Right in Alabama - The Conservative Mindset

As I was eating lunch the other day with a few of my co-workers, I noticed a lone military gentleman seated at a table near ours. Towards the ending of our lunch, I noticed our waitress got flagged down by another table and seemed to be whispering something to her. It turns out that the man opted to buy the lunch for the soldier and without saying a word, paid for his and the soldier’s meals and walked out. He wasn’t seeking recognition or a pat on the back or a thank you.

My father served 37 years in the military with a combat tour in Iraq coming home late last year. He recently retired and what I saw at lunch really moved my heart. It made me think that someone somewhere could have done the same thing for my father… a simple lunch… that that one act of kindness could affect someone for a lifetime.

Someone who is willing to give up so much on my behalf is amazing to me and I’ll always be in their debt.

So what have you done to thank your service men and women? I know that I haven’t done enough.

Now that the election is over and we have all had several days to calm down over the results, we can really start thinking about a strategy for fixing the mess that has gradually formed in Washington. The mess I’m referring to is the Republican elected officials that don’t believe in solid conservative principles. Simply put, we have got to have a reform in the Republican party. Yes, it sucks to be lumped into the group of Republican fools, but with the two party system that is currently in place us conservatives don’t really have a choice. I’ve stated before that I am not happy with the Republican party, and McCain and Bush have a lot to do with that.

A complete change is what this party needs. Out with the old, in with the new. Unlike others, I’d like to see more from Sarah Palin, although I don’t think she should run for president in 2012. She should remain governor for a couple of more terms, and maybe even run for the senate a term or two. One of the media’s biggest arguments against her was her “lack of experience.” Having a term or two of the senate under her belt would negate the no-experience argument since Obama ran on just an incomplete senate term as his experience record. That being said, Palin should definitely stick around as she was the one reason McCain didn’t lose the popular vote by a landslide. Also, having a loss hanging around her neck isn’t as bad as it seems. She didn’t brand herself as a generic McCain/Bush Republican, and that is all that matters. She still has core conservative values, and she should step up to the plate and go to bat with them.

A good place to start with the Republican party reform will be Parker Griffith’s senate seat. Numerous bloggers have compiled a list of potential candidates for the seat, some of which get my attention.

Also, there apparently is already an initiative underway to rebuild the party, as Reactionary pointed out at flashpointblog.com. I haven’t read everything in full detail, but it looks like a great place to share ideas and join the cause.

And as for Obama, he will either get into office and make things worse, or make things better. My guess is going to be the former. Regardless, it is going to be an interesting four years. I look forward to still critiquing his policies as I have done to him and McCain throughout this election.

Its been relatively quiet from us over at Right in Alabama the last couple of days and for that we apologize. Part of it is due to my absolute disgust in almost all things political the last week or so.  So I thought I would send an open invitation to all Barrack supporters out there to convince me why you think he should get my vote.

Now, you might be thinking… this guy is a McCain supporter… why should I waste my time if he is not going to change his mind? This is not true at all, I’m willing to keep an open mind and hear all the arguments for his support. With that being said…

I do NOT want to hear platitudes. I do not want to hear the mantra of “Change,” or how he is a transformational figure, or any of those statements of which I learn absolutely nothing about him.

I want to hear substance. Why do you like his policies? What policies appeal to you? What experience does he have that you feel best qualifies him to be president.

Here are some starter issues that I disagree with and may be a good place for you to start your arguments.

• Obama states that greater than 90% of individuals will get a tax cut under his plan, however according to The Tax Foundation out of 135,660,228 tax returns filed in the US, 43,362,718 of those had zero or negative tax liability… that’s 32%. That is based on the 2006 filing status.

Now, I am all for tax cuts as they stimulate growth so long as they are done properly. Please address how it is that roughly 68% of tax returns had to pay taxes but yet >90% are guaranteed to get a tax break? Correct me if I’m wrong but a cut from no taxes means still no taxes right? Unless we go into the negative… that is to say people get paid for filing their returns.

• Obama has stated he would end the Bush Tax Cuts. McCain says he would extend them according to that same article.

According to Bush’s Tax cuts, the major thing that caught my eye was this:

Replacing the current tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent with a simplified rate structure of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent (see Appendix for rate schedule)

So, based on this source, the lowest tax rates save 5%, with middle class getting the larger cuts (13% and 11%) with the highest bracket gets a 6.6% reduction. I currently fall into the 25% tax bracket. Under Obama, my base tax rate will go up 6% while saving around 3% according to this site. That is a net gain of 3% which is a tax increase. However under McCain, I will still have the 6% savings under the Bush tax cut plus an extra $400 according to that same link. That is a slightly larger savings than 6%.

6% > 3%, please inform me how I am getting a tax break under Obama. Also please address how you are getting a tax break under Obama, given that the Bush tax breaks will be ending.

Those two positions are a great place to start your arguments. Those are two huge policy based issues that I have with Obama… the numbers and the sources are there to back up my statements. No Fox News link, no spin, just facts.

The door is open to anyone and everyone, if you want to post a retort in an article here you are more than welcome, just register and I’ll bump you up to contributor. Otherwise, fill up our comments and convince me to vote for Obama.

For months, the right has been pointing out Obama’s socialist philosophies. There are way too many links to site… I’ve even pointed it out a few times on this site. But this one is the proof in the pudding.

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” [Obama - Ohio Rally, speaking to a tax burdened plumber]

Source

Let me tell you something Senator… It is not good for everyone. What about the people who work hard to succeed? What about those people who make their money the legitimate way? What about those people who make a good solid living doing the things they love?

At what point does a person become a giver to a receiver? Who decides that? Is $50k a year considered a giver? What is the median income at which you go from supporter to donor? Is $30k too much?

I’ve worked my way through school, starting as a server at a local restaurant, moving my way up finally to a company who reimburses my tuition. Sure it has taken me 6 years to get here but I made it and worked hard to get here. What about those people without that drive? Without the passion to find a way?

The moment my money starts getting “spread around” to everyone else is the day I stop producing and becoming a consumer… after all.. where’s the desire to succeed if I am going to be equal to everyone else no matter what I do?

You know what that’s called?

Socialism
An “economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. In practice, such a distribution of wealth is achieved by social ownership of the means of production, exchange and diffusion.”

Source

I was on Facebook the other day, and ran across one of my college acquaintance’s profiles. He defined his political views as “financially conservative, socially progressive.” I read it over and over again, trying to discern how one can have conservative spending in a socialist government. It sounds like an oxymoron. The whole idea behind financial conservatism is to let the open market provide solutions to problems. This in turn, eliminates the need for government funded programs to provide solutions to those same problems. In that situation, government spending is kept at a bare minimum. Therefor, that government is considered “financially conservative.” Likewise, the whole idea behind a socialist government is to spend money on government funded solutions. This consequently eliminates, or at least hinders, competition in the free market and eventually phases out the need for “evil” corporations if the social programs intrude too much.

Given that, it appears that there is a direct relationship between how “financially conservative” and how social a governement can be. So how can a financially conservative government exist that funds socialist programs? Answer: it can’t. Government programs are not free.

What a farce. In light of recent events and other incidents it has become increasingly clear to me that we are no longer a two party system. Democrats and Republicans have mingled together, gotten drunk, and had a love child and its name is a Republicrat.

You want to talk about disenfranchisement, look no further than “Conservative” McCain’s latest forays into socialism rescue plans. Spend… spend… spend. Spend like the sky is falling. Hard working tax payers who don’t own homes? Yeah, McCain wants to use your dollars for idiots who got into bad mortgages. Some may say idiot is a strong word, but if something doesn’t set off a red flag when someone offers you a $200,000 home on a $30,000/yr salary, then you my friend are the definition of an idiot. Lets just ignore all the other people who made smart financially responsible choices. And don’t even get me started on the bailout plan that he supported… not once but twice!

Then take a look at Obama and his socialist agenda. Classic redistribution of wealth. To each according to their need, from each according to their ability. Take from the rich, give to the poor. A modern day Robin Hood.

So after all this, and my renouncing of my party affiliation from Republican to Conservative, who do I choose? The answer is still clear cut in my book… even though I don’t like it. I can’t risk having Obama nominate the next Supreme Court Judge. What happens if we get another Ginsburg? And whats worse if that pick is a replacement for a strong conservative judge like Scalia. Then we really will be in a bad spot.

Do you even WANT to know what a 6-3 Liberal Leaning Supreme Court will do? Considering most votes comes down to 4-4 with Kennedy being the swing vote? Things like the DC Handgun ban would have been upheld or worse.

The choice is clear. McCain and only for the fact of keeping the Supreme Court in check. But I won’t like it.

The law that was passed nine years ago mandating that drivers have liability insurance is a complete waste of time. Before this law was passed, you still had the irresponsible drivers that had no liability insurance, so when you (the responsible driver, right?) got into a car accident with them when they were at fault, you were still having to spend money out of your pocket to cover your deductible. I guess enough people complained about this, they turned to the state of Alabama to find a solution. Low and behold this stupid piece of legislation was passed that mandates every driver have proof of liability insurance.

Since then, nothing has really changed other than the price of insurance premiums, which I will get into later. You can still get in an accident, not be at fault, and still have to pay your deductible because there is a loophole that allows somebody to drive uninsured. The loophole basically involves setting up an insurance policy, getting your proof of insurance cards in the mail, then canceling the policy. Now that somebody has the “proof” of liability insurance in hand, law enforcement can see no better when they pull over the uninsured motorist for a traffic stop.

This mandatory insurance law has a direct effect on insurance cost. The price of premiums will go up as a result of the simple rule of supply and demand. I’ll break this down in a simple example: if the government mandates that only Bic pens are to be written with, then what is going to happen to the demand of Bic pens? The demand will go up. Since the demand goes up, the price will go up as well. The same economic principle can be applied here. Thus, one must call into question if the mandatory insurance law is actually saving the responsible driver any money over the course of time if the statistically probability of him getting into an accident with an uninsured motorist remained in his favor.

Now, WAAY 31 is reporting that Bob Riley wants to expand this program to have a magical “database” that law enforcement can check at a traffic stop to make sure the insurance presented to the officer is valid and current. This would require insurance companies to have writable access to the database and a law that would mandate insurance providers update records every time there is a policy change or a new policy instantiated. This would result in even more expensive insurance premiums since maintaining a database is going to cost insurance companies money that they will just forward on to their policy holders. I’m not even going to go into the cost in tax dollars that will need to be spent to get this program up and running. How much money are we actually saving the responsible driver now?

Oh and by the way, this database still won’t solve anything. You’ll still have the idiots out there that will find a loophole around the new system and drive without liability anyways. So what is the point in writing laws that just increase the amount of money the tax payer has to spend on premiums and useless government programs?

It is a widely conceived myth that Republicans are for all forms of deregulation. As I’ve pointed out before, government should only do a handful of things. Keep me safe, and maintain infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc). Many things fall under the “Keep me safe” portion with the big one being national defense. But the major premise is to protect me against things I have no control over. For example, regulation of foods and drugs through the FDA is absolutely necessary.

We as consumers have the greatest gift in the world and that is free choice. We are able to pick and choose where we spend our money. If we get burned by a company by bad service, bad products or overall bad experiences then we will not shop there and most likely tell all of our friends who will most likely heed our advice and shop elsewhere as well. Over time the company realizes the profits aren’t as high and will work diligently to figure out why and either correct the problem… or go out of business. Competition promotes survival of the best businesses. You either keep your customers happy through great service etc. or you sink because they will go elsewhere.

With that being said, we as consumers don’t have that luxury when it comes to certain things. We can’t buy a package of meat that could be contaminated, eat it, be “dissatisfied” because we had to go to the hospital with a life threatening illness, and hopefully live to tell our friends about our “bad” experience. Same goes for the drug companies. This is simply not an area where competition will keep everyone in check.

As far as the medical field goes and even the school system, regulation is absolutely not the best answer. A lack of competition promotes reckless and irresponsible business practices. What do I mean? For example, whats the first medical insurance company that comes to your mind in Alabama? Easy, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama. Now… name me 4 more companies that offer the same services. For me, its hard to do. Since BC&BSA is one of the only major providers, they can run their business however they want as most consumers don’t have an alternative.

Now name me some car insurance places… Geico, StateFarm, Farm Bureau, Nationwide, Allstate, … I’m sure there are more. If I get wind from a friend that they had bad service from a certain company then I will choose someone else.

The premise of my argument is that bad decisions lead to consequences for the business. However if the government is going to bail them out and no consequences happen… then that simply promotes reckless habits that left to its on devices the market would iron out due to that business would go under. In a way, the government is rewarding those businesses for their poor choices and we as consumers can’t do anything about it. However, action is needed to stop a economic meltdown, its just sad that it has come to this point.

As I was scanning my RSS reader over my morning coffee, this article from Fox News caught my eye. I realize it doesn’t directly have an effect on me or where “my” tax dollars are being spent, but I still found it interesting. I can’t believe that the Washington school district is starting a program that will pay their middle school students $100 per month for simply going to school and getting good grades. Yes, you heard me right. $100 in cold, hard cash. This is just another prime example of liberals in Washington excessively spending money.

Seriously? $100 per month? Back when I was in middle school, I don’t recall my parents giving me any money for going to school and getting good grades, much less the school system. Attending school and studying to get good grades was expected of me! If I was caught skipping school, or if I brought home a bad report card, I got grounded! That’s right, I was disciplined. Disciplined by my parents none-the-less; something that our liberal society has seemed to have forgotten how to do over the past fifteen years.

Oh yea, and the right wing nut job in me says that instead of paying students for getting good grades and going to school, we should fine them for getting bad grades and playing hooky. Don’t take that comment seriously, as I was being sarcastic, but I bet we would see similar results either way.

Regardless, this just gives me another reason to keep my daughter out of the public school system.

liberal
\ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\

n. One who favors communism as a form of government; One who haphazardly spends others’ tax dollars on useless government programs; One who relies on government to provide a solution to problems that need neither regulation, or government intervention; One who cannot think for himself

adj. Of displaying political or general idiocy (ex: a liberal idiot)

syn. communist, socialist, left wing nut job

-foobish non-international dictionary