Sen. John McCain says we need to put a moratorium on Republican presidential debates before they drive up the unfavorables of the ultimate nominee any further.
He may be on to something. The debates are beginning to look like a cheesy reality show. We know that Newt will attack Mitt on Bain just as certainly as we know that Snooki will do jello shots.
We have had ample opportuni to assess the debating skill, temperament and demeanor of each of the four remaining candidates.
There is still a real and urgent need for the candidates to outline their positive positions on the economy, for starters. But this can be more effectively done in a substantive and serious policy speech rather than in a debate.
Sure, the debates are kind of fun to watch. People who do not follow politics are tuning in just to see who gets bloodied worse. It's great theater, but it is not the job of the Republican party at this critical juncture to entertain America. Our purpose must be to defeat Barack Obama.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Neighbor Gets It Right....
Our neighbor to the north, Indiana, is on the verge of becoming the 23rd state to enact a Right To Work law. The legislation passed the Indiana House on Wednesday and with a Republican controlled Senate and the strong endorsement of Governor Mitch Daniels, the legislation is on the fast track to becoming law. Indiana would be the first state in ten years to enact such a law and will presumably create more momentum for other states to follow suit.
Under the new law, unions would be banned from collecting mandatory fees from workers. Unions are understandably upset because this will greatly limit their ability to generate campaign dollars for union friendly (read Democrat) politicians. They are waging a mighty battle against it, but it appears at this point that the battle is lost in Indiana.
Unions need to face up to the fact that they, in their current form, are facing functional obsolescence in this country. When we had a relatively closed economy, we could afford the luxury of unions. There was a time when almost all products were made in the United States and workers could negotiate higher wages because they had little competition. Management was forced to meet many of their demands. Unfortunately for the unions, we now live in a global economy where capital and wages can quickly flow to cheaper labor markets. Union members that make $30 an hour do not understand that they are not competing anymore against American non-union workers making $20 an hour, they are competing against Asian and Indian workers making $5 an hour. Their alternatives are no longer between high union wages and lower non-union wages, they are between non-union wages and unemployment, as so many have painfully learned.
Unions are not intrinsically bad and they have done positive and beneficial things for many workers over the years. The reality though is that things change and that they are no longer viable, in their current American form, in the global economy. One would hope that smart and progressive union leaders could see this reality and proactively make changes to make unions more competitive and relevant, but this does not seem likely. In the meantime, progressive states like Indiana and 22 others will reap the benefits of increased business and investment from non-union companies.
Indiana has strong, forward looking political leadership that is looking out for the best interests of a majority of its citizens. One can only hope that Kentucky could be so lucky.
Under the new law, unions would be banned from collecting mandatory fees from workers. Unions are understandably upset because this will greatly limit their ability to generate campaign dollars for union friendly (read Democrat) politicians. They are waging a mighty battle against it, but it appears at this point that the battle is lost in Indiana.
Unions need to face up to the fact that they, in their current form, are facing functional obsolescence in this country. When we had a relatively closed economy, we could afford the luxury of unions. There was a time when almost all products were made in the United States and workers could negotiate higher wages because they had little competition. Management was forced to meet many of their demands. Unfortunately for the unions, we now live in a global economy where capital and wages can quickly flow to cheaper labor markets. Union members that make $30 an hour do not understand that they are not competing anymore against American non-union workers making $20 an hour, they are competing against Asian and Indian workers making $5 an hour. Their alternatives are no longer between high union wages and lower non-union wages, they are between non-union wages and unemployment, as so many have painfully learned.
Unions are not intrinsically bad and they have done positive and beneficial things for many workers over the years. The reality though is that things change and that they are no longer viable, in their current American form, in the global economy. One would hope that smart and progressive union leaders could see this reality and proactively make changes to make unions more competitive and relevant, but this does not seem likely. In the meantime, progressive states like Indiana and 22 others will reap the benefits of increased business and investment from non-union companies.
Indiana has strong, forward looking political leadership that is looking out for the best interests of a majority of its citizens. One can only hope that Kentucky could be so lucky.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Marco Rubio Gives Republican Weekly Address
Sen, Marco Rubio give this week's Republican Address. Whoever gets the nomination needs to pick Rubio as V.P. He does a masterful job skewering Obama's record. He reveals the meanness of Obama's appeal to class warfare. And his description of American exceptionalism is downright inspiring. Take a moment to watch:
http://m.youtube.com/?rdm=4pauejspo&reload=3#/profile?desktop_uri=%2Fgopweeklyaddress&user=gopweeklyaddress&gl=US
http://m.youtube.com/?rdm=4pauejspo&reload=3#/profile?desktop_uri=%2Fgopweeklyaddress&user=gopweeklyaddress&gl=US
Friday, January 27, 2012
SantorumShowed Up
Rick Santorum had his best debate of the election last night, maybe because his mom was in the audience. He seemed less whiny. And his request that the time be used for substance, as opposed to Mitt and Newt's sniping, was welcome and overdue. I still don't see Santorum winning. However, he should do well enough in Florida to press on.
Newt has crested, in my view. The more I see of Newt, the better everyone else looks. It didn't help that Elliott Abrams put the lie to Newt's claim that he helped Ronald Reagan win the Cold War. On NRO, Abrams details all the snotty things Newt said to and about Reagan, and how Newt in fact undermined Reagan. Had Newt prevailed, it is unlikely that America would have won the Cold War. It is a devastating critique of Newt and a must-read for anyone who is seriously considering him and anyone who considers Reagan the standard by which we should judge those who seek to carry the Republican mantle.
I fear that Newt would demean the Office of the President. As one elderly lady observed to me recently, the man has the "morals of an alley cat." When I see Newt, I think of Bill Clinton, and then I think about how W. had to put new carpet in the Oval Office. My mind doesn't want to go there, but this is the consequence of Newt's life choices.
Mitt Romney did well the first hour. But it is uncomfortable to watch him go negative against Newt; plainly, this is not in Mitt's character. That raises the concern: will he be similarly awkward attacking Obama?
Newt has crested, in my view. The more I see of Newt, the better everyone else looks. It didn't help that Elliott Abrams put the lie to Newt's claim that he helped Ronald Reagan win the Cold War. On NRO, Abrams details all the snotty things Newt said to and about Reagan, and how Newt in fact undermined Reagan. Had Newt prevailed, it is unlikely that America would have won the Cold War. It is a devastating critique of Newt and a must-read for anyone who is seriously considering him and anyone who considers Reagan the standard by which we should judge those who seek to carry the Republican mantle.
I fear that Newt would demean the Office of the President. As one elderly lady observed to me recently, the man has the "morals of an alley cat." When I see Newt, I think of Bill Clinton, and then I think about how W. had to put new carpet in the Oval Office. My mind doesn't want to go there, but this is the consequence of Newt's life choices.
Mitt Romney did well the first hour. But it is uncomfortable to watch him go negative against Newt; plainly, this is not in Mitt's character. That raises the concern: will he be similarly awkward attacking Obama?
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Andy Barr Raises $425k
Andy Barr, who lost by a hair in the 6th Congressional District, will file an FEC report stating that raised $425,000.
Barr ran the third closest Congressional race in the country two years ago. On Election night, the NRCC sent out emails to its volunteer lawyer network in anticipation of a recount. The margin, 647, just wasn't close enough.
The challenge for Barr is that Ben Chandler has voted to the right of the Democratic caucus. It is therefore harder to motivate conservatives from outside the district to donte than they would be inclined to donate to defeat John Yarmuth, for example.
But that's where realism comes in. No matter how much Yarmuth annoys conservatives, his advantage in registration makes Kentucky 3 a bad value for Republican donations. In Kentucky 6, however, we have a real shot.
Barr ran the third closest Congressional race in the country two years ago. On Election night, the NRCC sent out emails to its volunteer lawyer network in anticipation of a recount. The margin, 647, just wasn't close enough.
The challenge for Barr is that Ben Chandler has voted to the right of the Democratic caucus. It is therefore harder to motivate conservatives from outside the district to donte than they would be inclined to donate to defeat John Yarmuth, for example.
But that's where realism comes in. No matter how much Yarmuth annoys conservatives, his advantage in registration makes Kentucky 3 a bad value for Republican donations. In Kentucky 6, however, we have a real shot.
John Yarmuth Whining
John Yarmuth had an amusing editorial in today's CJ. It highlighted his proposed constitutional amendment to overturn key provisions of the recent Citizens United case. This was the case in which the Supreme Court determined that corporations were "people" as regards their free speech rights and ability to make contributions to political action committees, or PACs. Mr. Yarmuth thinks the ruling was deplorable because of its injection of more corporate cash into the political process.
The most amusing statement in the editorial was this one: "The last thing Congress needs is more corporate and special-interest candidates who don't answer to the American people." Now a guy who is beholden to union interests and doesn't answer to the American people is okay. What hypocrisy!
For decades the Democratic party has used unions as campaign piggy banks. In effect unions have been "people" for a long time. Now that the Citizens United case allows legitimate PACs that might oppose their interests, they, and their bought-and-paid-for politicians like Mr. Yarmuth, are all upset and whiny.
Citizens United was a good decision. Mr. Yarmuth, get over it.
The most amusing statement in the editorial was this one: "The last thing Congress needs is more corporate and special-interest candidates who don't answer to the American people." Now a guy who is beholden to union interests and doesn't answer to the American people is okay. What hypocrisy!
For decades the Democratic party has used unions as campaign piggy banks. In effect unions have been "people" for a long time. Now that the Citizens United case allows legitimate PACs that might oppose their interests, they, and their bought-and-paid-for politicians like Mr. Yarmuth, are all upset and whiny.
Citizens United was a good decision. Mr. Yarmuth, get over it.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
About That Republican Response
Watching the Republican Response to the State of the Union by Gov. Mitch Daniels last night felt like a flash-back to when Gov. Bobby Jindal gave the Republican Response to an earlier Obama State of the Union. There was so much anticipation among conservatives that we were going to see something great -- a break-through performance by a rising Republican star.
And then we watched with horror as Jindal did that deer in the headlights thing, thereby dashing our hopes (and nearly, his career, until the BP Oil Spill gave him a chance to show how to govern under pressure).
Mitch Daniels didn't perform quite as badly as Jindal, last night, but nonetheless was disappointing. He looked visibly nervous. It is a hard setting, to be sure: an empty space in Indiana with no crowd to work, and none of the grandeur of a Joint Session of Congress.
I still wish Daniels was our nominee because of his extraordinary record as governor, not because of this speech.
And then we watched with horror as Jindal did that deer in the headlights thing, thereby dashing our hopes (and nearly, his career, until the BP Oil Spill gave him a chance to show how to govern under pressure).
Mitch Daniels didn't perform quite as badly as Jindal, last night, but nonetheless was disappointing. He looked visibly nervous. It is a hard setting, to be sure: an empty space in Indiana with no crowd to work, and none of the grandeur of a Joint Session of Congress.
I still wish Daniels was our nominee because of his extraordinary record as governor, not because of this speech.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Talk About Getting Things Done
In the past hour, President Obama called on Congress to compromise and get things done.
"I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days." said President Obama.
Interesting. It seems like every time someone asks Obama to make up his mind, he says "no," that he didn't have time to make an informed decision.
Is three years not enough time to decide whether or not to approve an oil pipeline that would create thousands of jobs?
Apparently not. Maybe he wanted to please his environmental friends, or perhaps Mr. Buffet's railroad?
Obama has no business asking people to follow his deadlines when he can't even follow their own.
Any responsible boss would fire an employee who takes three years to avoid a decision. The American people should do the same.
"I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days." said President Obama.
Interesting. It seems like every time someone asks Obama to make up his mind, he says "no," that he didn't have time to make an informed decision.
Is three years not enough time to decide whether or not to approve an oil pipeline that would create thousands of jobs?
Apparently not. Maybe he wanted to please his environmental friends, or perhaps Mr. Buffet's railroad?
Obama has no business asking people to follow his deadlines when he can't even follow their own.
Any responsible boss would fire an employee who takes three years to avoid a decision. The American people should do the same.
Sen. Paul on Roe v. Wade Anniversary
Sen. Rand Paul did not get to deliver his remarks to the March on Life yesterday, due to the TSA treating him like a terrorist at the Nashville airport. Here's what he would have said, if TSA had not made him miss his flight. Note that Paul used the formulation of John Locke -- "life, liberty and property" rather than Thomas Jefferson's version, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The distinction is not relevant to anniversary of Roe, but is interesting nonetheless.
The question remains, can a nation long endure or can a civilization long endure that does not respect Life? Our Liberty comes from our Creator and our freedoms depend upon a respect for Life.
In order to protect the unborn from the very moment life begins, I introduced the Life at Conception Act during my first year in the Senate. I have also cosponsored several other pro-life bills including the Life at Conception Act, the Protect Life Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.
I also strongly support a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would confirm in law that an unborn child is a person entitled to the right to life and support legislation that would restrict federal courts from hearing cases involving abortion. State governments must be allowed to implement laws that protect life.
It is the government’s duty to protect life, liberty, and property, but primarily and most importantly, a government must protect life. Today, tragically our nation wavers; our moral compass is adrift. Today, I worry about our nation's future. Together a brighter tomorrow is possible if we join hands to restore our nation's virtue.
To respect life and to listen to the voice of God that lives and breathes and beckons and yearns for our attention. When America remembers and restores her respect for life, when America refinds her moral bearings then we will thrive again, then we will find our way.
I will never give up fighting for the lives of our unborn children. May God bless America.”
The question remains, can a nation long endure or can a civilization long endure that does not respect Life? Our Liberty comes from our Creator and our freedoms depend upon a respect for Life.
In order to protect the unborn from the very moment life begins, I introduced the Life at Conception Act during my first year in the Senate. I have also cosponsored several other pro-life bills including the Life at Conception Act, the Protect Life Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.
I also strongly support a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would confirm in law that an unborn child is a person entitled to the right to life and support legislation that would restrict federal courts from hearing cases involving abortion. State governments must be allowed to implement laws that protect life.
It is the government’s duty to protect life, liberty, and property, but primarily and most importantly, a government must protect life. Today, tragically our nation wavers; our moral compass is adrift. Today, I worry about our nation's future. Together a brighter tomorrow is possible if we join hands to restore our nation's virtue.
To respect life and to listen to the voice of God that lives and breathes and beckons and yearns for our attention. When America remembers and restores her respect for life, when America refinds her moral bearings then we will thrive again, then we will find our way.
I will never give up fighting for the lives of our unborn children. May God bless America.”
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Kentucky's Primary May Matter
One consequence of Newt's win last night in South Carolina is that the primary season will drag on, maybe until the Kentucky primary in May. We may have a chance to pick the nominee for a change, or at least influence the outcome.
Maybe we will even get our own debate. Who would moderate? Joe Arnold would be good. Then we could have some sanctimonious jerk or other from the Courier-Journal for Newt to smack down. That would be hilarious. I foresee a standing ovation.
I have not seen much of a Newt presence in Kentucky, other than some spontaneous comments in Facebook. Romney, on the other hand, has been raising money and building connections here for five years. He held a fundraiser in Kentucky just this past November. Establishment Republicans in Kentucky have bee gravitating to Romney for months, as well, so it would not take much for him to set up a ground game to get out the vote.
The challenge for Newt would be to mobilize the Tea Party. That will not be possible so long as Ron Paul remains in the race. Given his son's popularity here, Ron Paul has a real shot at winning Kentucky.
We may not have many delegates, but a Kentucky primary is guaranteed to entertain.
Maybe we will even get our own debate. Who would moderate? Joe Arnold would be good. Then we could have some sanctimonious jerk or other from the Courier-Journal for Newt to smack down. That would be hilarious. I foresee a standing ovation.
I have not seen much of a Newt presence in Kentucky, other than some spontaneous comments in Facebook. Romney, on the other hand, has been raising money and building connections here for five years. He held a fundraiser in Kentucky just this past November. Establishment Republicans in Kentucky have bee gravitating to Romney for months, as well, so it would not take much for him to set up a ground game to get out the vote.
The challenge for Newt would be to mobilize the Tea Party. That will not be possible so long as Ron Paul remains in the race. Given his son's popularity here, Ron Paul has a real shot at winning Kentucky.
We may not have many delegates, but a Kentucky primary is guaranteed to entertain.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
South Carolina Blues
Regardless of who wins today in South Carolina, the Republican Party loses. We are out of viable options for president. Each of these candidates has attributes worthy of praise, regrettably offset by their shortcomings.
Newt is a masterful debater - a thrill to watch. How much fun it would be to watch him smack down the One. Yet the characteristic that makes Newt so mesmerizing also disqualifies him as president. He is, as a colleague who served with him in Comgress put it, a "high wire act." We watch with baited breath, not knowoing what he will do or say next. This is not the demeanor of someone who should have control of the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Further, Newt's attacks on capitalism recently reek of the class warfare we get from Obama. These attacks on free-market principles have no place in the Republican primary. That they come from the so-called ideas guy is alarming.
Mitt Romney has the requisite steadiness to be president. That same steadiness, however, is what makes it unlikely that he will govern as a true conservative. He may slow down the pace of growth of the state, but he will not reverse it. He is a incrementalist.
Rick Santorum has no chance. None. Same for Ron Paul. Gentlemen, it is time to do the right thing.
So those are our picks. Any would be better than the current occupant of the White House. But does anyone seriously believe theses are the best we can do? It is time to nurture the farm team so we are not stuck with a field this weak in 2016.
Newt is a masterful debater - a thrill to watch. How much fun it would be to watch him smack down the One. Yet the characteristic that makes Newt so mesmerizing also disqualifies him as president. He is, as a colleague who served with him in Comgress put it, a "high wire act." We watch with baited breath, not knowoing what he will do or say next. This is not the demeanor of someone who should have control of the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Further, Newt's attacks on capitalism recently reek of the class warfare we get from Obama. These attacks on free-market principles have no place in the Republican primary. That they come from the so-called ideas guy is alarming.
Mitt Romney has the requisite steadiness to be president. That same steadiness, however, is what makes it unlikely that he will govern as a true conservative. He may slow down the pace of growth of the state, but he will not reverse it. He is a incrementalist.
Rick Santorum has no chance. None. Same for Ron Paul. Gentlemen, it is time to do the right thing.
So those are our picks. Any would be better than the current occupant of the White House. But does anyone seriously believe theses are the best we can do? It is time to nurture the farm team so we are not stuck with a field this weak in 2016.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
A Simple Math Problem....
Here is a simple math problem for the Occupy Wall Street/Occupy Louisville/Occupy Wherever folks:
Which person contributes more towards government programs which help the poor, the person that earns $1,000,000 a year and pays 15% in taxes, or the person that earns $50,000 a year and pays 20% in taxes?
Which person contributes more towards government programs which help the poor, the person that earns $1,000,000 a year and pays 15% in taxes, or the person that earns $50,000 a year and pays 20% in taxes?
Monday, January 16, 2012
Jon Huntsman Sulks Away
I must admit I was startled to hear that Jon Huntsman had quit the race. I had forgotten he was still in it. The tone of his calling-it-quits speech reminded me of why his candidacy was so off-putting. On the one hand, he seemed like such an elitist, showing off in the debates by speaking Chinese. On the other hand, he whined about the meanness of the other candidates and the coarseness of the process . . . all the while attacking the other candidates.
There was also the problem of ideology; Huntsman is at best a moderate. He probably would have done quite well in a Dmocratic primary. Republicans should welcome candidates with a wide variety of philosophies. That's how we develop and refine the ideas that become our platform. Huntsman, however, added no new ideas, neither good nor bad. Herman Cain gave us 9-9-9. Ron Paul has made us focus on the Fed. Mitt Romney, heaven help us, gave us Romneycare. Jon Huntsman just took up space on the debate stage tonight.
There was also the problem of ideology; Huntsman is at best a moderate. He probably would have done quite well in a Dmocratic primary. Republicans should welcome candidates with a wide variety of philosophies. That's how we develop and refine the ideas that become our platform. Huntsman, however, added no new ideas, neither good nor bad. Herman Cain gave us 9-9-9. Ron Paul has made us focus on the Fed. Mitt Romney, heaven help us, gave us Romneycare. Jon Huntsman just took up space on the debate stage tonight.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
A Modest Proposal For Mr. Zillionaire
Senator Rand Paul announced today that he's returning $500,000 to the U.S. Treasury that his office did not spend this year. Maybe Warren Buffett could begin his philanthropic tax-paying by matching this amount dollar-for-dollar with additional taxes he pays? And here's another thought: maybe Mr. Buffett would consider matching dollar-for-dollar in additional taxes paid by him for every other dollar that Congress cuts in spending?
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Listening to the Left will move you to the Right...
If you want to clarify and revalidate your conservative ideals, then it is highly recommended that you take a listen to Sirius XM Left, channel 127 on Sirius satellite radio. This is their liberal talk radio station. Here is just a little of what you will experience on this station:
* Profanity and blasphemy, including the "F" word
* Inappropriate sexual innuendo
* Palpable anger and constant whining
* Ad hominem attacks and belittling and mocking of those of diverse philosophical thought
* Hostility towards religion, especially Christianity
* A distinct lack of calm, well reasoned, thoughtful or provocative political discussion. Such ability does exist on the Left, but
apparently the majority of their radio talk show hosts lack it.
Some may gain affirmation of their conservative ideals by listening to Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, but I have found that listening to Sirius XM Left is an even better way to bolster confidence in the rightness of the conservative cause.
* Profanity and blasphemy, including the "F" word
* Inappropriate sexual innuendo
* Palpable anger and constant whining
* Ad hominem attacks and belittling and mocking of those of diverse philosophical thought
* Hostility towards religion, especially Christianity
* A distinct lack of calm, well reasoned, thoughtful or provocative political discussion. Such ability does exist on the Left, but
apparently the majority of their radio talk show hosts lack it.
Some may gain affirmation of their conservative ideals by listening to Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, but I have found that listening to Sirius XM Left is an even better way to bolster confidence in the rightness of the conservative cause.
Warming Up to Mitt
Could it be cognitive dissonance? I am starting to actually embrace the candidacy of Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential nominee. For me, the turning point has been his unapolgetic defense of capitalism. We need this at a time of class warfare; it is the perfect foil to Obama's Politics of Envy.
And I am starting to appreciate Romney's demeanor, particularly when contrasted with Obama or Rick Santorum -- both of whom grate on my nerves with their sniveling and whining. It is true, to a large extent, that who we vote for is influenced by who we want to listen to in our living rooms every night for the next four to eight years. As much as I admire Rick Santorum's character, intellect and defense of the unborn, the shrillness of his personality and lack of self-deprecating humor are just too similar to Obama.
And I am starting to appreciate Romney's demeanor, particularly when contrasted with Obama or Rick Santorum -- both of whom grate on my nerves with their sniveling and whining. It is true, to a large extent, that who we vote for is influenced by who we want to listen to in our living rooms every night for the next four to eight years. As much as I admire Rick Santorum's character, intellect and defense of the unborn, the shrillness of his personality and lack of self-deprecating humor are just too similar to Obama.
Redistricting Fun
From the Kentucky House Republican Caucus:
House Republicans released their redistricting plan early this morning as a Floor Amendment to House Bill 1. Under the House Republicans plan filed by Rep. Joe Fischer, R-Ft. Thomas, only two additional counties would be divided on top of the 22 counties currently divided by law while meeting the required five percent plus or minus deviation.
“It is our belief that our plan meets the requirements of the Kentucky Constitution and would stand up to judicial scrutiny, unlike the version that the House Democrats are trying to push through,” said House Republican Floor Leader Jeff Hoover, R-Jamestown. “But more importantly we believe our version is a more fair and equitable plan for all Kentuckians and for those they choose to represent them.”
Under the House Republicans version, four incumbent Democrats and two incumbent Republicans would be placed together in the 7th, 54th and 92nd Districts. The House Republican redistricting plan would also create new seats for the 84th District in a section of eastern Jefferson County.
House Bill 1 is scheduled to be heard and voted on by the full House of Representatives later this afternoon. House Republicans will ask that their floor amendment be heard and considered during this afternoon’s session
House Republicans released their redistricting plan early this morning as a Floor Amendment to House Bill 1. Under the House Republicans plan filed by Rep. Joe Fischer, R-Ft. Thomas, only two additional counties would be divided on top of the 22 counties currently divided by law while meeting the required five percent plus or minus deviation.
“It is our belief that our plan meets the requirements of the Kentucky Constitution and would stand up to judicial scrutiny, unlike the version that the House Democrats are trying to push through,” said House Republican Floor Leader Jeff Hoover, R-Jamestown. “But more importantly we believe our version is a more fair and equitable plan for all Kentuckians and for those they choose to represent them.”
Under the House Republicans version, four incumbent Democrats and two incumbent Republicans would be placed together in the 7th, 54th and 92nd Districts. The House Republican redistricting plan would also create new seats for the 84th District in a section of eastern Jefferson County.
House Bill 1 is scheduled to be heard and voted on by the full House of Representatives later this afternoon. House Republicans will ask that their floor amendment be heard and considered during this afternoon’s session
McConnell's Response to Buffett's Horsing Around: Let The Democrats Pony Up Instead
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had a good comeback yesterday to Warren Buffett's pledge to match Republicans dollar-for-dollar (and $3 for every $1 paid by McConnell) in paying more taxes: How about Mr. Zillionaire's pledging to match the Democrats instead? After all, the Democrats in Washington are part of the one percent in the country not philosophically opposed to more taxes.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
McConnell Slams Obama Recess Appointment of "Czar"
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell quickly criticized President Barack Obama's recess appointment of yet another Czar. Obama appointed Richard Cordray as head of the new CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. All the Czars are unelected and unaccountable, and for this one, Obama by-passed Congressional approval by making the appointment while the Congress is in recess.
Here is McConnell's statement:
Although the Senate is not in recess, President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people by 'recess' appointing Richard Cordray as director of the new CFPB. This recess appointment represents a sharp departure from a long-standing precedent that has limited the President to recess appointments only when the Senate is in a recess of 10 days or longer. Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress’s role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch.
The CFPB is poised to be one of the least accountable and most powerful agencies in Washington. Created by the deeply flawed Dodd-Frank law, it is subject to none of the checks that independent agencies normally operate under, and will have an unprecedented reach and control over individual consumer decisions. Earlier this year, 44 of my Senate Republican colleagues and I served notice that we will not confirm any nominee as director, regardless of party, until structural changes are made to make the bureau accountable to the American people—and more transparent. Our request was met with silence from the administration. As a result just last month the Senate rejected Cordray’s nomination. Congress has a constitutional duty to examine presidential nominees, a responsibility that serves as a check on executive power. But once again, the President has chosen to circumvent the confirmation process.
Here is McConnell's statement:
Although the Senate is not in recess, President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people by 'recess' appointing Richard Cordray as director of the new CFPB. This recess appointment represents a sharp departure from a long-standing precedent that has limited the President to recess appointments only when the Senate is in a recess of 10 days or longer. Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress’s role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch.
The CFPB is poised to be one of the least accountable and most powerful agencies in Washington. Created by the deeply flawed Dodd-Frank law, it is subject to none of the checks that independent agencies normally operate under, and will have an unprecedented reach and control over individual consumer decisions. Earlier this year, 44 of my Senate Republican colleagues and I served notice that we will not confirm any nominee as director, regardless of party, until structural changes are made to make the bureau accountable to the American people—and more transparent. Our request was met with silence from the administration. As a result just last month the Senate rejected Cordray’s nomination. Congress has a constitutional duty to examine presidential nominees, a responsibility that serves as a check on executive power. But once again, the President has chosen to circumvent the confirmation process.
Glad Iowa is Over
My disgust with this Republican field is such that it has become hard to even pay attention to Iowa. Sure, any of those candidates would be better than Obama.
The Republican track record of nominating "moderates," however, alarms me, because this is no ordinary election. Tthe electoral fates of Gerald Ford, Bob Dole and John McCain suggest that if Mitt Romney is the nominee, Obama will be reelected. The Rasmussen poll says otherwise, but history is a better predictor than polling.
If Obama is reelected, I am not sure that we can ever recover as a country. American cannot endure four more years of narcissistic incompetence and hedonistic class warfare.
Consider the percentage of Americans who pay no taxes: with another term of an Obama presidency, will anyone be surprised to see that number pass 50 percent? It's close now -- 42 percent; another four more years and we may well cross the threshold of the point where more people get money from the government than pay money to it. There will be more takers than producers. And the takers will have the votes to demand ever more government, funded by the producers.
The Republican track record of nominating "moderates," however, alarms me, because this is no ordinary election. Tthe electoral fates of Gerald Ford, Bob Dole and John McCain suggest that if Mitt Romney is the nominee, Obama will be reelected. The Rasmussen poll says otherwise, but history is a better predictor than polling.
If Obama is reelected, I am not sure that we can ever recover as a country. American cannot endure four more years of narcissistic incompetence and hedonistic class warfare.
Consider the percentage of Americans who pay no taxes: with another term of an Obama presidency, will anyone be surprised to see that number pass 50 percent? It's close now -- 42 percent; another four more years and we may well cross the threshold of the point where more people get money from the government than pay money to it. There will be more takers than producers. And the takers will have the votes to demand ever more government, funded by the producers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)