About Me

Name: The Hermit Crab
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

The Election Post-Mortem Blog

I'm in too tense a mood to write anything profound these days, so I'm just going to type up my notes, and see what happens.  Here goes...
 
 
 
Some have been a bit bewildered by the whirlygigging of David Brooks during and after this election campaign.  Ann Coulter wrote of this in her column of November 12 (and wrote well), but she didn't quite offer the conclusion that I would have.  David Brooks is supposedly a conservative, but keep in mind that he is the pet conservative of the New York Times.  Calling someone a New York Times Conservative is rather like calling someone a Vidkun Quisling Norwegian.
 
 
 
Thinking of the liberals wanting to called progressives these days (since "liberal" has become a dirty word -- not without reason), I am reminded of an interview I read once with Ian Anderson, the front man/flautist of the veteran British folk-rock group Jethro Tull.  He was asked by the interviewer how the band came to be named Jethro Tull.  He told the interviewer that when the band was starting out, it was not at all good, and the only way you could get return "gigs" at a club was to change your name, so that the club owners would think that you were a different band.  "Jethro Tull" happened to be the name that they were using when they finally started to create good music.
 
The parallel is not perfect, however.  Jethro Tull eventually became one of the finest folk-rock band in rock history.  The liberal/progressives never change and never improve.  They just play the same old sheet music, always off-key, and they never get any better or any smarter.  They're still a kazoo at a funeral, except that the kazooist does no real harm.
 
 
 
I recently was written up at work for missing days due to illness.  Most places, I believe, don't write up (or even potentially fire) employees for taking their sick days, but I am "represented" by a particularly useless local of UNITE-HERE.  In the years I've worked at my company, I have never heard of them going to bat for anyone who is having problems with management.  However, after getting us pay raises so small that they amount to pay cuts (after inflation), they have no reluctance to immediately raise our union dues year after year.  I am told that this is how our lovely little union shop has always been.
 
Personally, I think that my union, and unions in general, would be more effective if they spent less time trying to get illegal immigrants the right to stay in our country (and drive down wages) and elect Democratic candidates who want to raise our taxes, increase regulations (which drive American jobs overseas), and more time trying to advance the interests of their dues-paying members.
 
Or would that be too much like work?
 
 
 
I have a nasty feeling that the Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan are saving their best efforts for the day when our new, neophyte President takes office.  They have learned through painful experience that they cannot drive President Bush to withdraw our troops by attacking them, so I think that they will wait for Baby Barry to raise his hand on January 20th, and then they will raise Hell.
 
I confess that I have had the I'm-sure futile hope that President Bush would call his military leaders together and tell them something like "I'm on my way out as President.  What have I to lose now?  I'm giving you perhaps my final order -- find the terrorists, and WIPE THEM OUT.  Every one you can find.  No negotiations.  No prisoners.  No borders.  If they run to Iran or Pakistan, get them there.  If they want to go to Allah, we should give them the express ticket.  Let's see them call THAT a win!"
 
Alas, 'tis not to be...
 
 
 
End of Part I.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My New Political Donation Strategy

This year I tried out a new, Republican-with-limited-funds donation system.  At first, I thought I would forego giving all together.  That ism until I found that political dilettante and dirty campaigner Richard Dollinger was running against my reasonably conservative and wholly respectable State Senator Joseph Robach.  Even then I hesitated (I didn't yet know that Dollinger had received $47,500 in Soros family money) -- until NARAL entered into my calculations with a nasty attack ad on my Senator.  This sent me to the Internet, where I tracked down Senator Robach's campaign website.  A check was soon winging its way to the good Senator's campaign.
 
Just a few days later, I received a robo-call which began "You have probably been contacted by your union asking your support for Alice Kryzan ..."  I needed to here no more.  (M)Alice Kryzan is a Marxist, abandon-the-troops far-left Democrat trial lawyer who was running against Republican Chris Lee, a successful business man seeking to succeed reliable conservative Republican Thomas Reynolds in the US House of Representatives (which is largely the House of Reprehensibles, these days, but that's another subject).  I believed the robo-call, since UNITE-HERE, the union I am a most unwilling member of, is your normal "support the Democrats, screw our members" union.
 
Off to the computer, a bit of searching, and presto!  Another campaign donation.
 
The Friday before the election, I received another robo-call, which started "This is (some lying SOB) from the D Triple-C, with shocking news about Chris Lee's..."  Click.  The D Triple-C, for those of you who do not marinate themselves in politics, is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  I made the familiar trek to the den, the computer, and Chris Lee's campaign site.
 
Voila!  Another on-line contribution!  (Please note that in every case I told the recipient of my contribution(s) the reason for my contributions.)
 
That's the system.  Vote for the candidate that closest matches your views (don't hold out for the perfect match - you may never vote again).  Contribute when the anger moves you.  (So far it's working.  Both Chris Lee and Joseph Robach won their elections.  I take full credit.)
 
And always oppose NARAL, the "D Triple-C", and UNITE-HERE.   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Appeal to Union Voters

Since New York has yet to pass a Right to Work law, I am forced to belong to UNITE-HERE #2714.  Like most unions, they have asked that we contribute our votes to the Democrats, and our dollars to the union PAC.  I will do neither, of course.  Before you do either, please consider the following:
 
President Bush and the Republicans lowered all tax brackets with his tax cuts in 2001 (or 2002, I can't recall for certain).  If you're in the lowest tax bracket (and if you're represented by UNITE-HERE 2714, you probably are), your federal taxes were lowered by at least 50%.  The Democrats, who hate tax cuts the way Indiana Jones hates snakes, insisted on a sunset provision which stipulates that all of the tax cuts expire in 2010.  The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel (D-NY), has stated publicly that he knows of none of the Bush tax cuts that should be renewed.  This means that unless future actions prevent it, the taxes of those in the lowest bracket (such as myself) will go up at least 50% (see next item). 
 
One of the tax cuts pushed through by President Bush was the elimination of the "marriage penalty"; that absurd provision that allowed a married couple to deduct less of their income from taxation than can an unmarried couple living together.  This is not only grossly unfair; it is destructive, for it discourages marriage and encourages "shacking up".  If this tax reform and the tax rate cuts are not made permanent, married couples in the lowest bracket will see their taxes increase by over 50%.
 
Another pleasing tax reform of the Bush administration was the gradual repeal of the hated "death tax".  Many people were outraged to discover that after a taxpayer had spent a lifetime earning and saving money (money already taxed once at least, please note), Uncle Sam's vultures could swoop in and take up to 55% of what they didn't get the first time.  Among other lamentable results of this infernal tax, this has led to the loss of many family farms to major farming industries.  The families have had to sell the family farms in order to pay the death taxes.  Against this the honest soul revolts.  Sadly, too few of those souls reside in the Democratic leadership.  They wish to revive even this monstrous exaction.
 
Another tax that the Democrats want to "jack up" is the capital gains tax.  Without turning this into an economics seminar, capital gains are the amount in value that your holdings attain when their value increases.  To the average union member, this generally means your stocks and other investments.  Do you have a 402k?  Perhaps an IRA?  Others assets you may sell at a profit someday?  Then you're "on the target" for this Democratic tax hike, too.
 
To his shame, presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain voted against these tax cuts when passed earlier this decade.  To his credit, he now realizes that the cuts should be made permanent.  Characteristically, both Sen.Obama (D-IL) and Sen. Clinton (D-NY) have responded to questions about retaining the tax cuts with stale class-warfare rhetoric and evasions.  They don't dare tell you that they intend to boost your taxes, and everyone else's as well.  They tell you again this year that they're only going to raise taxes on "the rich".  You fell for that in 1992.  Did you learn anything from that?
 
The union have been participating in and supporting demonstration aimed at obtaining amnesty for illegal aliens, so that they can work in the country whose laws they've already broken.  If they succeed, they will increase the supply of cheap labor in the US by millions.  Does anyone know what happens to the price of a commodity when the supply is rapidly increased?  That's right.  It goes down.  My union has participated in these demonstrations, perhaps yours did as well.  Why, you must be asking.  Why would the union officers push for an amnesty for illegals that would exert downward pressure on wages for union workers?
 
This is the dirty little secret of the illegal alien issue.  You see, if the amnesty goes through, your wages may go down, but the union top brass will have the chance to get millions more union members, and union members pay dues to whom?  To the union officers, of course!  More money for them, less money for you.  Just in case you wondered whose interests they really work for...
 
(Annoyingly, Sen. McCain is just about as wrong as the Democrats on this issue.  I give you the above so that you can find out why your union is betraying your interests on this issue.  If they are.  I know that UNITE-HERE is betraying their members.)
 
(An aside -- although this isn't strictly on point, my conscience demands I make this point:  to those that say that we need the addition of illegal laborers to our work force because of a shortage of workers, I would point out that if we hadn't been massacring our own infants for the last 35 years, we would have all of the workers we could need.  People are an asset, not an expense.  At any rate, man ought never to attempt to play God, particularly when you consider how poorly he plays man.)
 
After 9/11, it belatedly became clear to most Americans that perhaps we had better pay closer attention to what terrorist murderers are telling each other before they strike.  President Bush requested that the telecommunications companies co-operate in attempts to thwart the next attack(s) before we had to try to identify the victims in the smoldering ruins.  Most of the companies (it may have been all) did their patriotic duty and agreed.  I think that most normal Americans can agree that if someone within our borders is communicating with a known terrorist or terrorist organization outside of our borders, the safety of our citizens demands that we find out why. 
 
However, since some of the sleazier trial lawyers and their far-out pressure-group friends want to sue the phone companies for doing their patriotic duty (and breaking no law), and since the trial lawyers and the far-outs fill the Democrats' campaign coffers every election campaign, the House Democratic leadership prevented the House from considering the renewal of the law authorizing this needed surveillance unless the trial lawyers would be allowed to sue the phone companies for the supposed violation of Americans' Constitutional rights.  (They have yet to inform us which article of the Constitution protects the right communicate with terrorists outside of our borders.)  This inaction has hobbled our intelligence-gathering (and thus our citizen-protecting) ever since.
 
I think most of us would agree that it is in our best interests to keep tax rates as low as we can keep them, that the marriage penalty and the death tax are unfair exactions that the generation of 1776 would never have born, that we should get as much compensation as we can attain for our labor, and that one of our federal governments prime obligations is to protect the safety of our citizens.  One of our major parties is on the wrong side of all of your interests.  Odds on, this is the party your union wants you to support with your votes and dollars.  Before you do, you should insist to your union officers that they explain to you why you should betray your own well-being in order to promote theirs.  Ask them if they really expect you to think that you're undertaxed, too safe, and paid too much for your work.
 
(For more information on the Democrat's House Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2009, see this article at the Heritage Foundation's Website.  For information of interest of current and potential union members, see the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.)
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »