Change color of Background
                                   


Previous Conservative Opinions &
Political Commentary

Political Ramblings about current events; tax cut, budget, energy shortage
updated 5/23/01

I haven't felt all that passionate about any one topic lately. Since I don't have Clinton to complain about any more there's no one big target, but the Democrats still are mostly liars. Senator Daschle and Representative Gephardt couldn't tell the truth about anything the Republicans are doing if their lives depended on it. The Democrats are singing the same old songs, the Republicans are going to ruin the environment, give tax cuts that benefit mainly the rich, slash various spending programs, starve the elderly, deprive children and so on. He and the rest of the democrats are so full of bull crap that they all must have brown eyes..

Budget: The truth is the Republicans haven't cut any thing at all, they have reduced the rate of growth which is still too high in my opinion, about 5%, I can't find an exact figure, it has grown 6% for the last 3 years. Inflation is less than 3% the last I heard.. Can you increase your spending budget by 5% each year? I don't know about you but my budget seems to get tighter as prices go up and the more I make the more the government extorts from my check. Education is going up 11% which I think is entirely too high, yet the Democrats are still complaining it isn't enough. Lack of money is not the problem with most of our education system, lack of accountability and liberal policies is. Our education system has been getting worse ever since Nixon instituted the Department of Education in the early 1970's. If the democrats want to bitch about drastic cuts they should let me go at the budget, then they would have some real cuts to bitch about. First I'd freeze all spending at last years levels until an audit of each program was conducted and all the waste and pork was removed and we could see what each program really needs to run. Then I'd start eliminating all the programs we don't need and are unconstitutional, probably about 3/4 of the them wouldn't pass this test.. Many of them I'd privatize or turn the responsibility back to the states. About the only program I'd increase is the Military, but I'd want feedback from the leadership what programs they want and don't want, their budget is a major pork barrel for Congress and Senate pet projects. Truth be told, our Military is in extremely sad shape after 8 years of Clinton slashing the budget and his idiot policies. Clinton and the Democrats claim they cut the budget and balanced it as well, they did so all on the backs of our Military. The qualified personal (especially pilots) are leaving in droves because they are greatly under paid, even on welfare and the equipment is falling apart because they don't have the money to properly maintain it. The bombing of the USS Cole in the middle east (which was undermanned), the sub hitting the Japanese trawler (why the hell were civilians on an nuclear attack submarine any way?), all the plane crashes, etc, are all examples of the deep seated problems in the Military. I could go on and on about the the problems Clinton's policies have cause in the Military. We need a strong military, it's a dangerous world out there. But I believe we need to bring our troops home, we should not be the worlds police force or UN lackeys. Especially when the UN claims we owe them billions of dollars and gives no credit for our military support. Currently Congress is withholding back payments (which Clinton decided we would pay) for kicking us off the human rights committee.

Tax Cut:While the Democrats are whining we can't afford even a 1.35 Trillion tax cut, the truth is 1.35 Trillion over 11 years out of a 28 Trillion dollar over 10 years budget is pocket change. Finding exactly what they plan on spending is a difficult thing to do since they don't really want us to know, they throw numbers around for this program and that one, but never say what the total spending is. I did find out in 1999 we were spending about 10.5% of GDP which is more than the previous peak of 9.5% during W.W.II in 1944.. There was a sharp increase since Clinton took office. In 1992 it was 7.5%. Bush's "drastic" tax cut will reduce revenues only 1.3 percent of GDP by 2006. By contrast President Reagan's tax cut reduced revenues by 4.5 percent of GDP over a similar period, relative to baseline projections. What you rarely hear is Reagan's tax cut increased revenues, but the budget went up because of spending by the Democrat congress he had most of his presidency. I also don't hear anyone talking about returning some of the 1993 Clinton massive tax increase, which he admitted later he probably increased it too much. Which for a liberal to admit is saying a lot, any increase is too much. We pay far too much in taxes, when you consider income, property, sales, utility, gas, a host of others as well as indirect taxes most people pay more than 40% of their income in taxes. Indirect taxes are the taxes paid by producers, suppliers, business, etc that are passed on in the form of increased prices to you. Taxes are like another thing that stinks and roles down hill, the person at the bottom get it, the end consumer pays it all one way or another.

What most people get back will be not much more than pocket change, spread over 10 years, what a joke. How is that going to stimulate the economy? Granted some of it will be up front and will lower income tax rates across the board, gradually repeals estate taxes, provides marriage penalty relief by by reinstating the 10 percent deduction for two-earner couples., doubles the child tax credit, eliminates the death tax, and expands charitable deductions. The rate structure will replace the current marginal income tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent with a simplified rate structure of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent (currently 36 as being passed but being fought by the Democrats). Except the 15 to 10 change, rates will rates fall to these levels one point in each of three years: 2002, 2005 and 2007. The 15% bracket will go to 10% retroactive to the beginning of this year. The Democrats are doing their class envy bit saying that the tax cut will benefit the richest people on the backs of the poor. Gee that's strange, the people who pay the largest percentage of their income in taxes get the biggest benefit from a tax cut, duh! Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle go take a flying leap off a high place please! I'd like to have them explain how this is so when it is an across the board cut with the biggest cut in the bottom bracket all up front when the other brackets are spread over 6 years. When Daschle talks about the rich getting the biggest percentage of the tax cut he is comparing apples and potatoes, what he's comparing isn't even in the same family. While the low end will get by far the bigger tax cut percentage wise, dollar wise it will mean more to the higher brackets since they pay more in taxes to begin with. In other words, say you are on the low end and pay taxes on say 30 thousand dollars of taxable income and get a 5% cut. The amount of money you get to keep because of this cut isn't as much as someone else who gets a 3% cut and pays taxes on 100 thousand dollars because they are paying far more in taxes than you are. If it was up to me we would all pay a flat 10% with no deductions on any income over say 20 thousand dollars. We would also have to send a check every month to the IRS instead of it being deducted from our checks so that we never see it and miss it.

President Bush Releases Economic Blueprint

Energy Crisis:The reason we are paying so much for gas is under Clinton we have gone from importing 40% of our oil to 63%, cut domestic production, and virtually eliminated new exploration. In addition we have had no new refineries since the mid 1970's, we've lost some due to fires, others were closed because they were too old, the remaining ones are running at 96% capacity and we are using more fuel. There are more of us driving and many of us are driving larger vehicles, causing more demand. As demand goes up and supplies stay the same, the price goes up, it's an economic law. Right now we have switched over to oxygenated fuels which further reduces supply. I don't know about you, but my car (a Ford Escort) gets worse mileage on oxygenated fuel and since it is getting hot in Phoenix, running the air as well cuts my MPG even further. I loose about 4 MPG during the summer over what I get in the winter. Due to EPA, state and local regulations there are 93 blend of oxygenated fuel which further complicates matters and during the change over reduces supplies and drives prices up. Which is why there is a price jump every spring or when every your fuel is changed. Here in Phoenix it is April and October.

I was going to write quite a bit about the problems in California but this article I was sent the other night does a much better job than I can. My personal opinion is California deserves it's problems and should suffer the consequences of it's liberal policies. Governor Davis has recently been blaming Texas for high energy costs (inferring it is Bush's fault), when they actually get most of their imported power from Oregon and Washington. The reason the price is so high from the one company in Texas, is in order to supply the electricity California is demanding they are having to run a back up generator which is only allowed to run 8 days a year with out fines. This is an old plant that EPA regulations say can't run more than this without massive fines. The company is passing the fines on to California, as well as spending 80 million on upgrades and they haven't been paid by California in the past. Still California is demanding this electricity, but then bitches about the price.. Governor Davis wants Bush to bail him out for their screw ups by capping electricity costs. One thing the article doesn't mention is California's idea of "deregulation" was to cap energy costs to consumers, not allowing the electric companies to pass on their production costs which as driven them into bankruptcy. California has now conveniently bailed them out of the mess the state caused by basically taking them over, if that isn't some form of socialism I don't know what is. Sounds some what conspiratorial to me, first drive them bankrupt and then take them over.. The Sierra Club tells us the answer to all our energy woes is conservation, California is the leader in the nation in conservation and look where it has gotten them. Their population has nearly doubled and they have done nothing about increasing their supply of energy, they haven't built any power plants in 10 years and even closed some for environmental reasons. This is why they have a shortage of power and black outs. They had this problem last year and did nothing about it and now Governor Davis wants the Federal Government and the rest of the country to bail them out of their stupidity. If the Californians are smart they will vote Gray Davis and the other stupid Democrats that have caused their problems out of office, they have no solutions to the problems they have caused and can only blame others. The must quit pandering to the environmentalists. Sorry it takes time to build power plants and there are no quick fixes. It has taken years for the problem to develop and will take time for the solutions to be built. But until they quit bowing to the environmentalists demands the problem will never be fixed and only get worse.

Of course the environmental nuts and other liberals are immediately attacking Bush's plan to fix our energy problems, saying Bush wants to drill, drill, drill, dig, dig, dig and that is his only solution because he is an oil man. The Sierra Club says we only need to conserve. These are the same nuts that want to take down Glen Canyon Dam here in Arizona, draining lake Powel and depriving the state of a major power source. They want to do this because they claim the river needs to be returned to it's natural state. Make no mistake we have big problems and for once we have someone willing to tell us the truth about what we need to do to fix them, as well have experience in the energy field. The liberals will lie, distort the facts and do anything they can to discredit Bush and his policies, whether it be tax reform, budget, energy or anything else he might do so they can regain power in the next election by making him look bad. Make no mistake that's all they care about, power, they do not care about the country, economy or you. They claim they do, but don't really. Any rational person can see through their lies and emotional appeals, everything they claim is "for the children, environment, senior citizens, minorities," etc., and are devoid of any facts. Their ideas will ruin our economy, take away our freedoms and lifestyle.

Bush's National Energy Policy

energy.gov, US Department of Energy.

Yahoo News Full Coverage Energy Plan

Click Here to Return to Opinions Page


Political Rambling Thoughts
updated 03/07/01

First I wish to say sorry it has take so long to update this page. A lot has been going on in my life the last few months and this hasn't been a priority. I've moved into a new house which has kept me busy since late summer last year. There have been quite a few problems with that, maybe I will detail some of them later when I have time. I've recently been chasing a beautiful woman, not very successfully I'm afraid. :-( To top it all off I've been having computer problems and haven't been able to afford to replace it yet. I hope to soon have a computer that will run Win98 and then I can edit these pages with HomeSite which I use at work and will make this some what easer.

Some quick thoughts for now, I of course am for Bush's tax cut, I think it should go farther and faster but for now will take what we can get. It will be tough to get this through Congress as it is. You can see how much Bush's plan will save you by using this tax calculator provided by the Heritage Foundation. www.heritage.org/

WE MUST STOP McCAIN, unfortunately he is one of my senators, I haven't voted for him in the last two Senate elections or for president. I recently e-mailed him a letter suggesting since he acts like a Democrat that he go ahead and join them. He is not well liked by conservatives in Arizona. This message from Gun Owners of America explains why his "Campaign Finance Reform" is really Incumbent Protection and will violate your free speech much better than I could. See also my Right to Keep and Bear Arms page for news about his Gun control plans. I'm really beginning to detest the man..

-----------------------------------------------------
McCain Incumbent Protection Bill Threatens Gun Owners
-- Bill to keep gun owners in the dark, endanger existence of GOA

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
www.gunowners.org


(Tuesday, March 6, 2001) -- Irked by nettlesome groups such as GOA which threaten to expose their anti-gun activities, Arizona Senator John McCain (R) and Wisconsin Democrat Senator Russ Feingold (D) are pushing legislation which would eliminate the ability of groups like GOA to keep gun owners informed on how their legislators are voting.

In the name of reforming campaign finance laws, this Incumbent Protection legislation would allow the government to seize the membership lists of groups such as ours -- and potentially outlaw our organization. The issue is scheduled to come before the Senate between March 19th and 26th.

The Incumbent Protection bill, S. 27, would require legislative advocacy groups -- including Second Amendment organizations such as GOA -- to report to the government if they spend more than $10,000 preparing for and participating in TV and radio broadcasts which mention officeholder-candidates within two months of an election. If they wished, government bureaucrats could define virtually all of an organization's activities as "preparation" for TV and radio interviews.

With GOA employees regularly appearing on TV shows such as Fox News, Crossfire, and other programs to discuss gun-related legislation, there can be little doubt that S. 27 would apply to this organization. If it did, GOA would be required to provide the government with its donor list. For the time being, this disclosure would be limited to contributors of $1,000 or more, but no one should assume this threshold would not be reduced or eliminated once the government's foot was in our membership door.

It goes without saying that an activist who sends a check to GOA to help protect his Second Amendment rights doesn't want his name being registered with the government as a gun owner. And for that reason, GOA will fight this bill "tooth and nail." And if this bill were to become law, GOA would not comply. We would fight it in court, and exhaust every possible resource, because we are not going to turn over our members' names to the government.

This underscores why it is SO VERY IMPORTANT that we defeat this bill in the Congress! GOA would rather spend its members' dollars defending 2nd Amendment freedoms, as opposed to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting 1st Amendment battles in court.

Finally, because the Incumbent Protection bill would define GOA's battles against anti-gun legislation as "electioneering" if they occurred during election season, these legislative activities could affect our tax-exempt status -- and ultimately, our existence. Urge your Senators to keep their distance from John McCain and Russ Feingold, and to respect the free speech rights of all Americans.

ACTION:

1. Please call, fax or email your two Senators and ask them to filibuster and vote against the anti-gun McCain-Feingold bill, S. 27. You can call the Senate at 202-224-3121, or toll-free at 1-877-762-8762. See the GOA Legislative Action Center at www.gunowners.org/activism.htm for complete Senate contact information, and to send pre-written messages.

2. Forward this alert to as many gun owners as possible and ask them to contact their Senators in opposition to S. 27.

----- Pre-written message -----

Dear Senator:

The anti-gun McCain-Feingold bill, S.  27, threatens to open
the membership lists of Second Amendment organizations -- 
and even threaten their tax-exempt status.  I urge you to 
oppose any bill that would limit the ability of outside 
groups such as Gun Owners of America to communicate with 
their members.  

I rely on groups like GOA to keep me informed when my rights 
are being threatened.  I would consider a law to muzzle such 
groups as an attempt to avoid the accountability that an 
informed electorate provides.

Please filibuster and vote against this anti-gun and anti-speech
abomination.  Let me know what you intend to do.  Thank you.

Sincerely,

**************
Do not reply directly to this message.

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.

To unsubscribe send a message to gunowners_members@mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.

Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address goamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add that address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.

-----------------------------------------------------



Click Here to Return to Opinions Page
Site Map
Webmasters Reciprocal Links