SaveTheGOP.com on the $100 Gas Rebates

http://www.savethegop.com/archives/2006/04/28/100-gas-rebates/

I’m not even sure what to say about this because it goes so far beyond absurdity it would actually be quite humorous if it wasn’t sadly so real. Can we officially say the Republican Party is now the “I’m not quite as Socialist as the other guy” party? What is wrong with our government when educated, elected officials come up with an idea so blatantly stupid and think it’s the cat’s meow of the day?

Here is an idea. Lower the friggin gas tax!! Yeah, right. That’s not going to happen. Once the price crunch is over the Republicans don’t want to have to be the ones to say, “Ok, time to raise it back up again.”

Most American taxpayers would get $100 rebate checks to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote soon………

……. “Our plan would give taxpayers a hundred dollar gas tax holiday rebate check to help ease the pain that they’re feeling at the pump,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced Thursday.

Frist is such an ass. There is no way I am supporting this guy for President in ‘08. This whole move is nothing but pure cowardess.

Thomas Paine’s "Common Sense": Part 1

This is the First Part of a Four Part analysis of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. I hope this motivates the reader to read the actual work themselves

Part One will focus on Paine’s Opinion of Government.

—

“Society is produced by our wants; and government by our wickedness.”

When Thomas Paine opens Common Sense with these words, we can see clearly that the intellectual inspiration for the American Revolution was ingrained with a hatred that government itself exists.

Some will and have argued that this is merely a hatred of King George’s British government. This claim is patently refuted by the next paragraph –

“Society in every state is a blessing, but government in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state and intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we might furnish the means by which we suffer.”

The essence of this statement is that yes, King George’s government is a far worse state to live under than if there were no government at all; but furthermore, all government is but a necessary evil. He does not distinguish that one form of government is evil and the other virtuous; but that all government has only varying degrees of evil inherent to its very existence.

Even with this, Paine does not characterize King George’s as even the most evil in the world –

“Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice, in favor of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that it is wholly owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitution of the government that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey.”

This statement is very insightful as not only does it corresponds with modern times with we transpose ‘Turkey’ for the Middle East in general; it also sets the tone for what later will become the concept of Self-Determination. The phrase “wholly owing to the constitution of the people” can only mean that Paine believes that the only reason ‘the people’ are ever oppressed is not because the government has made that it’s policy; rather it is because ‘the people’s constitution’ allows them to be oppressed.

What does Paine attribute oppression itself to? When he speaks ‘Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession’ he sets it out plainly –

“Oppression is often the CONSEQUENCE, but seldom or never the MEANS of riches.”

A century after Common Sense was written, the world would refer to this as ‘Marxist Rhetoric.’ Rightfully so, but it gives more motivation into the fact that Class Hatreds have fueled every Revolution, including our own.

Paine also goes into the history of the government. He describes how his contemporary Holland had been without a King for over a century and was doing fine.

“Antiquity favors the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs hath a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.

Government by Kings was first introduced into the world by the Heavens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set foot for the promotion of idolatry.”

Here Paine goes beyond the belief that government is inherently evil, to outright saying that government is a tool and invention of the Devil. The words are so blunt so that the reader knows that there are no vagaries as to what he is saying. He further examines the scripture of the Bible from which governments have always taken their divine power -

“ ‘Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’ is the scripture doctrine of the courts, yet it is no support of monarchial government, for the Jews at that time were without a King, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.”

There is a change in these words as Paine now does differentiate by use of the ‘monarchical’ qualifier before ‘government.’ What prompts this linguistic change is unclear, but it is the first time that the qualifier is used.

—

Part Two will focus on Paine’s views of Revolution - both in theoretical terms as well as directly to the American Revolution that was underway at the time he wrote Common Sense.

Keeping Talented Youth In North Dakota

Bismarck Tribune - April 21st, 2006

In response to the editorial of April 18 concerning the cost of college tuition, I would like to add some perspective from a recent graduate.

The rate at which tuition is increasing will soon price North Dakota out of the education market. Currently, our tax-subsidized system has a focus on importing students from out of state as its means of creating growth.

An economics professor here in North Dakota told me, “We need to attract talent to compensate for the talent that wants to leave the state. If people want to leave, they will. We cannot force them to stay. We should encourage people to come to North Dakota, not force people to stay.”

I firmly believe that this is the attitude that drives the official policy makers. At some point, the goal went from keeping our young people here to “forget our own young people, let’s just bring other people into the state.”

As a young person who would like to be able to stay in North Dakota and make a living, this policy can only be considered folly, and it is certainly counter-productive to the economic development goals of this state.

With the cost of tuition sky-rocketing so much that the state of North Dakota was forced to limit tuition increases to 9.9 percent annually, there must be a corresponding incentive to encourage students to stay in-state for education. Surely, if there are tax incentives for corporations to come and stay in North Dakota, it is only wise and fair that the same should hold for individual residents.

Some things that would be a good start would be:

- 100 percent tax exempt status of tuition, books and other supplies directly related to the student’s educational program.

- An extension of the student loan repayment grace period to one year.

- A 10 percent-a-year early repayment discount on principal for those graduates who choose to stay in North Dakota after graduation and contribute to the economic future of the state, rather than leaving North Dakota for higher income opportunities.

3 0 percent interest for up to five years for graduates who remain within the state for that time period.

This should be referred to as the “Karvo Plan,” as it is the suggestion that Ian Karvo made in his pre-convention effort to obtain the GOP nomination for Congress. In the spirit of full disclosure, I should say that I was involved in that effort and the creation of this policy suggestion.

I am not suggesting that this will be a total solution for the outmigration issue. But the talent we lose as a state by the outgoing of educated youth is detrimental to the overall success of the state. This “brain drain” is bleeding North Dakota dry and can only be stopped by how we deal with the current structure of the education system within the state.

Something needs to be done — maybe not my suggestions, but at the very least a discussion needs to begin, and quite possibly a complete change in attitude.

Oil Price Spike Retaliatory?

Oil Price Spike Retaliatory?

The possibility exists that the recent and rapid jump in oil prices is directly connected to the failed Dubai Ports deal that the Bush Administration supported.  

Current speculation points toward the failed deal as the trigger for the current run-up of oil prices.  If this speculation is true, it may vindicate the concerns those opposed to the deal expressed at the time.

Assuming this speculation is credible, then it is safe to say that these are not the type of people from a character standpoint that we should, as a nation, deal with.  

We should not be dealing with people, who at the first hint of not having things go their way, turn on us in a very ugly way.  

If this speculation is to be believed, the nations of OPEC have declared economic war on America.  Furthermore, if this is the case, we must scale back relations and commerce with these nations.  

To the Editor

To the Editor,

In response, and in addition to the Editorial on April 18th concerning the cost of college tuition, I would like to add some perspective from a recent graduate.  

The rate at which tuition is increasing will soon price North Dakota out of the education market.  Currently, our tax-subsidized system has a focus on importing students from out-of-state as its means of creating growth.  

An Economics professor here in North Dakota told me: “We need to attract talent to compensate for the talent that wants to leave the state…If people want to leave, they will.  We can not force them to stay…We should encourage people to come to North Dakota, not force people to stay.”

I firmly believe that this is this attitude is what drives the official policy makers.  At some point, the goal went from “keeping our young people here” to “forget our own young people, let’s just bring other people into the state.”  

As a young person who would like to be able to stay in North Dakota and make a living, this policy can only be considered folly – and it is certainly counter productive to the economic development goals of this state.  
With the cost of tuition sky-rocketing so much that the State of North Dakota was forced to limit tuition increases to 9.9% annually; there must be a corresponding incentive to continue to encourage students to stay in-state for education.  Surely, if there are tax incentives for corporations to come and stay in North Dakota, it is only wise and fair that the same should hold for individual residents.  
Some things that would be a good start would be:

• 100% tax exempt status of tuition, books, and other supplies directly related to the student’s educational program.
• An extension of the student loan repayment grace period to one year.
• A 10% per year ‘early repayment discount on principle’ for those graduates who choose to stay in North Dakota after graduation and contribute to the economic future of the state, rather than leaving North Dakota for higher income opportunities. 
• 0% interest for up to 5 years for graduates who remain within the state for that time period.

This should be referred to as the “Karvo Plan,” as it is the suggestion that Ian Karvo made in his pre-Convention effort to obtain the GOP nomination for Congress; and in the name of full disclosure, I was involved in that effort and the creation of this policy suggestion.
I am not suggesting that this will be a total solution for the Out Migration issue.  But the talent we lose as a state by the outpouring of educated youth is detrimental to the overall success of the state.  This ‘brain-drain’ is bleeding North Dakota dry and can only be stopped by how we deal with the current structure of the education system within the state.
Something needs to be done.  Maybe not my suggestions, but at the very least a discussion needs to begin; and quite possibly a complete change in attitude.

Great Take on the 2008 Front Runners

Great Take on the 2008 Front Runners

http://www.savethegop.com/archives/2006/04/18/this-is-who-we-have-to-choose-from/

Alexander Brunk @ SavetheGOP.com says:

RINO extraordinaire Hugh Hewitt has a new poll up on his website of the 2008 GOP presidential contenders.
The choices are: George Allen, Sam Brownback, Bill Frist, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.
If these are the only choices available for 2008, I don’t know that I could vote for any of them. A quick assessment of each:
George Allen - pro-choice on abortion for most of his career, began voting pro-life since his election to the US Senate but has never taken a clear stance on the issue. Unwilling to stand up to Bush or the Republican leadership on spending restraint. As NRSC Chairman in 2004, deliberately rigged primary elections in favor of moderate Republicans, even in cases where a conservative challenger was the stronger general election candidate.
Sam Brownback - has raised almost no money, extremely weak on immigration to the point of favoring amnesty. Also unwilling to stand up to Bush on spending restraint and pork projects.
Bill Frist - has been an extremely ineffective Senate Majority leader. Is dull and does not excite, well, anyone. Switched positions on stem cell research. As NRSC Chairman in 2002, also favored moderates in primary elections, though not as glaringly as Allen in 2004. Continues to defend the NRSC’s spending money supporting Lincoln Chafee in 2006 despite Chafee’s recently being rated as more liberal then most Democrats in the Senate.
Rudy Giuliani - openly socially liberal across the board. Opposed the partial-birth abortion ban, has lots of skeletons in his closet from his personal life (cheating on his wife, etc).
Mike Huckabee - fought conservative state legislators in Arkansas tooth and nail to prevent a crackdown on illegal immigrants. Raised taxes and the minimum wage as Governor. Attacked the Club for Growth for calling him out on his failure to be fiscally conservative.
John McCain - What can I say? Campaign Finance Reform, Kyoto, judges, whoring himself to the media at every opportunity to attack Republicans, flip-flopping on Roe v Wade…. the list goes on.
Mitt Romney - Ran as pro-choice to be elected Governor. Appointed vast numbers of liberal judges in Massachusetts (and very few conservative ones). Favors universal health care.
So those are our choices. What is a conservative to do? I had originally been hoping for a Mark Sanford candidacy, and after he bowed out I leaned toward supporting Tom Tancredo. Not that it appears neither plans to run, I’m at a loss. I have several friends involved in a ‘Draft Mike Pence’ organization, but it seems unlikely that he will run as well.
So I’d like to hear your suggestions. Who should conservatives support for President in 2008? Is there any hope of a conservative winning the primary this time around?
I’ll follow up sometime in the next few days with a post discussing several people who I believe could step forward as the conservative candidate for President in 2008.

This day

Today:

Oil hit $71.85
Wholesale Unleaded hit $2.22

And Bush refused to dispel the idea that America’s Nuclear First Strike policy will be altered.

But there’s no crisis!

Yet Another Bush Admin Controversy Coming Up

U.S. Plan For Flu Pandemic Revealed

Particularly disturbing is this:

The Treasury Department is poised to sign agreements with other nations to produce currency if U.S. mints cannot operate.

Will these ‘other nations’ have the plates to print our money before the flu hits?

Why will these ‘other countries’ have the man-power to print our money and if we don’t?

How will we control our money supply if printing capabilities are stolen at some point?

Will Bush Support these Oppresed Peoples?

Taiwan Falun Gong asks US to help stop China’s alleged abuse

Taiwanese members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement requested Washington to use President Hu Jintao’s visit to press Beijing to stop abusing sect members in China, despite a US investigation that found no evidence to back recent claims.

“Recent reports have revealed many concentration camps in China where tens of thousands of Falungong practitioners are being held and face possible death,” the group said in a statement.

China outlawed the Falun Gong, which combines meditation with Buddhist-inspired teachings, as an “evil cult” in mid-1999 and practitioners have subsequently faced often brutal repression.

The US government said Friday that a team of US officials had found no evidence in northern China to support claims that Falun Gong followers had been killed and their organs harvested in concentration camps.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Washington had taken the Falun Gong’s charges “seriously” and had urged the Chinese government to probe the claims.

Hu is due to arrive in the US capital Wednesday, before meeting with Bush the next day.

There are an estimated 300,000 Falun Gong adherents in Taiwan.

Not much to say on this other than if other groups deserve American action, so does this one.

Defining Minimiums

Ardent free market advocates are correct in arguing that the wage support that is the minimum wage creates artificial unemployment. The economics prove that if the minimum wage were abolished, that there would be no unemployed Americans. The downside of their argument is that Americans would be working for 10 cents per hour somewhere.

Obviously this is unacceptable, which is why labor laws were created in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; labor laws that included limitations on child labor as well as the Federal Minimum Wage.

While some may argue that this was the beginning of socialistic economic planning, it should be clear to most that letting corporations have free reign on their labor forces was not working.

Which brings us to the current situation: The Federal Minimum Wage has been set a $5.15/hr since 1997. However, many states have exceeded this Federal Minimum. Minnesota has increased its wages to $6.15. Which has put pressure on the Fargo economy as workers can cross the river for a better wage.

Opponents of a higher minimum wage argue that the minimum wage is something only teenagers earn. Fine, let’s limit the increase to those members of the workforce over 18 years of age. Those under 18 will still be protected by the Federal Minimum.

The fact is, if we are to have a minimum wage, it should be at a level that a person can sustain a living - even if just for the short term.

What should the minimum wage be set at?

Since the current rate of $5.15 was set in 1997 we have had fairly low inflation, roughly 3% inflation on the annual rate from 1997 to 2005. Since any legislation during the 2007 biennium would not take effect till August 1st, 2007 at the earliest. That will equate to a 10 year period. $5.15 at 3% compounded yearly for 10 years equals $6.92. Thus, setting the North Dakota minimum wage at $7.00/hr as of August 1st, 2007 would be economically supported.

The inflation has already occurred in the economy. If we are to have a minimum wage, it must keep up with the economic conditions or else those workers who rely on these lower paying job will continue to lose purchasing power, and the economy will stagnate.