Tag Archives: Conservative

Corporate Good Will

This is how it should be done.

The state’s largest natural gas utility is asking its customers to pay a little extra each month, in a novel effort to help cover heating bills for low-income residents.

Piedmont Natural Gas, with 725,000 customers in the state, expects a surge of delinquent bills this winter in the midst of a grinding recession and is hoping to avert a corresponding increase in disconnected accounts.

The company this morning introduced a program to let its customers sign up to “round up” their bills, with the difference going to a fund to help residents who can’t afford to pay their utility bills. The program rounds up Piedmont customer bills to the nearest dollar and will result in an average monthly donation of 50 cents, or about $6 a year.

If 100,000 people sign up, Piedmont would raise about $600,000 a year toward the program. The company is contributing $100,000 of its own money and will contribute $50,000 more if 100,000 people sign up.

The money would be given to the state Department of Health and Human Services to distribute to social-service agencies. The donations would be distributed to all customers who can’t pay their utility bills, not just natural gas customers.

Here is a corporation that is using it’s position in society to help society.  Further, it is doing it by asking, not forcing by fiat.  Further, Progress is putting it’s money where it’s mouth is; they are donating $100,000 of their own money to the program.  Lastly, they are giving the money to social-service agencies to distribute as needed; not force those agencies to simply return that money to Progress.

Kudos to Progress Energy!

Declaration of Independence

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Health Care and the Capital “O” Ought

So, it seems as if this country is going to get ready for some big time politics surrounding the health care industry in the next several months.  And it is going to be Democrat vs. Republican.  Liberal vs. Conservative.  It’s going to be “What we wish it could be like” vs. “This is how it is”.

Wait.  Did I say that?

The problem that I have with liberals is that they see inequity and just simply say “That’s not fair!” and then stomp their feet.  Then, they look around and say, well, sheesh, if the rich have this, than I want that too!  And then they legislate that.  All the while never understanding that what they are doing is putting those poor folks deeper and deeper in the hole than when they started.  I’ll never forget reading that when the minimum wage was enacted, hundreds of thousands of African Americana’s became unemployed.

Anyway, so here it is, the challenge:  Regarding health care; what is it that you want?  What is broken now that you wanna see fixed?  What metrics will you use?

Is it basic care that you want given to all people?  is it emergent care that you want?  Life threatening illness care?  What, exactly, do you want?

Wake GOP Has This One Wrong

For a long time now, the left has cornered the market on Education issues in our politics.  They have dominated this perception and have won that marketing strategy.  For example, when asked which party supports education, most North Carolinian’s will reply that it’s the Democrats.  The irony of this is, of course, bitter.  It is the conservative family that stresses discipline, delayed gratification and higher education.  Many of the traditional democratic base does not take full advantage of the education system in our country.  So, how is it that the democrats have won the day on this issue?  It’s because the Teacher’s Unions support the liberal cause.  And when you have the teachers supporting the democrats, you end up having the perception that the Democrats support Education.  Simple.

And deadly.

We have to do a better job on this issue; there are very few things more fundamental to the success of a society than the education of it’s citizenry.  The higher the educational base is, the more wealthy that nation is, the better the economy and the better the innovation.  Quite simply, education is the engine that drives a nations out of the grinding poverty of third world status into the ranks of modern nations.  And for the elite programs, it is what drives modern nations into Super Powers.

Education is key; we have to take that issue back.  And that is why this saddens me.

Today, the Wake County GOP issued a statement saying, in short, “We disagree with the Year Round calendar.  Parents, take your child out of school for a day to protest.”

Even if I agreed with the concept that Year Round calendars are bad, which I don’t, THIS is NOT the way to handle that conflict.  Grown adults sit down, reason and come to valid conclusions.  They do not, repeat do NOT use children in a game of chicken.

This is just one more reason why the GOP is finding itself struggling.

Money as a Signal

I run another blog that is basically a conversation between a real good friend of mine.  We end up talking lot’s of politics.  And my latest entry kinda sums up on how I feel about money.

I thought it would be good to double post that entry here today.

The Cost of Money

I Wish We Had a Cool Governor

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I don’t have the same feel for the Good Gov’na Purdue that I have for Obama; not even close.  But how nice it is to listen to some of the best conservatives in the country talk about the stimulus package:?

http://www.wral.com/

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a likely 2012 presidential contender, has said he would reject a portion of the money aimed at expanding state unemployment insurance.

Notice the level of detail intimated by Jindal.  He is not rejecting all of the money, just that money that speaks to unemployment insurance.

Gov. Haley Barbour, R-Miss., said he was considering a similar move. Taking the unemployment dollars, he said, would force his state to eventually raise taxes when the stimulus money runs out, putting in place what he called an unfair tax on employers.

“There is some (money) we will not take in Mississippi. … We want more jobs. You don’t get more jobs by putting an extra tax on creating jobs,” Barbour told CNN’s “State of the Union’ on Sunday.

Again, very detailed analysis of the package.  These guys know the good from the bad; almost as if they–you know, READ the bill.

Michigan’s Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm said there are other states that want and need the new money: “We’ll take it. We’ll take your money.”

States with unemployment rates significantly differ- ent from that of the U.S

States with unemployment rates significantly differ- ent from that of the U.S

Guess who’s state is that highest bar, just left of center?  Yeah, that’s right.  The Great State belonging to Gov. Jennifer Granholm.  That, by the way, is not an accident.

At issue for Jindal and Barbour is a provision in the stimulus bill that could allow people ineligible for unemployment benefits to receive them anyway. That could eventually force a tax increase on employers, both governors have said.

Nice.  So even if the state doesn’t want the money, the Federal Government forces them to take it anyway.  And they have to raise taxes as a result.  How is this legal?

Some Democrats took a harder line at a press conference arranged by the Democratic Governors Association to praise Obama for his leadership on the stimulus. DGA Chairman Brian Schweitzer of Montana and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley dismissed GOP detractors as “fringe” Republicans eager to score political points.

“All of us are committed to working with President Obama to pull our nation’s economy out of the ditch that George W. Bush ran it into,” O’Malley said. “If some of the fringe governors don’t want to do that, they need to step aside and not stand in the way of the nation’s interests.”

Sorry, but when you complain of “fringe” Republicans and then say “pull our nation’s economy out of the ditch that George W. Bush ran it into” you lose some all credibility in my book.

The line drew a rebuke from Sanford, the Republican Governors Association chairman.

“I think in this instance I would humbly suggest that the real fringe are those that are supporting the stimulus,” Sanford said. “It is not at all in keeping with the principles that made this country great, not at all in keeping with economic reality, not in keeping with a stable dollar and not in keeping with the sentiments of most of this country.

Finally, Republicans acting like Republicans.

What 400 Bucks Is Gonna Do

Recently I was part of a small conversation regarding a portion of the tax cuts in the new Stimulus Package.  The subject that got us all going was, well, the headline you see at the top of this very post; what 400 bucks is gonna do….  Now, to be clear, I think that what we were talking about was the portion of the tax cuts that President Obama refers to as tax cuts to 95% of working men and women; $500 for an individual, a $1000 for a family.  At least that’s what I think the reference is, though, to be fair, I’m not sure.  For example, I don’t know where 400 came from, as I mentioned, I though the Obama tax cut was $500…anyway, I digress.  The point is, we had a good conversation.

Here is my case.

The Federal government levies taxes on individuals in the form of individual income tax.  As far as I know, there are no other taxes on individuals that the Feds have claim to.  Sales tax is a state tax, state income tax is, well, levied by the state.  Vehicle, property, city and county taxes…all non-Federal.  FICA and Medicare, not taxes.  These are with holdings that fund programs or specific funds.  They can not be used for other purposes, and if those programs or funds went away, so too, would the withholding.  FICA , after all, is is really just shorthand for Federal Insurance Contribution Act.  In this specific case, Social Security is really just an insurance program.  Anyway, point is–not a tax.

That would mean, for the Federal government to say that it is giving a tax cut to 95% of working Americans, he would have to reduce the rate of the tax.  For example, if an individual is being taxed at 28%, to realize a tax cut, she would have to see her rate go down, say..to 27% or 20%. That’s a tax cut.  What is not a tax cut is when an individual who currently pays no amount of money to the Federal government gets a check from Uncle Sam.  It is something.  And if it’s a grand, it’s not insignificant.  But what it’s not, is a tax cut.

And this is why it’s important.  It’s important because it has clear and critical ramifications, when dealing with a struggling economy.  It is NOT important because of the partisan bickering going on.  We have all heard the arguments going back to the election from the Democrats that Obama was offering a tax cut and The Republicans claiming it was just income redistribution.  That’s not why it’s important.  Where it really really matters is in how the recipients SEE, or perceive, the additional money.

You see, when I am chugging along in my normal economic way, I do just that–chug along.  I buy near the same kinds of groceries at near the same amounts.  I drive about the same kind of car and get it washed at about the as often as I always do.  I go out about the same number of nights and have about the same number of beers.  But now, let’s say that something changes.  Let’s say that I get a check back from my insurance company; my rates went down and they have overcharged me for two consecutive 6-month periods.  I get $500.  How do I spend that money?  It has been shown that the typical person spends it in one of two ways – They pay down debt OR they go on a 1 time splurge shopping spree.  So, VISA gets it or Best Buy gets it.  And then whamo, right back to the normal way of spending money.  Point is, there is no sustainable economic jolt in either paying off VISA or buying that flat screen TV.

Now, let’s say that instead of a windfall [the insurance overcharge check], I get a raise.  This presents me with a new way of looking at the money coming into me.  I view this a sustainable income, an item that I can budget for and count on.  I know it’s going to be there next paycheck and the paycheck after it.  This affects my spending in a much different way.  It sustains it.  I am more willing to up what I buy and/or how often I buy it.  I may not ration myself to a 6-pak.  Perhaps I can up how often I get a new car, or new jeans or new whatever.  Further, because it is not presented to me in a lump sum significant amount, the chances that I sink it into debt reduction is less; I actually spend it.  In this case, the economy is better off.

Now, for the whammy.  If, instead of giving me, a worker bee who concerns himself with just me and mine, a $500 bump, what if 20 people like me DIDN’T get the money but it went to a small business owner who was just thhhhiiiiiiisss close to obtaining the money to hire one more guy.  Or buy that new processor in his assembly line.  What if that 10k went to someone who GREW the money, who took it and turned it into 15k, or 20k AND gave someone a job because of it?

It is because of these reasons that fiscal conservatives don’t like the tax cut language in the stimulus package.  Not because Obama thought of it, or because Pelosi pushed it.  Or because no republican voted for it.  It’s because it’s moving money around in a way that does not grow said money, and it denies the recipient the critical perception that it’s sustained.  And further more, if you want to grow the economy, it’s not putting it into the hands of people who grow money.

Disheartening Change of Ideals

So, I was talking to a friend yesterday regarding the new administration; Obama’s plans and goals.  Now, in the past, this friend of mine has been consistently further left than me, but only barely.  However, in several cases, namely that of the ability of the government to take money from us, he was slightly to the right.  Yesterday he shared with me that, yes, in fact, it is the “right thing to do” when we were discussing the transfer of money from those that have to those that simply have less.  When I prodded him further, he claimed “It’s the right thing to do.”

I couldn’t talk.

I shook my head, looked down for a second and then lifted my eyes back up to meet his, hoping, really really hoping that I would see the beginnings of a smile.  See the familiar wrinkle in the eyes that would signal the beginning of the joke.

Nothing.  He looked at me dead in the eye.  And just blinked.

As a friend, of course, I couldn’t lambaste him, but I did gently bring up old discussions, debates that we shared over coffee, bourbon and beer.  He admitted that, in fact, he does remember saying and feeling those things and yes, doesn’t deny, that he has now changed his mind.

I got the feeling as a walked away, that he may be on the fence.  That somehow,even he himself knew that he wasn’t sure if he was saying these things because they were the result of bedrock principles well thought out or, if, perhaps, it’s because he somehow wanted to feel that way.  That somehow, society has lost it’s way and we have forgotten those less fortunate.  And in so doing, we have perhaps ceded our rights, certain rights, to the government in regard to the tending of the poor.

Of course, before I left I recounted how this country’s poor are not really so poor, as a whole.  That in fact, not only are the bottom 25% much much better off than even 30 years ago, they are living in conditions that would be considered very well off with respect to the rest of the world.  I insisted that I find it hard to classify someone as poor when they had a satellite TV and PlayStation, but couldn’t afford health care for their kids.

I almost saw a tear as he nodded in agreement, but then shrugged it off, as if to say “I can’t explain it, but I am at peace with my newfound place.”

At least for now.

So the question is this.  How did the paradigm get changed?  How did we lose what was once a rock solid foundation of right and wrong [or at least right and not right]?  And then, how do we communicate that in such a way so as to win the hearts and minds of those lost converts, and, perhaps, even win back some from the other side to boot?

Obama – Succeed or Fail?

I have been asked this question so many times my ears are bleeding.

Are you hoping that Obama fails—or succeeds?

Blink.  Blink.

Serious.  Early on, all I could do was muster a blank look at the person in front of me and just shake my head.  I had no answer.  The question just stunk of…well, of stink.  Without knowing why, I would just kinda shrug, grimace and say “What?”

No, however, I know from where I came.  I mean, it took some days and some thinking, but really, stop for just a second, and look at the question.  Repeat it.  Run it through your mind and then, just say it, really, say it, out loud.

Are you hoping that Obama succeeds?

Maybe I’m slow, maybe you’re quicker.  Whatever, in time, it came to me.  The whole premise of the question is flawed.  Do I hope that Obama succeeds?  Do I hope that Obama fails?  What the hell?

Now, of course, I know the problem with the question; and my answer.  This thing about succeeding or failing has nothing to do with The Chairman.  The fact that a Dem or a Repub is in the White House really isn’t the issue.  The fact is this, I want ME, ME ME ME ME to succeed.  I want to be able to strike out and make a life for me and my family.  In the process, I would like it if you could also have a shot at the same life.  Cause in the end, we are al inter-connected.  And so yeah, if I am to succeed, then you kinda have’ta too.

In short, I hope that America succeeds.  And to that end, in that I am convinced that The Chairman’s ways of looking at life, at government, at right and wrong, fair and unfair, is flawed.  And so yeah, I hope that America continues to move forward, to lead the way and shine forth as an example of all that’s good in the world.

I just don’t think that Obama’s method is going to do that for us.

And so it is that I have to answer:

I am for America succeeding, and so it is that Obama’s plan must be fought at every opportunity.  For the good of America.

Universal Health Care vs. Government Offered Health Insurance

I have been sitting on this one for awhile now.  It’s a tough one.  Something that no one wants to see and few have the answers to.  From the right, we all know the responses, but do we really know the reasons?  And, to be honest, do we really believe what it is we are saying?  I am talking about health care.  And, specifically, the availability, or lack thereof, of that care.

I think that when you ask the right about this topic, they picture people who refuse to work, refuse to better themselves or refuse to create for themselves a situation where they can obtain basic medical care.  Or, at the very least, purchase catastrophic health insurance.

Similarly, if you ask the left about health care or medical care they are envisioning individuals suffering due to tragic life threatening illnesses.  Situations where the individual has little or no control and the result is complete and utter financial ruin.

In short, I think that we are talking about two different things.  On one hand, we are discussing health or medical care as an industry; something that is in the macro sense.  On the other, we are discussing that same care on a deeply individual and tragic level.  And so, lost in conversation, the left and the right have no hope of compromise, no hope of a shared or common understanding.  How could they?  They’re not even talking about the same things.

And so it is when I discuss health care.  Coming from the right, I shudder at the thought of Nationalized Health Care.  Or Socialized Medicine.  Or Single Payer Insurance.  Or anything that is called whatever that means everyone is able to seek any medical care and not receive a bill.  And yet, these same opponents of mine will lash out at me as in separate conversations as being part of the Religious Right.  I don’t get it.  At the same time I am someone who is deeply religious and yet I am able to turn a blind [and greedy] eye to the grandmother suffering in pain, struggling to stay alive and knowing that she is going to bankrupt her family?  I just shake my head.

I don’t understand how anyone could possibly hear such a story and walk away untouched, unmoved; certainly not me.  But again, we are reading from two different scripts here.

And so it is that I continue to support what I know to be true.  Medical Care is a service.  And as such, it creates a certain demand or need or want.  And there is more of that want that there is supply of the service.  And so, as we all know, that service, that medical care, has to be rationed in some way.  However you want to close your eyes and sing lalalalalalala and not believe it, there is simply NOT enough supply to satiate all of thedemand.

There are many ways to solve this problem.  I’m not going to list them here.  But my favorite method to resolving this delta in supply and demand is …… price.  It is by price that we SELF ration the demand and come to a equilibrium where the supply is in harmony with the demand. [Cue Disney Hummingbirds].

However, I also am a big BIG believer in Role of Government.  That is to say that at each level of government, there are certain and appropriate roles and expectations.  For example, I do NOT thin that it is the role of the Federal Government to mandate or assume management of Health Insurance.  However, as we get more and more local, in fact, if we even just jump from Federal to State, we find that the role or expectation of the Government changes.  I think that this is true for the case involving abortion and I think that it is tru here; for Health Care.

And so it is that I find this development, not an attack on Conservatism, but as example [could it be better?  Sure.] of what can happen when members of a community State gather together, discuss what is important to them as people, and vote that they want to offer this type of service where they live.  That they want to offer care to those that are less fortunate.  This, THIS I believe is the role of the State.  Not, however, of the Nation.