VLog: Rudy defends tax cut claims

“We wanted to reduce taxes and be able to accomplish some of that with the Democratic City Council, overwhelmingly Democratic. We ended up reducing taxes … 23 times successfully …” (Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Interview With WOKQ Radio’s Don Brian, Portsmouth, NH, 3/12/07)

You can always tell when a candidate is rising in popularity by the growth in the number of negative news stories and, if you're in political circles and on everybody's email list like we are here at the 'Grok, the number of "urgent" correspondences detailing how really awful and wrong he/she is.

.

So it goes right now with Rudy Giuliani. Often stating his support and promotion of tax cuts while Mayor of NYC, citing numerous examples, Rudy makes the case that he has a true record of accomplishment in this area that is unmatched by any of his competitors in the primary race. This week, certain media have started to take issue with some of his claims.

.

What separates the proverbial "men from the boys" in politics is the ability to deal with negativity and tough, persistant lines of questioning. Rudy is definitely NOT a "boy" when it comes to dealing with media, often stating that the New York press is the toughest anywhere. Here is a YouTube featuring a brief exchange following the town hall style meeting Rudy conducted last night here in Gilford. The reporter engaged Rudy about his tax cut claims. Rudy didn't shirk from answering and stuck by his claims...

.

The following is a list, provided by the campaign, of the twenty-three tax cuts Rudy Giuliani spoke about in the quote at the top of this post:

.

GIULIANI’S 23 TAX CUTS

ONE: Expiration Of 12.5% Personal Income Tax Surcharge. First proposed in fiscal year 1995 budget and enacted in fiscal year 1999. (City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Summary, p. 17; City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Summary, p. 18)

TWO: Hotel Tax Reduced From 6% To 5%. Proposed and enacted in fiscal year 1995 budget. (City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Summary, p. 17; City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Summary, p. 18)

THREE: Reductions In Commercial Rent Tax. Proposed and enacted in fiscal year 1995 budget. (City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Summary, p. 17; City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Summary, p. 18)

FOUR: Unincorporated Business Tax Reforms And Credits. Reform package was first proposed and enacted in fiscal year 1995 budget. Increase in the UBT tax credit was first proposed in fiscal year 1995 budget and enacted in fiscal year 1997. (City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Summary, p. 17; City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Summary, p. 18; City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 42)

FIVE: Commercial Revitalization Program. A variety of tax benefits that delivered incentives to commercial property owners. First changes proposed and enacted in fiscal year 1997. (City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 43; see also,City of New York Tax Forecasting Documentation, p. I-12)

SIX: Banking Corporation Tax. Tax cuts for banking corporations doing business in New York City effective for tax years on or after 1996. (City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Message Of The Mayor, p. 62)

SEVEN: Co-op/Condo Tax Relief. First proposed in 1994. Enacted by fiscal year 1997 and later extended. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Summary, p. 17; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Summary, p. 19; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Summary, p. 14; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 42)

EIGHT: Business Tax Reform. A number of tax reforms first proposed in 1996. Enacted in fiscal year 1998. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Summary, p.14; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 42)

NINE: Sales Tax – Misc. Exemptions. Several different sales tax exemptions first proposed in 1994. First sales tax exemptions enacted in fiscal year 1996. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Summary, p. 17; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Summary, p. 19; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Summary, p. 14; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 42)

TEN: Sales Tax – Clothing Exemptions. Several different sales tax exemptions. First proposed in 1994. First clothing exemption passed in 1997. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1995 Executive Budget Summary, p. 17; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Summary, p. 19; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Summary, p. 15-16; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 42-43; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary, p. 24-25; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Summary, p. 18-19; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Summary, p. 42; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, p. 50)

ELEVEN: Resident UBT/PIT Credit. For tax year 1997, unincorporated business owners were allowed to take a partial credit against their City personal income tax liability. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Mayor’s Message, p. 67; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary, p. 25)

TWELVE: Real Property Transfer Tax Exemption For Assumable Mortgages. First proposed in 1997. Tax relief provided in fiscal year 1998. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 43; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary, p. 24)

THIRTEEN: Elimination of Vault Charge. First proposed in 1996. Eliminated by fiscal year 1999. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Summary, p. 15-16; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary, p. 24)

FOURTEEN: Elimination of Tax on Coin-Operated Amusement Devices. First proposed in 1996. Eliminated by fiscal year 1999. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Summary, p. 15-16; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary, p. 24)

FIFTEEN: College Tuition Deduction Credit/PIT. Proposed and eliminated in 2000. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, p. 50)

SIXTEEN: Marriage Penalty Reduction. First proposed 1999 and passed in 2000. (Mayor’s Tax Reform Task Force, Report To Mayor Rudolph Giuliani On The Recommendations Of The Tax Reform Task Force, 12/99, p. 13; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, p. 50)

SEVENTEEN: Sales Tax Exemption on Utility Transmission And Distribution. Grew out of 1999 utility tax reform proposals. Passed in 2000. (Mayor’s Tax Reform Task Force, Report To Mayor Rudolph Giuliani On The Recommendations Of The Tax Reform Task Force, 12/99, p. 2, 5, 23-24; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, p. 50)

EIGHTEEN: Web Hosting And HDTV Equipment Sales Tax Exemption. Grew out of proposals from 1999 examining tax treatment of new media industries. 2000 Legislative Session. (City of New York Mayor’s Office, “Mayor Giuliani Announces Initiative To Transform Unused Water Main Into Conduit For High-Speed Telecommunications Network And Digital NYC Program To Expand Silicon Alley Citywide,” Press Release, 4/3/00; Mayor’s Tax Reform Task Force, Report To Mayor Rudolph Giuliani On The Recommendations Of The Tax Reform Task Force, 12/99, p. 28; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, p. 50)

NINETEEN: A Reduction In Taxes On Bank Mutual Fund Companies. First proposed in 1999. Passed in 2000. (Mayor’s Tax Reform Task Force, Report To Mayor Rudolph Giuliani On The Recommendations Of The Tax Reform Task Force, 12/99, p. 20; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, p. 50)

TWENTY: Cut In 14% PIT Surcharge. Proposed in 2000 and enacted by fiscal year 2002. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Summary, p. 43; City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, p. 50)

TWENTY-ONE: Borough Development Program. Proposed and created in 2001. (City of New York Office of Management and Budget, City of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Summary, p. 50)

TWENTY-TWO: STAR Personal Income Tax. Proposed in 1998. Tax benefits provided in fiscal year 1999. (City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, The City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 46-47; City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, The City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary, p. 27)

TWENTY-THREE: STAR Property. Changes benefiting New York City proposed in fiscal year 1998 Executive Budget. Tax benefits provided in fiscal year 1999. (City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, The City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Summary, p. 46-47; City Of New York Office Of Management And Budget, The City Of New York Executive Budget Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Summary, p. 27)

Posted by Doug at 6:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Rudy comes to Gilford, NH - blogging a town meeting

Rudy Giuliani

Rudy wows 'em in Gilford

Once again, the 'Grok crew is at a Rudy event....this time in our own backyard of Gilford. Being held at the Margate on the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee ("the Big Lake"), it's nice to have an event that working folks can come to. Due to kick off at 6pm EDT, both the TMEW and I are in the back row (where there was electricity for the early birds - the NYT reporter that just came in [I remember him from the Rudy event in Nashua] and is scurrying for an outlet).

Room is already 1/2 filled at 5:45. Given that this is a resort / vacation destination at this time of year, not bad at all.

As with all other places where I live blog, these will be rough notes. Pics will have to wait, as I forgot the trusty digital camera.

==============================================

9 x 14 gives me a head count of about 126. Now it is filling up fast.

I've spotted several people from Gilford here, local Republicans (Dave Horvath, Jim Fizgerald). Other spottings include Wayne Semprini, former Senator Bill Zeliff (I met both outside). Ray Wieczorek from Manchester is seated behind and to my left.. None of the "dias" is filled as of yet. Our friend Ed Engler from the Laconia Daily sun is here.

=========================

6:00 Almost full...I see the suits running around so it must be close to starting time. I've noticed that a lot of the faces that I am seeing are not the usual ones that we have been seeing at these types of events. Rudy seems to be drawing a different kind of crowd - that might portend well for both the primary and the general election. New faces may not translate to new votes, but it does represent new interest.

Certainly the workers (paid and volunteers) are almost ALL wearing suits. Many in the crowd are business casual or resort / dressed (take your pick). Dais is now filled (really, just a row of chairs that will be looking at Rudy's back). Hopefully, the will announce them and I'll try to catch as many as I can (the slow typist that I am)(can you tell that I like)(side)(comments?).

6:10pm Still waiting. Just aw Richard Juve from Meredith talking with Bill Zeliff chatting as if they are old friends. This place is now packed! ANd getting hot now that they've turned on the lights for the cameras. Oy! Now they are starting in with standing room only...pretty much maxing out the room.

My friend, Kevin Conroy who is a paid staffer for Rudy here in NH (thanks to him and to Katie Harbath for getting us in on the press credentials!) is running around like a mad man

Cell phone announcement just went over the PA....time to get started at 6:15pm

============================

Jim Fitzgerald is now intro-ing Rudy! Lots of clapping with a standing "O". Cheers, whistling abound. Literally everyone is standing.

===========================

Wants to spend most his time taking questions......silence......about the Yankees. Notes that they are 8 games behind the Red Sox.

He is running because he feels this country want strong leadership with an optimistic outlook. This is a country built on personal responsibility and nowhere better said than in NH with "Live Free Or Die". Contrast that with the Dems with pesimssion and where they want big government / socialism where everyone has to be taken care of.

Socialized medicine in France - Rudy is reading Sarkozy's book where Sarkozy want to move away from socialism. Contrasts that with Obama and Hillary. Sensing from Rudy - "Some decisions are too important for you to make them" - he attributes to Hillary. Michael Moore wants even more - go to Cuba!

============

America is best when each generation does better than the previous one - and that is achieved when people have more and more power - not the government. That's why lowering taxes makes sense - Dems believe they can spend it more wisely than the taxpayers....and that's why they are wrong.

35% - 36% income rate increase if Dems take over. Edwards wants to raise capital rate from 15% to 28%. These people just don't understand how private economies work. Last time that it was done, Feds lost $40 billion bucks per year.

Dems - none have a single day of executive experience - running something substantial like a state, city, big business, or group. They don't have the knowledge of what the ramifcations are. Capital will flee the country and the poor will have MANY less jobs to have.

If healthcare becomes free, you will see how expensive it will become. And how bad it will become - lines waiting for service. Let's use American principles to fix it. Look at hi tech stuff - very big consumer prices, now cheap - TVs, cell phones, computers. Free market fixed the quality and prices and not government help to buy one. There is no government mandate involved in setting the price. Lower prices means more customers. And that's what we need in healthcare.

Talks about his $15K tax deduction for a policy, keeping the difference between that and an insurance policy. HAVE to create a marketplace like this to save healthcare. Prices will fall, as those buying at 15 will drive it to 12K, to 10K, et

====================

Starting to take questions

Missed the first question, but is about helping adoptions. He increased adoptions in NYC 135% by adjusting courts system, getting lawyers to do pro bono, did adoption fairs, did advertising via radio, tv, print. Arranged for help for adopting families

Of all of the Repubs running - why you?

He has the most executive experience than ANY one else. The job is beyond anyone...and if you think not, you don't have enough humility. He has more in the biggest than anyone and in difficult circumstances (like the day he took over) with 2000 murders a year, 1.1 mill welfar, slashed taxes by 25%, 60% wanted to leave.

He has been tested. He was also an AG with a history going after corporate and drug crime. Served as #3 in Reagan's administration

He has the longest record - lots of wins but also some failures, which teaches humility.

He can also compete in every state...he is viable.

=====================

Take on radical Islam, Iran, Iraq, and if Israel cede terrority to Palestinians?

Dems haven't even mentioned radical Islam or other some such. At one point, Dems said that N. Korea was number one threat, yet Islamic terrorists have killed people twice in NYC. This is our number one enemy. Not saying so is political correctness gone mad. You have to name the enemy and you have to be on offense as they take advantage of a show of weakness.

Israel - the burden is ont he side of the Palestinians. They ahve to show that they can control terrorism, that Israel has the right to exists, and tha tthe PA on the West Bank (Gaza is under Hamas) can move forward to be peaceful. Israel is one of our 3 or 4 biggest friends in the world. But we have to wait for that to happen, or we are back to Arafat days.

Obama missed the word "pre-condition" when he gave his answer. Rudy said he studied history, and saw that meetings were cancelled when preconditions were not met. Reagan, called them the Evil Empire,

China - has $400 billion in our bonds and a large trade deficit.

Rudy - to correct the balance was to sell them more things. Not as worried about what we are buying - we reap the benefits of low prices. If we were more energy independant, we could sell them that (France is 80% nuke, we are 20% - we have coal and have better). We could sell windmills to China at 2.5 mil each. India is the same thing.

Both are at a lower of development than we are, but they want to reach our level. We have what they need to get to us. Let's sell it - food efficient, acquiducts, sanitation. DOn't think of just "they are more than us" - think of how to sell higher priced stuff. We are Americans - act

Next to last - our all voluhteer army is doig great - but getting over extended.... how fix, and what about a draft and include women.

He prefers volunteer and history shows we can have more. After Vietnam was a draw down. We should have 20 - 40,000 quickly and then expand now. The Clinton cut armed forces and intelligence by 25% and it was a TERRIBLE mistake. We have not rebuilt our forces. Bush started but not completed

Given the nature of the threat, their job is much more complex - have to win a war and then win a peace in cultures that are not like those we have fought before. He met with some in Iraq....how do you keep your moral up. The answer is that we volunteer, and nobody's forces us to be here. We know why we hare here. This is NOT Viet Nam

We decided in the 90s that the world was peaceful and the military was not needed....just like after WWI, and WWII

A threat from within - both political parties are getting more extreme and politicians are egging each other on. An executive leads, so how can you make it better?

I do not come from Washington. He ran a gov't that was 45 Dems and 6 Repubs. He is a tough and determined guy, but he learned how to compromise to get compromise. His model was Reagan - not ideological, but practical. If he can get 60%, its a win. 80% a home run.

Example: proposed 54....got 23. Horsetraded to give away to get the important ones. Getting all your way will never happen. How to give up so they get somehing to get what we want. We need to get out of the personality conflicts. Tax policy - it is not personal. He wants parents to have vouchers, Dems want centralized gov't schools. He wants lower taxes, Dems want higher. Hamilton and Burr didn't do it any better. Hamilton and Jefferson, not good - learn your history!

Posted by Skip at 5:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Shoot the B#*!#^+s!

Ruger Mini-14. The "ranch rifle" of choice here at the 'Grok

.

Okay, much has been made of the upcoming GOP fundraiser so click here to read about it first,and then I'll tell you why I love my right to bear arms!

My father owned a .22 rifle when I was a kid. He made sure that I, and my brother and sister, knew proper gun safety; how to safely handle weapons, load, unload, clean and everything connected with gun safety that he knew, he passed along to us. I will be forever grateful to him for his teachings, and he may have even saved my life.

I have great memories of growing up in Oklahoma City and going out to some remote location where our family would spend a day hiking, picnicking, finding a stream, floating cans and bottles and taking turns shooting at them or at targets. It was a very different time in America (yeah, I know, but nobody was concerned about the environment in those days), and we did not live in fear, as do many people today.

From a very young age thanks to my Dad, I became comfortable and confident in handling any weapon and did not grow up in fear of guns because of it. I did grow up respecting firearms and always handle a firearm assuming it’s loaded. Years later, my later father-in-law and I went out so he could show me how to handle a gun. I didn’t have the heart to tell him I already knew, since he took great pride in instructing me.

After I put six rounds pretty much in the bullseye, he beamed that he had done such a good job teaching me how to shoot. Years later, we shared great laughs about it when he learned about my background with firearms from my Dad when they had an opportunity to meet.

When I lived in Fairbanks, Alaska during the pipeline project in the 1970’s, when there were an over abundance of men compared to woman, I spent many nights alone. I always felt secure knowing I had a loaded handgun on my nightstand. While I always hoped I’d never have to use it, I was happy to have it when one night someone attempted to break into my home in the middle of the night.

During that period, many men stayed in the bush for months at a time. When they came into Fairbanks, many of them had two things on their mind, getting drunk and finding a woman, willing or otherwise. It was a scary time for many women, and I carried a handgun in my purse since I had to walk home a few blocks from the bus stop where I rode to and from the University of Alaska where I worked. I always had my purse open and my hand on my gun while I was walking home in the dark (it was always dark when I walked home in the winter) ready to defend myself if necessary. I was not terribly fearful as I knew I had the edge should someone approach me motivated to do me harm since most men were unarmed except perhaps for a liquor bottle.

Back to the middle of the night story….as I had been taught, when I heard my front door handle rattling, I positioned myself in a somewhat protected space crouched on the floor in the dark with my handgun pointed at the front door ready to shoot if someone broke in. Thankfully, it was not necessary after I told the person at the door that I had a loaded .357 magnum pointed at the door and that I was an expert shooter and I would not hesitate to shoot to kill should the potential intruder succeed in getting the door opened.

Whoever was at the door obviously believed me, probably because I spoke confidently because I was confident, and fled faster than a jackrabbit. I thought about calling the police and decided it wasn’t necessary as I did not feel threatened or vulnerable and suspected that I would not be bothered again, at least by that person.

I had another occasion to defend myself while living in Columbus, OH and a similar scenario played out. Again, I was thankful that I did not have to shoot someone.

Since that time, I have fired a variety of weapons (including an AK-47) over the years for target practice and even hunted with a bow and rifle for several years although I never killed anything. I realized I wasn’t the hunting type although I still have fond memories of sitting in various tree stands and walking through the woods looking for game. My husband is an avid successful hunter, and we share many memorable times in the woods together.

When our children were young, we taught them proper gun safety from an early age, and my husband took all of them hunting at one time or another to expose them to the sport. Hunting did not appeal to any of them, but they all have fond memories of hunting with Dad. Now, he takes the grandchildren, and he’s hoping one of them may learn to love the sport as much as him.

Here’s my point: Those of you who are afraid of guns do not need to be if you will educate yourselves.

While the GOP fundraiser may perhaps be in poor taste according to some opinions, I would encourage, especially women, to attend and get some instruction and take the opportunity to shoot in a controlled, safe environment.

Guns are not evil. For me, they may have prevented me from being raped or worse because I had proper instruction and experience with them.

Have I ever shot anyone or anything? No, and I sincerely hope I never have to. However, these are scary times and violent crime is, unfortunately, a part of today’s society.

So, instead of boycotting the GOP event and complaining about it, show up and get educated about gun safety in a controlled environment with some expert instructors and then you can talk about your right to bear arms and perhaps defend yourself properly if the occasion ever arises.

Most people who complain about firearms do not know much about them. I’m thankful that my Dad taught me proper firearm safety, and my husband and I taught our children. Fear is a terrible thing and education helps dispel fear. So do something about it and perhaps you may learn that you can exchange feeling vulnerable for a feeling of confidence and security. I’m glad I took advantage of my opportunities to become educated about firearms.

Yeah, don’t bother showing up at my house because, yes, I still will shoot to kill rather than let you take advantage of me or attempt to steal my property, pal. I personally disagree with the shoot to disable tactic especially when someone else has an equivalent equalizer! At a petite 5’3”, sorry, but I’m not willing to wait to perhaps be physically overpowered by a 6’, 200 lb. guy. I’ll take my chances in court, ladies.

As Joyce Meyer is fond of saying: "Do it afraid!" I say, if you do, you likely won't be afraid anymore.

Posted by Judy at 7:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Free Will

We have a "nutty professor" up here in the central part of NH. A lot of time, not a lot of respect flows from him. Just thought I'd let him chew on this, as even the "little people" deserve as much, if not more, than the "important people".

Life is all about "Free will", which I call one of God's gifts.

Using the animal kingdom as an example, the species were formed in such a
way as to have to prey on other, more vulnerable creatures in order to
survive. Big fish eat little fish. Lions and Tigers eat Wildebeests. The
strongest survive because they get more of the creatures to eat. They also
survive because their birth rates are geared to meeting those needs. Fish
spawn with thousand and thousands of roe, that turn into fry, that turn into
fish, that become meals for bigger fish. The more wily, and luckier small
fish survive and then they become the predators who eat the small fish.
Lions don't spawn but they do have multiple births. Often papa lion will
kill the male cubs because he doesn't want future competition, and because
it is the mama lions who go out and get his next meal for him. You can fill
in the rest of the animal kingdom, it's almost all the same.

What does all that have to do with "Free will"?

Imagine, if instead of free will, we were all made exactly equal. Everyone
was a smart and as ambitious as everyone else. We were all equally strong
and no one had an advantage. Without free will, how would we survive? Would
we be like the fish?, the lions?, or some other creature?, where, for our
survival, we had to do the other person in. If we don't have "Free will" and
we're all "equal", who is going to plant and harvest the garden? Who is
going to mine the coal or drill for oil or water? Who is going to work at
the grocery store or the service station? Who is going to mow the lawn or
take out the trash? And, oops, who is going to pick up the trash? Who is
going to humble himself for the benefit of his equals, because then he would
not be "equal".

"Free will" is a gift because it lets man, for the most part, determine his
position in the food chain - not to be eaten by others, but to survive as
best he can. In some societies, tribal "war lords" prevail because they're
the meanest and the toughest. In more civilized societies, a person's mental
capacity, education, ambition, willingness to take a risk, etc., determines
their ability to earn a living; where he or she will fit in the human food
chain.


Bill Gates is the paradigm on how to get to the top of the food chain. Or is
he? For his personal values, he exercised his free will to achieve his
contributions to the world (which I believe are even greater than his
accumulated wealth), and to satisfy his appetite. You, I assume, used your
ability to achieve what would satisfy your personal appetite. I know that I
did. The achievements one attains do not confer lack of achievement on
another. It is "free will" that is exercised by that other person that
determines their achievement. The fact that Bill Gates became the wealthiest
man in the world does not diminish the automobile mechanic, or the
dishwasher in a restaurant, or any other relatively unsophisticated human
being. In fact, look at the most important job in a restaurant. Is it the
owner, the waiter, the sous chef, the chef, the waiter, the hostess, the
cashier. It is none of the above -- it is the dishwasher. Just envision what
would happen if you went into a diner or an elegant restaurant and were
served your meal on "used", unclean dishware, glasses, and silverware. Would
you eat the food? Would you go back to that diner or restaurant? No matter
how tasty and nourishing the food might be, no matter how reasonable the
price, no matter how attentive the waiter, you would leave. Why? Because the
most important, and the most menial job wasn't done well. In man's version
of the animal food chain, all jobs have a value and, hopefully, bring
satisfaction to the doer of that job and pleasure to those who are
beneficiaries of that labor. 

Before going to a class reunion of some many decades, I reread my yearbook
in the what do you want to be when you grow up section. One of my classmates
wanted to be a Teacher. Another a Physician. Another a Gas Station
Attendant. I, a Businessman. We all had a vision of what we wanted. None of
us had a more noble selection that the other.

Our job is not to muck up the food chain. Not only can't we all be Bill
Gates, for any number of reasons we don't want to be. We may just want to be
a dishwasher, the most important job in the restaurant.

God gave us "Free will". He knows better than we what we need.

Posted by BobM at 7:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The "un-campaign" continues...

..

.

This week, the two formidable Republican "non-candidates" of the '08 Prez race were both in the news-- together in the same story. That, of course, IS the story. Jonathan Martin, writing at the Politico, provides the details:

Newt Gingrich's long, slow striptease over whether he will seek the presidency in 2008 looks like it might come to an unexpected conclusion: a date with Fred Thompson.

This is a rather interesting turn of events, although not altogether surprising. Back in May, I had the opportunity to hear Newt speak at an event in Manchester where he made it quite clear that if the right person touting the right issues were to join the race, he might not feel as pressured to make a run for the White House himself. He mentioned Fred Thompson as one possible example of who might be such a candidate. He also said several positive things about Rudy Giuliani and some of his ideas for building efficiency in government. In fact, I have been thinking for quite some time that a Giuliani-Gingrich ticket might have some merit. In the past 3 or 4 months, I have noticed that Newt almost always mentions Rudy in a positive way during TV appearances.

.

If this story turns out to be correct, and Newt casts his lot with a Thompson campaign, it will be a big score for them. Newt remains very popular with many conservatives (including me) and will certainly help Fred gain credibilty within that group of Republicans. Having Newt on the campaign trail speaking on his behalf is something that could very well be priceless in terms of helping to sell a program of positive change and obtainable solutions to the issues of the day.

.

Click here to read the entire article. I still think, despite the case Martin lays out, there's still a chance for a Rudy/Newt team. "But Doug, Newt wouldn't settle for VP, would he? He just doesn't seem like he could be the second banana." You mean like Dick Cheney?

Posted by Doug at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Carol Shea Porter & Paul Hodes: Taking credit where none is due.

..

.

In a July 5th post for a left-wing Granite State blog touting all of the "accomplishments" and promises kept for the people of NH by our two freshman Congressmen, Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley wrote,

Rep. Shea-Porter and Rep. Hodes also fought to raise the minimum wage for the first time in a decade.

Sounds good, right? They did all they could to make this happen, right? Well not really. Our friends at the Majority Accountability Project (MAP) have helpfully reminded everybody that despite claims to the contrary, they didn't really do everything that they could have done to make the new Federal minimum wage increase a reality:

In one of the most brazen displays of political chutzpah since the start of the 110^th Congress, a slew of freshmen Democrats this week held news conferences, made speeches and issued press releases to claim credit for a new law the majority of them voted against, research by the Majority Accountability Project (www.majorityap.com) has found.
This week’s increase in the federal minimum wage was hailed by New Hampshire Democrat Chairman Raymond Buckley, who attended a news conference hosted by U.S. Representatives Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter at the Merrimack Valley Day Care Service in Concord.
“While Representatives Shea-Porter and Hodes are being a voice for New Hampshire families, it is a shame that (U.S. Senators Judd) Gregg and (John) Sununu voted to eliminate the federal minimum wage entirely,” Buckley said.

Heh. There's only one slight problem:

Buckley seemed unaware that Hodes and Shea-Porter voted against legislation that allowed the minimum wage hike to become law, while both Sununu and Gregg voted in favor.

Click here to read the rest of the story. Seems that the minimum wage increase was tacked on as part of the war-funding bill-- the one with no deadline for troop withdrawal that gained so much attention some time back-- and, as we all know, Hodes and Shea-Porter both voted against the measure. Now they tout something they voted against that passed anyway as one of their "accomplishments". Have they no shame?

Ray Buckley says,

The people of New Hampshire should be incredibly proud of Rep. Shea-Porter and Rep. Hodes for all that they are doing...

Or not...

Posted by Doug at 7:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Meet The New Press - Podcast for 7/28/07

Meet The New Press
Radio at the speed of the Blogosphere!

(A radio show by bloggers about the goings on in blogosphere)
WEMJ 1490 Saturdays 11am-1pm (EDT)
Streaming Live!

Meet The New Press Podcasts

To play (or "stream") a clip now, just click on it. To download it to your PC, right click on it and tell the process where to save the file for you.

Week of 07/28/07

Hour 1 here Hour 2 - here

SchlubCam:

We had Pat McKenna of the New Hampshire Sustainable Energy Association discussing
alternative energy and conservation techniques.

Pat's business's website is located here.

Posted by Skip at 7:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Radio today! It's Meet the New Press-- 11AM EST. Broadcast or Livestream...

.

Once again, this week's broadcast version of the New Media brings an array of items and guests for your consideration. As always, thanks to the technical wizardry and analytical skills of Skip, if you are beyond the broadcast area of Newstalk 1490 WEMJ, simply click here for instructions on how to connect and listen on the Internet via livestream. (Podcasts here)

Gilford, Moultonboro, the School Board, and the Right-to-Know. This week we witnessed yet another example of why this law is so important. Left to their own devices, government will almost ALWAYS choose closed-doors. What did the Gilford School Board members have to say about the Gilford Budget Committee that couldn't be said in public under the watchful eyes of the video cameras?
Guest Liz Mair of LizMair.com and GOPProgress. We'll talk about what's happened to GOPProgress. Also, the state of the Prez '08 race-- Some Fred, Rudy-- That Big, Bad social liberal... Why Churchgoers still love him. and the "Romney Straw Poll". Also the Manchester GOP machine gun shoot fundraiser. What's up with that? Romney's strange remark on the affair. We'll talk about the state of some US Senate races and, time permitting, Liz's column in the Washington Times about the home-loan financing.
In studio guest Patrick McKenna. A Gilford resident, Pat is active in the energy saving/ alternative source realm. He is a member of the New Hampshire Sustainable Energy Association and advocates market solutions to today's energy and pollution concerns. We'll discuss the statewide movement towards energy-related committees and groups in many towns and cities. We'll discuss the proposed Gilford Energy Committee. Patrick is familiar with the efforts in Plymouth with their energy/ pollutant-contol program, which is rather extensive. Whether you believe man-made global warming exists or not, saving $$$$ by saving energy is something we can all embrace.
Guest Michael Brady of the Majority Accountability Project (MAP). He'll tell us about our two Democratic Congressmen Hodes and Shea-Porter and how they voted against legislation and yet, now that it's passed, they take credit for it. We'll also get an update about how Shea Porter is still getting campaign funds from a group she told NHerites she would NOT accept monies from...
We'll give a quick update on the new Right-to-Know lawsuit we filed this week against the Belknap County Convention. These guys (state representatives all) still don't get it!

What a show! It all starts at 11AM EST today. Tune in if you're in Central NH at NewsTalk 1490AM WEMJ or live on the 'Net here...

Posted by Doug at 8:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Diplomacy is war by other means.....

Seems that the current crop of Democratic Presidential candidates, especially Mr. Obama, need to learn this basic lesson. Diplomacy is merely using up air unless you mean what you say and are willing to back it up.

(H/T: MilitaryMotivator)

Posted by Skip at 8:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This is disturbing....

The Politico is reporting the Senator Schumer (D-NY) has decided that he and the Senate should have the ultimate say on who is on the Supreme Court:

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

Judge, jury, and executioner? It is once thing to have the power to confirm a Presidential candidate or not based on their merits; it is another to announce well ahead of time that it matters NOT what the person's qualifications are or are not. In effect, is Schumer setting up a Constitutional crisis by hamstringing the other two branches of government? He, in effect, is telling the President that power granted to him by the Constitution has just been revoked. He is telling the Supreme Court that they may have to function without a full bench.

For years, I have heard of the "Imperial Presidency" and how bad it is for the country for the Executive branch to have too much power. Given what I have seen from this Democratic Congress, the phrase "Imperial Congress" has already arrived. Ever since the Dems took over the Congress in November (due to poor stewardship of the Republican leadership at all levels), they have attempted to run roughshod over the Administration and making pronouncements of inevitibility. While it is a good thing that some of the Republican leadership finally found a spine and true leadership qualities to put a kibosh to many silly things, the attitude of the Dems in this case will come back to haunt them.

Hyperpartisanship flows both ways when needed, and the divisiveness shown by Schumer is simply outrageous.

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Given how long the Court has been liberal, in my opinion, it is a correction well overdue. But it also brings to the fore a feeling that there should always be a "balance" between conservative and liberals....which is nonsense. Elections have consequences, and losing a Presidential election has ramifications on Supreme Court nominations.

It is one thing to vote down an unqualified candidate - it is another to only say "no" to ANY candidates because they don't fit one's sense of liberalness (and later, conservativeness).

I'm no lawyer (and I'm not going to play one in a blog either), but if the person is legally qualified, the Senate should affirm a President's nomination - even if I hate the philosophy of that nomination.

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.

“There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Congress should ascertain if the candidate meets the legal requirements of the position, not their political leanings. And once on the bench, that's it.

A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.

Posted by Skip at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's nice to be able to thank Sen. Gregg for doing the right thing (finally) on border security.

.

Thursday's dead-tree version on the Union Leader newspaper had the good news:

Sen. Judd Gregg is leading a push to resurrect a portion of last month's failed immigration reform bill that would tighten security along the nation's southern border.

Good for Senator Gregg! I have said many times during the weeks of debate and argument over the so-called "comprehensive " immigration bill that there were many good points to it-- they just need to be considered separately. People were wise to the fact that a whole lot of bad provisions were mixed in with the good. And besides, as Gregg is quoted as saying in the Scott Brooks piece:

"The American people will not move forward... in the area of comprehensive immigration reform until they are confident that we have regained control over our borders."

What the amendment, which at the time of this writing has passed, does, is add monies for additional border agents, fences, and other measures designed to finally secure our border with Mexico. The amendment was, rightfully, added to the homeland security apprpriations bill currently in the Senate. I like it when a politician actually listens to the people. It sounds like Judd has gotten the message from the recently ended "shamnesty" bill. Apparently he's not alone. Reports the Concord Monitor:

The Senate overwhelming approved a border security amendment today that was written by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

Posted by Doug at 8:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The sky is falling...the sky is falling...we're #2 and not #1

The Union Leader ran this story yesterday, and the local papers ran it today:

State drops to second in Kids Count report

New Hampshire fell from its first-place perch of the past four years, but only to second nationally in the annual Kids Count report released today on the health and well-being of children and teenagers.
State-by-state Kids Count report cards have been filed annually for 18 years based on Census Bureau statistics in 10 categories, such as low birth weight, children in single-parent households, high school dropouts and infant mortality.
Overall, New Hampshire ranks second behind Minnesota in the report, funded and compiled by the Annie E. Casey Foundation based in Baltimore, Md.
The state led the nation in two categories: child poverty and teen births.

So far, not so bad! I actually went out to the actual data for NH (found here); take a look at BOTH the percentage and raw numbers data presentation.

Although the state's child poverty rate jumped 50 percent between 2000 and 2005, from 6 percent to 9 percent, New Hampshire's rate remains the nation's lowest. Mississippi's rate of 31 percent is the country's highest.
Still, that 9 percent equates to roughly 28,000 New Hampshire children living in poverty (income below $19,806 for a family of two adults and two children) in 2005, the latest year for which statistics are available.
Maria White, director of public affairs at the Children's Alliance of New Hampshire, said the state's high cost of living is largely to blame.
"Income and wages for many families in New Hampshire haven't been able to keep up with the increases in cost of living, and more children in our state are falling into the ranks of the poor," she said.

This part, I disagree with. Frankly, while costs are rising, this was a political statement. Looking at the numbers.

Nativity (where born) - a growth 4K to 8K in 5 years

Face it, most illegal immigrants are not well educated - most lack the equivalent of a high school diploma. Without skills on the part of the parents, of course these kids will be in poverty. And that pool of children, from the study, is above 10% of the native born children population.

New Hampshire also led the way with just 18 births per 1,000 females ages 15 to 19. Texas had the most young mothers, at 63 births per 1,000 teens.
New Hampshire's number has fallen significantly in recent years, from 23 births per 1,000 teens in 2000.
Ann Larney, a public affairs director for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, said keys to keeping that number low are knowledge and communication.
"Planned Parenthood emphasizes education, prevention and good health care," said Larney. "I think our new efforts have been focused on parents and teens and the need to talk about healthy relationships and encourage their teens to delay sexual activity until they are mature enough."

I have a hard time philosphically with her statements, given that Planned Parenthood led the charge to get the parental notification bill repealed. Often times, statements uttered by their representatives talked about women and that the right to an abortion had to be maintained.....when the discussion was about 13 year old girls! How many abortions did they participate in during those years - and yes, I would add that to the death rate (sure, my bias is certainly showing...proudly).

The largest improvement in any category for New Hampshire was its high school dropout rate, which dropped 33 percent between 2000 and 2005.

This is a good improvement as well!

But the Granite State ranks better than only Indiana and Montana in graduating students with disabilities. Those students leave school at nearly three times the rate of their non-disabled peers.

[snip]

"There's still kind of a resistance by many schools to want to serve kids with disabilities adequately," said Cohen. "There are some schools that actually encourage kids to drop out."

He said New Hampshire's reliance on local property taxes to pay for education has fostered a poisonous atmosphere toward students with disabilities and the price tag for their education.

"There's almost a mean-spiritedness among some officials in schools and some communities," said Cohen.

OK, snark time...it seems that when those in public debate use "mean spirited", it is generally in terms of people who are balking at spending other peoples' money as the person uttering "mean spirited" wants (think liberals, as I never hear conservatives use that phrase except sarcastically or in satire). In other words, if a community isn't instantly ready to open the pocketbook, we're selfish.

I looked at the data, and did come up with a conclusion: The most important thing, once I switched to raw numbers and all years available, were the last 4 data sets:

Teens not attending school and not working (2001-2K to 2005-4K)
Children living in families where no parent has full time year round employment (2001-69K to 2005-82K)
Children in Poverty (100%) (2001-21K to 2005-28K)
Children in Single Parent families (2001-63K to 2005-70K)

If I were to casually sum these all up (and I am not a statistician), it shows to me that as the number of single parent families grows, so does the number of children living in poverty. I believe that there is more than a casual connection between poverty and dropping out of school and then having kids of their own. This is a serious problem and is only going to grow.

Why? We seem to denigrate marriage rather than supporting it. According to Dr. William Cosby (and proved by a number of studies), it only takes the following to keep from falling or staying in poverty:

Get a high school diploma
Get and hold a job
Get and stay married
Then have kids - not before

Thus, how to fix the problem?

Strengthen families so as to make divorce less prevalent, then kids stay out of poverty and will probably have better outcomes in school. The poverty numbers will go down as well as the other data set elements in this study (teen deaths, low birth weight rates, et al) will continue to trend downward.

Posted by Skip at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

If the results are nil, why bother?

From the San Francisco Chronicle

SAN FRANCISCO Supervisors approve tough gun measure

San Francisco's already tough laws on firearms will get even stronger -- becoming some of the most restrictive in the country -- after a vote at City Hall Tuesday....

They don't like the military (one supervisor believes that all the country need to defends itself is the Coast Guard and police), they don't like the Blue Angels, they don't like....well, you get the idea.

Being one of the most (if not THE most) liberal cities in the country, they certainly don't like guns - they're eeevvviiillll. Hey, ban the guns and crime will go away. Restrict peoples rights to own or carry guns should work, right?

Er...

...But even new restrictions won't do much to stop the gun violence escalating on city streets, one sponsor of the new laws said after the vote.

The violence that has been generally confined to more crime-plagued neighborhoods crossed into a major tourist area Monday afternoon, with a shooting that left one person dead and put bullet holes through the front window of a popular restaurant.

Gun-related homicides, injuries from shootings, and gun crimes in and around schools are becoming increasingly common, according to the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice.

Well, THAT notion seems to be working real well - in proving that old saw of "if you make owning a gun a crime, then only criminals will have guns"...

Yes, the come back is "well, the guns are coming from outside the city!". Well, of course. But look what has happened in Britain....restrict guns and they'll use something else. And yes, Britain now has a terrific problem - knives have replaced guns.

The laws -- which gained final approval from the Board of Supervisors -- would restrict both the sale and possession of firearms.

Specifically, they would prohibit the possession or sale of firearms on city property, require firearms in residences to be in a locked container or have trigger locks and require firearm dealers to submit an inventory to the chief of police every six months.

The last provision is intended to allow city officials to know how many guns are sold, though there is only one gun shop in the city.

Please answer me one question - if it isn't helping to combat crime, if the restrictions that have been passed have effectively done nothing....why?

Despite the laws, however, Mirkarimi said he doubts they will quell the kind of violence that erupted on Monday afternoon, which police suspect may be tied to a feud between a San Francisco gang and an East Bay gang.

"Nobody should be surprised about the migration and proliferation of gun violence in San Francisco," Mirkarimi said. "We've been saying this for two-and-a-half years, that the murders, homicides and gun violence that have been occurring in the more routine areas ... have now migrated into other areas."

Sure thing! No deterrence (gee, someone else might have a weapon to use on me as I rob or assault them!) only emboldens some. Add to that the fact that they are a sanctuary city and the police are hamstrung with politically correct regulations, what would you expect?

Voters passed the proposition with 58 percent in favor, but it is tied up in court after the National Rifle Association challenged its constitutionality. Newsom said the vote amounted to a "public opinion poll."

Conservative - a liberal that got mugged....if they survive.

Posted by Skip at 8:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Mitt Romney at Jack's

Mitt Romney (GG file photo)

Jack’s in New London was a happening place this morning, July 25, when I arrived about 10:15 am. It helps to know the area, so I didn’t even try to park at Jack’s since I assumed the lot would be full. It was.

So, I scooted directly down to the Kearsarge Regional Middle School which is behind Jack’s and parked the ole’ gal and walked up to Jack’s. The place was full when I arrived with some spillover outside.

Since I’m an “undecided” at the moment, I was asked to give an interview for the local Argus-Champion paper. The nice young reporter, Phillip, diligently wrote everything down I said so check it out next Wednesday. Hopefully, he won’t misquote me on anything, but then, hey, I’ve been called names and misquoted before. Likely, I’ve misquoted people as well. I hope I don’t do that here, but I’m a lefty, took some notes in shorthand and longhand and wrote a lot while I was listening to Mitt.

I really wanted to ask him if his father was a baseball fan and that’s why he named him Mitt. However, it seemed there were much more pressing issues to address during the Q&A so I refrained. But, I’m still curious. Does anybody know?

I spoke with one of the nice young staffers, Christy I think, first and queried her on some war issues. She was well-prepared and knew her stuff. I had previously been sent some info on Gov. Romney’s stance on major social issues, immigration, and protecting traditional marriage from the very nice, Emily Cantin, one of the field reps, whom I also had the pleasure of meeting.

Please take all of this with a grain of salt, but I think this is the gist of what Gov. Romney had to say about a lot of different things.

I met him outside first and introduced myself and asked him if I could ask him a question about the war. He said, of course, I’ll call on you during the Q&A.

One thing for certain is that he definitely looks like Presidential material and has the demeanor, a strong handshake, and seems very comfortable in his own skin. He was tan and perfectly coifed, of course. In fact, with temps in the 90’s and high humidity my long, thick, rather coarse, just washed hair was starting to frizz a bit and I wanted to ask him what hair product he recommends for smoothing out one’s hair since his looked so sleek and smooth with just the right amount of graying so as to look distinguished.

After pressing the flesh outside for awhile…I was impressed that he seemed to remember a lot of people’s names, discussed things of interest to them, etc….he made his way just inside the door and grabbed a chair and stood up on it and started talking.

He told a cute little story about turning 60 last March and that his five boys had talked about giving him something special for the milestone birthday like a car. He was given keys to a car on his birthday and said he was hoping to go outside to find a new Mustang, Dodge Viper or Corvette.

Well, they gave him a 1962 Rambler American because Mitt’s dad (George) made Ramblers until 1962. They took the car for a ride and he pointed out to his kids how big the steering wheel was (necessary to turn the darn things since there was no power steering back then, no armrests, etc.) It actually brought back some found memories for me of the cars I grew up with in the 60’s.

This led into a discussion of the US auto industry. He talked about the once great industry and I sensed his true love of automobiles and he seemed to be fondly reminiscing about his childhood. He mentioned that foreign auto makers used to represent only 1% of sales and now represent 50% of US auto sales. According to him the reason that Detroit can’t compete is due to the huge “leg”….hmmm….okay that’s what I wrote down and I’m currently drawing a blank on the word…pensions, health care costs of retired UAW workers, etc. which foreign auto makers aren’t saddled with so they can be much more competitive. Then I was a bit surprised that he said he wasn’t going to reveal his ideas on how to solve the problem, but that it was between the White House, manufacturers and the Unions.

I did get the sense, however, that he did have a plan and that it would take some sacrifice on the part of the retired UAW workers. Hmmm, I wonder how anxious they’d be to have their pension or healthcare cut to make Detroit successful again?

He mentioned that Washington’s “broken”…ya think?...and the challenges are great, but the democrats have taken a sharp left-turn toward Europe and basically, that it won’t work; i.e., big government rather than his belief in small government.

His three main points were 1) military 2) economy and 3) strong families. I liked what he said about strong families and that people should get married before they have babies. He also believes that the military needs more and better care and sincerely seemed to appreciate our troops sacrifices, both past and present. And, yes, of course, war questions came up during the Q&A, but I haven’t gotten to that point in my notes yet, plus I’m still trying to think what that word is that I wrote as “leg.”

He talked about kids today being improperly exposed to an oc

GraniteGrok

Blogroll

Favorites

Local Commentary

Local News

Activists

Sam Adams Alliance blogs

Free Market and Limited Government

News

Islamic World

Pure Politics

MilBlogs

Environmentalism (or not)

Geeky Stuff

Education

Blog Commentaries

Radio and TV Shows

Design - Architecture - Stuff

Presidential Campaign Sites

Last Man Standing

Humor

July 31, 2007