Why The American Economy Needs John McCain

In a comparison of the final three candidates for President, one can see a huge difference. Barack Obama has proposed $281 billion in new spending, Hillary Clinton $250 billion and John McCain just $7 billion. You see, John McCain knows what would have to be done to raise $250 to $281 billion and what effect it would have on our economy. Obama and Clinton seem to think that money can simply be produced out of thin air. Those two couldn't be more wrong with their ideas that amount ot nothing more than wasteful socialist spending.

Yomin Postelnik is a Floridian who is writing for the Canada Free Press. Here is what he has to say about John McCain's fiscal policies:

The Director of the Congressional Budget Office is equally open about the fact that no member of Congress will do anything about this matter until people realize the necessity to act. Few politicians want to embrace unpopular positions like huge rollbacks and caps on spending. That’s the difference between them and leaders. Leaders work for five, ten, twenty years to alert the public to important realities and awaken their hearts and minds to problems and propose solutions that have little support before the public realizes their need. When it comes to the all important issue of wasteful spending, an issue that can mean the difference between continued growth and expansion or economic collapse, John McCain is such a leader. Remarkably, his battles against pork and pork’s favorite barbeque chefs on both sides of the congressional aisle, haven’t tarnished his ability to work with members of congress. Though a lesser man would have alienated himself from members of both sides with his steadfast campaign against their habits, John McCain’s sincere devotion to this cause, his steadfastness and his reasoned approach to all other issues have earned him a level of respect and cooperation from members of both parties than most senators can ever hope to achieve. The fight against spending is simply another battle the scars of which John McCain wears well.

I can't remember how many Conservative pundits have called for spending to be brought under control over the past few years. Well, now we have a candidate who is pledging to do just that.

The national debt is out of hand and we cannot continue to borrow money forever. We are closer than almost anyone realizes to losing our current credit rating and to having our debt turn to junk bond status. The United States has maintained a triple A bond score since 1917, but this year Moody’s attached an asterisk to the rating, a note of caution. The Congressional Budget Office worries about a real decline in rating. This is all thanks to the reckless spending of both parties. There’s one candidate who’s willing to do something about it. His name is John McCain and he’s been fighting ruinous pork barrel spending for over 25 years. This is one of the reasons I suggest that entrepreneurs and all who care for the nation’s economy support John McCain for President. He understands the need to invest in education, defense and technology and brings concrete solutions to the table as opposed to empty platitudes. But most of all, his career-long battle against reckless spending shows him for the man of integrity, sound judgment and leadership that he is.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Why America Would Be Headed For Disaster Without John McCain
Yomin Postelnik
Canada Free Press
March 2, 2008

Social Conservatives 'Mad As Hell' And Congress Gets An 'F'

If you are anything like me (and the fact that you are coming here and reading this blog usually means that you are, at least, a little like me) then you have been watching the GOP primary and seeing the front-runners go up and down like yo-yos. Not a very promising start to the 2008 campaign season, but at least it is entertaining.

That is where the positive spin ends. The GOP has a real problem, one that it has ignored for far too long. Paul Edwards' latest column explains what this problem is. There is a schism within the ranks of the GOP and no one seems willing to admit it or to do anything about it. But really, what can be done?

We are stuck between giving up our priciples in order to maintain a good economic status or giving up our fiscal beliefs in order to see our social ideas have a chance. Why can't we have both?

Edwards writes:

The Republican establishment has looked down its nose at social conservatives far too long, tolerating us because they need our votes. But now the tables are turned. The grass roots are looking up at the establishment with the will of a Lech Walesa, demanding that fiscal issues take a back seat to moral issues for a change. It’s long past time for the moral and social issues of our times to be given more than just lip service. It’s now time for our fiscal policies to be informed by our social policies rather than sacrificing our morality to our economic standing in the world. Don’t expect the Republican establishment to take this lying down. The New Media tanks are already rolling in to suppress the revolt.

So, which candidate is going to take advantage of this? I don't know. I just know that whomever follows the philosophies of the Republican Party most closely should win:

I'm a Republican Because... I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored. I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability. I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity. I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn. I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations, and that the best government is that which governs least. I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people. I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times. I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world. FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

You can access Mr. Edwards' complete column on-line here:

Social Conservatives Are “Mad As Hell”
Paul Edwards
TownHall.com
December 25, 2007

---

And now that the end of the year is close at hand, we can look back at what our Democrat controlled Congress has done and effectively grade them.

Here is what Jennifer Rubin has to say over at Human Events Online:

The Democrats in Congress, despite a year in the majority and facing a president whose approval ratings are historically low, have been spectacularly unsuccessful in achieving items both small and large on their agenda. A combination of overreaching and incompetence on their part and savvy prevent defense by President Bush and Congressional Republicans has spared the country untold grief. Most striking was the Democrats utter failure to live up to the key promise of their 2006 campaign: “ending the war in Iraq.” First, the Senate unanimously confirmed General Petreaus (who had committed to a Surge strategy) by an 81-0 vote in late January. Despite more than 60 votes to withdrawal or limit U.S. forces in Iraq, Democrats could not win a veto proof majority to begin retreat in Iraq. This included a 108-day fight over the Defense Department Supplemental spending bill. Although the demise of the “Surge” policy was widely anticipated in September, testimony by General Petreaus and Ambassador Croker shifted the tide -- with help from a backlash over the ludicrous and outlandish MoveOn.org attack on General Petreaus -- and drowned out Democrats demands that U.S. forces close up shop. ... Democrats also failed on other priorities held dear: federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, elimination of secret ballots for union elections, hate crime legislation protecting homosexuals (tucked into a defense authorization bill), voting rights for the District of Columbia, and government price setting for Medicare drugs. Even the pettiest of goals --working five days a week -- could not be achieved. On the SCHIP -- the Dems’ plan for a first middle-class entitlement program -- President Bush and Congressional Republican stared down the Democrats’ threats to expand this poverty program to millions of middle class Americans, not just the “children” that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid paraded before the cameras. On immigration after the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill failed Democrats could not even achieve victory on a more limited measure --yes, for the “children” -- the DREAM Act. They likewise failed to pass a separate immigration bill for agriculture. Although Democrats swore that hard line Republican views on immigration were a losing proposition and contributed to GOP losses in 2006, they had no stomach after the immigration fight for any more immigration “reform.” (“Blue Dog” Democrat Heath Shuler, who apparently learned a different lesson, did introduce an enforcement only measure which quickly gathered over a hundred co-sponsors.) ... Democrats got an energy bill, but not the one they envisioned. In June and again this month Republicans refused to agree to a bill that would have resulted in millions in new taxes for energy companies. Republican also achieved outright wins: a seven year extension of the internet tax ban and utter rejection of Charlie Rangel’s “mother of all tax bills” (which never received so much as a committee vote) that would have “solved” the alternative minimum tax issue by raising billions in new taxes. Democrats cherished “Pay Go” (their self imposed rule that all tax reductions must be “paid for”) just went.

And why did all of this happen?

First, the Democrats badly misinterpreted the results of the 2006 election. Had the vast majority of the country wanted amnesty, defeat in Iraq, socialized medicine and the like, the elected representatives in Congress on both sides of the aisle would have felt the heat and voted accordingly. Second, divided government may be a powerful argument for the GOP presidential nominee. If it were not for the presidential veto -- actual or threatened -- much of the Democratic agenda could well have slipped through. The GOP nominee will be greatly aided by a simple argument: “Do you want Nancy and Harry to have their way?” Finally, Republicans do best when they do not “split the baby” (e.g. give Rangel half of his tax increases) but instead say “no” and force Democrats to vote on measures unpalatable to most voters. In that regard, 2006 may have made 2008 a far easier year -- provided Republicans stick to their guns for one more year.

You can access Jennifer's complete column on-line here:

Democrats' 2007 Report Card
Jennifer Rubin
Human Events Online
December 21, 2007

And more evidence of a deserved 'F' comes from the Associated Press:

President Bush, successful in forcing the Democratic Congress to bend to his will, complained Thursday that lawmakers had wasted time and taxpayers' money. His aggressive stand set a confrontational tone for Bush's final year in the White House. Bush used a year-end news conference to scold lawmakers for stuffing 9,800 special-interest projects into a $550 billion spending measure. He directed his budget director to explore how to erase what Bush considers wasteful spending. What began as a troubling year for Bush, facing a new, energetic Democratic Congress, ended in triumph for the president as frustrated Democrats nursed their losses. Democrats failed in their No. 1 objective to stop the war in Iraq and bowed to Bush and his veto threats on tax policies, energy legislation, children's health insurance and general spending.

I seem to recall the Dems claiming back in 2004 and later on that President Bush was "stupid" or "dumb" or "not intelligent enough" for the Presidency.

Well, maybe someone should add up the collective IQs of the Dems in Congress and compare it to the IQ of President Bush, and then answer why the Dems lost so many intellectual fights.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Bush Says Congress Wasting Time, Money
Terrence Hunt
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
December 21, 2007