Now that it appears Romney will be our nominee I have little hope of taking the White House this election year.

So instead our efforts should move to taking the Senate and keeping the House to ensure that anything Obama tries to do in his continuing destruction of this country is stopped dead in its tracks.

So far we are not in bad shape. In the Senate currently there are 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans and 2 Independents (who should be counted as Democrats since they always vote with the Dem’s) so 53 to 47. 23 Democrats and 10 Republicans have their seats up this year so it’s quite possible we could take the Senate.

Real Clear Politics has the Democrats holding 46 seats, the Republicans holding 46 seats and 8 that are in play. Those being Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Montana is looking good:

Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg holds his largest lead yet over Democratic incumbent Jon Tester in Montana’s U.S. Senate race.

A new statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Rehberg ahead of Tester 53% to 43%. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and another two percent (2%) are undecided.

So is Nevada:

Incumbent Republican Senator Dean Heller has crossed the 50% mark of support against his likeliest Democratic challenger in his bid for election to his first full term in Nevada.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Nevada finds Heller picking up 51% of the vote against Congresswoman Shelley Berkley who draws 40% support. Just two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided.

In Florida the Republicans are still battling to see who will go up against incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson. Right now the numbers don’t look good but once the nominee is settled we should get a better handle on that State.

I haven’t seen much polling for Maine but the last one, which is a month old, shows the Independent King leading Republican Summers 56% to 22%. The Democrat running, Matt Dunlap is only polling at 12%. No idea if King will caucus with Republicans or Democrats however. That’s an important question since it looks like a landslide.

Massachusetts shows a slight lead by the Republican Scott Brown over Elisabeth Warren but with the latest gaffe from Warren we might be seeing a larger lead opening up. The Boston Globe has Brown over Warren by 2 and the Western New England University Polling Institute has him winning by 8.

In Missouri Democrat McCaskill is tied or behind each of her Republican challengers.

Virginia is close:

Virginia has become a very purple state that currently experiences small perturbations between reddish purple and blueish purple. While this only became apparent to some as a result of the 2006 and 2008 elections, it has been in the making for ten years and has accelerated over the last five. It is now fair to say, I believe, that Virginia has become a reasonable microcosm of the nation when you consider its rural Southern demographics combined with its bastions of younger, upscale educated professionals in its northern D.C. suburbs, it’s six-figure income families in the exurbs and outer-suburbs, the large middle class region of the Tidewater area, and a healthy portion of ethnic and racial minorities. The demographic trends are, and have been for some time, in favor of all but the rural Southern component. This has turned the state very purple and threatens to turn it blueish purple to light blue unless the GOP conducts itself in a manner acceptable to the growing demographic sectors and thus focuses on core issues of upward mobility, fiscal responsibility, and competent, prudent management of the government.

All of this is currently reflected in the standings of the presidential contest and the US Senate race. Most all polling to date shows Allen and Kaine essentially tied in the Senate contest

And finally in Wisconsin there are Democrats still battling it out to find out who will challenge Republican Scott Brown. So far it looks good:

Scott Walker (R-inc): 50
Tom Barrett (D): 45

Scott Walker (R-inc): 50
Kathleen Falk (D): 43

Scott Walker (R-inc): 51
Doug La Follette (D): 40

Scott Walker (R-inc): 50
Kathleen Vinehout (D): 38

Finally InTrade has the Republicans taking the Senate at 63%.

It’s going to be close, close, close and just one more reason we need to start focusing our time and effort on getting the Republican candidates over the top.

Jose Rodriguez challenges the Obama narrative on “The Path to Osama bin Laden’s Death” in a WaPo op-ed today and is also challenged by Senate Democrats involved in a 3-yr long investigation due to be released sometime in the near future. You can read Senators Feinstein and Levin’s joint statement here.

Rodriguez’s op-ed:

The truth is that getting bin Laden was the top counterterrorism objective for U.S. intelligence since well before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. This administration built on work pain­stakingly pursued for many years before Obama was elected — and without this work, Obama administration officials never would have been in a position to authorize the strike on Abbottabad, Pakistan, that resulted in bin Laden’s overdue death.

Read the rest. Rodriguez credits the Obama administration (as they pat themselves on the back this week) for bringing the U.S. blowback against al-Qaeda and bin Laden to its rightful conclusion; but reminds that the groundwork that was laid began long before President Obama entered into office.

Isn’t that obvious?

Rodriguez on Fox & Friends this morning:

On Hannity:

I believe Rodriguez is also scheduled for the Michael Medved Show today, the Bill Bennett Show, CNN’s Situation Room on May 1, Imus in the Morning, Andrea Mitchell Reports on May 2 and Morning Joe, The O’Reilly Factor and Lou Dobbs on May 3

Without a doubt one of the two must underrated sites on the internet is Intellectual Takeout. It’s a place where questions are answered filtering out the bias of the political spectrum. I love this site for the challenges it presents to its readers to think beyond themselves and their world view. A few days ago I stumbled upon a gem. It goes a long way into understanding what is bubbling in the belly of the Conservative political gut. It takes on Capitalism as preached by those in power and Capitalism as understood by the conservative/libertarian voter. They are definitely not the same animal.

The article “Free Market Capitalism vs. Crony Capitalism” explores the difference and may be a look into the problem the Republican Party has in making inroads to Tea Party and Libertarian voters. They instinctively know the difference, while the Republican Party doesn’t seem to be able to acknowledge any difference at all. A quote from the article;

Unlike in a free market capitalist system, under crony capitalism it is often more profitable for businesses to spend resources lobbying legislators for handouts in the form of grants, loans, or tax advantages, and protections against competition in order to increase their profits. In turn, the government’s willingness to hand out special privileges promotes the politically well-connected rather than those who seek to earn the preference of investors and consumers based on merit.

The one failure of the article is that it moves forward citing demands by Occupy Wall Street protests as the only ones who understand the difference and are the only ones challenging this status-quo. That could not be further from the truth. The fact is that these people are Johnny Come Lately’s to the fight.

The Tea Party and Libertarians have been fighting Crony Capitalism for at least 3 years now. Some even longer. It’s not that Tea Party/Libertarian leaning people want others to be taxed at a higher rate or be regulated out of existence. It’s the influence of Crony Capitalism on policy and uses of elected officials to gain advantages single voters have no chance of getting that is the difference. Let us face facts, who is a politician going to be most influenced by:

A K Street lobbying firm who has resources bundling millions of dollars for a politicians election and also has members working inside these election campaigns. Some of these people are previous politicians who know the game, the players, and what it takes to get favorable policy passed.

Joe and Jane Doe who give what little they can afford because they believe in the promises of the politician at the time.

To pretend that there is no difference between the two examples is willful ignorance. This difference is what is holding back usually staunch Republicans and Conservatives from giving enthusiastic support to the party’s nominees. Most self-described Tea Party/Libertarians see this as fundamental to the reason why the government is broken, will not be fixed any time soon, and will continue to only get worse until people willing to make substantive change are able to be elected. Crony Capitalism has long ago been pointed out by these people as not a symptom of what ails our government, but its root cause. The promises of the Republican Party of fixing what is broke rings hollow to more and more people of conservative foundations. They are considered just as guilty of using Crony Capitalism as the Democrats party. Democrats use unions; Republicans use special interest lobbying firms. Both addicted to the money both of these entities provide in keeping them in power. Crony Capitalism is as far from Free Market Capitalism as football is to baseball. The only similarity is that they are both games that happen to share the same word.

The Republican Party has tried to condemn anyone who attacks the inbred form of Crony Capitalism they practice as an attack on Free Market Capitalism. They cannot allow there to be a distinction of the two and for years they were able to do so. Until the age of the internet. That has changed everything.

People now have a wealth of information literally at their fingertips. One of the most valuable things that the internet provides is a quick reference to voting histories, donation histories, promises made, and promises not kept. The line between Crony and Free Market Capitalism is not as easy to blur as it once was and is becoming clearer and clearer each election cycle. The history of promises and who gets the attention of politicians is able to plotted and viewed. People are designed to recognize patterns. It’s ingrained into our sub-conscious. It’s a function that we cannot escape or avoid. And patterns are forming. The pattern of Crony Capitalism is forever trending upward and the pattern for Free Market Capitalism is trending in its opposite direction.

Why?

P.S. The other most underrated site on the internet surely is Flopping Aces. I would be a fool to say otherwise for so many reasons.

How many people marry the first person they ever kiss or date or even have sex with? Not that many. The average age an American loses their virginity is 17 while the average age they get married is 27. Nonetheless, despite a decade in the dating pool, experiencing everything from one night stands to years of living with someone, when people finally take the plunge, half of all marriages end up in divorce.

There are lots of things that one might take from that observation, but the thing that is most compelling is that despite their best efforts, people are not perfect. They make mistakes. After spending the first 10 years of their adult lives trying to get it right for what is arguably the most important decision of their lives, half the population still gets it wrong and asks for a “do over”. Despite all efforts to make a good decision, half the time we get it wrong. And that’s with everyone involved seeking a common goal!

So the question is: If, with everyone involved seeking to do what’s in their and their partner’s best interests, we get it wrong half the time, how often does government, with its myriad players involved, many promoting conflicting, even mutually exclusive positions, get things wrong? No doubt far more often that individuals earnestly seeking a lifetime of happiness.

Unfortunately with government, unlike marriage, rarely, even in the face of abject failure, does a law or regulation get thrown out. Once a law is on the books, they almost never come off regardless of their cost or efficacy. Of course if it were only a few laws there wouldn’t be much of a problem. It’s not a few. In terms of actual federal laws, today there are somewhere in excess of 20,000 on the books. That is nothing when compared with the regulations those laws have spawned.

The Code of Federal Regulations is the list of all of the regulations of the United States – which are based on the bills passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. Today the Code contains over 150,000 pages of regulations. And those regulations are growing fast. In 1970, 183 years after the Constitution was ratified, the Code contained 53,000 pages. Today, a mere 40 years later we’ve actually added 100,000 more. And the pace is actually increasing and becoming more onerous.

If these regulations had little impact on our lives it wouldn’t matter if there were millions of them. Unfortunately their impact is anything but little. Federal regulations alone (and there are lots more laws at the local level) cost Americans over $1 trillion per year, or approximately 7% of our GDP and more than we actually pay in income taxes. And those are just the direct impact costs. Imagine how many companies are never started, how many would be entrepreneurs settle for secure government jobs, or how many companies fail because of the phalanx of federal regulations? No doubt the number is huge.

This leviathan of government regulation is made all the more worse because it has spawned an army of millions of federal government employees and lobbyists, none of whom wants to put themselves out of work. The intractable problem of government growth and increasing regulation will not solve itself. It’s going to take brute Constitutional force.

A Constitutional Amendment should be passed that states that all federal laws have an implicit sunset provision of 10 years unless it passes each house of Congress by at least 60%. It would also stipulate that all federal regulations would sunset after 10 years, regardless of the margin of passage of the underlying law. The effect of this Amendment would be a greatly diminished the number of zombie like federal regulations that never die, regardless of their cost, efficacy or unintended consequences. Each sub 60% law would have to be re-authorized each decade.

The most obvious impact of this change would be that politicians and bureaucrats would no longer be able to spin yarns about milk and honey without any accountability. At the time of reconsideration, each sub 60% bill (or every regulation) would have a decade’s worth of hard data to analyze, making it far more difficult to hoodwink the public with rosy scenarios that have no basis in reality. The beauty of this proposal is that it would force legislators and regulators to defend a law’s actual results rather than opine on its promised virtues. Given that most government programs cost more than projected, rarely work as promised, and often have significant unintended consequences, a decade should be a long enough time to inflict any law or regulation on the country and her citizens.

This proposed Amendment would apply to all existing laws and regulations, giving each 10 years from the day of ratification before it expired. The result of this would be immediate and twofold: It would dramatically slow the growth of government and regulations while simultaneously beginning to make government more efficient. By forcing politicians and bureaucrats to focus on defending their existing laws and regulations (AKA power) it would immediately diminish their incentive to create new programs. At the same time, given that politicians and bureaucrats would have to argue against a law’s or a regulation’s actual consequences rather than it’s promised benefits, it would force them to focus their attention on producing demonstratively positive results rather than just spending more money or accumulating more power.

In the Omega Glory episode of Star Trek Captain Kirk and company come upon a planet where the inhabitants are speaking the garbled versions of the words of the preamble to the Constitution. The people don’t know the actual words or even what they mean but do so because that was what has survived through the generations. In a similar way, when laws and regulations (and the bureaucracy they spawn) calcify and become completely detached from the original goal for which they were established, they cease to be proper tools of government and instead become simply another instrument of government power and coercion. By putting in place a mechanism for objectively evaluating the success or failure of government actions in relation to the problems they were intended to address, this Amendment would both demand real accountability on the part of government as well as give citizens a reason to remain engaged in its workings.

I can think of no better mechanism for putting Thomas Jefferson’s words into action:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

So Paul Ryan releases his budget proposal and the Democrats get hysterical:

1. Our food won’t be the same: “The cuts to domestic spending, if applied across the board, would lead to fewer food inspectors, fewer air-traffic controllers, and so forth. That would mean more delays and cases of food poisoning, and so forth.” (Brad Plumer)

2. It’s savagery: “Over the medium term, of course, it’s a plan to savage the poor while giving big tax breaks to the rich.” (Paul Krugman)

3. Scrooge-esque: “Deficit reduction does not require the Scrooge-like, Gilded-Age policies that the Ryan plan embodies.” (Center for Responsible Budget Politics)

4. The end of democracy: “The amendment would require a two-thirds majority to raise taxes, giving a right-wing minority veto power over any tax increases. Goodbye, majority rule. This is all extreme and irresponsible stuff. The president knows it.” (E. J. Dionne)

5. Designed to fight Occupy Wall Street: “It cuts taxes for those at the top, asking the middle class to pick up the tab. It’s a budget designed to benefit the top 1 percent at everyone else’s expense.” (Daniel J. Weiss)

6. Less vacations: “If the Ryan budget somehow became reality then you might have to give up on college and avoid air travel — assuming you survived the food poisoning and killer diseases.” (Jonathan Cohn)

Much more at the link….oh, and how could we forget the always loony, always hateful Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:

Ratcheting up the rhetoric on the eve of Vice President Joe Biden‘s visit to a South Florida senior community, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz today likened Republican Medicare proposals to “a tornado through America’s nursing homes.” …

Said Wasserman Schultz: “The Romney-Ryan budget would be devastating to seniors and older Americans. It is a Republican path to poverty that would pass like a tornado through America’s nursing homes where millions of America’s seniors receive long-term and end-of-life care.”

The Ryan plan — which has no chance of passing the Democrat-controlled Senate — would leave Medicare intact for current recipients and those nearing retirement. But when those who are now 54 and younger reach retirement, the plan would replace the current fee-for-service program with subsidies to purchase insurance.

Does that sound familiar? It should. She used the same line for Ryan’s budget proposal last year:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) comments on Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget proposal for FY 2012. “Representing a large number of seniors in south Florida, I can tell you that this budget would be devastating for seniors and older Americans. This Republican path to poverty passes like a tornado through America’s nursing homes, where millions of America’s seniors receive long-term and end of life care,” [she] said.

And it was just as untrue last year as it is this year. His budget doesn’t affect ANY current seniors. It won’t affect seniors in nursing homes or anywhere else. Her rhetoric, and those of her cohorts, is just plain ole demagoguery at its worst.

Some conservatives don’t like the plan because it doesn’t cut enough, fast enough. That is a valid complaint. But it does make cuts, some 97 billion in the next fiscal year, and it reduces spending over the long term. While 97 billion is a drop in the bucket, at least it’s a proposal. At least it tries to get us on a path of reduced spending. Yes, I would rather have more cuts in spending up front but if Congress and this Administration were to implement it at least we would be on some kind of path to reduce spending. We are on the opposite trajectory at the moment so this is better than the alternative…that being Obama’s budget:

His budget boldly calls for more than doubling taxes on capital gains and dividends, and extracting more wealth from the very successful people who create private-sector jobs. He offers little reform to a corrupt tax code, and continues to give unelected bureaucrats and federal regulators more power over our individual and corporate lives.

While the Obama budget does project reductions in deficit spending over the next two years, deficits begin to grow again thereafter, largely because the president chooses not to take on the reform of entitlement programs. In the Obama budget’s own words, the government’s fiscal position “gradually deteriorates” beyond 2022.

Compare and contrast:

…the Ryan budget makes some hard choices. More than $5 trillion in spending is cut from the federal budget over 10 years. Power is returned to the states. Market choice and competition are introduced to Medicare. Corporate tax rates are cut to 25 percent from 35 percent to be competitive with other countries. Individual taxes are simplified, and tax brackets reduced from five to two – 10 and 25 percent – by eliminating loopholes and most deductions. Ryan’s tax and regulatory reforms are structured to restore incentives for capital formation, job creation and economic growth. In Ryan’s words, “Our budget returns power to individuals, families and communities … We put our trust in citizens, not government.”

“We put our trust in citizens, not government”

This kind of thinking is badly needed right about now as the Democrats do everything within their power to do the opposite. Punishing those who create jobs is NOT the way to balance a budget. It’s the way to our country’s ruin.

The Paternal Instinct Of A Father

Apparently, he is worried about his daughters and the world they will live in as adults. I am sure he will want them to be Elites in the Marxist Utopian dreams he has envisioned, it is so much better than that dreadful poverty the rest of us will be trapped in, but one thing for sure, he will want them to be respected by men and the public. The thought of public disrespect directed towards them or women in general, is too horrible to think about. That is why he has called Ms Fluke, the woman who attends an expensive Jesuit law school, but can’t afford or can’t date someone with enough sense to afford contraception.

But life has some harsh realities. Ms Fluke the political activist, might think back to the Madam of the local whore house telling the hormone enraged teenage boy, “If you want to play, Sweetie, you must pay.” She could have told him to take a cold shower or to put a rubber band around it, but she offered sage advice to a young boy on the threshold of manhood, very useful advice. Perhaps the same advice President Obama should be giving his daughters if he wasn’t a Marxist; for it would be much more likely to help them and prepare them for the future, than the Marxist refrain, the government provides so don’t sweat it.

Unfortunately, Progressive Marxists are quick to disrespect women, a habit that will come back to haunt them in a few months; since Obama, and other self-righteous Progressive Marxists find it perfectly acceptable to have a comedienne stand up and talk about Palin showing up at the Republican convention in this manner, “holding a baby that just came out of her f*cking disgusting c*nt, her f*cking retard-making c*nt.” Now some of us might take exception to the language; especially, since Obama seems to think that the mentally handicapped are fair game for humor. I suppose that is part of the Leftist perversions that are generally considered acceptable among the loyal; in essence, being mean spirited to those who can’t fend for themselves. One of the most notable Socialists, Adolf Hitler had a special mean interest in these “Retards” as well; except, he took meanness toward “Retards” one step farther.

There are others who might take offense at the vulgar language this Leftist comedienne used to degrade all women, since to use the expressions in referring to a political opponent, with official impunity, makes it acceptable for all Progressive Marxists to degrade women: but on the flip side, it also becomes acceptable to refer to Michelle and her daughters using the same language; after all, didn’t Obama give it his tacit approval by not condemning this sewer language from two of his loyal Hollywood supporters, Louis C.K. the nimble mind who came up with the quote in the previous paragraph and Bill Maher, who called Palin a f*cking c*nt and a tw*t. As a standing rule, I never use such foul language, nor do I allow it to be used in my company. If I hate someone that much, we can step into the ring. But these gutter rats find it cute and a way to build a fan base, and our president doesn’t mind in the least; especially, since Maher gave him a million dollars. However, there are two major problems, that become patently obvious as a result of this classless public discourse: first is the complete lack of class among the Progressive Marxists who listen to these degenerates, second is the classless president who condones this vile tasteless behavior, so reminiscent of the squalor and degeneracy of the lowest constituencies he represents. He has now brought the language of the ghetto to the highest levels of political discourse. Oh, but why take offense, he is the one who has approved this new level of discourse by not condemning the language of his loyal supporters.

In the past, I would have stood up for the president and his family, not because I like them, but because I once had respect for the office; however, if someone wants to refer to Michelle and her reproductive parts being in some foul condition, have at it. You won’t get a fist up side your head from me. No sir, our president likes and approves of that kind of gutter talk, he is obviously capable of dealing with it, so do your worst; all you will get from me is a smile. President Obama has set the standard and the standard is in the sewers.

As of today, it has been 1,028 days since the U.S. Senate last passed a budget.

That’s about 20 dog years.

Imagine if you were employed in a business where one of your duties was to plan an annual budget for each upcoming year and you just decided you weren’t going to do it.  And 1,028 days later, you still had not done it.  Assuming your employer hadn’t already canned, assuredly you would lose your job after such a long failure.  If you are a Democratic Senator, however, you not only keep your job because a majority of the people still vote for you, you get greater influence and power.

To give you an idea of how long 1,028 days is, let’s look at some historical events. Since the Senate last passed a budget on April 29, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV campaigned for 20 months, was reelected to the Senate and has served more than a year since his reelection. The entire Lewis and Clark expedition in the Pacific Northwest took 862 days. John F. Kennedy served 1,036 days as president before he was assassinated, only 10 more days than the Senate’s current budget failure. The Korean War lasted 1,128 days until the armistice ceased active hostilities.

If ever there was a time for Congress to address the fiscal federal government crisis, this is it. And yet the Senate continues its intransigence even going so far as to say the Budget Control Act passed last year to deal with the debt ceiling is enough. That’s like saying it is just as acceptable for you to increase unilaterally and without any analysis your annual household budget expenditures and borrow the extra money to pay for the increase, as it is for you to actually review your income and expenditures and craft a budget based on the numbers. That might work for a year or so, but 1,028 days is far too long especially given our national debt and deficit crises, the increasingly risk to our nation’s credit rating and currency valuation, and the stagnant economy.

One big reason why we see this is most senators know their constituents will never vote them out. Do you think of senators like Reid, Kerry, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Durbin, Murray, and Mikulski fear losing their seats?  They and their liberal brethren might as well have life-time appointments given their constituencies.  Before you point out Senator Scott Brown, R-MA taking over for Ted Kennedy, he is a rare exception who had to wait until Kennedy died–after Kennedy served in the Senate for several decades. And Brown has turned out to be a Massachusetts moderate who will doubtless face a serious election challenge from the left.  So the Senate will continue not doing its job and liberals will continue to accuse Republicans of leading a “do nothing Congress.”

Now that’s chutzpah.

I have little confidence that Reid and his cronies will act with any degree of fiscal responsibility. Given President Obama’s sorry excuse for a budget proposal–not to mention his penchant for profligate spending–I have no confidence in him either. Frankly, I also don’t have much confidence in Republican House and Senate members either, outside of the few who are truly committed to cutting spending, lowering taxes and reducing the size and scope of the federal government.  Meanwhile, our state and local governments are stretched increasingly thinner as the federal government takes more money, mandates more restrictions and curtails people’s freedoms.  What is largely missing from the federal government’s current operating structure is a designated place at the table for the state governments to have their interests considered in the process of national governing and budgeting.

There is a crisis in the Senate that must be changed.  Now is time to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.

The Seventeenth Amendment states in essence that senators are to be elected by popular vote. Previously, Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution vested in each state legislature the power to appoint its two senators.  Now if you are conservative, and tend to favor a smaller, decentralized federal government with more power, liberty and freedom in the hands of individuals and state and local governments, you might question the wisdom or merits of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment since it gives additional power to voters. Yes, the power ended up with the people but it was taken from the state legislatures, leaving the states with no institutionalized legislative voice at the federal level.

When the Founding Fathers were considering language for our Constitution regarding the make up, function and election of legislators, they debated the issue of how to balance federal and state sovereignty while ensuring federal and state governments would function with an appropriate degree of interdependency.  In Federalist No. 59, Alexander Hamilton described this balancing act with recognition of concerns that states could shut down the Senate if given the authority to appoint senators.  Hamilton concluded that vesting power in state legislatures to appoint senators was “an evil; but it is an evil which could not have been avoided without excluding the States, in their political capacities, wholly from a place in the organization of the national government.”  In other words, states would have no political place in the federal government absent their power to appoint legislative representatives.

Hamilton’s concerns were well founded in the late 1780s.  Northern free states and southern slave states distrusted each others motives and wanted to ensure equal power sharing.  Sparsely populated states were concerned about the influence that more heavily populated states like New York would have if Congress had two houses with straight proportional representation.  States with no claims to western lands feared losing clout to those with potential to expand territory westward.  Reflecting the political climate, the Founding Fathers feared one or more states could effectively stall the Senate by refusing to appoint one or both of its senators.  However, Hamilton argued that giving states the power to appoint House members every two years, instead of senators every six years, would mean, “every period of making [the House appointments] would be a delicate crisis in the national situation,” potentially resulting in the dissolution of the Union. With state representation considered vital, the best place for it was the Senate.

James Madison also addressed the issue in Federalist No. 62.  Madison did not spend much time on the topic but simply recognized that state legislative power to appoint senators is, “probably the most congenial [option] with the public opinion.”  He continued noting, “It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.”

This represents a small example of the astounding brilliance of the Founding Fathers.  Learned men of faith were attempting to invent a system of governance that divided power among federal, state and local governments, and the people, and strike the proper balance among them all.  And this issue shows their concern for all parties with a solution that struck just such a balance.  The senate would give each state government equal representation in the federal government to provide a balance against federal tyranny and, as Constitutional Convention delegate Edmund Randolph put it, “to restrain, if possible, the fury of democracy” that could arise from the House.

Vesting power in state legislatures to elect senators was not, however, without potential problem.  Possible corruption loomed largest as the founders wondered whether senate positions would be bought and sold.  The other primary issues were possible state collaboration to thwart Senate function and individual state legislatures deadlocking on choosing senators.  None of these potential problems manifested to any significant degree to disrupt the Senate in its first century.

Meanwhile, the push to reform senate elections sputtered for more than a century.  Many state legislatures had passed laws for the people to vote for Senate candidates in a non-binding advisory capacity.  There developed a perception that the Senate was becoming out of touch with the people and increasingly “aristocratic.”  As populism and progressive politics continued to rise in the early twentieth century, the states ultimately ceded their authority to the people by ratifying the Seventeenth Amendment and creating two “peoples” houses in Washington.

For the last century, the states have no legislative branch to represent their interests and check federal power.  As a result, the balance of power has tipped dramatically in favor of federal government power.  We see this in countless federal legislative acts throughout the last century including, for example, FDR’s New Deal programs and more recently Obamacare.

Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment will restore governmental balance.  It will not fix all of the Senate’s problems over night but it would be a huge step forward.

Could state legislatures of today “buy and sell” Senate seats if they are returned power? Yes, but the current system is not immune from this type of corruption.  One need only look at disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) to see a recent example.  Could states refuse to appoint senators or band together to bring Senate business to a halt?  Yes, but the differences between states today in our fully developed nation are miniscule compared to the real disputes over slavery, territorial expansion and influence that existed 230 years ago.  Could the Senate become an “aristocratic” body if the legislatures elect them?  Frankly, it already has.  It is hard to imagine a more aristrocratic legislative body than our current Senate.  Many of the members listed above are among the wealthiest people in America and scores of senators of both parties accumulated their wealth while serving in the Senate.

Our economic crisis is so severe, the federal government’s power so large and unwieldy, its taxing, spending and borrowing so extravagant, that the balance of power must be reestablished.  Term limits might help but even popularly elected, term-limited senators would not have motivation to represent their state government’s interests.  It’s still the people who vote.  Change can only come if senators are accountable to their respective state governments.  Only then can the states act again as an effective counterweight to federal power. 

The people have their voices represented in the House.  Representatives are elected every two years so the people do not have to wait long to “throw the bum out” if they choose.  A Senate that goes 1,028 days without a budget is irretrieveably broken and unresponsive to either the people that elect them every six years or the states that are supposed to share government power with the feds.  It’s time for the states to regain their place of influence the way the Founding Fathers so brilliantly intended.

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.  And impose term limits while your at it.

He and Pelosi and Hoyer and Waxman and the rest of the execrable democrats.

Much has been made about Mitt Romney’s income tax rate and it’s all the same. Sure he’s done nothing illegal but shame on Romney for paying what he owes. It’s his fault. He’s hiding something.

Romney’s tax rate unfair

Mitt Romney’s taxes make him the poster boy for unfair ‘carried interest’ rates

The NY Times cannot resist dunning Romney

The 1% and That 15%

Mr. Romney does not have to apologize for his wealth. But he cannot keep trying to conceal just how much the tax code has been tilted in his favor.

“in his favor”- and in no one else’s favor.

Mitt Romney, Tax Loophole Exploiter-in-Chief

Romney wealth puts him in top 1%

The notorious tax cheat Al Sharpton criticizes Romney:

Click here to view the embedded video.

You’d think Romney wrote the tax code himself.

But it’s not his fault. It’s Obama’s fault, along with all the democrats.

This tax rate was never an issue for democrats when John Kerry paid 13.9% in 2003. No democrat stood up and said Kerry’s tax rate was unfair.

How about Romney’s “off shore” money?

How about John Kerry’s off shore money?

Documents obtained by the Globe detail John Kerry’s 1983 investment of between $25,000 and $30,000 in offshore companies registered in the Cayman Islands. The document below, signed by Kerry, shows his pledge to purchase 2,470 shares of Peabody Commodities Trading Corp. through Sytel Traders, registered in the Caymans.

How about Apple’s off shore money?

Apple may have enough cash on hand to make Scrooge McDuck’s money vault look like a kiddie pool by comparison, but according to SeekingAlpha, most of that cash is effectively trapped overseas. US$54 billion of Apple’s overall $82 billion in cash is in offshore accounts, and Apple cannot repatriate that money to the States unless it wants to pay a huge 35 percent corporate tax on it.

If Apple attempted to bring that money into the States, right off the bat through the magic of taxes that $54 billion would transform into $35.1 billion, with the other $18.9 billion disappearing down the federal money hole. With that much cash at stake, it’s no wonder that Apple hasn’t been in any hurry to repatriate its huge foreign cash reserves.

But never mind all this odious hypocrisy. Who’s fault is this tax rate?

It’s Barack Obama’s fault.

It’s Nancy Pelosi’s fault.

It’s Harry Reid’s fault.

For the first two years of the Obama Presidency, democrats controlled all three parts of the government. democrats owned a supermajority from June 2009 to February 2010. Obamacare was passed via reconciliation.

democrats were too busy trying to destroy health care and finding green energy companies who would lose billions of taxpayer dollars to be concerned with Romney’s tax rate.

They owned Congress. They could have fixed this. They didn’t.

So shut up.

Dennis Kucinich is arguably one of the most anti-American members of the United States Congress and seems continuously determined to prove it. He has introduced a plan to regulate oil company profits- or, rather to prevent them.

Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a “Reasonable Profits Board” to control gas profits.

The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a “windfall profit tax” as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.

The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding “a reasonable profit.” It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.

No one from the industry will have a say in what is “reasonable.”

The bill would also seem to exclude industry representatives from the board, as it says members “shall have no financial interests in any of the businesses for which reasonable profits are determined by the Board.”

The funds seized from the oil companies would be thrown down the “alternative” toilet

According to the bill, a windfall tax of 50 percent would be applied when the sale of oil or gas leads to a profit of between 100 percent and 102 percent of a reasonable profit. The windfall tax would jump to 75 percent when the profit is between 102 and 105 percent of a reasonable profit, and above that, the windfall tax would be 100 percent. The bill also specifies that the oil-and-gas companies, as the seller, would have to pay this tax.

Kucinich said these tax revenues would be used to fund alternative transportation programs when oil-and-gas prices spike.

Those supportive of this legislation are the usual brain dead groups:

Co-sponsoring the bill are five other Democrats: Reps. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), Bob Filner (Calif.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio), Jim Langevin (R.I.), and Lynn Woolsey (Calif.).

There is no doubt that were this effort to succeed, it would be only the tip of the spear into the heart of American business and industry. Democrats would love nothing better than to impose regulations on the profits of all business in the US, deeming what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. And you would have absolutely no voice for your business.

Kucinich’s umbrage is nothing but pure idiocy. Oil company profits rise with the price of oil and no one has pushed the price of oil higher than Barack Obama. He’s said no to every single energy proposal that would succeed and has forced us all to pay for those which have all failed.

If one wanted to limit oil company profits, one would push the price of oil down, not up. If one takes away incentive to produce more oil as Kucinich would seize all the profits, one would have no incentive to provide more oil domestically.

That’d be a fun time.

Keith Koffler has let us know that Barack Obama is taking 2012 off from Congress:

“In terms of the president’s relationship with Congress in 2012,” Mr. Earnest said at a briefing, “the president is no longer tied to Washington, DC”

Obama has decided that being President is simply not good enough and has appointed himself King.

But when Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them. I’ve got an obligation to act on behalf of the American people. And I’m not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people that we were elected to serve. Not with so much at stake, not at this make-or-break moment for middle-class Americans. We’re not going to let that happen.

No you don’t, sparky. James Madison, Federalist 47:

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body,” says he, “there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.”

Some of my fellow authors here tend to dismiss my concerns of the abuse of power by Obama, but I am undeterred. Not long ago Obama said this

“Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works,”

Paging Jim Geraghty!

Nothing Barack Obama says at any time has any meaningfulness or durability. Nothing.

As my son points out to me- if Obama is this brash in his first term, what would a second term bring???