Archive for February, 2009

The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same

February 22, 2009

I wrote this back in 2006. Still rings true today

Prop 86 is a terrible proposition for the State of California (much as MOST of them are). I can’t believe that this is on the ballot again!! How much do the smokers of California need to be punished? Why are smokers being singled out again? This is ridiculous. I am not a smoker (never will be) but I fight hard for smoker’s rights. I believe it should be up to the resteraunt owner to decide if they want to let people smoke in their resteraunt. Imagine that, a society where people who own property get to decide how they want to use it. Sounds like America to me, but not California.

Why smokers? Well, the authors of this proposition consider smokers an easy target. They saw that Prop 10, years ago passed, and they wanted to mimmick that success. However, the money in Prop 10 never went to our schools. They went directly into Rob Reiner’s preschool program (because who knows more about raising kids than a single multi-divorced fat slob?). Sounds like an enormous conflict of interest to me, but since when has the left allowed the law to stand in the way of their agenda?

To me, going after smokers is just as ridiculous as going after anyone else in society. It’s like saying: let’s pass a measure to drastically cut teacher’s salaries and fire every teacher in a union. That will put an incredible amount of money back in our schools. Much more than any cigarette tax will.

Todd Thurman

Advertisements

Obama Lies, People Could Die

February 10, 2009

Hidden beneath the dark underbelly of, possibly, the worst piece of legislation Congress has ever had before them lies something that Obama EXPLICITLY said he would not do. Sneaked in to the bill by tax cheat former HHS Nominee Tom Daschle, this provision would allow all medical records to be electronic and would set up a bureaucracy that would tell doctors what to do. This is awfully close to the National Health Board that Daschle has been peddling to anyone who would listen.

Obama said that if we liked our health plan, we could keep it. I like my health plan. Why is it changing? Why would I want the government to have final say over my doctor of what is the best for my health. What does the government know? What I want to know is, how many people are going to die while government bureaucrats argue about which type of medicine from which special interest group they are going to tell a medical doctor what would work best? How many have to die before they realize that this plan is terrible? Why does anyone have to die? Anyone can see that this is a horrible, horrible idea.

Why is it so hard for Obama to keep his campaign promises? I think it is because his promises contradicted one another. You cannot cut taxes for “95%” of people and expect to raise spending. I guess Obama finally realized that the top 5 percent paid 40% of the taxes, and there was only so much water from that well. So he raised cigarette taxes by 156%. Signing that bill also broke his transparency promise. When is the last time Obama told the truth?

Todd Thurman

Thoughts on the Current State

February 9, 2009

All through the campaign, Obama ran as a moderate conservative. Moderate conservatives were willing to give him a shot because they agreed with a lot of what he said. Moderate liberals knew that he was not Bush and that was enough for them. Far left liberals were hoping that he was lying in his campaign and he would rule from the left (you know, exactly how he has his entire life). People on the far right did not have a horse in this race, so they voted for Sarah Palin.

He ran as a candidate of “change” that was going to clean up Washington. He said that his presidency would be the most transparent presidency in history. He changed the White House Web site and promised to put all of his Executive Orders and transcripts of press conferences. After a very rocky start of publishing none of that, they seem to be keeping up to date now.

Let’s now focus on the people he has nominated. Notwithstanding Charles Rangel, the Head of the House Ways and Means Committee (they actually write the tax code) not understading how taxes work, Obama nominated Tim Geithner to head up the Treasury (which includes the IRS) who has also failed to pay his taxes. The left claimed that it was merely an oversight. A $44,000 oversight. I love the hypocrisy here when the left crucified Joe the Plumber because they found out that he owed $1200 in back taxes, but look away when seemingly no one in their party pays taxes. How can a man head up the branch of government that collects taxes not know how to pay his own taxes? Makes absolutely no sense. How could he even be nominated?

Tom Daschle owed more in back taxes ($150,000) than 95% of the country makes in an entire year. It’s understandable though because he didn’t know he had to pay taxes for his personal driver. Forgive me if I don’t feel sorry for him in the least. Don’t people go to jail for not paying their taxes? Why are these people being elevated to some of the top positons in the land?

Everything comes circling back for Obama. See, he ran as a moderate conservative (tax cuts, more responsibility, less government spending). But anyone who was familiar with his record, knew that there was no chance of him being a far left liberal president. Which is why he nominated Tom Daschle. Daschle is in favor of a National Health Board which also breaks an Obama campaign promise of “if you like your health plan, you can keep it.”

Maybe I am just being cynical, but congress is the last entitty I would trust to do anything for me. OK, second to last. The Supreme Court is the very last thing I would trust to decide when life begins. No idea why the black robe makes people think they are clairvoyant like that.

Much, much more to be said – To be continued.

Is ‘Card Check’ Really Free Choice?

February 4, 2009

Aside from the Stimulus Package, the Liberals in Congress have something else up their sleeve on their agenda. It is known as the “Employee Free Choice Act”, but names can be misleading. The premise of this bill is to “establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiation.” However, the danger of this bill is laid out in Section 2: [Emphasis mine]

If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organizations currently certified or recognizing as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative in the subsection.

What this means is that as long as a simple majority (50%+1) of authorized signatures, they will forgo elections by a secret ballot. Much has been said on other blogs about the Employee Free Choice Act. But today, the Center for Union Facts released a poll that stated that 82% of non-unionized workers do not want to be unionized.

The fact remains that the current system is not broken, it is just that people don’t want to be in unions. Only 12% of salaried workers were unionized in 2008. What does this mean? Well, Big Labor would like you to believe that it is because of unfair labor practices. If that is the case, why then, would they still want to get rid of the secret ballot. If a worker has the right to vote in a secret ballot on who they want to be the next American Idol, should not they also have the right to vote in a secret ballot whether or not they are unionized?

George McGovern has been an outspoken critic of The “Employee Free Choice Act” specifically because of the provision I highlighted. The simple formula is that Big Labor wants more members to get more people to pay union dues. Liberals want more union dues because Unions often contribute to liberal politicians. So is getting n employee to join a union, without an election, and forcing said employee to pay dues to a cause they may, or may not, agree with really free choice?