In the shadow of Friday’s Senate vote, I’m reminded of the words of two of the heroes of the Democratic Party; words that speak to the heart of this massive government intrusion into our lives known as the economic stimulus bill. In his inaugural address to the nation, President John F. Kennedy stated, “Ask not what your country can do for you….” Though he was not specifically addressing the type of economic difficulties we are facing today, those words echo with prophetic meaning in light of Friday’s decision. That famous quote underlies what is my great concern with the stimulus bill: that the plan looks to the government to bail us out of this mess—a government, by the way, that was largely responsible for creating the mess. I can’t figure out why so many are buying into the president’s belief that only the government’s intervention can save this economy.

Back in January, President Obama stated “…at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy…” Where does this thought come from? Consider the track record of this government he is counting on so passionately. How well have they managed the billions of dollars in the Social Security Fund? The system is approaching bankruptcy. How well did they handle relief distribution during Hurricane Katrina? Miserably, when you consider, for example, that one individual collected 18 emergency payments of $2000 each by giving the same name with 18 different Social Security numbers. How effectively does Washington spend our tax money? In 2003, the Department of the Treasury reported that “unreconciled transactions” (funds that couldn’t be accounted for) totaled $24.5 billion. Yet this is the same government that every Democrat (and unfortunately, three Republicans) in the House and Senate, and our new President, wants to put in charge of hundreds of billions of dollars sent to them by hardworking Americans.

I love the governmental system in place in America—I believe deeply that we are a shining example to the rest of the world. But the federal government is at its best when it sticks to its Constitutionally-defined limited duties. President Obama and his partners in the House and Senate are calling on our government to do far, far more than it was ever designed to do, using your money to do it.

I recognize that President Obama has acknowledged that American workers are “…the most productive on earth,” and that he has stated that the true fix lies in the hands of business, but why is he so willing to write off the ability of these workers and businesses to conquer this economic slowdown without an over-intrusion of Washington? Why is he so willing to imply that you and I can’t do it without the big hand of the federal government gripping us?

How much more effective would it be if he used his influence and position to cheer on the millions of workers and encourage us that we have within us the means to get through this difficult time? To remind us that for hundreds of years it’s been the sweat and toil of the American worker, working in a society free from entanglement of government, that has built our economy into the greatest in the world. To encourage us that better days are ahead—not that we’re in for a long-term mess unless he steps in to save the day.

Has the president forgotten the words of FDR: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself?” His campaign for this package has been built largely on fear: fear that things are going to get worse; fear that more and more of us are going to lose our jobs; fear that if he and his government stallions don’t step in, the “vicious cycle” will only get worse. Being realistic is one thing—being fatalistic seems to be either an incredible attempt to manipulate the public into accepting a wasteful bill or a great mistrust in the people’s ability to rebound.

Why doesn’t he understand the valuable boost he could provide by saying that he believes in us enough to get government out of the way by lowering taxes for all workers, letting us keep more of our money, and trusting us to work, invest and spend wisely, and pump our money into the economy as we see fit, not as Uncle Sam deems best? I long to hear the president say, “We’ll do what we do best—keep you safe from harm, keep our country’s infrastructure solid—the rest is up to you, not up to Washington.” Can you imagine what the market would do with a speech like that? I am convinced we would see the reverse of the 430 point plunge the DOW took last week.

A brief look at history is all it takes to see that a reduction in government intrusion (taxes) and a trust in our amazing free-market economy is what boosted the economy in the 80’s with the Reagan tax cuts and in 2001 and 2003 with the Bush tax cuts. And please don’t buy the lie that it was these policies that led to our current problems—this situation was brought about by a whole series of events (beyond the scope of this article) that had nothing to do with tax cuts or supply and demand economics.

In his inauguration speech, President Obama said, “The question isn’t if the government is too big or too small, but will it help….” No, Mr. President, the primary question is whether the government is too big—and it is. If we truly believe that the American worker is the answer to economic success, do we really need the government spending billions of these workers’ hard-earned dollars to try to help the same workers earn back that hard-earned money? Do we need Congress creating jobs that are funded with our tax money or would we be better off if government got out of the way, got out of our pockets, and let us prosper without their interference?

It seems to me that the common sense approach to this financial situation is to let the very people who earn the money that keeps America running keep more of their money; to relieve the already-heavy tax burden; and to let them spend and invest that money in our economy instead of in our government—a government that has proven over and over again that it has great difficulty managing the money entrusted to it. I believe we workers may surprise many on the Washington Hill by doing for our country what our government simply can’t, and isn’t supposed to, do.

To read more about this issue, and related topics, visit www.just2simpleguys.com.

     As Barack Obama prepares for his move to the White House, America would do well to remember his “spread the wealth around” comment to Joe. It will be very interesting to see if he truly will govern with this socialistic (vs. capitalistic) mindset. For some mysterious reason, it seems that much of America doesn’t understand the devastating effects this mindset could have on our way of life. A great lesson from American history will help illustrate what I mean.

     As the early American settlers began to establish their communities, there was, of course, a desire to provide for the needs of each person, in spite of less-than-adequate harvests. In the early days of the settlement, a form of SOCIALISM was established in the colonies in which the profits and benefits achieved by the trade and work of everyone were placed in a common storehouse of the colony. All of the members of the colony then shared in all that was in the common stock. In other words, a person was to put into the common supply shed all he could and take out only what he needed. Socialism in a simplified nutshell.

     At first glance, this system may seem to be a very caring, efficient way to provide for everyone. The reality was that it failed miserably! Instead of taking care of the needs of the colonists, the system led to famine and starvation. Why? Because people aren’t wired to work hard to produce goods, only to be forced to give the goods away. Giving, sharing, and taking care of others are borne out of desire, gratefulness, and compassion, not government mandates. In the midst of this social experiment, William Bradford, the governor of the colony, wrote that the men who were most able, fit, and willing to work hard complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.” It wasn’t so much that they didn’t want to help others—it was that they were tired of working hard and being forced to share the products of their hard work with a family led by a lazy provider. Bradford noted that the strong men who worked diligently began to realize they had “no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak.” This led to a refusal by the strong to work as hard, which in turn led to a great shortage of food.

     In 1623, Bradford recognized the utter failure of this system and decided that each household should be given a parcel of land. Each family could keep what they produced or trade it as they wished. In short, capitalism and a free market were instituted. The result was that the colonies thrived. In Governor Bradford’s words, “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been….” History shows that this story was reproduced in many of the early American colonies.

     The principle is so clear: Allowing people to reap the natural benefits of their labor is all the incentive needed for most people to work hard, to succeed, to prosper, to achieve great things for themselves and their families. Society will flourish in that environment, and in that thriving society, the general goodness of people will emerge by choice, not by mandate. The truly less fortunate and needy will be taken care of by the hardworking able.

     This principle has so many applications and far-reaching implications. In a society governed by free market and choice, government regulations on businesses are, for the most part, not needed. Welfare mandated by the state is eliminated, or limited to mostly short-term help for more extreme situations. A minimum wage set by the government is unnecessary because the market will reward those who work hard.

     This may seem like an over-simplification of basic economics, but I believe very deeply in the freedom of the individual. In this freedom, individuals have the opportunity to branch out, stretch themselves, succeed and fail, learn and grow from their failures, and achieve extraordinary things. When a society is full of these types of individuals, working hard to better themselves, the direct effect is the betterment of the society as a whole. America to be great, people need to be left alone to thrive, and in their success, America will thrive.

     The causes of the current economic problems are many and a detailed explanation is beyond the scope of this little piece. But one thing is certain: they are not a result of the government failing to get more involved in the financial issues of the American worker. I’m not exactly sure what the solution is, but our own history gives a pretty clear indication that more government involvement in our lives is not the answer.

     Please see our website for more on this and other conservative issues: www.just2simpleguys.com.

I understand much of America’s attraction to Barack Obama. He’s likeable, very well spoken, and he pledges to lead a very generous federal government. But would an Obama presidency be good for America?

I have thought long and hard about this upcoming presidential election. I’ve spent many hours the past few weeks studying Barack Obama’s beliefs and convictions, analyzing his own words and actions. I have come to one crystal clear conclusion: there is no way I can vote for Barack Obama. I’d like to tell you why.

HIS ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY & HIS TAX PLAN

There is so much confusing rhetoric floating around about who will lower taxes more and whose plan is best. But all the confusion faded into clarity last week with Senator Obama’s answer to the now-famous JOE THE PLUMBER. Joe has done America a great favor—he’s brought out the real Barack Obama in his own words: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everyone who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too…. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” That comment is so offensive in a free market society and so revealing about Senator Obama’s misunderstanding of our economic system. It screams of socialism, a system in which the government basically decides who makes too much money then takes some of that hard-earned income and gives it to others who make less—redistribution of wealth, plain and simple.

Senator Obama provided further insight into his philosophy with his scrambling the next few days to undermine what Joe the Plumber had revealed. I was appalled by the sarcasm in Obama’s voice as he stated, “How many plumbers you know making a quarter of a million dollars a year?” How can he hope to be an effective president when he mocks those trying to succeed? I don’t want a president who drips with seeming disdain at the thought of a blue collar worker climbing the ladder of success that so many of us aspire to climb. I want a president who, shown by his words and actions when things aren’t scripted, believes that anyone can make it big—blue collar, white collar, plumber, painter, computer tech, whoever.

And the whole concept that increasing taxes and tax rates on the wealthy is good for the lower and middle class, and for the economy as a whole, is simply illogical and plain wrong. The Reagan tax cuts in the 80’s and the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 greatly fueled the economy. Given our current difficult economic situation, many economists warn that raising taxes during an economic downturn would only make the situation worse.

Please carefully read these words from his website: “Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.” That statement should send socialistic shivers down your spine. This is not what America is.

Approximately 35-40% of American workers pay no federal income tax. So, the $500/$1000 tax credit Obama promises will basically be a “free” gift from the government. But it’s not free—someone has to pay for it and I’m offended by the fact that the someone will most likely include me. Obama wants to take from the hard-working rich and give it away to those who have less. It’s so important to realize that the poor do not grow their wealth through handouts from the government—they grow their wealth more effectively when the government gets out of the way, lowers taxes across the board, and allows the economy to thrive.

In regard to his plan to raise taxes on only wealthier business owners, whether it’s a small business or a big business, where will these business owners get the money to pay for this increase? Many of those businesses are going to have to get that money by cutting jobs, raising prices, cutting wages on the middle and lower class workers. Once again, tax increases across the board are a bad idea. Lowering tax rates across the board is what motivates Americans to invest in new business, expand existing business, hire more employees (resulting in lower unemployment), buy goods. Barack Obama’s plan works against all of these things.

Obama’s list of giveaways he wants the government to provide Americans, at taxpayers’ expense, reads like a Christmas list. From doubling funding for after-school programs and federal public transportation to bailing out struggling state economies to providing universal health care, I am absolutely convinced there is no way he can pay for all of these presents in the long run with only the tax increases he’s talking about now. Eventually, this government is going to get so big it will drive our economy into the ground. And apart from the cost of these giveaways, I’m insulted by his plan because he seems to think that Americans can’t figure life out for themselves—we need big daddy government to take care of us. It’s almost as if he looks around at the problems in America and decides that individuals, with the power of our free market behind us, can’t figure out the solutions, so Uncle Sam, at our expense, has to jump in and save the day.

MY OTHER ISSUES WITH BARACK OBAMA

So many other things Senator Obama has said, done, and posted on his website lead me to believe he would be a very poor choice to lead this country:

• As gas prices soared this past summer, Obama stood firm in his stand to not support offshore drilling or drilling in the ANWR province of Alaska. One of his answers to the energy problem was to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies. What sense does it make to try to ease the burden of the consumers of a commodity by imposing a higher tax on the very companies that are providing the commodity?
• Obama has stated opposition to both the ban on Partial Birth Abortion and to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He has also consistently voted against laws requiring parental notification for an abortion.
• There is a consistent theme in Barack Obama’s life that he associates with far too many people who either hold anti-American sentiments or are downright unethical. I truly believe that a person’s actions and, in large part, the people he associates with, say more about his character and beliefs than his words. From William Ayers, a proven domestic terrorist with very radical views of America and education, to ACORN, an organization that has spent decades undermining capitalism and self-reliance, to Jeremiah Wright, his pastor of 20 years who equates some of America’s actions with the actions of al Qaeda, Barack Obama has chosen to align himself with very questionable views of America.
• Obama refuses to acknowledge that our presence in Iraq has played a significant role in the safety of America and of much of the world.
• With his radical views on America’s economy, abortion, immigration, education, etc., what kind of judges would he nominate to fill the Appellate and Supreme Court positions that will undoubtedly be vacated in the next four years?

I have many other concerns about the policies and practices of Barack Obama, but space is limited here to detail them all. I do encourage you to visit my website (www.just2simpleguys.com) to read a much more detailed piece on this topic. There is an incredibly important election in a little over a week. I hope you will take the time to investigate the candidates. John McCain is not a perfect choice, but he is a good one and I am throwing my support his way. I believe deep in my heart that Barack Obama would be the wrong man to occupy the office of the leader of the free world.

  There’s a great dialogue in “National Treasure 2” between the president and Ben Gates, the role played by Nicholas Cage. Gates mentions to the president that he believes him to be an honorable man. The president says to him, “Gates, people don’t believe that stuff anymore.” Gates gives a simple answer that strikes at the core of the America I believe in: “They want to believe it.”

 Deep in my heart, I trust that most Americans – liberal, conservative, libertarian, undecided – truly desire a leader with honor, courage, integrity, and deep patriotism. Most of us want to look up to a leader with diehard convictions who stands for those convictions at all costs and doesn’t waffle in doubt and indecision; a leader who has taken the time to wrestle with the tough issues and who has resolved those issues in his or her heart; a leader who understands what it means to be an American and who appreciates the incredible blessing it is to live in this great nation; a leader who instills this patriotic hope in his fellow-citizens and who reminds us often of the amazing sacrifice that so many paid to secure this freedom.

 Permit me one more movie quote: in “Braveheart,” William Wallace says to the Nobleman, Robert, “Men don’t follow titles, they follow courage….if you would just lead them to freedom, they’d follow you…” A bit sappy, I know, but with that kind of leader occupying the office of the most powerful position in the world, I believe so many more in America would begin to better understand the importance of the Constitution. They would see the value of maintaining a limited government that is not involved in arenas they were never designed to enter. They would better grasp the concept of the courts interpreting, not legislating. They would demand an immigration system that requires legality and accountability, not permissiveness.

 President Bush has done a great job of protecting our country and a good job at many other things. And sure, whatever the outcome of the November elections, America can survive, and even thrive, without a great leader in the White House. But I, for one, wish for a leader I can look up to and one that I can trust to lead this country back to its conservative foundation. My great hope in 2008 is that John McCain will become that leader – and if not him, that soon, a great leader would step up to the plate, stand firm, and lead America forward in the truth of conservative values.