower in coming. Perhaps something is in-process on this, but thus far, not much is being mentioned about the lies told to players regarding the testing. The players union agreed to the testing under the auspices that the results would not be shared. This has clearly been violated. Furthermore, the court order sealing the results has also been violated.
This is not just a matter of embarrassment for Alex Rodriguez and the union. This will impact A-Rod financially. His name has been sullied which will certainly cost him endorsement money. If the travails of Mark McGuire are any indication, this could also cost A-Rod election into baseball's hall of fame. It's hard to come down on the side of illegal drug users, but even criminals have rights. This information should never have been made public.
Some may argue that A-Rod took the illegal drugs, so he's getting what he deserves. The argument is that regardless of how it come out, and regardless of the repercussions, in the end justice is served. To me, that's not the issue. A-Rod's rights were violated. He, and all the players in MLB were lied to. If the testing was truly for the purposes of understanding the impact of steroids, samples should have been collected without traceability, i.e. no identification should have been put on the samples to trace a particular sample back to a particular player. The samples should then have been destroyed. Major League Baseball, lead by the commissioner, has struck out on this one.
I rarely come down on the side of unions, but I hope the players union sues MLB for this violation.
MLB is one thing, but what's the government's culpability in this matter? The results were sealed under court order. Courts are part of the judicial branch, and the last I checked, the judicial branch is part of the government. In my mind, the players, specifically A-Rod, may have a case against the government. The government was responsible for keeping the results secret. They were entrusted with this data. They broke that trust. What if the blood tests showed a player had an embarrassing disease or condition not related to baseball performance that he wished to keep private? Would it be acceptable for that information to be leaked too? This situation is a great argument for the civil libertarians that are against the government collecting data on citizens. This plays into the whole government sponsored health care debate. President Obama is presently pushing for a program to digitize all patients health records to improve medical industry efficiency. Based on how well the government kept the MLB steroid testing data, would you trust this same government to keep your health records safe? Imagine your health records are leaked to your employer. Imagine your insurance company dropping you after getting a look at your government leaked health records. In the state in which I reside, they require a finger print in order to own a hand gun. I can understand the good intentions of such a rule, but I don't want the government to even have my fingerprint data on record. Who's to say that this could not be inappropriately used against me in the future? People scoff, but it could happen. I may sound a bit paranoid, but take a moment to consider all the corruption in government brought to light just in the last year (e.g. Blogo, Geitner, Dodd, Frank, Daschle, Hartford mayor Perez, former CT governor Rowland, ACORN etc, etc, etc). I may fall on the paranoid side, but someone who thinks the government is fully on the "up-and-up" is naive.
This is yet another example of why the government can not be trusted. They can not be trusted with our personal data, our medical data, or our dollars.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Why Taxes Matter -- The Perfect Government Stimulus Plan

I work for a large international manufacturing company (one of the largest in the world) with manufacturing plants across the globe. In 2008, an unexpected Brazilian tax law revision changed the tax rate on a product we manufacture in Brazil from 8% to 20%. In 2009 a project is being executed to move production of that product out of Brazil.
I give this example to demonstrate the impact of government rules and laws on business, and how quickly businesses react. In the example above, the project to move the production location was actually started in 2008, the same year the tax law was changed. Taxes are not just a nuisance with which businesses must deal -- they drive decisions. In this real-life example, the Brazilian government's tax increase has led directly to job losses. Politicians take note.

The opposite can also be true. Businesses don't just react to raised tax rates. They also react to lowered tax rates.

If the US government is serious about stimulating the economy and creating real, long-term job growth, the solution is simple: lower corporate and business taxes. Based on the latest pork-filled "stimulus" bill, I fear that the government is not serious about stimulating the economy. They are more concerned with petty politics. However, that's a subject for another day. Getting back to the subject at hand...

Surprisingly, to the credit of the main-stream media, it's been well publicized that the United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. Only Japan has a higher rate (see chart). It should be noted that Japan is just now starting to come out of a decade long recession.
Remember my example above -- businesses react to tax changes. Imagine the stimulation to the economy if the United States were to lower their corporate and business (taxes on manufactured goods need to be considered as well as corporate tax rates) tax rate to be the second lowest instead of the second highest. Even better, what do you suppose would happen if the United States eliminated the corporate tax altogether. Businesses would flock here to set up shop! Businesses want to do work in the US already. The US has the best educated, most productive work force in the world, but as it stands now the financial numbers don't add up. The movement to the US would be quick and dramatic if the government could set up the proper tax incentives.
What would be the impact of corporations moving business to the US? Jobs. Production. Income. Wealth. Instead of exporting jobs, the US would import jobs. In addition to the incentive for non-US companies to set up shop in the US, the benefit to companies already in the United States would be enormous. Imagine the programs corporations would tee up with a new-found store of cash. In the small division of the company I work for, we have several proposals for new product introductions that can not be started at this time. That would change immediately if tax reductions were made to free up cash. Projects that have been on the back burner would immediately be green-lighted. Instead of a disadvantage, US companies would have a distinct advantage on the global stage. This would drive innovation and growth.
The cash freed up as a result of a significant corporate tax rate cut would give the short-term injection the economy needs now. The job creation from international businesses setting up shop in the US would provide the long-term boost to sustain the economy.

Of course, this plan would cause the government to lose significant tax revenue. The government is now trying to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars on a stimulus package with dubious potential for job creation. You tell me which approach would be a better way to spend a trillion dollars.

Some people have a knee-jerk opposition to lowering taxes on businesses, especially larger corporations. This is plain foolishness. These people suffer from class envy, as they mistakenly think corporations represent rich "fat cats". Quite the opposite is true. Successful businesses are the foundation of a healthy middle class.

So far, the government has considered no other ideas except excessive pork spending. A truly bold and effective economic stimulus plan would include dramatic corporate and business tax reduction.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Book Review -- Guilty by Ann Coulter

Title: Guilty -- Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America
Author: Ann Coulter
Price: $27.95 cover price. Available for less on-line.

Ann Coulter has written 5 best sellers. Guilty is her latest best seller. This was my first Ann Coulter book, and it will certainly not be my last. In fact, I'm upset I waited until best seller #6 to finally read one of Ann Coulter's books. I now have a lot of catching up to do on books 1 through 5.

Ann comes out swinging against liberals. Finally someone has the balls (ironic, huh?) to leave political correctness behind. Ann spews the truth about liberals as she cites numerous examples of liberal hypocrisy, idiocy, and bias. Liberals love victims. They use victims for votes. They thrive on creating more and more victims to stay in power. Selfish liberal power-grabbers even portray themselves as victims with the assistance of a willing main-stream media. Ann gives all the evidence any rational person would need to understand media bias and the absurdity of liberal logic.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. However, I'm a conservative-minded person. I believe liberalism is the single most toxic ideology in the United States today. Liberal venom is the #1 threat to liberty in the United States of America. Therefore, I'm not the most accurate barometer of Ann's book. Beyond the significant entertainment value, I fear that there may not be a point to the book. Ann devotes many pages to showing examples of liberal main-stream media bias. Although I enjoyed reading the examples, I'm not sure who Ann is trying to convince with her arguments because I believe even most liberals would acknowledge a media bias in a rare honest moment. Ann was not telling a conservative person anything they did not already know, and I fear her aggressive style would turn off most limp-wristed, panty wasted liberals to the point that they would not even be able to get through the book. So, if you go with the assumption that liberals would be turned off, and conservatives are already convinced, I guess the arguments of this book could be effective towards moderates. Fortunately, a moderate is something I am not, nor could I even pretend to be. I enjoyed the analysis, aggressive style, and examples in the book, so I can only hope that Ann was able to bring some moderates onto "our side". I have no hope of even the most skilled author being able to convert a true liberal. Logical thinking means less to a liberal than the US Constitution.