We must vote for those candidates of any party that reflect these values: hard work, self-determination, smaller government, fiscal responsibility and honesty. Look to the character of anyone you chose to support. Their past does matter if they haven't learned from it. Their personal life is as relevant as their public one. We must be able to trust those who will be advising and leading us on what our country must do next. -Glenn Beck

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

A Tip for Liberals

I went out to eat the other night with my family.  Our waitress was really friendly, she was very attentive, and she was great with the kids.  She did a great job.  So when the check came, I tried to be generous with the tip that we left.

As we were leaving, and I looked around at the other waitresses, I had a thought:  What if all restaurants pooled their tips?  In other words, when the waitress did a great job and got a big tip from us, what if that tip had to go in a jar, and that was distributed among all the waitresses.

Waitress #1:  Goes into work and gives it her all and does a fantastic job.  Earns $100 in tips.

Waitress #2:  Goes into work and makes no effort and does a crappy job.  Gets stiffed over and over.

Both waitresses walk away with $50 at the end of the night.  Equal pay, right?


How long would it take for "Waitress #1" to say, "I'm sick of this crap -- I'm not going to give it my all and earn $100 in tips, only to give half of it away!"  How long before her effort decreases?

On the other hand, how long before Waitress #2 is really excited about her job?  She puts in no effort, and gets a good chunk of tips.  Granted, it's not as much as she could make if she gave it everything she had, but for the effort, it's pretty good.

What happens to the total amount of tips each day as time goes on?  Does it increase or decrease?

Is there anybody out there that honestly believes the pool of tips would get bigger as time went on in this type of a system?


You have got to hand it to the liberals.  They have somehow done a great job of making it seem that Mitt Romney's entire platform is to "lower the taxes on the rich".

I'm serious about this -- I really want to know:  Is there really anybody out there that truly believes that Mitt Romney decided to run for President of the United States so that he could lower the taxes on himself and all of his other rich buddies so they could be even richer?

The truth is that Mitt Romney wants lower taxes for EVERYBODY!  His entire plan is based on fixing the economic crisis by stimulating growth through business rather than government.  He wants EVERYBODY (poor, middle class, and rich) to be better off.

He isn't going to raise taxes on the middle class!  The Democrats have repeated this over and over again:  Mitt Romney wants to raise taxes on the middle class.  The Democrats claim that lowering the taxes for everybody will actually be a tax increase for the middle class, because they will be paying a larger share of the taxes (because they pay so much less in taxes than the rich.)


What happens when you take away the "pooled tips" format and create competition between waiters and waitresses?  Reward is based on performance, so performance increases.  As performance increases, the total amount of tips increases.

You create a bigger pool of tips, which means that you get more tax revenue from the pool that is greater than if you had taxed the smaller pool at a higher rate.  Instead of 30% of $50 ($15), you get 20% of $100 ($20).

So, let us ask our liberal friends:  Which is better:  $15 or $20?

I already know the liberal answer:  "What does Mitt Romney have in his tax returns that he wants to hide?!  Plus, he made his dog ride on top of the car!"


Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Fantasy & Reality

When I worked at my previous job where I was commuting a little longer to work, I wanted to find the most efficient way to work.  I found a little stopwatch app for my phone that would keep a log of times, and I would drive the same way for a week and time each commute.  Then I would try a different route the next week and do the same thing.

This process of collecting and analyzing data in order to make the best decision is something I thrive on.  I find a lot of entertainment in it.  Just last night, my wife and I were driving in separate cars home, and I purposely took a different route from her to see which was faster.  I was surprised to find that the way that I went was faster.  But it also has more lights, so there is a higher probability of being stopped.  So I realized I need to get out the old stopwatch app again.


I admit that I have had a political fantasy for a few years now.  The Democratic and Republican platforms are so different on almost every issue, and yet they both claim that they are the right.  So my fantasy is that we could divide the United States in half, and that the Republicans could take one half, and the Democrats could take the other.

The new Democratic nation could legalize drugs.  They could be free to abort as many children as they would like.  They could remove any reference to "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and the currency and the thousands of other places it appears in Government.  They could ban guns completely.  They could scale down the military completely and pull out of any conflicts abroad.  They could implement socialized medicine.  They could legalize same-sex marriage.  And they could raise taxes as high as they wanted on the rich.  And on and on.

The new Republican nation could lower taxes for all and simplify the tax code.  There would be huge cuts in spending, many superfluous government programs would be cut, and entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security would be reformed and eventually phased out.  They could make abortion illegal (except in specific cases of rape or incest or when the mother's life is in danger.)  They could increase military spending to the levels they were before Obama came into office.  They could re-institute "God" in every place that the ACLU has had it removed.  And on and on.

And then we would just see how everything turned out in each nation after 5 or 10 or 20 years.


That will obviously never happen.  But maybe it doesn't have to.  There are some states that are heavily red (Republican), and some states that are heavily blue (Democrat).  Because states have significant power in controlling their own destinies, I was curious how the red and blue states compare in terms of budget surpluses or deficits in this down economy.

Turns out that there are other people who have also been curious about the same thing:

There are obviously a few exceptions, but the vast majority of the red states are doing above average with their budgets.  And the vast majority of the blue states are the ones that are below average or in trouble.


Those are just a few of the articles, but it seems like there is definitely a trend.  It would be interesting to do Red vs. Blue state studies for education, welfare, etc.  But as the last article mentions, if how a state performs has any bearing on how a nation would perform from an economic perspective, the numbers don't lie.

Republicans win.

Monday, August 20, 2012

The Facts of Life

One major difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals care for the poor and are extremely generous... as long as it is with other people's money.  Conservatives put their money where their mouths are:

Study: Red States More Charitable

There have been various studies that all point to the same thing.  Generally speaking, conservatives do more to help those in need than liberals.  We see that same thing with the leaders of our country -- Look at Barack Obama or Joe Biden's charitable donations compared to Mitt Romney's.  Barack Obama should be begging Romney to keep his tax returns sealed!

Somehow the liberals have been successful at painting the Republicans as cold-hearted individuals who only care about money, while painting themselves as the compassionate party who care for the poor.  Talk is easy.  It is a lot more difficult to get out your check book.

Liberals will excuse this, claiming that Republicans donate to charity for the tax breaks, and that is why the red states always donate more.  Even if that is somehow true... the fact is Republicans still donate more.  They do more for those in need.

The facts don't lie.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Romney's Tax Returns

The Democrats are starting to panic.  Once again, Mitt Romney outraised Barack Obama, $101 million to $75 million.  Lest you believe the liberal rhetoric that this is due to all of "Romney's rich buddies", those donations, by law, can only come at a max of $2,500 from each person.  This is nothing to do with the Super-PAC money.  95% of Romney's donations were $250 or less.

Romney is also spending much less than Pres. Obama, so he has a pile of cash on hand to spend.  Much like everything Romney gets involved in, the result is a well-organized, well-though-out operation that runs smoothly and ends up with net-positive cash flow.  Just what the doctor ordered for our struggling country.


You can tell that the liberals are panicking, because the most compelling attack they can come up with is that Romney won't release his tax records.  They tried attacking him for being rich, which backfired.  They tried attacking him for his work at Bain Capital, which backfired.  Then President Obama voiced the opinion that everyone suspected he already held when he made his now infamous "You didn't build that" comment. (Please don't even go with the "context" argument.  I am so sick of hearing that.  The context makes it that much worse!)

President Obama has now started the "Romney Hood" attack, claiming that Romney wants to take from the poor and give to the rich.  That is obviously silly, because Romney's plan includes tax cuts for all individuals who pay taxes.  But ignoring that for a minute... Obama wants to take from the rich and give to the poor!  This only emphasizes Obama's stance that rich people are bad and poor people are good, which is exactly what has been backfiring on him.

His raise-the-tax-on-the-rich-strategy is failing, because what kind of a platform is that to be running on when creating jobs is the biggest concern.  When has raising taxes on businesses ever created more jobs?!  Even President Obama knows this:

In many ways, President Obama is running against himself.  He continues to dig himself deeper and deeper into a hole, and no attack seems to be sticking to Romney, who is simply really clean and has a great record to run on.


So when there is nothing you can attack your opponent with, you have to find something.  Just leak a story that Romney runs an illegal dog-fighting ring, and then make him defend why that is not true.  This is a common strategic move in politics.

The only problem is the dog-fighting ring wouldn't work with Romney, because most people would be skeptical in the first place.  So what would work with Romney?  Well, he's rich, so the attack needs to be focused on money.  Let's make it look like he's got something to hide.

So that has been their focus for a few tired weeks now -- "When is Mitt Romney going to release more tax returns?  'Never?'  He must have something to hide!"

The truth is that there is no requirement to release ANY tax returns.  By releasing two years' tax returns, Mitt Romney is releasing two more than is required.

Senator Harry Reid even went as far as claiming that Mitt Romney has not paid taxes for 10 years according to an "anonymous source".  Mitt Romney was correct to state that was patently false, that he had paid a lot of  taxes each and every year, and to challenge him on it to name the source.  Senator Reid, of course, won't release his own tax returns to explain where his wealth came from.  The liberals are pulling at straws.

We have one year of Mitt Romney's tax returns and will soon have another, and what we know is that in one year in 2010, Mitt Romney paid $3 million in taxes, which is more than most of us will pay in a lifetime.  He paid a much higher share for the same roads or schools or any of the infrastructure that we all share than you or I did.  He paid $3 million to charity in 2010, which is more than most of us will pay in a lifetime.


The liberals are frustrated.  They have nothing.  They need him to release his tax returns so they can comb through and try to find something, anything, that they can use against him.  They need to be able to try to emphasize the "rate" of taxes he pays, while completely disregarding the amount of taxes he pays.

So Mitt Romney is exactly right to say that he has released his 2010 tax returns and will release his 2011 tax returns, and that he will not release any more.

Why give the liberals fuel for their fire when they have none?

If this is the best attack they can come up with, when all it does is emphasize their disdain for successful and wealthy people, which has backfired in every other instance, let them continue the attack.


If you haven't read it, Ann Coulter wrote a great column on this same topic:


Liberals like to ridicule Ann Coulter, but there are few columnists I see that use facts and back up their ideas with sources like Ann Coulter.  I defy any liberal to prove where she is wrong.  This was a great column.


President Obama has himself on the ropes.  The "You didn't build that" comment was a massive blow to himself.  Mitt Romney needs to keep attacking by using President Obama's own words and his record at every opportunity -- Obama will condemn himself.

On the issue of the tax returns, Romney needs to stand firm and sit back and wait for Barack to knock himself out.