Ron Paul : Stop Dreaming

If you don't know anything about Congressman Paul....Dr. No. The leader of the Revolution....Please watch this video.

If you do know about him...then you probably like him. If you don't I want to hear from you. Just curious. The best place to discuss the Congressman is probably on my forum at http://www.politicalbear.com

Cutting the U.S.'s Corporate Tax Rate

So.....

This is was quickly done, and it is their first real move into the youtube market, but Dan Mitchell is one of the stronger economists in DC and he makes great points.

I am going to post his next few videos here and then I will move them to the http://www.politicalbear.com website

Rate Freeze.....late reaction

I guess I just can't believe it. A Republican, and a rate freeze.

I was hoping that the fed wouldn't cut any more points and blame the President for the stupidity of a bail out.

Seriously.....Several good people were caught up in this recent housing mess, but the large majority understood that they were making a risky decision. I still remember when I was offered a loan for $500,000....hahahahaha. I can barely afford a loan of half that, but I could have afforded the original payments. If I had made a decision to be that stupid, should I receive help.....no! Should the company that ignorantly gave me the mortagage be helped out....! Should the investor that bought into the company that gave me the mortagage be helped out.....NO!

Stop the nanny state. I am tired for paying for stupidity.

Sorry for the rant. I hadn't written on the rate freeze yet, and it got under my skin. Also, I know people that it is going to help out, so the answer is yes, I am cold hearted. :)

Check out my website: http://www.politicalbear.com

If you want....even become a contributor, just send me your articles and I will post them on the site.

Party of the Rich?

Some Presidential candidates talk about helping the poor, the impoverished, and making sure the working family has a fair shake, but do they practice what they preach? Or are they in fact doing the opposite?

Recent legislative proposals from the majority party in Congress, such as the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP), a dedicated bridge fund, and legislation to address issues of climate change are bills that are built on funding mechanisms that keep the rich rich, and the poor poor.

The three main Democratic candidates for President devote large segments of their campaign speeches to how, if elected, they will help the poor and working class families of America. Hillary Clinton recently said, ”Let’s ensure that people who work hard every day can support their families and save for the future...”; Barack Obama recently said, “We've got a shift in our tax values that disproportionately benefits the wealthiest Americans”; John Edwards asserts that “it's time to restore fairness to a tax code.”

With those beliefs and priorities in mind, the next step would be to introduce bills and fight for legislation that eases the tax burden on the poorest Americans.

However, the current majority, including these candidates, are fighting for measures that disproportionately affect the poor in negative ways. These include excise taxes—like the tobacco taxes--proposed to fund SCHIP; gas taxes—proposed to fund bridge maintenance; and a carbon tax-- to fight climate change. These taxes are all regressive.

Excise taxes disproportionately affect the poor for several reasons. A report from the Congressional Research Service states “because consumption is a higher proportion of income for lower-income persons than upper-income individuals, excise taxes are usually considered regressive.”

In fact, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, Americans that earn $24,000 or less spend almost 5% of their income on gas, while families that earn over $100,000 spend only 2% of their income on gas.

Furthermore, politicians understand the regressive nature of excise taxes. In 1962, excise taxes accounted for 12.5% of gross federal revenue. Since then, politicians have attacked regressive excise taxes and restricted their use. Today excise taxes only account for about 1% of the gross federal revenues.

In fact, excise taxes are an ineffective way to solve a problem. They create more inequality in the tax code, hurting American families. And these excise taxes enable the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer. This inconsistency means one of two things; at best they mean well but are shallow thinkers, or at worst they are knowingly pulling the wool over voters’ eyes. Interestingly, Democrats don’t seem to get it and continue to vote for legislation that increases the burden on the poor.

Recently, a vote on SCHIP bill garnered 67 votes in the Senate and 265 votes in the House. On this bill, Democrats claimed that the vote for SCHIP, which is intended to provide healthcare for uninsured poor children, outweighed the negatives of the tax burden on the poor. They failed to mention then and continue to skip the fact that besides the increased fiscal burden on the poor the legislation will now cover middle class children that already have private coverage while neglecting the poorest children that the legislation was originally intended to cover.

Democrats get elected by promising to help the poor, and then they tax the poor further into poverty. It is like holding somebody underwater and telling him to breathe. It doesn’t work, and voters should call for an end to this chicanery.

For more.... visit PoliticalBear.com

PoliticalBear.com has a new home!

My new website is up!!!!!! I will still post here, but if you are interested in what I have had to say please visit Political Bear. I have Polls, forums, editorials, and Talking point breakdowns.

It is a great political site to discuss what is happening in todays news.

Picture of Sunrise on Capitol (outside my office)

Ron Paul on Jay Leno

Various wrong ways to handle a disagreement

Democrats against free speech? Naaaaa. Oh, wait.......they hate free speech. If you don't agree with me that is fine. Check out the video, and look at the fairness doctrine that the Dems have sponsored on Capitol Hill. What?

No recent posts

I wanted to apologize (mainly to myself) for a lack of recent posts. However, I have been writing......I have just been sending it into papers.

That is right! I have the right to free speech! Not to many staffers in politics have that right.

I have been sending my op-eds to the Kansas City Star. I am currently only at 2 written and 0 published. hmmmmmmmmmm. OK, one isn't actually submitted yet, and they have had the other for only one week.........not bad. Rejection is a major part of the op-ed excitement.

At some point in my lifetime I would love to be a member of an editorial board. That would be a great career or section of a career.

Anyway. I will get a couple of posts out this week. In the meantime........go to http://politicalbear.com and donate $10. I will send you a bear. Soon I will have a page up dedicated solely to the bears.

Political Bear Stop Motion!

haha. my first attempt at stop motion. I think it is pretty good if I do say so myself.

Political Bear Donation Gifts!

They are here! Pictures of the Bears will be on the website shortly. (hopefully tomorrow)

Short Response to Senator Obama's VFW Speech

new video!

Wall Street Journal Op-ed response: GOP Tax Dilemma

Friday's op-ed "GOP Tax Dilemma" (GTD) by Stephen Moore (great guy) is right on. In GTD Stephen Moore makes the point that the GOP's message of tax cuts does not poll well with voters.

Of course the message doesn't poll well with voters. Republicans have done nothing to reign in the fiscal purse strings. If they would have......then my guess is that the polling would be completely different*. Yes they cut taxes, yes the economy grew, but they also spent, let other programs grow, and created one of the biggest entitlement programs of all time.

Moore finishes his article with a great point. He uses part of a quote from Sen. Kyl who "says that if Republicans are going to win in 2008 they have to persuade voters that Democratic tax hikes 'will make things worse' for the economy and their own personal finances. Fortunately, this message has added attraction that it's not just pollster-driven spin. It's the truth."

*While I like Rove as a tactician, I think he ruined the tax message as well. He turned the base socially conservative. The base, I could be wrong on this, has historically been fiscal conservatives and the social part was only a faction of that base (a big faction-but only a faction). What Rove saw is that social conservatives vote. They vote in large percentages. Oh well. When that fails...which it will. We will get back our fiscal party again.

Guiliani will vote for McCain, who would everyone else vote?

I posted this video a few days ago. It is my bid. to get into the Republican Presidential debates. I is low quality and a softball of a question, but I don't know what they will answer...do you?

The Art of Conversation Part 4

How do you counter an effective messaging campaign?

1. Attack. Attack. Attack.
2. Win the argument, and then win the vote.
3. Let them know you care, and then win them over.

Now let's use the same pieces as described in The Art of Conversation Part 3 to organize this a little better.

Attack, attack, attack should be the baseline. This might be what Oprah would describe as the secret. I am a little more primal than that. Attack, attack, attack, is an easy way to get what you want in life. The first person to rest, loses. Therefore, this idea is going to be the baseline of both how we beat a messaging campaign and how we perform one. (amazing how simple it is)

For the day to day arguments, I like to let people know that I care and then win them over. The day to day arguments are less important, but the audience (voters, friends, passers by) could care less about the argument if they don't think that you really care.

Finally, win the argument. Do what it takes to take down the top argument. This is the one that will hurt the most to lose. Beat it into the ground. Take no prisoners. Most importantly, don't think about anything else at this point. Just win.

After the win, then win the vote, or the support of the audience, crowd, or listeners.

Examples:

Baseline: no real examples here, but wake up early and go to bed late. Spend every waking moment figuring out how to win.

Day-to-day: SCHIP is the most current debate, so we can use the debate over SCHIP. Democrats are saying the Republicans don't support poor kids (sounds simple, but read a couple of articles-that might be a direct quote). Of course this is false, so now we to prove it. The plan: show them we care and then win. Statements need to be made about the original bill (republican), why these kids need coverage, how important it is that kids have access to health care, what a tragedy it is that our health care system is so expensive (this is also a preparation for an attack), and just look how sad they are.

After you have laid out why you care about the issue, then you have to win the argument. I like a two-fold approach to win an argument. First, why is their idea wrong? In this case, the SCHIP expansion taxes the poor for middle class benefits, bypasses the poor with an expansion, and actually decreases access (if it succeeds the way they say it will). Second, why is our idea right? We need to serve the kids the bill was originally intended for and government is an inefficient provider. There are more.

Top level argument: Beat'em up on this one. A loss here is bad. I don't think either side has done a good job on top level messages regarding the SCHIP debate. The loser is going to have a harder time with the Universal Care debate that we are moving towards, but other than that this is really just a day-to-day battle. If I were in charge of the Republicans I would be putting a lot more on this SCHIP debate though. If they win this battle the Universal Care debate is a lot easier. If I was a Democrat I would be trotting kids in front of TVs and talking about how bad the health care system is (oh wait they are doing that).

More like this will be on my website under my home page Political Bear

The Art of Conversation Part 3

This could actually be around part 37, but sometimes lessons need to be learned.

Messaging.

Messaging is done through .....drum roll please.....messages. Effective messaging is done through catchy messages (I think of jingles- almost everybody knows the ingredients of a big mac). I call messages talking points, a lot of others do to, but for the sake of definition that needs to be clear.

I believe that an effective messaging campaign has several layers.....more like the atmosphere than like an onion. Fast cold moving top layers, thick stickier bottom layers, and dirt to let everyone know where the sky starts.

First, you have a base line message, the dirt, this is who you are.....no one is really a republican or democrat they just have more baseline beliefs that fit in one party of the other. This is a book unto itself.

Second, the day-to-day rhetoric, or sticky bottom layer, is the trench warfare of messaging. These messages are the ones that we read about in the Wall Street Journal every day, or hear about in the news every day.

Third, the top level rhetoric, of fast cold moving top layer, these are the long term sound bites used by the parties.

Current examples of top level rhetoric:

Get the troops out of Iraq, this is perfect because, duh, at some point they will come home and when they do the Democrats will claim responsibility

The cost of the war is ruining our budget: Another great long term talking point. This will be used when the economy falls apart because of the burdensome taxes and regulations that are being suggested and passed every day. In reality we are not anywhere near historic levels of defense spending and we are below projections. (WSJ Oct. 4, 2007)

I have several ways to combat this strategy, and I will get to them as this blog develops.

You can also see more like this by visiting my blog at Political Bear

Unions! The newest member of the ownership society.

One of the last groups that I would have believed would join in the party that is the ownership society, has now jumped in head first. The Unions are now in charge of there own health care.

It is an event that hasn't passed unnoticed, but the impact of the decision might be huge. UAW is taking on responsibility for its own retiree health care. (deep breath, deep breath) (give me a second) Wow. That is just great.

As a Wall Street Journal op-ed put it, "The UAW meets the ownership society." The article goes on to mention that the more "skin" people have in health care the more they pay attention to their own health and the costs.

Now that UAW has more at risk than just upsetting an impersonal large buisness, they might act differently about how health care funding is allocated. They might actually care. Before now there job was just to get as much money as they possibly could. They didn't care beyond that.

The more "skin" anyone has in any game the smarter their decisions become.

For more about ownership and health care check out Dr. Goodman's, the President of the National Center for Policy Analysis, blog here, NCPA


For more straight talk on hard issues visit my website: Political Bear

What is SCHIP and what is happening with it?

SCHIP= State Children's Health Insurance Program

Provides block grants to states to supply health insurance for kids, originally kids in poor families.

SCHIP was originally bi-partisan, and for that matter still has bi-partisan support. Yes even the republicans support the original intent of the law. However, since the legislation was signed into law, states have applied for and received waivers that allow them to cover "kids" at higher income levels. Even this would be alright, but it is still not the whole story.

These waivers allowed states to get the low hanging fruit, and since SCHIP is a block grant, the states are covering these "kids" at 50% of the real dollar expense. In other words, the truly hard kids to find and cover will now just never be covered. Instead, states have opted to not do the dirty work of finding the hard to cover kids that SCHIP was originally intended to cover.

The current debate on Capitol Hill is about raising the income limits even higher, and paying for the expansion by increasing taxes, more specifically tabacco taxes. There are multiple problems with this plan. First, the higher the income level is raised the more people are pushed out of the private sector and into public assistance. Second, tabacco taxes are one of the most regressive of taxes, meaning that lower income people pay a higher portion of the tax. Third and most importantly, it will do nothing to assure that the low income children that the bill was originally intended to cover will actually receive coverage.

This is the truth. Not what you will hear it anyplace else.
For more visit my website Political Bear

WWDD? What would the Democrats do?

Problem: High ticket prices for a children's concert.

Answer: I don't know, the artist can charge more money....she can do more shows....she can play in larger venues......she can leave people out....you pick.

Bad Answer: The Government steps in. (the article doesn't answer this way, but it feels like it does.)
`Hannah Montana' concert tix too hot10/01/2007 11:36 AM, AP

Forget The Police, Justin Timberlake or Bruce Springsteen. The undisputed hottest concert ticket of the year is for 14-year-old pop star Miley Cyrus, star of the Disney Channel's "Hannah Montana" TV show.........

......Fans are so desperate for seats to her 54-date tour, kicking off later this month, that venues have sold out in as little as four minutes and scalpers are getting four to five times the face value — creating a torrent of complaints from frustrated parents. .......

........"I feel like they are ripping off children," Nace said. "I'm sure there are parents out there would pay that much. But the rest of us shouldn't be penalized for that."

My real question.....why can't the venue charge more?

The rest of the article can be found here-Miley Cyrus

For more straightforward thinking visit Political Bear

Headlines, the GOP, and the Future

Bad news first: The Republicans are going to lose the next elections.

Good news: This is the best thing that could happen to the Republican party.

The new GOP has lost the vision. They have stopped the revolution, burnt the Contact with America, and even gone yellow. The only story on Capitol Hill is that they can't vote the way they should because of special interests.

To quote a teenager, "OMG!" (Oh my God)

To quote a Senator "A United States Senator has significant tools with which to wield power and influence.......Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools" (Sen. Pat Roberts)

In 1994 the Republicans that led the revolution were equipped with vision, vigor, and a strong belief of the need for reform. The leaders from those days have given up. They have cashed in their chips, and stopped even trying to message for the comeback. They are now happy to sit on their soapbox and talk about the good times. The Staff has gone, and the staffers that took their place do not understand how revolutionary everything was (I wasn't a part of it either). The rank and file member is so busy just trying to keep their job that they forgot they have one to do.

A loss in the next election, a big loss, I mean huge, will make the party remember. Hopefully, after a bad loss, like a cold shower, the party will wake up. For those of you Democrats who say, "I don't want the Republicans to wake up." It is not this party that will wake up. It is the party that wants change. That wants to put an end to government waste, corruption, and inefficiency. A party that cares more about how much the government spends on a door than what you do behind yours. A party that has the will to do what is right, not because it will get them elected, but because it is right. Not the party that is currently losing a generation of voters like me, the sons and daughters of hippies and Vietnam vets.

I hate saying that we need to lose. I hate losing, but in the next election vote libertarian. Send a message that we want the fiscal sense back that once existed, we want the fight back that once existed, we want the leadership back that once existed, we want the vision back that once existed, and send the message that we want the party back that once existed.

Cap and Trade

The idea of a cap and trade system will more than likely be in the news for the next week or so, therefore, let’s have a little cap and trade lesson and a legislative update on climate change.

Lets start with the legislation. Numerous bills.......a lot......tons......even a new committee (no legislative abilities, but still a new committee). All of the legislation fits into just a couple of categories, and I believe only two. The two categories are those that will work and those that won't. There is only one currently that works.......there should be two, but it will happen at some point........it is the Dingell bill. The Dingell bill is a carbon tax.

What is that? Political Bear thinks a tax can solve a problem? Actually, yes, at least better than the other ideas. The Dingell bill makes the sacrifices obvious, so voters would really have to support solving (?*) climate change. The Dingell Bill has two problems: 1. It would ruin the economy, enough said. 2. He knows it won't pass and he is just making a point.

The Second types of bills are the cap and trade bills. These bills would create a cap or ceiling on the amount of CO2 that a company can produce, and if they have extra they can sell it to other companies or if they need more emission credits they can buy them from others. The media calls this the market based solution to climate change. The media is wrong. Cap and Trade creates a "play market." Randomly creating a commodity and then enforcing a cap is not a market. There are times that the system will look like a market, but if the government creates something does it ever just leave it be? (no). Every time the Government changes the cap and trade market it will further effect the users of the energy. Who will be more effected by changing prices.........me? No- while I might not use as much energy as before when the prices increase, I have a job............the elderly? yes-many elderly are on fixed incomes, and need climate control......the rich? no-their energy bills will be higher like the rest of us, but as a percentage of the income, it is nothing.........the poor? Yes. They will be hurt badly.

So, why is the consensus to solve (?*) climate change with a cap and trade bill? I have no idea. A hidden regressive tax is not a good piece of legislation.

*We can't solve climate change. We can save lives by adapting, but the earths climate has changed again and again in our past, and it is naive to think that we can stop it. Oh, and humans do have an impact, but it is a fraction of a percent using pollution and atmospheric data.

Letter to the Editor

I am tired of people whining.

Life is hard. suck it up.

On the other hand...........why don't don't you just keep complaining and maybe even quit trying.

That makes it even easier on me.

Why am I just writing a rant today? I am sending a letter into the WSJ, so I have to give them time to accept or reject it. However, the message that it is in the letter is basically the one above.

Charlie Rangel on taxes

If you don't him, Charles Rangel, the current Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is wild.

He is a flamboyant, in the New Yorker sense, Democrat who if you were to see him on TV sounds more like a Rev. Jackson or Al Sharpton (these guys are great leaders in their own right, but not the people that I want in charge of the tax code, SS, medicare, medicaid.......etc), than a well versed and knowlegdable Chairman of one of the most powerful Committees on Capitol Hill.

In person, Mr. Rangel is thoughtful and fair.

That brings me to a Wall Street Journal yesterday: Rangel Expresses Openness To Corporate-Tax Rate Cut

There are two possible motives to this and I believe that it is the better of the two.

Motive #1: With the present forecasts of the American economy- Loss of our AAA rating, possible de-pegging of currencies, low dollar....etc. New Yorkers, no matter their party are starting to see an uprising from Wall Street. So, we now have Sen. Chuck Shumer, who is now for some tax cuts just to make sure American companies, Wall Street still has an edge in the world market. Therefore, is this what Charles Rangel is doing?

Motive #2: After reading the Treasury paper that was released in July he thought the time was right. The paper suggested that by removing certain tax preferrances, such as a deduction for firms that keep production in the U.S. , the top corporate rate could be dropped from 35% to 27%.

The Answer: Timing = Motive #2! Mr. Rangel is politically savvy enough to know what he is doing and when he is working on something. If he wanted to be anti Bush on this he could have been, but he thinks it is a good idea and he is being fair about it.

For more, visit my website Political Bear

Talking point seeds- golden nuggets of information

A few items mentioned in Newt's speech:

Thatcher- ~"First you win the argument. Then you win the vote."

The Pragmatic approach will always win-- What does the evidence tell you

Democrats are not stupid. They are good people that deeply believe in dumb ideas

Sarkozy knew that he couldn't win the French media over, so he started 16 channels on YouTube and let the media cover his discussion with others on YouTube.

For more, visit my website Political Bear

Contract for America Remembered

Newt Gingrich.............. he is such a nerd

It would be great to be able to elect him. Yes he has some faults, but the simple way that he can break big thoughts down is unparalleled.

His main problem..........He is a better leader of revolutions than a leader of day to day life.

If I had one issue or problem with my personality I might take his problem.

Ok, so why am I talking about Newt?

I listened to him speak yesterday. It wasn't the best speech that I have heard him deliver.....it was kind of an infomercial for his new projects, but it did bring up stories regarding the Republican Revolution and the Contract for America. If you don't know me---I was still in high school at that time-so politics wasn't my focus. My boss re-told a story about how he was at the briefing where Newt announced the idea for the Contract America.

My boss said that so many parts were hard to follow because they were foreign. Republicans were the minority........that was just the way that it was. Republicans never even thought about being the majority. Then Newt came along and changed that.

In this briefing my boss remembered Newt talking about Reader's Digest. At the time staff thought he was crazy! He talked about the readership numbers of Reader's Digest (huge), the placement of the ad, the type of paper that it should be printed on.......etc. Newt had this thought out. Sure enough that summer everyone had the Contract for America on the refrigerators.

I don't care if what party you are in that is a great story.

Side note: I don't find reader's digest to be innovative. Hayek's Road to Serfdom gained its popularity after being condensed and included in reader's digest. I believe that Reagan and Goldwater both have mentioned the Reader's Digest version as catalysts to their political careers.

If you like what I am talking about here, you should visit my website Political Bear

Wall Street Journal....How I love thee......

That might be nerdy, but today the WSJ got it right. Two op-eds.......thats right, two.....attacked the perception (I say media) of current events on Capitol Hill. The first mis-conception was what about the message Petraeus and Ryan Crocker delivered yesterday. The media seems to think their message was that troops could be withdrawn. No......troops could be withdrawn because of the good news in their updates!

Pataeus's message- Surge is working. We are gaining control.
Ryan Crocker's message- Economic growth is expected to be 6% in Iraq this year. (that is huge)

That is the message that each of these gentleman testified about yesterday. However, all we got out of the main stream media were withdrawal numbers. Argh. The article goes on to mention that the way to gain ground is not by troop withdrawals and that we should have learned this lesson after Vietnam. Politically, it might be a hard call, because everyone with a heart wants our troops home, but we all know that if we do what we need to do to shore up the issues in Iraq before leaving we will all be better off.

I am not saying that there were no mistakes made, and we didn't need to change tactics, but a blind chant for troop withdrawal isn't exactly a policy change.

The second article that was amazing in the WSJ today was one regarding more tax increases. "Paid to Listen" was the title and it detailed some of the argument/debate around raising taxes on private equity firms. A little background: Private equity firm (ghetto definition): Booky - closer definition: investor.

I wanted to give the "booky" definition because that is why these firms are legally getting away with only paying a 15% capital gains rate instead of their gains being taxed as wage income at the top rate of 35% (all of these people would be at the top rate), they are gambling. Additionally, their gambles are long term.

Private Equity firms are great for the economy. They provide the venture capital for entrepreneurs. However, like usual Congress wants to tax them. Everybody wants at them. More money is mantra, but the blinders they have are blinding them from the effects. Argh. Let the economy grow. We need to teach them that mantra........then maybe we can teach them the advanced version "help" the economy grow. baby steps.

Therefore, thank you WSJ

Wall Street Journal Op-ed: Congress and Recession

For some reason this makes me think of the bad sitcom, "Married with Children." Love and Marriage, Love and Marriage............ is how the opening song started. So here it is..........my song writing debut-- Congress and recession, Congress and recession---goes together like a gun and depression----Oh I tell you brother.

The economy is good (mainly), but you can't just do anything in Congress and believe there will not be any effect in the economy. However, as stated in the Wall Street Journal, the current congress has put a stop to all pro-growth economic policies. This is my favorite quote from the article,

"On fiscal policy, Democrats have proposed or discussed raising taxes on cigarettes, oil and gas companies, hedge funds, private equity, capital gains, dividends, the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies, and individuals eaning more than $500,000 a year (which includes millions of small businesses filing under Subchapter S). Add the promise of every Democratic Presidential candidate to repeal the Bush tax cuts if he or she wins in 2008, and no wonder investors are growing more cautious."


My only real question- Who is going to stop the madness? (The article asks this question as well)

It is very easy to point the finger, but someone must also verbalize the problem.........and oh yeah, provide the answer (for those of you trying to follow, but not quite there.....Answer= keep with the pro-growth stuff). Not easy to do in a 30 second sound bite, but if I can.......... The current Congress has stopped pro-growth policy.....scareing off investors and driving our economy closer to bad/evil/awful/deep/long/devastating recession and we must stop them. We need to restore faith in the economy by restoring pro-growth policies that encourage wealth and prosperity for all.................wow, harder than I thought (not).....someone in the place to speak up can as well.

Who is going to come out and say it? I would hold my breath, but I don't want to pass out.

Wall Street Journal Op-ed: Who Pays for Health Insurance

Hooray for the the Wall Street Journal. (If this keeps up, they are wil need to start paying me as a sponsor)

In "Who Pays for Health Insurance" there are multiple things that are right. First, they praise President Bush.........before you slit my throat read on. Second, they look at the health care system as a market.

Ok, here is the support for Bush (the only reason you might not know this is that he seems to have a communications team that actually works against him.) President Bush's health care proposals are excellent, innovative, and should be bi-partisan. Actually, in my opinion the only reason they aren't bi-partisan are because of the politics and not the ideals. One of the big changes in the President's proposal is to uncouple health care from employers. Everyone, that purchased insurance would be able to receive a tax credit. This would allow more people to get insurance, it would increase insurance stability, and it would also change the market by letting people know exactly how much they spend on health care.

Amazing right? It sounds like he has a heart.

I have heard about this plan in my wonky legislative meetings, but I don't think that I have heard this in the media at all. That is until now, and at that you have to count the WSJ op-eds as the media (The are not.)

And to talk about health care as a market is amazing. Not too many people understand the fact that health care is a market, but that is only because government has distorted it so much already that it barely resembles one. Users of health care need to have choices, and currently they do not. Employers dictate what insurance plan their employees are offered. Inurance companies decide what drugs the user can have........etc. This system is awful.

If you haven't done so................I don't care how much you hate him.........check out the President's Health Care Reform Proposals. (I will put a link here....hopefully tomorrow.)

Summary of Governor Romney Speech to the Young Republicans

Governor Mitt Romney's Remarks At The Young Republican National Convention
Saturday, Jul 07, 2007

• We need change
o We need to do it in a Republican way by looking to our heritage
o Rely on ourselves and not Government
• Individual initiative is at the heart of America’s rise to leadership
• Democrats do not support the right kind of change
o They support higher taxes and bigger government
• I want to make the Bush cuts permanent, stop the death tax, and zero tax rate on dividends and capital gains for the middle class
o I will show fiscal restraint
o I will streamline government
• One difference between the parties are our health care solutions
o They want big Government
o I want people to have their own private, affordable, and private insurance
• Another difference is illegal immigration
o They want Amnesty
o I don’t
• Can’t hide like the Democrats want from the Asian Markets
o We must charge head first and compete• We are now facing new national security challenges
o The President has made some mistakes
o We should thank him for the good things he has done
o I will be aggressive towards terror as President
• We need someone strong for all this change
o The American People are strong
• It is not a time to shrink from conservative principles
o It is a time to rally around them
• America is Great

Summary:
Well the main summary is what I edited out of the outline to get the main points that you see above. Democrat bashing. While I do like the effort, it is not what America is looking for in a President. As far as the summary I was left with, it was not a deep speech, but did make some statements. For one, he lays out most of his plans for the economy: making the tax cuts permanent, stopping the death tax, zeroing out taxes on dividends and capital gains for the middle class, show fiscal restraint, and streamline government. He also talks about the need to compete with Asian countries instead of retreat. Even mentioning Asian markets in a statement is bold because many candidates are scared to even approach the topic. In a last strong move Governor Romney threw some support behind President Bush. That was strong.

In general Governor Romney used this speech to prove how far right he is on the wing..........and for that he did a good job. However, as soon as this speech is looked at outside the context of a speech to the Young Republicans it loses all credibility. I am a big believer that the higher up the political ladder you campaign the more every speech should be delivered in a way that any potential voter that wathches the speech would be proud to vote for you. That would obviously not be the case here. That is ok, Governor Romney is still rookie on the national scene. He will learn.........he just better hope it is fast.

The Art of Conversation: Part 2

Well, I have been silent on the Senator Craig issue. What do you really say about a Senator playing footsy in a bathroom? So, I think this is a good time to look at the rules of conversation.

Rule #1- Tell the truth.

The truth is an effective tool. In any debate, conversation, plea, or argument the truth will always be stronger than even the most well thought out lie. How agonizing is it to watch politicians use bold faced lies?

The thought process behind these blunders is amazing. A group of people have to sit in a room and decide that a lie is the best thing they can come up with (admittedly a lot of the time, the people in the room are actually advising for the truth to be told). Second the speaker has to deliver this lie.

What is actually needed in each of these situations is the truth.

It is impossible, in hindsight, to argue that even if these politicians would have just told the complete true story in the first place that they wouldn’t have been better off, if only for the simple reason that they had to tell the truth eventually anyways.

This same premise works in your home and everyday conversations as well. Tell the truth. So, how is the truth used? Carefully.

Explanation: Is there only one version of the truth, and can only one set of words be used to explain the truth? The answers, no and no! Since more than one set of words can be used to explain the truth, more than one version of the truth exists. Making even the truth a slippery talking point. However, any argument based on the truth will beat out a lie every time.

Roll Call: Response to article re:Thompson

Wow.

I like the word wow. "Wow" is exactly how I feel about an article that was in yesterday's Roll Call. For those of you who don't know about Roll Call, you should get a subscription if you are reading this blog, it is one of the better Captiol Hill Newspapers.

The article titled "How Thompson Hurt His Own Prospects- And Helped Romney's" goes on to explain just that. The author believes that Thompson's delay in announcing his bid for the Republican nomination, not only hurt himself but also helped the other candidates that are currently trailing Giuliani.

I am not going to quote dates right now, I don't have them handy, but this is one of the earliest campaign cycles in the history of the run for the White House. Thompson is running under the theory that voters will burn out on the other candidates. He is also being very strategic in announcing after August. The political news outlets go dead with Washington during the summer, so if he would have announced before he would now look like all of the other candidates.

Does this mean that I am supporting Thompson? No. But, I might, and I definitely do not think that announcing after August has hurt him in the slightest, and might have been the smartest move that he has played in the Republican primary.

The old school thought process has to change. We are now in the modern world. Short attention spans.......Oh, wait.......that isn't new.......as I said earlier this campaign season is one of the earliest yet.

Political Bear: Hillary Clinton Health Care Speech

New You Tube Video

Wall Street Journal: Reaganomics 2.0

Wow!
Someone gets it, and it is a member of the Journal's editorial review board. Not that I have anything but respect for the Journal's editorial review board, but I would not have thought they would so daringly call the democrats out and, even more pointedly, call John Edwards out for the backwards understanding of tax policy that they hold in regards to the new global economy.

One upfront declaration. I am not completely cold hearted, I think that the people that John Edwards wants to help with his programs are very deserving of a helping hand......I just think he is backwards in his belief of how to pay for that assistance, and for that matter his belief that the government should help and not the private sector. Currently, that belief can also be extended to most of the Democratic party as well and almost depressingly can be extended to many republicans.

A lot of politicians have forgotten either the ideas that got them into office, the problems with the previous congressman that gave them an advantage in the election in the first place, or their economics 101 classes.

In Mr. Moores, Reaganomics 2.0 op-ed he points out what the rest of the world is doing with their tax code, and explains how the current Congress is trying to take America in almost the completely opposite direction. Yes, not only have we forgotten how to cut taxes, but we have forgotten why we should and the global advantage that it gives America.

We can now call Reaganomics dead. (Don't fret reaganers we have 2.0 it just isn't in America yet)

As Communists around America rejoice, they should also think about the loss of revenue over the long run that this will cause. With other countries around the world cutting capital gains tax rates, corporate tax rates, and simplifying their tax codes America is going to lose.

So, thank you Mr. Moore.......it was time that somebody talked about what is going on across the big pond. They are now leading the economic charge. We now need to step up to the plate and show the rest of the world the power of Reaganomics 2.0 when used America. Or, we could just sit on our haunches and watch the rest of the world pass us by.

For more information about candidate beliefs visit my website Political Bear.

Summary of Senator Clinton Speech regarding Health Care

I will post the Political Summary later. I have to walk away from it for a bit and cool down. She implies multiple times in her speech that people can't make there own decisions. You can see more at my website PoliticalBear.com.

August 23, 2007
HEALTH CARE QUALITY:
Speech at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center

• I was also here to talk about reform in 1993
  • We need Consensus
  • 3 part plan reducing costs, increase quality, provide universal coverage
  • How my plan will ensure quality
  o I will invest in strengthening the maintenance of certification program
  o Public-private trusts, money, and higher reimbursements for participants
  • I will create a Best Practices Institute
  o Public-private partnership to fund comparative effectiveness research and disseminate it across the country
  • I will also implement medical malpractice reforms
  o Would improve liability protections for physicians who disclose medical errors to patients and offer to enter into negotiations for fair compensation
  • I will address nursing shortages and education shortages
  o More funding to schools, recruit more nurses, work to retain nurses
  • I will empower patients
  o Give them the information they need for good decisions
  o “Consumer Driven” health care doesn’t work
  • Patients must also be able to understand the information
  o We need electronic medical records
  o The VA is a good example they already have Med IT
  • I want to give incentives to patients to make good decisions
  • Still health inequities among racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and genders
  • Health Care payers also have a responsibility in providing quality health care
  o Hospitals are paid for each visit
  o Doctors are not rewarded for working together
  o I will support federal reimbursements for a team approach to medicine
  o Must reward care on how effective it is
   Bush Administration’s has been ok on this
   I will mandate that any insurance company that covers patients through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program must also refuse to cover these costs
  o I’ll also encourage private plans to follow suit
  o To ensure that our reimbursement system rewards quality care also means ending discrimination against people with pre- existing conditions
  • Will all of this be easy?
  • No
  

Http://PoliticalBear.com

GO TO MY WEBSITE!!!!!!!!!!

No seriously, It has more information and a better interface to look at the speech breakdowns. Visit PoliticalBear.com and be sure to leave a message.

Grammar and politics and rants

Please accept my apology for all errors on the page. I actually do have the ability to write a coherent sentence, I just have not proved it yet.

I promise.......on my blogs name............ to edit all future posts!

Again, thanks for your patience.

(Be sure to rate my videos on YouTube!)

(Be sure to check out Political Bear)

Political Bear Summary of Barack Obama Education Speech

Political Bear on youtube re: Obama education speech

Summary of Sen. Obama's NEA speech

This is the first Political Bear Speech Summary I have posted. This is what I am going to do for any speeches that people request............and any that I can possibly find time to go through. I will also be posting them on my website Political Bear

National Education Association Annual Meeting
Philadelphia, PA July 05, 2007

• Education is good

• Race is an important fight regarding education
o The recent Supreme Court case was bad

• Education is more important than ever and we are getting worse

• Teachers are most important
o Politicians must back you

• Idea of NCLB is good
o Not supported by current administration

• I don’t support blaming teachers

• We need more teachers
o They need more power/stuff

• I will invest billions

• I believe in collective bargaining

• Parents must take a role

• I will stand by you in the fight to educate our children

Summary: Really the first and last talking point should be removed from this summary since they will appear in every candidates speech, but it is kind of funny to include them to see how ridiculous it looks. The only thing that Sen. Obama really says here is that the current administration is bad and he will spend billions for education. The rest is more like a student council election. He wants to give the teachers more money, power of the subject material they teach, more say in their schools, less accountability.....generally he want to make recess longer. Ah. Presidential politics.

Barack and Education!!!!!

Barack, Barack, Barack..... While you are still my favorite Democrat in the election (I challenge someone to show me a better democrat), your speeches talk about breaking out of the status quo.......but your speeches say otherwise.

You are well versed, semi-poetic, and you can even make little tears well up as you tell us stories of little kids that are in trouble, but, you still tell us nothing different, nothing new.

Like you I support education, education should be important to everyone. but why would you lie? In your speech that I have outlined (poorly) below and on my website in full, Political Bear, you make it sound like the current administration has not funded NCLB.

If I were you (or your speech writer----I am sure a smelly liberal :) )I might actually take the time to get the new funding numbers, but the last time that I used the numbers This administration had increased education funding faster than any previous Administration. Now while I don't support even that increase (no proof that more funding=better education......if there was proof, you got my vote).......it should get your respect. Or......wait......are you going to put more money into education? As someone who is not your "yes man," let me tell you that would not work. Throwing money at problems will not solve them! Although it might buy their vote. Oh I get it. never mind....do what you want.

You Tube Introduction! Wahoo

Well the video is up and running on you tube. I will be doing at least five more videos this week, so everyone should keep their eyes open for them. It doesn't take too many views or ratings to get onto the first five pages which is where Political Bear can start making a difference.
Check out Political Bears You Tube Introduction here. a be sure to leave a comment and rate the video!

Barack Obama Speech in Outline (kind of)

The link to full speech is below. I have taken this 4-5 page speech and broken in down to two pages. In time I will figure out how to put back in the formatting that I added, but this outline is a great starting point to break down what he is actually saying and how he trying to sell a group.

For this blog- Talking points=outline=sales pitch wo/fluffy words!

National Education Association Annual MeetingPhiladelphia, PA July 05, 2007

I have been to a lot of schools
Dodge Elementary- heard about being fed up with excuses for why kids can’t learn

We believe they can learn
Every child should have a chance
Every child should be taught

Education should be first

Education is part of our History
Thomas Jefferson Quote “…Talen and virtue, needed in a free society, should be educated regardless of wealth, birth or other accidental condition.”
This led us to first free public schools
Expanded by sending veterans to college after WWII on GI Bills
*America has fallen short of this sometimes
Racial inequality
Attack recent Supreme Court Ruling

Ideal of Public education is heart of American Promise
Equal Public Education is what has helped America

In today’s world knowledge is the most valuable skill
World Competition
Countries who out educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow
We are already losing (uses statistics as examples)

In the past people who had trouble in school could survive-pay bills and support a family
Now-they can’t
We must change this-economically untenable for the nation
So teachers are more important than ever

New evidence
Achievement level not determined by race or background
Achievement decided by the teacher

You can’t do it alone
Politicians must stand behind you

As an example of neglect- No Child Left Behind
The goals were right- accountability, closing the achievement gap, equitable distribution of resources, distribution of qualified teachers
We didn’t need laws to tell us what we already knew
We are still willing to make these goals a reality
However,
Don’t under fund it
Talk about high quality teachers and then leave pay and support behind
Don’t label a school as failing and then walk away
Teaching to standardized doesn’t work
You devoted your lives to teaching and that is what you should be allowed to do

When I am President NCLB will no longer be an empty slogan

However, fixing NCLB is just a starting point
Status quo is unacceptable
We don’t need blame, inaction, or half measures
We need an historic commitment to America’s teachers- I intend to do this as President

A million teachers are going to retire
We need to recruit
Raise salaries
Create a program for professionals to become teacher (pro-teacher program)
Give incentives to teachers in school

Moving forward
I will unveil to invest billions in education
Recruit and train willing teachers
Support current teachers
I believe in collective bargaining
We will pay teachers more and even more where they are more in need
We will pay more if you mentor, if your students succeed
We will find new ways to increase your pay that teachers help decide not imposed upon them by arbitrary test scores
We will treat teachers like the professionals you are
Also,
We need more mentors
Develop assessments that work not just tests that test testing ability

I commend the pay system in Minnesota that values your performance and the kids.

One last point. Accountability
I have supported
But Politicians must be accountable as well
Teachers should not be blamed for collective failures
Teachers accept the right kind of accountability
Allow them to teach to their strengths
More pay
More support
Then teachers don’t mind
Parents must also take a roll

Big challenges ahead
Continue to allow children to transcend the barriers of race, class, and background
Teachers and support professionals have made this possible

I know you’ll be leading the way, and I look forward to standing with you in the fight. Thank you.

Partisianship

While I do have very strong beliefs...........I am forever grateful that we live a society where people are allowed to write whatever they want, to say whatever they want, and to believe what they want.

If any readers feel that what I am saying is wrong in any of my post............please comment. I will not hide any comments. I might edit vulgarity, but other than that anything goes.

New York Times Op-ed response

Arrrgh.

Premise, premise, premise!

One again in "Stacking the Electoral Deck" the writer's overall point is correct. Just changing California's electoral votes does not solve the problem. But that is where the writer's rightness ends.............yes right, because it is painfully obvious that he/she/it is a lefty. While op-eds do have a side.......shouldn't they at least have research behind them, or if no research is actually done they should at least have a bland enough article that it is hard to argue against.

However, this is article is merely a conspiracy theory penned by a left-wing nut. For clarification not all left wingers are nuts.........and yes there are right-wing nuts. Conspiracy theorists, however, always get to go by the term "nut" and since the writer is writing for the left why not qualify them as so.....Moving on.....The writer misses the point that California's voting block is huge (which they do get) and represents a diverse group of people.......which the writer does not understand. Breaking CA's voting electoral votes up is a step in the right direction to letting the people's vote actually matter. Every group left, right , center, and nutty should be lobbying for this change.

They should also be lobbying other states to do the same thing.

So, if California would be the first state (oh no, heaven forbid a large state takes a leadership role), they would be setting an interesting example for the rest of the country.

In the end I am not an electoral college scholar, and therefore I am not throwing my support behind the CA plan, but if the writer of the op-eds downsides are true.......and they are the only downsides.......then I would probably support the idea.

Premise of the writer-The California is a Republican Conspiracy to win the Presidential race. What the writers premise for the article should have been (if they wanted a strong article)- The only way a democrat can win is by quieting the impact of Republican votes in CA.

Wall Street Journal- Letter to the Editor Proposal

Premise.....Premise....premise....

Today in the Wall Street Journal's op-ed section there is an article about a potential housing bailout.

First. In agreement with the writer, a bailout is an awful idea. It just rewards, or stops the punishment of businesses that made bad ideas, and (in my idea) furthers the presence of the nanny state.

In the old days (not an exact time.....lets say pre-asphalt), if you picked land that had too many bears on it (pun semi-intended) you died, or you killed them but that would ruin the example. Now, while I feel sorry for the individuals that are losing houses, I didn't support their decisions in the first place.........and additionally their bad decisions have hurt me. Because of their bad decisions, houses prices continued to rise.......pricing me out of the market.

I don't want to now pay for their bad decisions----however, I already will pay for the bad decisions when I buy a house (ok, condo), because of the financial adjustments that businesses are now making.

Ok, so back to the article..........sorry for the delay.............the writer faults politicians for attempting to turn people into home owners. Wow. I haven't read words like that since the Communist Manifesto. The writer states that these people would be better off without having owned a home.................ok.............that is a cheap shot, but he is right. The point that he misses is that the people he is referring to should never have owned the homes that they were in and lost. They should have been in smaller homes..............ones that.........stay with me now.........fit their budget. Affording a mortgage on any given house is important, but factoring in the other costs is as important if not more important for the new homeowner since they are accustomed to only paying rent and maybe utilities.

Owning a home is wealth creation. This is a great thing for society as a whole, and one of the biggest gaps in the lives of rich people and poor people. Of course the rich are getting richer faster they own their homes. They get to keep their rent every month.

So this is my pet peave- False Premise. The writer does not believe in the power of homeownership. The writer of the article is smart enough to know that a bailout is a bad idea, but misses the whole point that home ownership is good.

No new video tonight.

I wanted to post a video to youtube tonight, but I guess that is going to wait until tomorrow! That just gives me a chance to let everyone know that I will be on, making my debut......ok not me.....the political bear spokesperson--or bear.

It should be at least somewhat memorable, it will also be the beginning of my political bear videos. I will be posting replies to as many campaign videos as I can keep up with on youtube. As usual, if you have any suggestions............feel free.

Also, I have the Obama speech. I will take it down to talking points tomorrow. Maybe it will say something besides education is good, but I doubt it.

The Art of Communication: Part 2

Good morning, well since it is still August.......I have still have plenty of time to get this blog up and running. Please leave comments, link to my blog, and tell friends about this. I want this to be a forum to discuss the intent or premise in political speeches, debates, and the like.

With that in mind my new website Political Bear is now up and running. Please visit and send comments about how to make it better. It still won't pass the smell test, which means that I don't like it yet. Results of discussions on this blog will make their way to the website, so please.....agree with me, disagree with me......whatever lets get a conversation started.

So, that is Part 2. Open lines of communication.

Part 3, which I will post later today will disect a short speech (if you have one, send it) into talking points. This is a simple exercise, but practice can make this skill very useful.

The Art of Conversation: Part 1

This is posting that I would like to start, in order show how a better understanding of political rhetoric and a better understanding of how to listen to political rhetoric can help out everyday communication.



Sitting around the dining table. Talking over the cublicle. Stopping for a conversation with the local bum. Every time we communicate in any situation their is a framework that is used. In order to not only understand but to control this we must be able to listen in several ways.



1. Actual words (I know--duh, but without this everything else is pointless)

2. The talking points- this is usually only a few points and paying attention to these will let us spend more time thinking.



What not to listen to:

1. The tone- In some situation it is better not to listen to tone. If the person cares deeply and gets mad, if the person gets sad, if they are indifferent to something important it can drag you away from the actual point of what is being said.

What to figure out:

1. The premise-Wahoo. this is the fun part! If we can figure out why someone is saying something (and most of the time they haven't figured it out) we have them!



So, that is the point of this blog. By talking about politics, and practicing premise seeking listening, this blog is intended to change the way we listen.

My new Picture.

Feel free to leave comments!!!

The Market---Up of Down?

Q. The market, is it good? Is it bad?

A.Who knows.

If you are not paying attention to all of the numbers, there is no way to tell. The Republicans are saying the economy is doing better than ever (which is at least the closest to correct), the democrats say that the economy might be worse that during the great depression. To further the mis-information the media plays on the hype and not the numbers.


What does this mean? Are the Republicans the only truthful ones.......no, most only point to the numbers that help them. Are the Democrats lying, no they choose the numbers that make GW Bush look bad. Is the media not reporting......once again the answer is no. The media is in it to sell themselves. Isn't free speech great. That might sound pessimistic, but it really is great. How else can we every side of a fact, without actually hearing the fact?

So, what is there to do? Before you fly on the handle in any direction- source yourself. find as many sources as possible that explain the same issue.

New Items to the new Blog.

Like going to the first day of school I am trying to dress my blog up so that everyone likes me! So please......the more comments the better!

If anyone has any suggestions feel free to help.

Thanks and I hope everyone likes reading about politics in a new way.

Today's Phrase: Universal Health Care!

Of course everyone wants health care for all. I do.

So, what does a politician mean when they are saying they are for Universal Health Care? The answer is not much.

Universal Health Care, ~10 years ago, primarily meant a single payer system (the government funds all). However, in modern symantics it means- Single payer, third party payer (insurance companies), Consumer driven health care (the actual patient), and any other health care ideas that are worth a sniff.

What type works. Consumer driven. However, don't tell anyone else this......it will cause a riot.

Of course that is my personal thought on the matter, but those of you who are interested you should check out http://www.NCPA.org. They have tons of information on it.

Why?

Many politicians use words to misdirect. Republicans and Democrats are kings at propaganda, rhetoric, or talking point glossiness. Many of these politicians use well developed keywords and marketing strategies instead of genuine communication.

In a lot of way everyone does this. This will be a blog to discuss political talking point, and also how listening with the right filters can help in everyday life!

First of Many!!!

This is my first post. I will keep it short DONE!