The Terrible Problem with John McCain

During the Reagan years the mantra of cutting taxes wasn't a campaign promise but part of an overall philosophy. That philosophy was grounded in the proposition that individual were not only wiser than Washington when allocating resources in investing and spending but that the citizen was also more autonomous and self determined. Lower taxes will only sound like an empty campaign promise if it isn't proposed within the context of giving the citizen greater liberty and freedom. The free-market system after all is liberty and freedom in motion. The greater liberty a country has the better the economy, they go hand in hand. High taxes are a restriction on freedom and therefore stagnate economies.

John McCain doesn't understand this. When Barak Obama proposes that he would cut taxes on 95% of all Americans, this sounds great. What he doesn't tell you, and what John McCain ought to know, is that the remaining 5% pay over 50% of all taxes. When Obama says he will raise taxes on Americans in the 5% range what he will end up doing is raising taxes on most of the people who pay them. If McCain was grounded in free-market tax policy he could certainly counter the argument on the damaging affects of Obama's proposal but instead sounds like a "big business" Republican who favors the rich over the poor. He'll cut taxes on the business, Obama on people.

One of the great misconceptions about tax policy is that when taxes are cut the federal deficit will grow. This isn't true. When taxes are cut the economy grows and so do revenues. This happened during the eighties under the Reagan tax cuts when federal revenues nearly doubled. The reason for this is that revenues rise when the economy is doing well. Investors don't mind paying taxes if their after tax return higher, in fact it encourages investment into the economy. When president Bush cut taxes the same thing happened. John McCain opposed the tax cuts under the false premise that it would cause deficits.

McCain with all his talk about being a conservative and having Reagan as one of his heroes has some explaining to do. In fact when it comes to the details McCain his quick to tell us how he disagreed with Reagan from time to time and in fact considers one of his important virtues as being a person who bucks his party "reaching out" across the isle. His bipartisanship has more to do with capitulating to liberal idealism then it has to do with convincing Democrats to vote on Republican concepts. In the debate he mentions how he was able to work together with Democrats and cites senators Fiengold, Kennedy and Libermann. In all he enacted or failed to enact liberal ideas. When McCain says he's a conservative to what do we attribute this label? His latest proposal touted in the second presidential debate was for the government to buy out mortgages. Part of his "reaching" out supposedly. Certainly he would have bipartisan support for such an intrusive government proposal, hows that for being a maverick.

Abortion in the Case of Rape or Incest and One Pro-life Position

Now that the presidential campaign has started in earnest it is time to get down to the specifics. As is the case with most elections the group of voters who are undecided from the time of the conventions until election day will decide the outcome. One of the most contentious issue of the two parties is abortion. Vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is pro-life as well as her running mate John McCain. What has become contentious is the fact that Palin is pro-life in all instances including rape and incest. Cindy McCain the day after the Republican convention has weighed in with her opinion that although she is pro-life, she disagrees with Palin in instances of rape or incest.

There is a problem of consistency here. A pregnancy as a result of rape and incest is still a pregnancy. Pro-choice advocates would argue that an unwanted pregnancy causes a measure of undue hardship and perhaps psychological pain. The pro-life argument is the pregnancy is the act of carrying a human life and to abort is ending that life, no hardship is worth taking a life. Perhaps this is Cindy McCain's position, certainly she considers abortion the termination of life however if she qualifies her position to say that it is okay to end a life in the case of rape and incest the question becomes at what point?

Is there a distinction between life in the womb and outside of it? To Cindy McCain there is. Put it this way, if a child were born and it was the result of rape or incest, does that child have a right to live? What is it about a fetus conceived due to rape and incest and one that is not? If she would agree, and we are sure she does, that taking a life of a child already born has a right to live no matter the circumstance, then why is it suddenly okay if the life were taken inside the womb in the case of rape and incest. The qualifier is incongruent with her overall pro-life position. Her position is thus that any pain, no matter the circumstance
is not a reason to take a life, unless the pain is as great as rape and incest. So therefore it is not so much as taking a life to Cindy McCain, she disagrees with pro-choice position on the measure of pain and hardship a woman should bear. In this instance she doesn't have a right to determine what is real hardship and what is not.

If there's no difference between life in or out of the womb to pro-lifers unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, then it ought to be alright to terminate a life already born for the same reason, there is no other way around it. Pro-lifers with this position have a lot of explaining to do.

A Watershed Election

During the Democratic convention the big story was unity, or the lack thereof. The forces of Hillary Clinton were not happy about their candidate being passed over, not only for the nomination, but far more important, vice president. This is conventional wisdom, we happen to think that it wasn't a bad decision considering Clinton's high negative ratings (mid 40's) and the baggage of husband Bill. Having said that Hillary Clinton did have a constituency of female voters who had to witness the appearance of a glass ceiling in their own party. Compound this appearance with the pick of Joe Biden as VP. If Barak Obama had picked a woman he would have at least dispelled the notion of discrimination, an ongoing infatuation within the Democratic party. A pick of a woman would have mitigated the gender conscious forces confining the shafting of Clinton to Clinton herself and not her gender.

With John McCain's pick of VP going to Sarah Palin, not only has he exasperated the disgruntlement of the gender conscious woman vote within the Democratic party but has brought about the real prospect of taken away a large section of voters who would've gone Democrat. Add to this is the possibility of re-aligning the woman vote to the Republican party and the prospect of women taking a look at conservative philosophy as a whole viewing it on its own terms and not through a charactered depiction from Democrats.

We have opined that this election is an up or down vote for Barak Obama. A popular and groundbreaking figure that has shown that there is hope for Americans of all races to reach high office. For this reason we have said that if Obama lost in the general election it could only be attributed to his liberal philosophy. A loss for Obama would cause the Democratic party to re-think its positions. A mistake would be to attribute his loss to something other then his positions, the pick of Sarah Palin could do just that. If that's the case expect liberalism to be shut out of national politics for another generation.

Dissecting Obama's Saddleback

This years presidential election has the potential of reshaping the Democratic party. Ever since the candidacy of George McGovern Democrat's have nominated a candidate with political principles and world views that don't connect with the voters. The two exceptions Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton became default candidates due to failure or corruption and by not portraying themselves as liberal standard bearers, Clinton after all ran to eliminate welfare “as we know it.”

In this current race for high office Barak Obama is set to replace an unpopular administration much the way Clinton and Carter had. Add to this is Obama's popularity with young voters and great communication skills. If Obama were to lose, to what can we point to as the one element that brought him down?

To kick off the general election John McCain and Barak Obama faced off in a quasi-debate in California (Saddleback) answering questions on policy and morality. No other forum before has ever given voters a more stark contrast of both candidates. Voters could see that more then anything else they are voting for different visions. If Obama were to lose with all of his popularity it can only mean that his outlook or the principles of the liberal wing of the Democratic party have been rejected. Unlike other rejections, this one in particular could be a watershed moment for the Democrats because if Obama can't win as a liberal, no one can.

Just what are the tenets of liberalism and why are they not palatable? The more identifiable is the one that cherishes welfare. Since the advent of Linden Johnson's Great Society program of the mid 1960's the United States has spent trillions on social programs on all levels of government. Programs in area's of standard cash handouts to families with dependent children to health care, education, food, hosing assistance, and unemployment. One of the first questions asked to Barak Obama in Saddleback was what if anything does he see as America's failure. His answer was providing for the poor. After all the years and funds directed to do just that why such an indictment? It's not enough to say that welfare is well funded, there is strong evidence that it is destructive. It's not a new argument or hard to understand. Either it is right or wrong voters at least have an inkling that it is true. But putting the affects of welfare aside, with all that has been redistributed from one class to another, does Obama have enough grounds be ashamed of America? Obama does mention the need and dignity for work but this is short lived. He also gives somewhat of a contradiction when he mentions that he was against welfare reform under Bill Clinton and subsequently saw that it was beneficial and he was wrong to oppose it. If Clinton was right to cut welfare then why be ashamed that we haven't done enough over the years to “provide for the poor”?

But providing for the poor is one of his missions as president as though this is a new idea put upon a rich and selfish nation. This he sees as America's greatest failure. And he doesn't stop there. He was asked whether or not he believed in evil to which he said he did. In identifying where evil lies he sites Rwanda genocide as one and the other the streets of America. No mention of Islamic terrorism, none. Not just Islamic, but terrorism of any stripe. Wasn't 9/11 an more poignant example of evil? Has he forgotten? Not only does he not see Islamic terrorism as evil but we should be “humble” about it when recognizing it in others. We are reminded of the arguments of moral equivalence during the cold war years when the left would excuse the faults of the old Soviet Union by pointing out our own. Not only moral equivalence but moral relativism, where there is no right or wrong short of genocide or, for that matter, “American Streets.” As an aside, if genocide gives America a need to intervene in other nations as Obama has hinted in Darfur and Bosnia, then why is it not okay to topple Saddam Hussain for that very reason? Why is Iraqi genocide ignored totally? Couldn't he say he was against the argument of Weapons of Mass destruction because of faulty intelligence, but glad we went in if only to remove a genocidal regime?

If there is a defeat of Barak Obama it is time for the Democratic party to shed it's postmodern, class struggle outlook. They are not ideals rooted in reality, as pointed out in providing for the poor (been there done that) and the need to give America's enemies the benefit of a doubt by drawing attentions to our shortcomings. The one thing about Obama is that there is nothing unique in his politics and has given the voters a chance to once and for all make clear what they think of liberal politics. Democrats would be wise to retool in the event of a vote of no confidence.

Let Them Eat Inflated Tires

Aside from Barak Obama's missteps and associations his biggest problem is the same as other Democratic predecessors who ran for top office and that is his political principles.

National campaigns, unlike the primaries, must appeal to the undecided vote, a group that is apolitical with an open mind that would vote for either party. The problem with Democratic presidential candidates is that they don't seem to have a handle on what it is middle America wants in a president and liberal policies are not it. They at least recognize that the word “liberal” is an albatross so they stay clear of the label but not the ideals. Never will it be heard in a general election, or even in the primaries, a candidate say that he or she is a liberal standard bearer. Republicans have the opposite problem in that everyone says they're a conservative when running but seldom are in governing. Democrats never say they're liberals but almost always are when in office.

When it comes to the electorate anti-conservative are liberals but anti-liberals are not always conservative. The reason being is that liberalism is expensive. Certainly a centrist could be apprehensive about conservative tax policy citing deficits in government ledgers but thats government ledgers, not their own. which is more immediate. Another problem with liberalism is the propensity to come up with government run solutions to big problems. All one has to do is run over a pot hole to distrust government to solve big problems. For Democrats to have broad appeal as a governing party it's going to have to retool. Since a liberal message doesn't get them to the white house they must rely on bad news in order to win.

Which leads us to Barak Obama. Would he even have a chance if it were not for bad news? Note how as the war becomes more and more successful with lowering gas prices and 3% growth in the economy his star seems to be fading. He's certainly is not helping matters in his recent tactic of defining his opposition as racist, a much overused liberal devise. No popular conservative has ever escaped this charge. With the current run up in oil his response has been 1. higher prices are okay only it happened too quickly. 2. replacing oil with “green” energy and other technologies that don't exist 3. inflate your tires. 4. confiscate money from oil producing companies put it all in an airplane and dump it out over populated areas (well not quite but not that much different). You don't have to be conservative to recognize that none of these so-called solutions will lower the price of gas anytime soon. Add to this is his high sense of himself. He seems to believe all the hype saying that he is what the world has been waiting for. This is a bit much. This is not to say that Obama cannot still win. McCain is not only running a hapless campaign but he is unable to coordinate a message that resonates with the voters mostly because he doesn't have one. McCain is a typical senator in that his line of work is to compromise and see different sides to an issue, a virtue important in legislating but out of place in leading or formulating a message. Only two senators have ever been elected president.

Its been said countless times before but it is worth repeating. The election is a referendum on Barak Obama. But not Obama only but the political philosophy of liberalism. A much unreported story in the campaign is the defection of Joe Lieberman the former Democrat vice presidential candidate in supporting McCain. Most Americans would like to see a black president. If Obama loses it will be because of his politics and if that happens liberalism is all but finished.

The Business of Waterbury Golf Courses

Waterbury golf courses are losing money and the mayor along with the Board of Alderman are going to meet to see how this could be reversed. The courses do not pay local taxes so as a business it has an advantage. Both have had major renovations done within the last ten years which include irrigation, cart paths, redesign (East Mountain), state of the art equipment; most of which have been paid for by government grants from the state. The courses are in better condition then they were over a decade ago when they operated profitably so what happened?

For the most part golf courses are tough businesses to run. Pro-shops, carts, green fees pay for equipment, maintenance and employees. The difficulty comes from year long expenses paid for with seasonal income. Even though private courses don't have the advantage of an operating budget stemming form city hall or renovations from state grants not to mention running tax free, for the most part they are profitable and in better shape.

What troubles the operation of Waterbury courses is its business structure. Each course has a manager (foreman) that oversees the daily maintenance. Both managers answer to a general manager. The general manager answers to a committee which sets policy and a mayor who is in charge of the city. To qualify to be a foreman the individual has to have knowledge of golf course maintenance. To be the the general manager the qualifications are more extensive which includes the knowledge of different types of grass how it grows, what inhibits its growth, how to treat it. Along with this knowledge comes chemicals and its application. Here is where the problems arise. Take a car dealership for instance; who would be better to run such a business the person who knows how to fix even to build a car or someone who knows how to sell them? In Waterbury the business of selling fees is the guy who has the knowledge of grass, so if new equipement is needed the likely way to pay for it is to charge more in fees. In 1992 to play eighteen holes cost $13, today it is more then doubled. With each increase in fees comes the likelihood of less business. Today the courses have less business, better shape, less business.

When the Mayor and Board meet they may get bogged down on the wrong side of the ledger. That is to say expenses could be trimmed, altered, put off budget, blaming managers etc. None of this will serve the long term financial health of the parks. The courses could run in the black if the analysis of the operations are done from the perspective of business, not accounting practices or blame or politics. The qualification of a general foreman seems to be the crux of a solution however essential knowledge of maintenance is, it does not include what it takes to run a business. It is not practical to ask for a business degree along with the necessary horticultural training for a position, but without it there is a void that needs to be filled.

Politics is not the same art as business and it is in the sphere of the latter that will determine the fate of the former. That is not to say that a solution could not be found. The decision makers have taken a step to look at the problem and not let it deteriorate. That this is being done when the town is running a surplus is politics at its best, the mayor and the board ought to be commended.

The War is Over and We Won

As in all wars the Iraq war has been a rough ride. While the invasion and ousting of the Saddam Hussein government was not difficult, the aftermath came close to making the campaign a failure.

The war can be divided into two phases, the first that of toppling the government and the second the installation of stability. The first phase of the war was executed successfully. Once Saddam Hussein was removed from power this should have been the end of what it is that is traditionally called war. Everything that transpired afterwards ought to have been nothing more then an installment of order and a democratic society. It was the second phase of the conflict that disaster struck. The US did not anticipate the magnitude of the insurgency and when news story after news story of bombings and body counts started climbing so did the second guessing of the Bush administration and dissent.

The dissenters could be split into two factions. The first being the group who did not want to invade in the first place. In this group there are those who would be against the war on strategic grounds or simple pacifism. The other group of dissenters are political opportunists. In this group the war became a vehicle of attacking the Bush presidency for political reasons. If truth is the first casualty of war it is apparent in the protagonists of a conflict also, in this case, the political adversaries of the war. During the second phase there was a drumbeat of charges of lying and incompetence. That Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction or that he had nothing to do with 9/11 became a rallying cry to foster dissent. This group would have us believe that if a Democrat were in office they would make the same arguments. This is a canard. This is apparent due to their own rhetoric. They would have us believe that president Bush was the first to mention weapons of mass destruction when he was not. It was also the position of the Clinton
administration as well as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and foreign intelligence agencies. More important was the use of wmd's as a means of genocide. If wmd's were not found by the time of invasion it did not matter. Hussein could have stayed in power and while there could have accumulated a fresh stockpile with the intent on using them for another round of genocide or in another conflict with it's neighbors and if not Saddam then certainly his sadistic sons who would have eventually taken power.

As for culpability in 9/11 Hussein had no direct involvement, no one ever made the case that he was. However it was the policy of the Iraqi government to harbor terrorist and export terrorism abroad. Whether or not he was culpable the fact that he was a terrorist enabling nation made Iraq a rouge and dangerous presence especially post 9/11.

The political dissenters while ignoring past arguments of nefarious behavior of Iraqi made by their own side in the past are now denying the successful strategy of the surge and the growing stability of the Iraqi nation now. Nothing could assuage the dissenters other then the installment of a Democratic president. If the current policy is unchanged in the event of a Democratic administration and stability continues, look for this crowd to take all the credit.

At no time from now till January 2009 will our involvement in Iraq be labeled as anything but war. The fact is the war is over and we won, not only the in the first phase but also in the second. The Iraqi government is democratically elected with a governing body of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. There does not exist any enemy combatant with anything resembling an army or insurgency. The only true battle that is left to be fought is one of perception. It is a battle that will be lost in the short run pace the political success of the Democrats in congressional seats and their current lead in the run towards the white house. When the dust settles the world will have over 30 million middle-east citizens living in Democracy in regions unthinkable less then a decade ago while America has been safe of
terrorism. The Republican party is inept in regards to winning the current debate on Iraq. It will be left to History to have the final say.