There have been many calls for teachers (as well as other State and local government workers around the country) to take wage freezes, pay cuts, partial benefit reductions, or start paying their own benefits.  Why?  Because in state after state, the budget is unsustainable, spending is out of control, programs and services are threatened with cuts, and taxes are high enough that most states fear raising them or if they do raise, them, the raises are limited due to economic conditions.  Recent articles have stated that as many as 300,000 teachers could face layoffs around the country, and that intervention by the Federal government is necessary to preserve education as we know it.  Of course, many dispute this.  They see outrageous numbers such as 10,000 dollars per student (or more) to educate kids.  They see teachers stand in front of their children and complain that "we can't do this field trip or that activity or these creative lessons because of budget cuts"  They hear that teachers and other government employees get huge benefits that will be exempt from the luxury taxes others may pay for Obamacare, that they can retire at 50 with retirement pensions bigger than their salaries, that unlike the rest of us, their wages, retirements, and benefits are untouchable because of government employee unions. So are teachers overpaid, or do they sacrifice the pay they deserve to do a job they love and should get a lot more?  The answer of course is not that simple.

 

Teachers after all do a job that is hard to quantify.  If you produce a product, your production can be measured, if you provide a service, satisfaction of your clients can be evaluated.  But when you teach a child, there are so many factors, the most variable of which is the children themselves.  A teacher can get rave reviews from one parent and be considered a failure by another.  A teacher can reach many kids and see them succeed, but a few slip by and do not get the education they should.  And teaching is something we all have experienced from a student perspective, so we all know at some level what is a good or bad teacher.  And many of us have taught in some way too, in a Sunday School class, at home with our own kids, volunteering as a 4-H or Boy Scouts leader, we all have some level of expertise. 

 

So we all know a little, and we all have experienced a little, and we all see myopically, through the experiences of ourselves and our own children.  This makes evaluating teachers and their worth very personal and important to us.  A teacher who changes a childs life for the better is invaluable to that child and her family.  A teacher who provides a spark that convinces a student to follow a particular career path is irreplaceable to the one they inspired.  There is no way to put a dollar value on that.  But we as a society have to try.

 

A starting teacher in North Dakota makes on average 24,872, according to the website teacherportal.com, a site put together to help teachers compare different states for teachers.  In Connecticut, they start at 39,259 a year.  All other states are in between these values.  Considering a school year can vary between about 170 contract days and 190, and a typical school day is about 7 hours,   wages for a starting teacher can vary from 18.70 and 34.00 per hour.  Many would argue that this figure is skewed because teachers put in time after school in preparation and meetings, many volunteer to support school activities and events, and much of this is unpaid.  Reality is though, any salaried position is expected to spend some of their own time to make a business succeed.  A man I worked for who owned a feed store probably worked close to 80 hours a week, because it was his business and he was determined to see it succeed, so I do not feel this is a valid complaint.  Others would complain that as a teacher your summers are not really free, many teachers have to go back and complete a Masters, or take additional credits to keep up to date.  But again, this is part of the choice.  Doctors must keep current, so must Lawyers and many other professionals.  So 18-34 dollars per hour, which because of the very limited hours translates to a yearly salary of 25-40K a year.  This is only part of the story though.  Because the benefits package is added to this.  Medical, dental, vision, sick days, retirement, all of these are benefits that not everyone has.  My last year teaching, I made 39,000 but after including benefits, my salary package cost the school 57,000 a year.  And this was a private school with much less substantial benefits.  In a public school, the numbers would be greater. 

 

So these are the wages right out of college, how about average salary?  The highest average was in California, at 59,825 a year, which translates to between 45 and 57 dollars an hour depending on length of school year.  Add in benefits, and this means the AVERAGE teacher costs about 80-85000 a year.  If your district has more than average approaching retirement, this goes up.  If your district has many who are already retired, this amount goes up because the school is responsible for making up the difference when PERS falls short.  THIS is why there is a crisis in educational funding.  It isn't the starting teachers, its the retirees still being payed and the longer serving teachers being payed near the top of the pay scale.  The lowest was again North Dakota at 37,700 a year average which adds up to 28 to 35 dollars an hour.  So are these wages too low, too high, or just about right considering the work that is done?  That is really for you and I the taxpayers to decide.

 

Many teachers argue that what they do is tough.  I agree.  Many would not be able to spend every day keeping 25 8 year olds on task, managing a classroom of 40 14 year olds with hormones raging and all the teen angst they deal with, and to add to this being an expert in an academic field, it IS a lot to ask.  Those who teach, those who REALLY teach, have a gift.  They have a desire to see kids succeed, to impart some knowledge they see as vitally important, to teach kids the skills to be lifelong learners and to build on the base that has been provided.  There are many easier jobs than teaching.  But there are few as rewarding and enjoyable to one who really loves the task.  The reality is, whatever teachers are worth, whether its minimum wage or 100 dollars an hour, the fact is that a teacher is paid by the state, by the taxpayers, by the producers of goods and services.  The amount a state can take in is limited by the amount its citizens take in and by the amount they feel is just to pay for state and local services.  The amount paid to teachers must be balanced with the amount paid to police and fire, the amount paid to maintain infrastructure, the amount paid for other state services, and the amount paid for national defense.  All of these expenditures come out of taxpayers pockets.  When teachers become political, when their unions demand more from the parents of the kids they teach, they undermine their own standing in the community.  When they protect their own, when incompetent teachers and burnt out teachers and lazy teachers are equated with the good ones, it devalues the worth of genuine good teachers.  When the school closes itself off from the community, when it teaches ideologies and viewpoints contradictory to the values of its families, it creates mistrust and contempt.  It feeds a disconnect that makes the community value the school less and desire less for its teachers. 

 

So how do we "fix" this problem of disconnect, this problem that leads to mistrust and the undervaluing of teachers?  The number one answer would be school choice.  If we feel that each student should be costing 6,000 a year or 8,000 a year, we provide vouchers to parents to choose where to send their money.  There are two problems with this.  Not every student costs an equal amount to educate.  Special needs kids, English language learners, kids who depend on a bus to get to school, all of these things cost extra to provide.  If a voucher is not enough to cover the higher cost of these special needs, the kids who have these needs will not have school choice, they will be stuck.  And second, many parents are so busy, so wrapped up in work or trying to work, that they do not have the means even if a voucher is provided of taking their kid to a better school if it is further from home.  Their kids will be stuck in the poor schools because they do not have a way to transport them.  This is doable by a determined people, but even if the unions got out of the way, vouchers are a tough sell.  How much should they be?  How are they distributed?  How are the schools accepted or rejected?  Are religious schools ok, or not?  Who decides, the parents without oversight?  The kids?  The state?  After all it isn't the parents money, its taxpayer money at this point?  Or do we scrap public education all together and privatize the whole thing?  I think that would have to be phased in if chosen.

 

Second answer would be school accountability.  If the tenure system were subject to review, if a poor teacher or a teacher who has lost his ability could be let go, the teachers who remain would be seen in a better light.  If parents had access to the schools, if they were allowed to sit in class on occasion or volunteer they would know what the teachers are teaching and who is or is not a competent teacher.  It happens a lot in elementary schools but not at all at high schools.  Why is this?  If curriculum were not controlled at federal or state levels but by local districts and school boards, if people had more say in their schools, the connection would be better and the product would be better.  And if teachers would recognize the reality that the contracts their unions have negotiated are unsustainable, if they'd accept reduced benefits, especially retirement, and would recognize that at this time, perhaps a wage reduction is necessary though it is painful, maybe this proactive step would restore confidence that teachers are there after all for the students, and they don't just say that because it sounds good.  Most teachers are good, they do it because they care and they love it, and they have become hostile because its knee jerk, because they feel unappreciated in their communities.  Respect is a two way street though, and before the teacher can be respected, they must respect the parents and the kids they serve.  We have a long way to go.

Among Democrats and their media friends today, there are four competing narratives.  Each has some merit, but which one Obama and the Democrats in congress act on will have profound consequences in the election of 2010 and beyond.

 

1) Many are writing this off as a local fluke, Coakley was an indifferent campaigner, her arrogance and ineptness were a purely local problem and the results of this race do not have any bearing on the national stage.  While I do not doubt her political weakness, I believe this is probably the most foolish narrative to take from this election.  It is obvious to all except the delusional that anger is national and real, the key question is why and towards whom?

 

2) I read an article this morning by Thomas Edsall of New Republic.  In this article, he basically says that this movement is a white working class backlash against elite educated whites(and despite his race, Obama is among this elite because he is Ivy league educated) being percieved as transferring their middle class wealth to the lower class minorities.  Basically, he seems to be saying that racism is behind it, not anti Obama racism, but anti welfare racism, that is the result of white insecurity about America becoming more multicultural and less industrial.    He says that when Obama ran, he implied centrism on some issues and since being elected has abandoned that and alienated racist working class whites.  He goes on to say that as America becomes more multicultural, groups within that culture withdraw to themselves and distrust their neighbors more, and may make social reform harder to accomplish.  I must say I am awfully sick of hearing that whenever I oppose Obama I am racist, and this new spin is even worse.  It says that because I oppose socialism, I am inherently racist.  It may intellectually satisfy liberals to pass off opposition to their agenda as neanderthal racism but it is a losing view.  If the working class is inherently racist and clinging to their own race for comfort while the lockstep oppose reform, then there is not much hope of it changing for a generation or two, just reeducate the kids to see their parents as backwards and wait to enact progressive ideals until the next generation.

 

3) These last two are the most discussed and most common.  One one hand, many career politicians and people from the Clinton years are calling for triangulation.  They say that much as Clinton did after 94, Obama must moderate in appearance if not in reality.  He must drop much if not all of health care, drop cap and trade, and pursue stealth liberalism, advancing his agenda through the courts and through government agencies.  Legislatively, do some "moderate things" to give his allies in Congress cover and allow them to get through the election while painting the Republicans as obstructionists to a moderate agenda, not an extreme one.  It worked for Clinton (to a degree), and if Obama pursues this tactic, it may work for him.

 

4) The last one will sound familiar because many Republicans felt the same in 2006 and 2008.  Many progressives and liberal columnists are saying Obama and his ideas are not too liberal, but not liberal enough.  They say he has lost his base by not acting quickly enough to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, by not yet closing Gitmo, by conceding the public option on health care, by bailing out banks and Wall Street (like Bush) rather than massively transferring wealth to the poor from Wall Street.  According to these columnists, he needs to demand health care pass with all its liberal trappings, he needs to demand alternative energy and cap and trade, he needs to pursue an isolationist foreign policy in much quicker fashion.  They believe if he goes all out for progressivism, the people will rejoice and rise up to place him on the pedestal where he belongs, it is moderation that has damaged him.  Honestly, I see the point they are making.  I think this happened with Bush to a degree.  His conciliatory leftward lurches (education reform, prescription drugs, and others) were not far enough to appeal to the Democrats and did not make up for his shortcomings for the moderates.  He lost his base (especially with immigration reform) and did not gain any moderates.  These columnists would argue that Obama did the same thing.  he was never going to gain true bipartisanship, it no longer exists, so he should have done what the base wanted him to do, and once it was in place moderates would flock to him and be impressed. 

 

Because 3 and 4 are opposite, the response to this election is opposite depending on what narrative Obama and Congressional Democrats accept.  What I think is most likely to happen is that Obama and Congressional leadership will accept #4 while many Democratic individuals will accept #3 and try to moderate.  How this all plays out depends on where the American people really are and that is a different post.  

Senator Brown was not elected because the people of Boston and Springfield love Republicans, nor because they hate Democrats.  Its because they have seen Romney Care first hand and know what the more extensive Obamacare could do to this country.  This is not a mandate for Republicans, for George Bush and his policies, or for a bold new agenda.  Instead, it was a repudiation of Obama and his big government, big intrusive ideas of government. 

So Republicans, if you want to maintain this momentum into November and beyond, with all you have oppose these big government intrusions.  Do not sell out or cave in, stand strong against growing government.  Then get on TV and promote your own ideas, portability, tort reform, health savings plans, creative methods of reducing cost without growing government.  Stop cap and trade, then promote your own ideas:  Natural gas, Nuclear, market incentives rather than government incentives to improve solar, wind, and tidal power.  Stand strong against circuitous power grabs like the EPA passing stealth Cap and Trade regulations outside of the legislative process.  If necessary, use the courts or the states to stop these abuses of power.  Then, in 2010 or 2012 when you get some or all of your power back, remember why you are back in power.  This time, REDUCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  Deregulate, cut executive czar positions, reduce federal mandates that are helping lead to bankrupt states, get rid of extraneous federal agencies and employees, you know what to do because you often campaign on these things though you rarely follow through. 

 

Above all, stick to the issues, do not make this about Nancy Pelosi as a person (though that is easy to do, she invites it with her inane comments and arrogance), or about Obama as a person.  Keep the criticism all to issues like you've mostly done so far.  Republicans, this is your moment, now don't screw it up.

It is so easy to oppose federally controlled health care, so easy to say the words.  But what happens when you become one of the uninsured?  Let me share with you our story, as an uninsured family.

I had never really thought much about health insurance or its lack as a young man.  By policy rules, I remained covered under my parents policy until I was 23, but I was young, healthy and rarely needed it.  Between 23 and 25, I was an uninsured person.  My last year of college and my first year solely in the working world, I had no health care.  Had something catastrophic happened, I would have felt its lack, but I had no idea that it would ever matter.  My first job after completing college, I was a part time teacher, and I chose not to pay for the optional health care, that would have been out of pocket since I was not full time.  Then after a year, I joined the Navy.  Tricare meant everything was "free", and while I still didn't use much medical care, I sure noticed it when I got married and had a couple of kids.  We didn't pay any copays, any deductibles, and it was considered one of our benefitssince military pay was not all that high.  What I noticed with Tricare was that military hospitals had very long waits, many less than competent doctors, and huge inconvenience.  But of course, there was no cost.  Because of this, we were there all the time.  Every time a kid got a sniffle, we were there seeing if she had an ear infection.  Turn an ankle?  Sit in the ER waiting room 4 hours for an x ray.  Long waits, inconvenience, and mistakes were part of the price we paid.  I laughed when I left the military and people said one of the things we'd miss was the "free health care".  

 

Five months after I left the Navy, I began teaching in Sacramento.  The school district gave us three choices, one that was completely covered, and two where we paid part of the premiums.  The premiums were very expensive.  And for each visit, you had a copay.  For each prescription, you had a copay.  For x rays and tests, you paid a percentage until you reached a per person deductible.  After not thinking about what medical care cost my whole life, there was quite a bit of sticker shock.  For six years after that, I taught at a private school.  Being a small non profit business, they found health care premiums to be a huge burden for their 30-40 employees.  Their policy was crazy, large out of pocket premiums to cover the family, 40 dollar copays on visits, 25 dollar prescriptions, and patient pays a percentage of everything beyone routine.  My daughter broke her wrist.  Our portion was over $1000.  My wife went back to school and then was hire in a hospital.  Much better health care, but still, 20 dollar copays, still $150 a month to add the kids and $1000 deductible per family member.  Still, another broken arm (elbow this time and a different daughter), $500, a miscarriage, over $800.  Our third daughter born? Again about $1500 (not sure how it ended up over the deductible, but it did).  She needs minor surgery?  Our portion was close to $2000.  All of these were just incidents of daily life, nothing extravagant, nothing our fault, and yet over the last six years, we incured nearly $7000 dollars for a family that makes about 50,000 a year and that is with insurance.  Without  insurance our bills would have added up to nearly triple that.  Hillarycare may not be so bad.

 

This summer I decided to switch careers.  Lots of reasons, not going to discuss them here, but one of the challenges was that even with higher pay, the company I work for has just 6 employees, so they do not provide insurance.  We have applied with several companies as a family.  We have been turned down.  I am fat.  So even though I have normal blood pressure and cholesterol, and have never had any diagnosed problems except sleep apnea, I am a risk and they are unwilling to insure me.  My wife is also uninsurable because she has recurring migraines and has been on depression medicine.  So our kids are now insured, for the fairly reasonable price of $200 a month, but my wife and I are uninsured.  We could enter a "medical pool" for around 30% of my current income.  We could pay much much higher rates for catastrophic only coverage we've been told.  We could milk the system we've been told.   If we walk into an ER we have to be treated they say, and we could make arrangements afterwards to pay it back.  So how exacly is Obamacare a bad thing?

 

Well, it goes beyond Obamacare to insurance as a whole.  Insurance gives you the freedom to not be responsible.  When we had "free care" we took excessive advantage of it.  So did many families, thats why waits were so long.  Even when we had employer provided insurance, we never looked closely at bills, just what our portion was.  Before we got the kids insurance this summer, we had to take our oldest daughter to the doctor.  A simple visit, 15 minutes to diagnose a problem we already knew and prescribe a medicine which we couldn't do without a doctors visit was going to cost $180 with the first doctor.  My wife called 4 doctors, and found one that only charged $105.  For a visit that used to "cost" 20 dollars with insurance and nothing with Tricare.  And thats a big part of why insurance is a problem.  You want a car, you shop around.  You want car insurance, and you see dozens of ads on TV trying to get you to switch, they incentivize good clients because the costs of a good client are less than the expenses.  Car insurance is just for emergencies though, for accidents.  You have repairs, you pay out of pocket.  Medical insurance should be the same.  If doctors weren't forced to keep huge amounts of insurance against lawsuits, if they didn't give "free" visits to medicare, medicaid and other government programs, they could afford making daily visits more reasonable.  If you the consumer had to make decisions about which Doctor to go to not based on who your insurance accepts, but who was reasonable cost and did a good job like a mechanic, our system would be much better because the doctors would care about customer service like competing mechanics do.  If we had portability, if employers had nothing to do with health care, but we could take the care with us when we switched jobs, we could maintain policies for long term, and the company would make their money off us early in our 20's and 30's when we are healthier.  If we only had a social safety net to cover people who will need life long catastrophic care like those with birth defects or long term diseases like muscular dystrophy or cerebral palsy, then the system wouldn't be facing bankruptcy. 

 

While it may feel like it to the uninsured, the answer is not Obamacare, its not Hillarycare, its not a government behemoth that covers every contingency and deals with every issue.  Its people being accountable for their own care, saving money like we are doing now to cover office visits and small maintenance, and getting insurance only for the big ticket health needs.  Its doctors competing for patients, not the other way around.  Its tearing down the walls, whether insurance built or government built between people and their health care decisions.  Europe and Canada have shown that a one size fits all solution is a contributor to a bigger problem, not a solution to our current problem.  There are some major changes in health care that need to occur, but they are painful and people don't want to hear them.  And they come from the ground up, from people being accountable and holding their service providers accountable, not from some mandate on high.            

I recieved a request for a donation from the Republican Party.  This was my reply:

 

Mr Steele,

I don't know if you will read this or one of your staff or if it just gets deleted if there is no credit card number attached, but let me explain why I will not be donating to the RNC yet.  I want a party that is committed, Mr Steele, to ending the political grab bag of local goodies to score political points.  I do not yet see that from my Republican representatives.  I want a party that when it regains power of the purse in 2010, 2012, or beyond, will recognize that tax money is not a lottery prize to be divvied up between districts, but is to be used for national necessities, and that this country will never be right until it employs sound fiscal policy.  I read that between 30 and 40 percent of the earmarks in this budget were put into place by Republicans who loudly protested the budget while stuffing it with their own pet projects.  I want to know that the party I support will make a principled stand against using federal money for local projects.

I believe Mr. Steele that the federal budget is not a place for social engineering, local projects, or artificially supporting the foolish businesses, banks, individuals, and agencies that extended too far beyond their means and made foolish decisions.  I am speaking as a person who has lost a home to foreclosure.  I too made a foolish decision.  I expect to now rent for years with ruined credit until I save up a minimum of 20-30% and show myself worthy of another chance. I am not asking for a bailout.  I do not deserve one, and neither does the bank who lent to me with no money down and a 60 percent loan to income ratio.  They were foolish and so was I.  The American dream is not everything when you ask for it, its working towards your dream, enduring setbacks and patiently building towards a future while you wisely manage your resources.  I had to lose a home to realize that, and if banks and others are allowed the pain of failure, they too will learn the lesson it teaches.

Building is a lot harder though when my retirement has lost over 30% of its value and when my pay has been frozen for 3 years amd may be cut to keep our company (a private school, I teach science), afloat.....good thing I do not retire for another 32 years (If I retire at 70). 

The point Mr Steele, is that this Republican Party does not yet represent me.  I want three things from the party before I will contribute to it again:

1) I want a committment to fight the War on Terror with all resources available.  I was an Arabic Linguist in the Navy from 1996 to 2002, Iran, Syria and even Saudi Arabia, these are not our friends.  The President sets foreign policy, and your party has limited control or sayso over his decisions, but I need the party that represents me to stand firmly as a friend of Israel, for reform in tyrannical governments, and most of all against every nation who supports or sponsors terrorism and its perpetrators.  If our President decides to engage Syria and accept their unacceptable interference in Iraq and Lebanon, I want to hear Republicans voicing dissent.  If our President accepts a Nuclear Iran, I want to hear Republicans howling against it, demanding that we do whatever we can to stop them.  If Iraq dissolves into chaos and Obama continues to withdraw our troops from their hard fought victory, I want Republicans to demand we stay and complete the mission.

2) I want Republicans to demand energy independence, not the phony calls for carbon offsets, solar and wind and other pipe dreams, but true energy policy....the 35 nuclear plants McCain called for, drilling oil shale, and anywhere we can in our own nation, feasible green sources, but not unrealistic and infeasible pipe dreams we hear the left calling for.  They do not want energy independence, they want to reduce us to a third world country for a fake environmental utopia.

3)  I want Republicans to commit to fiscal responsibility.  To protest if not block every piece of legislation that calls for spending beyond National Defense, Infrastructure, and Energy Production.  No more interference in the field of health care, no more pointless and expensive farm subsidies, no local earmarks, no sham socialist lite posturing.

4) I want new Republican faces, war veterans, business owners, intelligent members of the faceless masses challenging for every house seat in 2010.  Not retreads from failed campaigns of the past, not pseudoRepublicans like Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter, real fresh new faces from among our 300million citizens ready to challenge for what was meant after all to be the chamber of the common man. 

You, Mr Steele, as chairman of the party, convince your members to meet these criteria, and I will support you with whatever means I can afford.  Continue to play politics as usual, and I will not be sending a dime.

Sincerely,

Wil Keepers

Yuba City, California 

I have not had time to post much, and I have not visited the other blogs here in months, but I hope to add something every so often like this letter.

 

The media complains about it constantly.  The Democrats vilify Republicans for it daily.  Collin Powell cited it as one of his main reasons for supporting Obama.  McCain decries it and says he won't do it.  How dare we go negative, go personal,  and come at our political enemies with such a negative tone?  Negative tones are a part of politics.  If there is no major difference, why vote for one candidate over the other.  If both are right, if both are moral, if both are good, what are you choosing between?  To me, the complaint about a "negative attack ad" is the official whinyness of the political class and it rings completely hollow.  Why do I oppose Obama?  His past decisions reflect judgement that casts question on his future decisions.  Bringing up associations, drug use, military service or absence thereof, past writings, past speeches, past votes, and past business dealings are all legitimate.  Any action taken by a politician in the public arena is fair game.  If I run for office some day, the words of these blogs and the comments I make are fair game.  The people I was friends with in college say something about me.  If they are all radicals, if they are all slacker partiers, if they are all cheating dirty dealers, that says something about me.  

Obama and his relationships to Ayers, Wright, Rezcko, and others tells us what kind of people he has leaned on when deciding things in the past, and it matters.  McCain and his association with those involved in the Keating 5 says something about him.  It all matters and it is all relevant. 

 

I only once have felt Republicans took it too far.  That was with the Clintons.  Bills tawdry doings in the White House only mattered to me because it seemed he had abused his position to have an affair of any sort with an intern.  The character flaw that led him to repeated dalliances with random women was despicable, but not politically relevant.  It was the relationship with a subordinate that bothered me.  His financial dealing because of their potential illegality mattered.  His wife, because of her role as the architect of his health care plan was relevant.  But any and all criticism of Chelsea was over the top, until as an adult, she campaigned for her mom or perhaps worked on her staff.   Likewise, Palins actions as governor, her relationships with business and lobbyists, her financial actions, her professional associations, these are fair game.  Bringing them up is not dirty or negative.  Attacking the kids, the spouse if they are uninvolved, the personal decisions such as whether to be a working mother or not....these are irrelevant. 

 

Negative is in many cases a matter of perception.  Collin Powells' claim that McCains "negative" campaign was one of his reasons for choosing Obama is ridiculous.  All campaigns go negative, if there is nothing negative to say about an opponent there is no reason not to choose them.  If Powell does not like negativity, he was wise to stay out of politics.  But to see it all on one side is to have willful blinders on.  

I am not a big fan of country music, but one of its virtues is its down home real life applicable lyrics.  In todays post, I will be wading into a "little" firefight we have had here on townhall between two longtime townhall bloggers whose writings I respect but whose conclusions on the current election are far apart. 

Dave writes on the Conservative in Cinncinnatti (I can't seem to spell that city right without looking it up) site.  He was one of the earliest commenters on my blog and a great encouragement to keep it up.  He writes prolifically with very good insights.  He is coming down on the side of Kenny Rodgers. 

 

Brian R is an outstanding writer and a natural leader of people with something of a rough edge.  He writes  on "A View from the Island" and often hosts rather lengthy conversations as well.  He comes down on the side of Aaron Tippin.

 

In his song "The Gambler", Kenny writes:  "You gotta know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run."  In his song "Coward of the County" , he writes at the end:  I promised you dad, not to do the things you done,  I've walked away from trouble when I can.  Please don't think I'm weak, I couldn't turn the other cheek.  Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man."  Both of these songs extol the virtue of choosing your battles, of standing when standing is necessary, and compromising when compromising does the greatest good.  Dave (and many others around here) were not early McCain supporters.  They became McCain supporters because they see this as a time when the differences between the parties mean more than the differences they have with McCain.  They see 65 to 80% conservative (depending on whose numbers you use) as better than 5 to 10% conservative.  They see the next four years as too important to throw under the bus in the hopes that a "new Reagan" will arise from the ashes of the "new Jimmy Carter".  Unlike 1976, the Democratic party is militant in its determination to destroy the family, socialize every aspect of American life, and remove all American Exceptionalism, making America over in the image of enlightened agnostic and socialist France and Germany.  While in 76 elites in the party believed in this vision, there were too many union and interest group Democrats who would oppose such extremism.  Today, union members like Joe the Plumber are constituents to be bought, no longer with the power of influence.  The true influence in the party lies in San Francisco, Hollywood, New York, and Ivy League campuses spread throughout New England.  They feel that the Democratic Party has moved so far left, that even a pathetic RINO is better than unchecked leftists.  At least the RINO ought to block some of the extreme agenda, and since McCain picked Palin, a more legitimate conservative to many of us, they see a hope that a voice of Conservatism will have some place in McCains White House and in the future of the party.  In other words, this is not time to walk away from the party, its time to hold your cards, and play out the hand you were dealt.

 

In his song, Aaron Tippin sings:   "You gotta stand for something or you'll fall for anything.  You've got to be your own man, not a puppet on a string.  Never compromise what's right, and uphold your family name.  You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."  Brian has said Romney was as far as he could go in the compromise direction.  McCain has thumbed conservatives in the eye on McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Lieberman.....over and over he has betrayed the principles of conservatism in the name of compromise, to the point where he has no conservative principles.  He in fact "stands for nothing".  While he over a lifetime is conservative in a relative sense, he has been drifting leftwards for years, especially the last 10 or so.  He will not only choose not to stand for any conservative ideals, he will tarnish the R behind his name with RINO policies that will fail, that will equal the leftward drift of Obama but will do so under the flag of Republican so when the liberal ideals fail as liberal ideas almost always do, Republicans will still be the target of the masses anger and resentment.  These people believe that you have to suffer the purging of a Goldwater defeat and the cleansing of a Ford fall to reap the glories of a Reagan Revolution.  They believe either that the harm Obama and a liberal congress can do is little worse than McCain and a liberal congress, or they believe that the pain of this will so anger the masses, that a real Republican revolution can occur in 2010, 2012, and beyond and short term pain is worth it for the long term gain.  They believe that until the RINO wing of the party is resoundly defeated, the Conservative wing will always be marginalized.     

 

And these two sides of the conservative movement are so invested in their strategies, so sure of their rightness, they can barely speak without "a negative tone".  I will post on that in a minute......I find Powells assertion that McCains negative tone is the problem to be ridiculous beyond belief.  I have been back and forth for a long time.  I have thought as I see Schwartzenegger destroy California with the liberal assembly in ways Gray Davis never would have dared that maybe this is the tipping point and I need to stand against compromised principles.  But then I hear Obama say to Joe the Plumber how important it is to redistribute wealth and realize who we are facing here.  I see McCain talk about Democrats in his cabinet and think "no way".  But then I hear Obama supporters and Pelosi and the plans they have and think.....Amnesty and Campaign Finance Reform are horrible, but what about the fairness doctrine a massive single payer health care bureocracy, a UN mandated foreign policy and trying to end the 2nd amendment?  The desires of the far left make the bad bills McCain has signed seem minor to me.  I have to come down on the side of compromise.  I have to vote for McCain because the alternative scares me so much.  Does that make me weak?  Maybe.  Does it make me unprincipled?  Absolutley not, any more than Jefferson and Adams were unprincipled because for years they wanted to work within the British system rather than scream from the rooftops with Patrick Henry stirring phrases like "Give me liberty or give me death", and "If this be treason, make the most of it".  They came to a tipping point where they say independence as the only viable option.  I may eventually reach that tipping point with the Republican party, but I am not there yet. 

 

I can say that some individuals in the party, I can't support.  If I lived in Oregon, I would be voting third party in the Senate race, even if it gave the Dems their 60th senator.  Gordon Smith has strayed from a solid conservative at the State level to a liberal after 2 terms in Washington, and though the third party guy is anti Iraq, so is Smith, and the third guy seems more conservative on other issues.  I can say if the law was changed and Schwartzenegger ran for President, I would never vote for him again, and if he runs against Feinstein or Boxer, despite my desire to see them removed,  I will vote third party given that option.

 

But in most cases, hardline conservatives will be marginalized whether they lead the party or whether they abandon it.  I was not around in 1964, so correct me if I am wrong, but the Goldwater nomination was a response to "RINOs" of the Eisenhower/Nixon years and compromise on too many New Deal residuals to suit the conservative wing of the party.  The Goldwater Republicans were the coming out party for Reagan but were so far to the right, that they led to LBJ in 64 with huge majorities that rubber stamped the Great Society, boondoggles far worse than the New Deal that we are still paying for today.  The Goldwater years were followed by 3 straight RINO tickets in 68, 72, and 76 before they led to Reagan.  Are we ready for 4 years like the 64-68 era followed by 12 more years of moderate ascendancy all in hopes that we might get another 1980?  Because if Democrats sweep all three places, I see 1964, not 1976.  And as bad as Carter was, that is far far worse considering how far left of LBJ we see BHO. 

 

Did I articulate the arguements correctly?  Did I state something wrong that anyone I am speaking for disagrees with?  Feel free to correct me.  I may not be around much between now and the election, but even if I don't have time to respond, I still receive the comments.     

Joe the Plumber is not the issue.  Whether he is or is not a licensed plumber, whether he is a nice guy or not, whether he would make a competent politician or not.  Joe the Plumber is not running for anything.  His dream is apparently to someday own his own plumbing company and make 1/16th of the money Barack Obama made last year.  So if Joe the Plumber is not the issue, what is?  Why is everyone talking about him?  Because Joe with a well placed and well phrased question caught on you tube exposed Obama (once again) for the paternalistic elitist that he is.  Joe asked simply "If I want to buy the company I work for some day, and I make 250,000 in doing so, why would you punish me with higher taxes?"  And Obama smugly answered, as we all know by now, that if we "Spread the wealth" to those beneath you, its better for everyone."    Joe put the taxation question into terms that people can identify with.  And Obama answered like the smug elitist that he is. 

So now team messiah is trying to smear Joe and distract from the truths that his question raised.  Joe Biden (Or Joe the Career Politician) said plumbers don't make 250,000 in Scranton, Pennsylvania.  I have to wonder how many Plumbers Joe from Scranton is on intimate terms with, intimate enough that they tell him their yearly salary.  I also have to wonder who appointed Joe the Politician to determine what Joe the Plumber ought to make.  Team Obama has raised the fact that Joe owes back taxes, as a character flaw.....many self employed people, contractors, small business owners, and others do as well because they do not have taxes removed from an hourly, weekly, or monthly wage, they pay them quarterly out of pocket.  As a contract plumber, Joe may or may not fit into this category, but it raises another flaw of the tax system that Obama defends.  They brought up the fact that Joe is divorced.  So is half of America, Obama, do you want to really raise that standard as required for someone to ask you a question?  Ultimately, thats what its all about to him.  He can't defend his position, so he is attacking the messenger.  84% of American according to a poll I heard quoted on Mark Levins show do not believe in redistribution of weath when asked point blank.  So Obama can't defend his answer, its indefensible.  He is telling us that this "average American" is too flawed to question him or may have had alterior motives in questioning him.  Basically, like when Palin was chosen, Obama and his team of arrogance want to belittle anyone and everyone who opposes him, including some poor schmuck whose question to him happened to be caught on you tube.  Why?  Because when examined, his policy proposals are in many cases the antithesis of the American Dream.

 

So let me tell you about a plumber I knew.  When I lived in Georgia during my military enlistment, Chris was a contract plumber working for a man who owned a business.  He went to our Church with his wife and 2 kids.  He was slowly working to save up for his own business, setting aside money whenever he could, renting a home instead of buying, not taking vacations, pouring every spare cent into an account.  When he had saved up 20,000 dollars, after about 3 years, he put it down on 120,000 dollar truck.  The truck was a plumber truck, with all the things necessary to be an entire office on wheels.  It included tool boxes, spools for hoses and such, places to hold every part imaginable that a plumber might need.  He took a huge risk to be his own boss, to start his own business.  For the first 6-8 months of owning his own company, Chris nearly went under.  In the beginning, he did not have health insurance like he had as a contract plumber working for someone else, and when one of his three kids (they had another one right before he made the big leap)  got seriously sick, he almost had to stop.  But the plumbers union (yes, they sometimes do some good things) raised money for him, the church raised money for him, and his wife (who wanted to be an at home mom), got a part time computer based job to keep the family afloat.  His son got better and Chris built up a customer base, and by the time I left Georgia, he was making between 90 and 100,000 dollars a year.  He had paid down the truck considerably, been able to get himself health insurance through the union, and saved to put a down payment on a house.  He worked some days as many as 15 hours, but he was his own boss, loved his job, and took pride in his work.  He was considering buying a second truck and hiring another plumber to use it.  When I knew Chris, I was in the Navy.  I was making 1,879 a month as an E-5, but I lived in free base housing, had free medical, paid only for TV, phone and internet as utilities, and had the security of a check every two weeks.  I made less because I chose a secure job rather than a job with financial risk.  I had a different American dream.  I grew up in a family where lack of security was a scary thing.  My dad worked hard and did his best for a lumber mill for about 20 years.  He moved up through the ladder and was making a pretty good living when all at once, they closed.  For almost 7 years, he bounced from minimum wage entry level jobs with kids half his age to part time mill work to the unemployment line, always hoping to find a job that would bring security.  Finally, after seven years of this, he did, and he worked the last 12 or so years before medical retirement for a specialty mill that made crossarms.  Chris and I had different American Dreams.  His was to be his own boss, to own his own company.  Mine was to have a secure job where I did not need to fear the unknown and could support my family.  Besides financial aspects, there are other components of the Dream.  Some want a job they can leave behind them and be free of on their off time.  Some love to live their work, to have it be all consuming.  Some want to "do good" for others, some want to "save the world", some want a job that is easy, others a job that is fun.  All would like to make a lot of money, some are willing to put in the long hours for it, others the intense schooling, others take the financial risks.  For each one of us, the American Dream is a slightly different picture.  Many of us are too fearful to chase it and live our dreams outside of work or always talk about it.  Others chase it and fail, then either give up or rebound to try again later.  The key thing is, the American Dream is earned, not given away.  

 

Who is Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or any other public "servant" to pompously tell Joe that when he reaches his dream, he owes it to those below him, those who did not take the risks he took, work the hours he worked, or endure the challenges he endured, that he owes these people a large portion of his income to fulfill their American Dream.  Right now, if Chris or Joe, pay 36% of their income to federal taxes.  Out of 250,000, this is about 88,000 dollars.  Lets say half of that can be written off in some way and they pay 44,000 in taxes.  Then they pay state taxes.  Each state is different, the highest is about 13%, so lets say 5%....That is another 12,500.  Then they pay property taxes on their house, registration fees for their cars, and license fees to the state to be a plumber, local taxes, sales taxes, fees and tolls.....Out of the 250,000 dollars that a "rich" business owner is making, they are probably approaching 80-100,000 dollars in taxes if they find all the loopholes, much more if they try to navigate the tax system themselves.  Barack Obama wants to raise that rate by 3%, another 7,500 dollars of Joe or Chris' money.  He wants to mandate health coverage for any employees he has at a cost of thousands more.  He wants to impose new OSHA, EPA, Carbon Offsets, Fuel Taxes, and other hidden costs onto this mans income, raising that 80-100,000 already paid to more like 120,000 dollars.  Meanwhile, somewhere in the neighborhood of 35-40% of American pay no tax.  Many of them recieve tax rebates, a pseudonym for redistributed wealth.  Is this fair?  It is justice?  Is it right to stick it to the evil business owner in this way?  Why bother to risk it all, to work the long hours that so many business owners work, to go through all of this, when he could make almost as much without the headaches as a state worker of some sort, or part of a corporation.  Because its his American dream.  He took the risks, he deserves the riches.  I chose a "safer" route, and I don't begrudge him the money he earned.   Patrick Henry once cried "As for me, give me liberty or give me death."  With Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, especially if the Senate gets to the filibusterproof 60, we may lose many of our liberties, including the right of people to pursue an American Dream and reap its rewards. 

 

Tell me again, does this election mean nothing?

Walt Williams wrote an article that explores the idea of the the Founders intent in the bicameral legislature.  The intent was for the House to be a place where the people were close to their representative.  He points to Federalist Papers #56 as his evidence for this, and shows that the idea was abandoned in 1929 when Congress limited the number arbitrarily at 435.  I say we abolish this congressional mandate, and make the House as it was intended to be.  I already discussed this last February.  Here is that link as well as the link to Williams' article:

 

 

 

 

Don't worry, I'm not.  I am not avoiding blogging because I am upset with the sudden electoral college surge Obama is showing, nor because I am not an expert in economic affairs.  I have just been swamped with work and such.  Later this week, I will try to go around and visit all of your great blogs, but in the meantime, let me comment on the last 3 weeks.  Keep in mind that I have not been up to date as I should be on all that is going on, so I may repeat things you all have said. 

 

Why the sudden shift in the electoral college?  I believe there are three main reasons:

 

First, oil prices have gone down.  The urgency of the issue is not on peoples mind like it was a month or two ago, and it was a great contrast between the two candidates.  The price of gas is still insanely high, people are still hurting, but there is some level of relief and other issues have clouded this.

 

Second, the world is on hold.  Russia, China, Iran, they are all quiet and waiting, not rocking the boat, waiting until after the election to act.  There is no urgent world crisis, no great and powerful reason to seek a commander in chief.  If foreign policy is not on the table, McCain has to win based on domestic policy.  This is much tougher ground for him to stand on.

 

Third, McCain is rivaling Obama in incoherence on economic issues.  He does not believe like Reagan did that supply side economics is a cure for any economic ailment, and so he spouts lite liberalism.  Lets fix the market with a bailout.  Lets play games with incentives and tinkering at the margins of the tax system rather than call for overhaul.  Lets propose a pseudomarket approach to health care, not a real market based reform.  Lets talk in the language of environmentalism, not discredit it as a scheme of extremists to move Americas market towards socialism.  Because McCain does not believe in these reforms, he cannot call for them with conviction.  So what should he do?

He needs to bring back the reforms he believes in:

 

1) Bring energy back on table and tie energy to economic stimulus.  Opening our coasts, ANWR, and building nuclear plants in addition to taking regulation off of alternative energy will provide a huge boost to our economy and our long term prospects for growth.

 

2) Talk about corruption.  Inside and outside government.  You love this issue.  The economic crisis has three causes:  People buying houses and consumer goods they couldn't afford because they believed the hype that the bills would never come due, and now are panicked because they came due, the loan companies that made bad loan decisions and gave loans to people they knew couldn't pay them, hoping that the equity that could build up could keep the ball rolling, knowing that eventually the loans would fail, but hoping they wouldn't be holding the bag, and third government regulations demanding that some of these loans to unqualified people be made for reasons unrelated to economics.  It was a failure of responsibility on the parts of everyone involved.  The last thing that we need to do is force those who were responsible and paid their loans, those banks who did the right thing, the only ones not culpable in all of this, to foot the majority of the bill. 

 

McCain needs to make that case.  He needs to make clear that the solution is found in the free market.  Investors buy the houses people can't afford, and they rent while repairing their credit and next time buy a home the right way.  (The way I and my family will have to)  Investors buy the failed companies, reform them, fire those who need firing, and build them up the right way.  If anything, the government can loan the money to these good companies to make liquidity available in the short term....invest and see the hope of the retirement age people restored when their investments recover.  There will be pain, but most of it is earned pain.  That is the problem. 

 

Both parties want to tell us pain is avoidable.  They want to be Santa Claus.  They want to be liked and popular, and holding people accountable is not fun.  McCain needs to be a leader, not our friend.  Then he needs to make the case for a vast overhall of regulatory and legal red tape tying up financial activities of all kinds.  Get rid of social engineering laws.  Free up companies to seek wealth, and they will pull us along with them.  Get power out of Washington and people can fix it themselves.  McCain loves to fight corruption.  There is a plethora of corruption to fight, he just needs to demand it both within and outside of government.  Like Palin, fight it inside and outside the party.  Line up with Coburn and Jindal and the other few who still have credibility on this issue.  And Do It NOW!!!!! 

 

Bring back the free trade issue, reminding us that Clinton supported NAFTA and was right.  Explain that trade barriers do more harm than good, and push the Columbia free trade pact both under economic and foreign policy grounds.

 

Finally, he needs to remind us that unchecked liberalism is what we had from 76-80 and from 92-94 and in both cases, it led in directions people didn't like.  Bring up Pelosi as often as possible and remind voters who she is and that Obama has stood with her and the liberal wing of his party over 95% of the time.  McCain crosses lines, not Obama.  He has proven that.  They both have.  Keep hammering these points and keep making the case for energy independence as a part of economic policy.  People do not want unchecked liberalism, they want leadership.  Show some.  Be proactive, not responsive, and shape the debate.   

I saw this article onyahoo news, and I couldn't resist.  I have to wonder if kangaroo meat will come up as an issue in the vice presidential debate tomorrow.  I got a kick out of this even as I shook my head about how bizarre these people can get.  Enjoy the latest installment of bizarre science in the name of fighting global warming:

 

 

 

Kangaroos:  The other white meat?

The media will either not report this, or it will get buried in the avalanche of political reporting, but today, 16 died in an attack on the US Embassy in Sa'na, Yemen.  None were Americans, so its easy to brush this off, but this story shows us three things:

 

 

1) Al Qaida is weaker than it was 7 years ago.  Contrary to reports and commentary from the Left and the Democratic party, this is about the best they can do.  It is still bad, and the loss of life is sad, but they have been weakened.

 

2) Al Qaida still exists and still wants to harm us.  Contrary to some who say the war is over, we can come home, cut the military, and focus on social programs, there is still an element out there that wants to hurt us.  They have been weakened, not eliminated.

 

3) Our defensive measures did what they were supposed to do.  We had at least 2 layers of concrete fencing, Yemeni guards ringing American guards, and other security measures that may not have existed prior to 9/11.  Now they exist, and they did their job.  16 died, but 6 were attackers, 4 were Yemeni guards, and 6 were Yemeni civilians.  This is tragic, especially the civilian deaths, but since the Yemeni government has refused our help, they have led themselves to this result.  Hopefully no more have to die to make them see that they ought to pick a side.