RSS

Category Archives: Free Market

Akin: Another Snare Drum In Left’s Anti-Free Market Drumbeat

The left-wing media is all a-twitter over comments made by Todd Akin regarding equal pay for women in the workplace. Of course, the left ignores reality and facts in their latest emotion-based legislation, so they can use it as a drumbeat to attack Conservative candidates and falsify their headlines.

When asked if women should make the same salary as men, Todd simply makes the most correct and obvious answer that a free-market transaction between two parties should decide the rate at which a given person is paid, and THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD STAY OUT OF IT!

Here’s one of the articles.

 

Look at this example.  Sally and Julia take the same administrative HR job with Acme, Inc.  All other things being equal, Sally chooses not to have children, averages 42 hours of work per week and misses an average of 2 days per year above her scheduled vacation.  Julia has three children, averages 35 hours per week and misses 13 days per year above her scheduled vacation.

Does the left really believe that the Federal Government should tell the business to pay Sally and Julia at the same rate?  Why does it matter when Sally is Stan?  How is that any different?

But that’s just it.  The Left doesn’t believe in the Free-Market, just like the Left doesn’t believe in Freedom.

Vote Conservative!

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 29, 2012 in Economy, Free Market, Liberals

 

Tags: , ,

One Thing Jo Ann Emerson and Barack Obama Have In Common…

…both are running away from their records in Washington, DC.

h/t wikipedia.orgSadly, that’s not the only thing.

Like Obama’s attack on Bain Capital, Emerson’s campaign is disingenuously attacking her opponent over a comment regarding the failed Federal war on drugs.  So, you have to ask the following question:

“Does Bob Parker advocate that laws should be changed such that residents of MO-8 can go out and buy marijuana for recreational use?”

No one in Emerson’s Campaign could honestly answer ‘yes’.  The Staff knows it’s not true.  Jim Limbaugh (Emerson’s Treasurer) knows it’s not true.  Jo Ann Emerson knows it’s not true.  As an answer to my question, I would get the same mumbo-jumbo-lawyer-approved argument that they hope will keep the voters’ focus off of the real issue in this election – her record.

The votes that Jo Ann casts are the most important things she does as a member of the House; it’s her record.  So, why does Jo Ann Emerson want to keep the focus off her record?

Simple:  Far too many of her votes are on the same side as Barack Obama*

  • On TARP (the bailout of the big banks) Jo Ann Emerson voted with Barack Obama.
  • On bailing out the corrupt AIG Insurance giant, Jo Ann Emerson voted with Barack Obama.
  • On allowing the VPs and Presidents and CEOs to still get bonuses at the bailed-out banks, Jo Ann Emerson voted with Barack Obama.
  • On exposing taxpayer dollars to failing union pensions, Jo Ann Emerson co-sponsored it (to the delight of Barack Obama).
  • On Cash for Clunkers, Jo Ann Emerson voted with Barack Obama.
  • On the NDAA, that allows the government to imprison American Citizens indefinitely without trial, Jo Ann Emerson voted with Barack Obama.
  • On funding the business-crushing EPA, Jo Ann Emerson voted with Barack Obama.
  • On funding the Department of Education that centrally controls our children’s future with big-government edicts, Jo Ann Emerson voted with Barack Obama.
  • On funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion factory, Jo Ann Emerson voted with Barack Obama.
  • On funding Dodd-Frank and its business-crushing regulations, Jo Ann Emerson voted with Barack Obama.
  • On violating the 72-hour Republican promise for voting on bills, Jo Ann Emerson voted with Barack Obama.
  • After the Tea Party and millions of Americans screamed ‘NO!’ to more spending… …on raising the debt ceiling and enslaving your children to $2.4 Trillion more debt and deficit spending, Jo Ann Emerson voted with Barack Obama.

Jo Ann Emerson repeatedly votes with Barack Obama, and considering that she made these votes in the face of a renewed Conservative and Tea Party microscope, she will continue to vote with Barack Obama if she is sent back.

The Heritage Foundation* has calculated a more than disappointing 44% Conservative rating for her Congressional Votes (Todd Akin = 82%).  And, the Madison Project put her top-3 most liberal Republican voting record into their Hall Of Shame.*

True Conservative?

In a recent flyer attacking her opponent, the claim is that she is the “TRUE Conservative”.  Really?  Ask yourself these questions:

  • Would a TRUE Conservative vote to fund the EPA?
  • Would a TRUE Conservative be the Vice Chair of Center Aisle Caucus?
  • Would a TRUE Conservative be a member of the liberal Main Street Partnership?
  • Would a TRUE Conservative be the Chair of the Tuesday Group, a meeting of House liberal Republicans?
  • Would a TRUE Conservative be a Founding Member of the Bipartisan Congressional Retreat?
  • Would a TRUE Conservative vote to fund the abortion factory that is Planned Parenthood?
  • Would a TRUE Conservative donate to the vile chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Shultz?
  • Would a TRUE Conservative vote for a $2.4 Trillion increase in taxes (debt ceiling)?

Clearly the answer is ‘No’ for each of these questions, yet your conservative Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson voted or is responsible for each of the items above.

Defending Jo Ann Emerson = Defending Barack Obama:

Would a TRUE Conservative stand tall in front their constituents and defend their record or hide behind semantic attacks on their opponent?  (Are we going to need a milk carton?)

You’ve seen the gotcha video of her opponent at a forum in Poplar Bluff, MO.  Have you seen grainy cell-phone video of Jo Ann Emerson being asked tough questions by 2 of her constituents at the same time in a back-and-forth forum?

No.

Why?

Because to stand in front of such a forum and defend her record on the items above, she’d have to defend many items on Barack Obama’s march-to-socialism agenda:

  • To defend her record, she’d be defending Barack Obama and her vote to fund his EPA that regulates carbon dioxide, spilled milk and ditches on our farms.
  • To defend her record, she’d be defending Barack Obama’s attacks on the unborn and her vote to fund Planned Parenthood’s baby killing machine.
  • To defend her record, she’d be defending Barack Obama and her vote to take $Billions$ from taxpayers and hand them over to insurance giant AIG.
  • To defend her record, she’d be defending Barack Obama and her Cash for Clunkers vote to support the GM / Chrysler bailout that, likely illegally, handed the companies over to the UAW.
  • To defend her record, she’d be defending Barack Obama’s big-spending-agenda and her vote to increase the national debt by $2.4 Trillion (a tax increase) that is the largest increase in the history of the nation (that’s $7,000+ of debt she voted to give to every child born in 2012).

Union Support:

If the Tea Party urged you to cross the aisle and vote for a Democrat primary candidate, obvious that candidate is the best option to vote for items on the Tea Party agenda.  Of course.

That is exactly what happened in 2010 when the IBEW Union sent a letter to their members urging them to, disingenuously,  cross the aisle vote for Jo Ann Emerson in that primary.

The letter stated, “Over the past few years, myself and other labor representatives in the area, have sought out labor friendly Republican Candidates who will support our agenda and protect the legislative safeguards such as prevailing wage, immigration laws etc. that allow us to keep a level playing field with the non-union contractors.” [Emphasis Added]

Prevailing Wage legislation is what removes the level playing field; it doesn’t create it.  In theory, unions are fine, but when they need special legislation to allow them to compete, they are not conducive to the Free Market that made this country great.  If they are so great, they should be able to compete in the Free Market w/o special legislative safeguards.

I haven’t seen a 2012 version of that letter, but I suspect, with her union pension bill co-sponsorship, the sentiment is the same as it was in 2010.

Don’t Complain:

I certainly urge everyone who reads this discussion to study the issues and vote their conscious.  This is not a diatribe against Jo Ann Emesron’s character or personality.  It is simply a look at her record on some of the most important votes of the last 4 years.

However…

  • If you do vote for Jo Ann Emerson, don’t complain about the EPA, because she will vote to fund it.
  • If you do vote for Jo Ann Emerson, don’t complain about Planned Parenthood, because she will vote to fund it.
  • If you do vote for Jo Ann Emerson, don’t complain about the National Debt, because she will vote to increase it.
  • If you do vote for Jo Ann Emerson, don’t complain about Dodd-Frank, because she will vote to fund it.
  • If you do vote for Jo Ann Emerson, don’t complain about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, because she will vote to keep it.

Summary:

You’ve heard the tired cliché that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.  Well, in southeast Missouri, surely we are not insane.

  • If you want more of the same in Washington, more spending, more big government, more business-strangling regulation, send Jo Ann Emerson back to Washington.
  • If you want far too many of your representative’s votes to support Barack Obama’s freedom crushing agenda, send Jo Ann Emerson Back to Washington.

For real change, if you want a Constitutional Conservative for a representative, you have to change who’s there.  If you want small and limited government, you have to change who’s there.

If you want to change Washington, you have to change who’s there.

If you want to change Washington, you have to change who’s there.

If you want to change Washington, you have to change who’s there.

The only way to change Washington… …is to change who’s there.

I like Jo Ann Emerson.  She has always been very nice to me, and Jo Ann Emerson is a fine woman.  She loves her country and cares about Missouri’s 8th District.

But, if a 16-year tenure is good enough for great TRUE Conservative Missouri State Representatives and Senators like Jason Crowell, Brian Nieves, Jane Cunningham and Jim Lembke, it’s good enough for our U.S. Congressional Representatives.

As the Chairman of the Cape County Tea Party, there was one vote that was most critical to me in the 112th Congress.  Jo Ann voted to raise the debt ceiling guaranteeing that the Federal Government would deficit-spend another $2.4 Trillion.  This is nothing more than a tax increase that you, me, our children, our grandchildren will have to pay for in countless measures of reduced standard of living.

This is the primary reason (along with others noted above) that I will vote this time for a chance to bring more a conservative voting record to our district; I will be voting for Bob Parker.

(This writing reflects my personal views and may or may not reflect the members of the Cape County Tea Party)

*Sources include:

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 22, 2012 in Congress, Conservative, Election, Free Market

 

Tags: , , , ,

Blunt Supports…

…everything the Healthcare Mandate was going to pay for, but not the Healthcare Mandate?!?

Michelle Malkin called out Senator Blunt:

(h/t TPM) GOP Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, vice chair of the Senate GOP Conference, told a St. Louis radio station two weeks ago that he supports keeping at least three ObamaCare regulatory pillars:

  • Federally imposed coverage of “children” up to age 26 on their parents’ health insurance policies (the infamous, unfunded “slacker mandate”)
  • Federally mandated coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions (“guaranteed issue,” which turns the very concept of insurance on its head and leads to an adverse-selection death spiral)
  • Closure of the coverage gap in the massive Bush-backed Medicare drug entitlement (the “donut hole fix” that will obliterate the program’s cost-controls)

So, how are we going to pay for this Senator Blunt?  Sunshine and fairy farts?

Read more on Talking Points Memo.

If enacting the 3 main pillars of ObamaCare is the Republican’s main solution should the Supreme Court strike down the mandate, why are they even joining the fight?

Clearly, nothing has been learned from the 2006 / 2008 shellacking and the 2010 salvaging of the Republican Party compliments of the Tea Party Movement.  It’s still a party of milquetoast moderate solutions that will continue to bankrupt our country, create bigger government (albeit at a slower pace than Liberals), and destroy the fabric of what made America great… …the expectation that you go out and work for what you need and want.

NOBODY is talking about the real solution… …getting the Employer out of the Health Care business.  Yes, cross-state-line purchases, HSAs, and removal of 1st-dollar payments will help.  But, a huge portion of the problem is that the Employer is so involved in the Health Care business.

Under the current system, really only one person has to be satisfied with the Health Care Plan being offered to the company’s employees: the VP of Human Resources.  If he or she is happy (after getting laid, tickets to the finest suites of every professional sports venue, golf outings, boat outings, and gala dinners — trust me, I’ve seen it), then the Employer chooses their plan.  Maybe it’s the best of the three plans that the VP of HR had time to take a look at, but is it the best for 100% of the employees?  Of course not.

The government got the Employer into the Health Care business with wage and price controls during World War II and on occasion beyond.  They’ve got to get them out of the picture, so Health Care Companies work to keep their actual customer (the employee) happy — not Senior Management.

Then a market-based health-care exchange would make sense.  Ever heard of Kayak?  Priceline?  Oribtz?  Hotels.com?  Apparently, the free market can build a system where you can compare rates for travel cheaply and efficiently.  There’s no reason a free-market Health Insurance Exchange couldn’t do the same.

Then, the Employer can offer funding of a Health Care Plan… …and stay out of the CHOICE of a Health Care Plan.  The Employee is then responsible for choosing the best plan from a menu of options.  He or she can decide if they want to have the Appendectomy insured, or know that it costs $1500.00 (or whatever) and be prepared to pay for it.

If they choose not to have insurance, the Employer keeps the money… …and probably looks to hire someone more responsible.  But, the Employee now has the best option to find the most suitable Health Care solution for his or her personal situation.

That, my liberal Republican friend, Mr. Blunt, is a good starting point for Health Care reform.

 

Tags: , , ,

The Life Of Georgie

Michelle Malkin exposes another Obama tall tale.

Here’s the real story…

 

Tags: ,

CBO 2011 Budget Infographic

Out. Of. Control.

 
 

Tags: , , ,

Dear Mr. Friend

(Received via e-mail.  Adapted for use)

March 4, 2012

David Friend

Co-Founder and CEO Carbonite

177 Huntington Avenue

Boston, MA 02115

 

Dear Mr. Friend,

I read about your intention to pull your advertising from the Rush Limbaugh show due to his remarks about Sandra Fluke while lobbying for free contraceptives.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that the primary reason for a woman to use contraceptives is so that she can have sex without getting pregnant. To need $3,000 worth of contraceptives would suggest that the individual plans on having a lot of sex. According to the American Heritage Dictionary:

Slut n. 1.a. A woman considered sexually promiscuous.

Was Mr. Limbaugh’s choice of words excessive? I would say so. However the subject was sex and contraception. Could he have used words more artfully to make the same point? I would say yes.

That brings me to another program that you sponsor, The Ed Schultz Show. On Schultz’s show he called conservative commentator Laura Ingraham a right wing slut. Let me quote Mr. Schultz. “But you know what they’re talking about: Like this right wing slut. What’s her name Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut…”

Where’s the outrage there Mr. Friend? Is it acceptable to you to call a professional woman a slut if it is merely a pejorative? How is it overstepping any reasonable bounds of decency to refer to a woman who is lobbying for free contraceptives, a woman considered sexually promiscuous, but perfectly fine as a smear for someone’s opinion with which you disagree ?

Why haven’t you pulled your advertising from that cretin’s show? As I am a strong believer in liberty, I say you have a right to purchase advertising time anywhere you wish. Similarly, I can buy whatever products that I wish and when my Carbonite subscription expires, I will not be renewing it if you place on the same playing field a somewhat crude but not inaccurate term to describe one woman with a baseless slur of another.

As you have encouraged your fellow advertisers to withdraw their ads, I will encourage my network of contacts to dump your product “to contribute to a more civilized public discourse.”

Sincerely yours,

Brian D. Bollmann

 
4 Comments

Posted by on March 4, 2012 in Activism, Free Market, Liberals, Media

 

Tags: , ,

Economic Freedom In America Today

Enjoy these videos from EconomicFreedom.org

Across the globe, the societies that have the best quality of life are those with the highest levels of economic freedom. From lower unemployment to better-protected civil rights and cleaner environments, economic freedom is vital to improving the well-being of society, especially for the most vulnerable.

.

For years the United States has been a world leader in economic freedom. But runaway government spending and burdensome regulations have caused a decline in economic freedom in the United States. If our economic freedom continues to fall, how will it affect our quality of life?

.

This is a service of the Charles Koch Institute:

  • Economic freedom is the driving force behind why some societies thrive while others do not. Improving well-being for all people can only be accomplished if the true cause of prosperity is understood. Years of empirical research and exhaustive analysis show that economic freedom is the overwhelming catalyst in creating jobs, fighting poverty, building a safe environment to raise a family, and improving overall human well-being.
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 25, 2012 in Economy, Free Market, Freedom

 

Tags: ,