Democrats looking to take away your 401k

Wow! It's been since July that any of our contributors actually contributed to this blog? Wow - I guess we're all slackers! :)

I originally posted up this article on my blog back in October:

Democrats want to take away your 401k

Well - I have an update that I will cross-post over at my site - but - since we've been slacking - anyone who still comes by here gets to read it first! This is the whole story from the Carolina Journal

Carolina Journal Exclusives
Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts

Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs

By Karen McMahan

November 04, 2008

RALEIGH ˜ Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers' personal retirement accounts ˜ including 401(k)s and IRAs ˜ and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers' retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Reti rement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on "The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers' Retirement Security," blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will "strengthen and protect Americans' 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans" and the "Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people."

Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only increases workers' retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn't offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.

Mandating Equality

Ghilarducci's plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf).

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, "exacerbates income and wealth inequalities" because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are "skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do."

Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals "provide a much larger 'carrot' to wealthy families than to middle-class families ˜ and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes."

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not "earn a 3% real return in perpetuity." In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn't eliminate the tax breaks, rather, "I'm just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading ˜ spreading the wealth."

All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions.

Another justification for Ghilarducci's plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony, Ghilarducci said, "humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to sustain a savings plan." She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that "a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement."

What the survey actually reported was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to "enforce additional private savings," a vastly different meaning than mandatory government-run savings. Of the four potential sources of retirement support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the majority of Americans said "self" was the most important contributor, followed by "government." When broken out by family income, low-income U.S. households said the "government" was the most important retirement support, whereas high-income families ranked "government" last and "self" first (www.hsbc.com/retirement).

On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina's economy into a long-term downward spiral.

Income and Wealth Redistribution

The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution.

On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that "from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw" in tax code incentives because they are "provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits."

Even people who don't pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. "There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all)," Greenstein said.

"Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time," Greenstein said, and "reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality."

When asked whether committee members seriously were considering Ghilarducci's proposal for GSAs, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and Labor, said Miller and other members were listening to all ideas.

Miller's biggest priority has been on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright said, and he sent a link to a Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24, 2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision.

After repeated questions asked by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of "ki lling the 401(k)" or of "killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s."

Arguing against liberal prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the "roots of the current crisis are firmly planted in public policy mistakes" by the Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from international product or capital markets. "Congress can ill afford to repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the Great Depression," Beach said.

Instead, Beach said, Congress could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus, lowering the corporate profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Testifying before the same committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one of the best ways to ensure retirement security would be to have the U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity investments in retirement accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in the GSAs.

Should Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for their "spreading the wealth" agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker posted a video of an interview with Obama on public radio station WBEZ-FM from 2001.

In the interview, Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society." The Constitution says only what "the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you," and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn't that radical.

Although in 2001 Obama said he was not "optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts," as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.

"The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change," Obama said.

Karen McMahan is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal.

WASHINGTON (IP) — Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday said as president he would strengthen government oversight of energy traders he blames in large part for the skyrocketing price of oil.

"Read my lips: No New Profits!"

"Some people blame low oil supplies or high oil demand for the recent spike in gasoline prices," said the presidential hopeful, "but these are just outdated economic theories. The real cause is speculative trading in the oil futures market. Trading by unscrupulous, unpatriotic profit-mongers. My administration will put a stop to this by making it illegal to sell oil futures for more than was paid for them. Without the market distortion caused by the so-called 'profit-motive' , our energy market - under the prudent and level-headed guidance of the federal government - will once again become both free and fair."Obama said that he intended to implement his "No New Profits" pledge within his administration' s first 100 days, promising to expand his economy-saving plan to other markets as his tenure progressed.



"Although I've long stood against the 'excessive' profits made by oil companies," said Obama, "the fact is that ALL profits are inherently excessive. That's why I vow to extend this program to other markets as well. Food, precious metals, stocks, bonds - all will eventually be both bought and sold 'at cost'. With all price fluctuations banned by the force of law, America will finally have a stable, sustainable, plannable future, unmarred by the evils of fear or uncertainty.



"The Democratic contender, however, reassured his audience that this new stability would not interfere with the creation and implementation of new government programs. "Some of my critics contend that without profits, we would be unable to collect the new taxes necessary to implement important new government programs like Universal Health Care, but we will find a way to make the wealthy pay their fair share. They'll just have to sell off their mansions and limousines."



"At cost, of course," he concluded.



Commentary: This speech by Obama should appeal to the Democratic base, many of whom are socialist at heart. Unfortunately, I also run into people who drive SUV's and are not necessarily die-hard Democrats or very political at all who will also find this rhetoric appealing. There seems to be a lot of people, even otherwise educated people, who simply have no understanding of economics. An increase in the price of their favorite commodity or a loss of a job and they are ready to tax away an industry's profits, embrace wage and price controls, and nationalize companies. You may recall, California Representative Maxine Waters called for "the government taking over and running the oil companies" back in May. Despite the repeated failures of socialism, there are many who still find it appealing.

OK. For you people in Antioch, the Obama speech is a parody. That is not a real story and he really didn't say those things. I don't want this to become one of those Internet rumors that are repeated as the truth. Unfortunately however, as bizarre as it may sound, Maxine Waters did call for oil company nationalization.

Author unknown, I plucked this from a chat group.

Iranian Nuke Program to be “dismantled” within a year!

Well - it won't exactly be shut down voluntarily by the Iranians! Bwahahaha! Apparently, "a former head of Mossad has warned that Israel has 12 months in which to destroy Iran's nuclear programme or risk coming under nuclear attack itself. He also hinted that Israel might have to act sooner if Barack Obama wins the US presidential election."

I really like that last line - looks like our Israeli friends have no confidence in the Obamessiah either!

Here's the article:

Israel has a year to stop Iran bomb, warns ex-spy

By Carolynne Wheeler in Tel Aviv and Tim Shipman in Washington

Shabtai Shavit, an influential adviser to the Israeli parliament's defence and foreign affairs committee, told The Sunday Telegraph that time was running out to prevent Iran's leaders getting the bomb.

Mr Shavit, who retired from the Israeli intelligence agency in 1996, warned that he had no doubt Iran intended to use a nuclear weapon once it had the capability, and that Israel must conduct itself accordingly.

"The time that is left to be ready is getting shorter all the time," he said in an interview

Mr Shavit, 69, who was deputy director of Mossad when Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981, added: "As an intelligence officer working with the worst-case scenario, I can tell you we should be prepared. We should do whatever necessary on the defensive side, on the offensive side, on the public opinion side for the West, in case sanctions don't work. What's left is a military action."

The "worst-case scenario, he said, is that Iran may have a nuclear weapon within "somewhere around a year".

As speculation grew that Israel was contemplating its own air strikes, Iran's military said it might hit the Jewish state with missiles and stop Gulf oil exports if it came under attack. Israel "is completely within the range of the Islamic republic's missiles," said Mohammed Ali Jafari, head of the feared Revolutionary Guard. "Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime cannot confront it."

More than 40 per cent of all globally traded oil passes through the 35-mile-wide Strait of Hormuz, putting tankers entering or leaving the Gulf at risk from Iranian mines, rockets and artillery, and Mr Jafari's comments were the clearest signal yet that Iran intends to use this leverage in the nuclear dispute.

Despite offering incentives, the West has failed to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium. Israeli officials believe the diplomatic process is useless and have been pressing President Bush to launch air strikes before he leaves office on January 20 next year.

They apparently fear that the chances of winning American approval for an air attack will be drastically reduced if the Democratic nominee wins the election. Mr Obama advocates talks with the regime in Tehran rather than military action.

That view was echoed by Mr Shavit, who said: "If [Republican candidate John] McCain gets elected, he could really easily make a decision to go for it. If it's Obama: no. My prediction is that he won't go for it, at least not in his first term in the White House."

He warned that while it would be preferable to have American support and participation in a strike on Iran, Israel will not be afraid to go it alone.

"When it comes to decisions that have to do with our national security and our own survival, at best we may update the Americans that we are intending or planning or going to do something. It's not a precondition, [getting] an American agreement," he said.

Our liberal friends must be pissed to see that last sentence - Our Israeli friends get it. We should not, never, ever, be required to get approval from ANYONE to defend ourselves. Do you think they will go to the U.N. Security Council to announce their intentions when they decide to go? I think that is a resounding NO!! And...neither should we...ever.

I see some serious Global Warming coming Iran's way in the near future! That's enough to bring a tear to my eyes! I hope Muchmud Imanutjob is heeding this warning.

Democrats Broken Promises on Gas Prices

Nancy, I thought you promised to bring down gas prices.

In 2006 in the lead up to the Congressional elections Nancy Pelosi promised "a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices." At the time gas was $2.23 per gallon; now it is $4.00.

Many people are looking to find a culprit and are looking for a conspiracy. The primary cause of higher gas prices is increased demand from developing countries, primarily China and India. However, if one wants someone to blame, the Democrats are the prime candidates. Democrats have blocked new American exploration, drilling and refineries for the last twenty years.

Nancy Pelosi is not such and idiot that she does not understand the cause of higher gas prices. Since, however, she promised "a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices," she should be held accountable. Nancy did you not promise to bring down gas prices?

This video was copied from youtube and was a production of rocketsfan34.

Smoke Smoke Smoke that Cigarette

City of Loma Linda bans smoking in most public places

LOMA LINDA, Calif. (AP) -- Smokers soon will have far fewer places where they can light up in Loma Linda. Council members on Tuesday passed an anti-smoking law that prohibits tobacco use in most of the city's public places.

The ordinance bans smoking on Loma Linda's public streets and sidewalks, in parks, restaurants, theaters and hospitals, as well as most of the city's motel and apartment units. The fine for a first offense will be $100 or less. The city of nearly 21,000 residents in San Bernardino County was founded in 1905 by Seventh-day Adventists. They typically abstain from alcohol, caffeine and meat.

Commentary

When cigarettes are outlawed, only outlaws will have cigarettes.

Last October a new rule went into effect in Nashville and now most of the honky tonks of Nashville are smoke-free. I smoke a pipe so I don't have a craving to smoke the same way a cigarette smoker does, but sitting in a bar, listening to live county music and drinking a beer is when I most want to light up. Since the ban went into effect I find I have a whole lot less desire to go out. Dim lights, thick smoke and loud, loud music just seem to go together.

If I would have still been in the Metro Council, I would not have supported the ban on smoking in bars. I think it should be left up to the individual bar owner to set his own rules about smoking and the the customer can decide if he wants to visit that establishment or not. Nevertheless, while I don't like it and wouldn't have voted for it, I can understand the second hand smoke argument for banning smoking in enclosed places. Prohibiting smoking outdoors, however, is punitive and discriminatory and I do not see the logic used to ban it, other than people just find it offensive. I don't think we should have the right not to be offended.

Some people just can't stand it if other people are having fun. People like banning activity of which they disapprove. Strip clubs are often banned under the guise of health and safety regulations. Zoning and permitting are often used to prohibit activity that is otherwise legal. Regulations supported by the Baptist and the liquor industry keep wine out of Tennessee grocery stores.

Where are the lobbyist for the merchants of death when you need them. If this ban can stand, then the good citizens of Loma Linda may next ban coffee drinking in public. If the tobacco industry will establish a non-profit entity to legally challenge irrational smoking bans like this, I will donate ten dollars. Maybe smokers ought to converge on Loma Linda and have a massive smoke-in.

Obama wants to increase how much we pay for gas?

Did I hear that correctly from him today? Did he not say that he wants to "tax windfall profits on big oil corporations like Exxon?" Excuse me, but, I thought this guy was supposed to be educated? Isn't he a lawyer or something? Surely he took a business or economics class while he was in college!

You can't tax profits! Profits is what comes AFTER taxes. If you try to tax "profits" it just goes back in to the corporate expenses - which get passed on to the consumer! So..here we are paying $4.02 as a national average for ONE freakin' gallon of gas - expected to get to $4.50 by July and this dipshit is proposing taxing oil even further?

So - the government taxes every gallon of gas at a rate of 16% and the big oil companies make a profit of 4% off of every gallon. So - the government makes 4 times the amount the big oil companies make - and they waste every penny of it on earmarks, failed social programs, and big government bureaucracy - yet they want to tax big oil? Who the hell is he kidding?

The next time the media and the government start complaining about these so-called "gross" profits made by the big oil companies - just remember - multiply that by 4 and you see how much the government takes in for doing nothing! Obama says he's going to take the "windfall profit tax" and give it to those "who can't afford their energy bills." Sounds like a socialist system of wealth redistribution to me!

Well - gee - who's fault is it those people can't afford their energy bills? Could it be....the government? Afterall, isn't it the government who has put up all the roadblocks to drilling and tapping our own natural resources? We have enough natural gas and coal in our country to warm 30 million homes for 60 years - yet - because of government regulation and stonewalling - we aren't allowed to tap in to it. We have enough oil reserves in our country to fuel every single vehicle in this country for 60 years - yet - because of government regulation and bans and kowtowing to eco-terrorists - we can't even tap in to it! We aren't even allowed to drill off the coast anywhere in our country - yet - China is scheduled to begin drilling 70 miles off the coast of Florida within the year! There currently is a bill being pushed through that would ban American companies from drilling within 125 miles off the coast.

So - if that bill gets passed - then a foreign country is allowed to drill for oil off our coast where we are not allowed to?!?!? How freakin' crazy is that! 125 miles is in international waters - hell - anything past 7 miles is considered international waters. How the hell does the government expect to impose this 125 mile ban?

If Obama gets elected and has his way - just remember people - you asked for it and you will most definitely PAY for it!

Gay Marriage: Shut Up, Turek

I just read this article by Frank Turek on Townhall talking about the implications of gay marriage. Here's an exerpt:

"The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.

People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy."

The opening argument is a little weak. Fewer people will get married to have children? I hope people are getting married for more than just simply having children. Marriage isn't simply a blind attempt to reproduce, as far as I know. I was under the impression that, according to the strict conservative that Turek seems to be, marriage was an expression of love between two people. Once those two married people decided to have children after marriage, they could then cross that bridge; at the time of legal and religious marriage, though, future children aren't meant to be the primary motivation.

Also, "The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling." So, because gay people are getting married, I won't want to have children in my marriage? Right... uh... I'm doubting it.

Gay marriage, in fact, will be quite a positive. Their legal bond will open up a whole new venue for adoption (already possible, but isn't often pursued due to legal complications, etc.). All the ideas pursued in the second quoted paragraph will actually go in the other direction.

You lose.

How They Voted on the Farm Bill

After a wink and a nod from the President, letting Republicans know it was OK to vote for the Farm Bill, it passed by a veto- proof margin in both houses of Congress. President Bush who was reluctant to veto any spending bill passed by a Republican Congress, apparently feels he needs to go though the motions of vetoing at least some excessive spending bill passed by a Democratic Congress. However, it is all a game and the President did not intend for his veto to be sustained. Apparently, he thinks we are so stupid, we will not see how the game is really played.

The farm bill was an absolutely terrible bill. It increased spending by 44% above last year’s level. It contains millions in non-farm pork spending, it subsidizes multimillionaire farmers, it increases food prices to the consumer, it makes corn syrup so cheap that it is added to products that don’t need corn syrup, it undermines American leadership on trade and puts farmers in undeveloped countries at a competitive disadvantage which keeps poor countries from developing a modern agricultural sector.

I have below a list of how each Senator voted. I have also listed the vote of the Tennessee Congressmen. To see how congressmen in your state voted, click here.

I did not expect better from the Democrats but I am deeply disappointed in a good many Republicans. You will note that some prominent Republicans, many who will brag about their conservative credentials and blast their opponents as "liberal", voted for this bill. I have highlighted a few of their names. While I am not going to turn against someone over one single vote, anyone who voted for this bill should not be taken very seriously if they rail against wasteful government spending.

In looking at the list below, I am very disappointed in my own two Senators, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker. I have admired and respected both of these men. I have thought they were rational, moderate, responsible, fiscally conservative public servants. I have voted for them and made modest contributions to their campaigns. They disappoint me.

Pleased to see voting against the bill in defiance of his own party is my own representative, Congressman Jim Cooper. Representative Cooper is a Democrat. If the next time we have a senatorial election in Tennessee, Democrat Jim Cooper should challenge either of our Republican senators, I might just vote for Cooper. This disgruntled Republican might just become a conservative Democrat.

How the Senate Voted:

Alabama
Aye Sessions, Jefferson[R]
Aye Shelby, Richard [R]
Alaska
Aye Murkowski, Lisa [R]
Aye Stevens, Ted [R]
Arizona
Nay Kyl, Jon [R]
No Vote McCain, John [R]
Arkansas
Aye Lincoln, Blanche [D]
Aye Pryor, Mark [D]
California
Aye Feinstein, Dianne [D]
No Vote Boxer, Barbara [D]
Colorado
Aye Allard, Wayne [R]
Aye Salazar, Ken [D]
Connecticut
Aye Lieberman, Joseph [I]
No Vote Dodd, Christopher [D]
Delaware
Aye Carper, Thomas [D]
No Vote Biden, Joseph [D]
Florida
Aye Martinez, Mel [R]
No Vote Nelson, Bill [D]
Georgia
Aye Chambliss, C. [R]
Aye Isakson, John [R]
Hawaii
Aye Akaka, Daniel [D]
Aye Inouye, Daniel [D]
Idaho
Aye Craig, Larry [R]
Aye Crapo, Michael [R]
Illinois
Aye Durbin, Richard [D]
No Vote Obama, Barack [D]
Indiana
Aye Bayh, B. [D]
Nay Lugar, Richard [R]
Iowa
Aye Grassley, Charles [R]
Aye Harkin, Thomas [D]
Kansas
Aye Brownback, Samuel [R]
Aye Roberts, Pat [R]
Kentucky
Aye Bunning, Jim [R]
Aye McConnell, Mitch [R]
Louisiana
Aye Landrieu, Mary [D]
Aye Vitter, David [R]
Maine
Aye Snowe, Olympia [R]
Nay Collins, Susan [R]
Maryland
Aye Cardin, Benjamin [D]
Aye Mikulski, Barbara [D]
Massachusetts
Aye Kennedy, Edward [D]
Aye Kerry, John [D]
Michigan
Aye Levin, Carl [D]
Aye Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]
Minnesota
Aye Coleman, Norm [R]
Aye Klobuchar, Amy [D]
Mississippi
Aye Cochran, Thad [R]
Aye Lott, Trent [R]
Missouri
Aye Bond, Christopher [R]
Aye McCaskill, Claire [D]
Montana
Aye Baucus, Max [D]
Aye Tester, Jon [D]
Nebraska
Aye Nelson, Ben [D]
Nay Hagel, Charles [R]
Nevada
Aye Reid, Harry [D]
Nay Ensign, John [R]
New Hampshire
Nay Gregg, Judd [R]
Nay Sununu, John [R]
New Jersey
Aye Menendez, Robert [D]
Nay Lautenberg, Frank [D]
New Mexico
Aye Bingaman, Jeff [D]
Aye Domenici, Pete [R]
New York
Aye Schumer, Charles [D]
No Vote Clinton, Hillary [D]
North Carolina
Aye Dole, Elizabeth [R]
Nay Burr, Richard [R]
North Dakota
Aye Conrad, Kent [D]
Aye Dorgan, Byron [D]
Ohio
Aye Brown, Sherrod [D]
Nay Voinovich, George [R]
Oklahoma
Aye Coburn, Thomas [R]
Aye Inhofe, James [R]
Oregon
Aye Smith, Gordon [R]
Aye Wyden, Ron [D]
Pennsylvania
Aye Casey, Robert [D]
Aye Specter, Arlen [R]
Rhode Island
Nay Reed, John [D]
Nay Whitehouse, Sheldon [D]
South Carolina
Aye Graham, Lindsey [R]
Nay DeMint, Jim [R]
South Dakota
Aye Johnson, Tim [D]
Aye Thune, John [R]
Tennessee
Aye Alexander, Lamar [R]
Aye Corker, Bob [R]
Texas
Aye Cornyn, John [R]
Aye Hutchison, Kay [R]
Utah
Aye Hatch, Orrin [R]
Nay Bennett, Robert [R]
Vermont
Aye Leahy, Patrick [D]
Aye Sanders, Bernard [I]
Virginia
Aye Warner, John [R]
Aye Webb, Jim [D]
Washington
Aye Cantwell, Maria [D]
Aye Murray, Patty [D]
West Virginia
Aye Byrd, Robert [D]
Aye Rockefeller, John [D]
Wisconsin
Aye Feingold, Russell [D]
Aye Kohl, Herbert [D]
Wyoming
Aye Barrasso, John [R]
Aye Enzi, Michael [R

How Tennessee’s Representatives Voted.
Aye TN-1 Davis, David [R]
Nay TN-2 Duncan, John [R]
Nay TN-3 Wamp, Zach [R]
Aye TN-4 Davis, Lincoln [D]
Nay TN-5 Cooper, Jim [D]
Aye TN-6 Gordon, Barton [D]
Nay TN-7 Blackburn, Marsha [R]
Aye TN-8 Tanner, John [D]
Aye TN-9 Cohen, Steve [D

How Black is Obama? Let the Hillary Campaign Show You.

Isn't the Hillary-Obama contest fun? I don't know the truth of this matter obviously, but it is alleged by the leftist kooks at Daily Kos that the Hillary campaign has doctored pictures of Obama to show him with a wider nose and darker complexion than he really has. Would Hillary really stoop that low to win the vote of "hard working white Americans?" Follow this link to see how they did it and read all about the controversy.

A Turd in the Libertarian Punch Bowl

The Libertarian Party will be holding its convention in Denver over Memorial Day weekend. I know this is not an earth shattering event in the political life of the nation, the Libertarian candidate for president is always just a very small asterisk in the final election results. But, even if you are not a libertarian it matters.

This time there are a couple of D list politicians vying for the nomination-- non-libertarian Mike Gravel, and douche bag Bob Barr. Many hope that someone like Barr, who could garner the support of some social conservatives, Paulites, White supremacists, homophobes, Know Nothings and paleoconservatives, would get enough votes to make an impression.

That is not the route to success of the libertarian message. Did the candidacies of Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, John Anderson or George Wallace change the political landscape at all?

And do we really want to send out a package of damaged goods, who has recently started spouting a few lines from the Libertarian platform, just so the party can get some fleeting attention?

To succeed the party has to broaden its base beyond the old white guys, and fellows with disturbing haircuts, that dominate it. The Libertarian Party Platform is by far the most progressive when it comes to the rights of women, minorities, and gays—as well as white males.

You see, Libertarians do not believe there is a finite reservoir of rights, that will run low if they are shared with others.

A couple years ago I was trying to convince some converts to the Party. They were Idaho panhandle conservatives and were none too keen on any of this gay marriage type stuff. I explained to them that libertarianism meant there would be naked pot smoking lesbians frolicking on the shores of Lake Coeur d'Alene , but they would also be able to keep their Uzis and semi-automatics.

The guys thought they could get down with that.

When there are gay pride parades, the Libertarian Party should be as prominent as they are at gun shows. And they need to make a concerted effort to explain to both gays and women—that guns are not just a constitutional right—but life insurance.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats have forsaken any real pretense of being fiscally conservative. Small government frugality used to be axiomatic in the Republican Party. These fiscal conservatives don't really care about all the social crap that has come to dominate modern Republicanism. Libertarians need to reach out to the country club Republicans and small business owners—and when there is a Republican that is with the program openly support them.

There are still Goldwater Republicans, who were betrayed by Reagan, and then totally forsaken by both Bushes. They are looking for a party.

Most African-Americans are not European Socialists—but they are also uncomfortable in the hypocritical party of Clarence Thomas. The Libertarian Party stands for everything the civil rights movement was, before it was captured by leftists who successfully sold the peculiar idea that greater control by a central government will somehow enhance the individual freedoms of minorities.

Libertarians should be hooking up with the NAACP—and when Al Sharpton happens to be right—say it, and when Obama is saying something intelligent and uplifting don't just dismiss him as another socialist.

The Libertarian Party is not going to win a single state in the electoral college for a long time, but there is a lot we can do at the local level.

In many places with just two or three hundred votes we can gain control of local governments. If there was a libertarian on the Canton city council I doubt they would be throwing people in jail for not mowing their lawn.

Gilbert, Arizona would not have built a 40 million dollar Little League ballpark on the taxpayer's dime--nor banned Victoria's Secret posters at the mall or yard signs advocating the recall of the mayor.

The Shreveport police would not be unleashed on the baggy pants crowd.

Los Angeles would not be harassing street cart Taco vendors.

Nor would they ban construction of fast food restaurants.

And San Francisco would not ban the sale of cigarettes in drug stores.

Arizona would not prohibit poker playing in social clubs, and it would not be a felony in Washington State to sit in your undies and play a few hands of online poker in the privacy of your home.

Assbag school administrators would not ban hugging, but their ass would be in a sling if they stripped searched a fourteen year old girl to find out if she is concealing a Motrin pill..

We should be lobbying for, and raising awareness of, the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 and Representative (R-Arizona)John Shadegg's Enumerated Powers Act.

And at the local level, neither of the major parties cares about individual property rights one bit.

When some hippies organize a peace march, go with them, we agree on that issue.

And Latinos—they are predominantly conservative—but the Republicans lost that gigantic chunk of the electorate with their vile xenophobic hate---don't be ashamed of, or minimize, the party's immigration platform—there is a natural constituency, uncomfortable in either major party.

We need to get out the message that the big spending federal government and the policies of the Federal Reserve are the the cause of the tax that is beginning to strangle the Republic and destroy the poor and middle class—inflation.

There is much real work that can be accomplished, beyond a never ending bitch fest.

And yes, we should run a presidential candidate—one who is truly a principled libertarian—one who has worked the bakes sales, peace marches, petition drives, gun shows, and backyard barbecues.

Someone who Thomas Jefferson would vote for.

Not a turd in the punch bowl--like Bob Barr.

Mexican Slaves up for Auction Tomorrow!

Yes, that's what I said, Mexican Slaves - Illegal Immigrants - whatever you want to call them, but they are slaves to corporate America. Those slimeball politicians in Washington are at it again. As you all know, the Emergency War-time Spending Bill was approved by the house last week. It comes before the Senate tomorrow (Wednesday, May 21, 2008). Included in that WAR-TIME spending bill is what the Dems are calling an "Ag-jobs measure." Here's how it is described:

Congress including in the domestic-programs amendment a provision that would help pave the way for undocumented agriculture workers to win legal status, an amendment that could reopen Congress’ rancorous debate over immigration policy.

The supporters of the so-called Ag-Jobs measure, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho), say the five-year program is needed to keep farms operating and crops growing. The provision was added by a 17-12 vote.

Notice how they've changed the term from Illegal Immigrants to undocumented workers to "Undocumented agriculture workers." They say they need this extra money in a WAR-TIME spending bill in order "to keep farms operating and crops growing." Wait - I thought you guys just passed a farm subsidy bill last week? You mean that wasn't enough to keep the farms operating? If not, you guys suck even more than I thought!

So, even though 80% of Americans have already said NO to Amnesty - they are trying to sneak it in and backdoor it in an EMERGENCY WAR-TIME spending bill. So, they are holding our troops hostage again! Either we say yes to amnesty or they so no to our troops!

Call your Senators tomorrow and tell them to either take this measure out of the WAR-TIME spending bill or vote NO on it. Freakin assholes! Again, they are trying to make it easier for those who come here ILLEGALLY to circumvent the whole system and jump ahead of those who have been here for years following the rules and doing it right.

Here is a link for finding out how to contact your Senators:

To find your Senator, click here

Now, tell everyone you can think of to contact their representatives tomorrow (Wednesday, May 21, 2008). Link back to this post or blog it yourself. In any case, we need to get the word out there again that America says NO to AMNESTY!


Top Stories

Obama Blames Loss on Fox News

Obama, maybe there are other reasons you lost the white vote in some recent primaries. Maybe your comment about frustrated people clinging to guns and religion offended some religious gun owners. Maybe your wife's comment about being proud of America for the first time in her life had something to do with turning off patriotic middle Americans who love their country. Maybe that picture that shows you as the lone candidate on the stage who does not have his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem made some middle Americans think that you do not share their values. Despite your eventual disavowal of Reverend Wright, do you think that perhaps your former pastor, who referred to America as the U.S.K.K.K.A. and said AIDS was a government created illness designed to kill Black Americans and who said "God damn America" could have turned some people off? After all, prior to disavowing him, you did call him your spiritual advisor and you did sit in the pews of his church for 20 years and contributed over $27,000 to that church.

Maybe some white Americans would simply prefer to vote for a white American just as some Blacks prefer to vote for a Black American and some females would prefer to vote for a female. Maybe they are just not that into you. You have the Blacks and the college educated elites but maybe the white middle class are just not ready to vote for a Black man who is also rated as the most liberal person in the U. S. Senate. Maybe it is because you don't have as much testosterone as Hillary Clinton. You can't put back shots of liquor and mingle in the pool hall as good as Hillary. You don't love guns and you are not a hunter. You are just not the "good ole boy" that Hillary is. Hillary is just better at playing the redneck. Maybe Hillary just knows how to pander better than you do.

When Bill Clinton got caught in a scandal, Hillary blamed his problems on a "vast right-wing conspiracy". Back when there were a lot fewer media outlets and less diversity in News reporting, Republicans used to blame a lot of their losses on the "liberal media." Fox is only one network. You still have the fawning MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN plus the quasi-news comedy shows that love you. Surely you can do better than blame your recent losses on little old Fox news network.

The GOP at the Trough

By Robert D. Novak Monday, May 19, 2008; The Washington Post

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, 38 and having served less than five terms, did not leap over a dozen of his seniors to become the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee by bashing GOP leaders. But an angry Ryan delivered unscripted remarks on the House floor last Wednesday as the farm bill neared passage: "This bill is an absence of leadership. This bill shows we are not leading." (link)

Commentary: The story of Republican complicity and lack of leadership on the farm bill is reason for any conservative to be disgruntled and disgusted. The Farm bill is a bad bill. It raises spending by 44% above last year’s level. It contains non-farm pork spending, it subsidizing multimillionaire farmers, it increases food prices to the consumer, it undermines American leadership on trade, and puts farmers in undeveloped countries at a competitive disadvantage and keeps poor countries poor. The Republican leadership has shown no leadership on this bill.

According to Novak, President Bush has promised to veto the bill but let it be known that it would be OK if Republicans “voted their districts.” Apparently Republicans are not going to be pushed hard to sustain the veto.

In the Senate, Republican leader Mitch McConnell is not only supporting the bill but got a provision added to the bill giving special tax breaks to horse farms in his state of Kentucky. In the House, Minority Whip Roy Blunt voted for the bill. In the House, Republicans voted for the bill 100 to 91 and in the Senate, 35 Republicans voted for it and only 13 opposed it.

When Republicans vote like Democrats, why should one care if Republicans lose elections? Maybe it is time for Republicans to take a major beating, do some major soul searching, regroup, and rediscover why they are Republicans.

Ehem..

Uh... where did all my bloggers go!?

Michael Yon and Michael Moore

Kind of on the same note, Michael Yon takes aim at Michael Moore: Many readers have complained that Michael Moore, in the conduct of his latest crusade against whatever he is against this month, has illegally used one of my photos on the banner of his website [It's the right-most photo in Moore's banner above]. Mr. Moore is not the first to have done so, and my readers can get pretty upset when it happens.

Later in Yon's post, he writes probably one of the most powerful paragraphs I've read in quite some time:

When someone’s grandmother disseminates the photo of Major Beiger cradling a dying girl in his arms, I allow the usage because I feel she is trying to share the human tragedy. When Michael Moore puts that same photo on his web site, alongside images of George Bush, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, the clear implication is that Farah’s death is their fault. That is a misrepresentation of the facts on the ground, as well as the story of the photo. Farah was killed by a suicide car bomb in Mosul on May 2, 2005. Major Bieger and other soldiers literally risked their own lives to save many children and adults that day, but Farah didn’t make it. Michael Moore apparently does not understand-or refuses to acknowledge-the moral distinction between a man who would murder innocent people, and a man who would sacrifice himself to save them. The photo, as I took it, is the truth, but Moore uses it-illegally-to convey falsehoods. His mind is that of a political propagandist who sees Farah’s death not as a human tragedy, but a tool.

Read the whole thing (linked above... it's interesting stuff.

German Visitors and Pride

My family is welcoming in a German family in America for a week to see the country. My mom knew them in college, as the mother, Stephie, was an exchange student. They are now on their way from JFK to our house. I'm sure I'll talk at length about conversations with them in later posts, but for now, I'd like to talk about American pride.


We spent the better part of this morning cleaning our house in preparation for these people. I've been vacuuming and mopping all morning. I, personally am doing it to keep my parents happy. But at a deeper level, I think, is a sense of pride instilled in all Americans. On my trip to Ecuador, our guide literally walked into random homes and ask if the family had time to see us. For starters, no one turned us down. But even more than that, at no point did they try to excuse or apologize for their messy homes or cluttered rooms. At all levels, they simply wanted us to take them for face value, see who they really were.

But Americans prepare for hours, even days for visitors. They want to display the best of the best, the pinnacle points in life as an American. It's an inner American pride, I think, that drives this. For better or worse, it's a uniquely American characteristic.

John McCain and the Dirty Dozen

Today John McCain was trying to woo the conservative base of his party, which is a good idea since in today's North Carolina primary 27% of Republicans voted against the guy, even though he has a lock on the nomination.

McCain promised to appoint "conservatives" to the Supreme Court, saying that his
“ nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power."

Cool—but I wonder if he will appoint a justice inclined to overrule McConnell v. FCC, where the Supreme Court upheld the McCain-Feingold Act, which was the single greatest abridgment of free speech since the Civil War—giving political speech less protection than burning the flag.

I don't think that Honest John is much of a reader, but it would be a good idea if he took a look at The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom .

In the book, Robert Levy and William Mellor explain why Alexander Hamilton was wrong when he opined that the Judiciary was the weakest of the three branches of the federal government.

The book is about twelve Supreme Court cases that changed the course of American history by expanding the power of the federal government far beyond that enjoyed by King George , and gutting the civil rights and liberties which were the reason we fought a revolution.

One of the profiled cases is McConnell v. FCC.

I wonder if a President McCain would want a Justice who would overrule Wickard v. Filburn which stands for the proposition that under the interstate commerce clause the federal government can regulate virtually anything, which now includes making a terminally ill patient a criminal for using medical marijuana, grown and distributed in a single state, taken under a doctor's prescription, in accordance with state law.

Or does McCain favor federalists of convenience, like Antonin Scalia—who are always able to find the inherent drug or national security exception to the Constitution?

How about Bemmis v. Michigan? The Supreme Court allowed a wife to lose her half interest in the family car in a civil forfeiture proceeding because her husband had used the vehicle as a convenient place to get a blowjob from a hooker.

While McCain is, at best, a johnny come lately to the view that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, it is not at all clear that he understands that the reason is because the Constitution has absolutely nothing to say about abortion—not because he might be personally against abortion, or many of the voters he is wooing are.

I rather doubt that a President McCain will appoint a justice willing to take on Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell where the Supreme Court decided that when the drafters of the Constitution wrote "No State shall ... pass any ... law impairing the obligation of contracts" they meant essentially the opposite.

Or how about the Japanese internment cases, which stand for the “national security exception” which was the rationale for holding Jose Padilla, an American citizen, in a military brig for years without bringing criminal charges.

Would he have the courage to appoint a justice who was at least willing to chip away at Helvering v. Davis , and the rest of the New Deal decisions, which through the “general welfare” clause, gave the federal government unlimited power to tax, spend and control every crook and cranny of an individual's life.

Honest John ticked off liberals because they don't care what the Constitution says when it comes to their pet projects. He pleased the type of people who nowadays consider themselves “conservatives” because he was implicitly endorsing their two primary pet projects—no abortions and plenty of capital punishment.

I'd like to know John McCain's thoughts on The Dirty Dozen.

Attention Hippy-Crites

I just read this article (thanks to Glenn Reynolds) on the Hollywood left's hypocritical loonies (this article calls them hippy-crites, but I'm sure we can come up with something better than that). Anyway, I thought I would take this opportunity to rant and rave about these nut jobs.

Here's the thing. I love liberal hippies. The long haired, global warming obsessed tree-hugger liberals honestly make the world go round. Those who walk their talk, and smoke it too. They are, quite truly, some of the most simple living and happiest people in the world. I also believe we need people around to tell us when we're messing with the environment too much. (I think environmental issues are important, I just think, for the most part, government restrictions aren't necessary because these are issues that can be dealt with in the private sector. Again, for the most part, for all those about to call me out.) These environmental prophets are good people; honest people. We need them in our world.

It's the gas-guzzling liberals that get to me. Really, come on. If you're going to scream and yell about the environment, don't fly the private jet every flight, just make it once or twice a month. At least make it sound like you care about the issue you've decided to knock my block off about. These celebrities (ehem, stage right) dominate the television with their nonsensical gibberish, but don't manage to practice what they preach. And their prominence is what keeps them in the spotlight. They are like cockroaches; they disturb everyone and make the world a crappier place; they never go away. They use their power and wealth and prestige to keep themselves on ET and NBC to continue their nonsense. Then they find themselves on Oprah and The View, where they wave to a group of brainwashed blind bats cheering them and their private 747 on. And then they shove unwanted information into my ear hole via television. They rape my ear.

No means no.

Shame on John McCain...

For shameless pandering on the gas tax.

Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain are proposing to suspend the federal gas tax as a response to rising gas prices; despite the fact that most economist and energy experts think that this is a counterproductive proposal. Obama deserves credit for not joining in the pandering. He has rightly called it a “silly idea.”

I am more disappointed in McCain than Clinton; I didn’t expect better from Hillary. It is not that I think Hillary Clinton is so dumb that she really thinks suspending the gas tax is a good Idea; I think she is so unprincipled and ambitions that she will do whatever it takes to be elected. I expected more from McCain. In the past he talked sense about energy independence, ethanol, and global warming. McCain has to know this is a stupid idea and I thought he had more integrity than to pander with the best of them.

The federal tax on gas is 18.4 cents per gallon. What happens if we cut the tax? For one thing, the price will fall temporarily, which will increase demand for gasoline and result in another increase in price, then when the 18.4 cents is added back, the resulting price will be higher than it otherwise would have been. Another thing that will happen is that not all of the 18.4 cents will be passed on to the consumer. The oil companies will keep part of it.

The reason prices are so high is neither due to an Arab oil embargo nor greedy oil companies. It is primarily due to the increase in demand. The people of India and China are beginning to drive private automobiles. It is basic Economics 101. Demand is exceeding supply and prices are increasing. Another reason is the slide of the dollar. It takes more dollars to trade for the same amount of other currencies and therefore anything we import cost more.

Every administration since the late seventies has talked about energy independence and instead we have steadily moved toward greater dependence. Americans continue to drive more and consume more gasoline every year than they did the year before. Urban sprawl continues and people move further from urban centers. Instead of choosing energy efficient vehicles, people choose to drive gas-guzzling SUVs.

What are the negative effects of increased gas consumption?

(1) We finance our enemies. It is an unfortunate accident of geology that the countries with the most oil are ruled by fanatics and despots. Saudi Arabia is officially an ally, but it has a Muslim population that takes seriously the mandate of their faith to give alms. So, American dollars flow to Saudi Arabia, some of which ends up the pockets of devout Muslims and they give to the clerics who build Wahhabi Muslim schools throughout the world where people are taught the most violent and radical strain of the Muslim religion. Every time you fill up your SUV you are contributing to the radical Muslim cause and the training of terrorist. Also we are financing the anti-Americanism of the Venezuelan dictatorship.

(2) We are increasing the rate of Global Warming. Despite all of the concern about global warming and all the talk about combating it, we have not yet decreased the rate of increase in CO2 emissions. Feel-good environmental measures and exhortations to properly inflate your tires and change light bulbs and wear a sweater are not going to be sufficient to curtail global warming. It is going to take some pain and sacrifice.

In today’s newspaper there was an article, Small-car sales help Nissan end April with gain. The article said that while U. S. auto sales were declining that the sale of the Nissan Altima and subcompact Versa was showing gains. Honda, Toyota and Volkswagen are also posting increased sales. Americans are starting to fall out of love with their gas-guzzlers and to prefer small fuel-efficient cars.

In yesterday’s newspaper there was an article that said "Demand for gas eases slightly as more carpool.” Markets work. Supply and demand is not right-wing dogma. it is as true as gravity. People cannot change their behavior overnight however but we are starting to see a decrease in demand. If gas prices were high and people thought they would stay high we would see greater reductions in consumption. Overtime, the American vehicle fleet would shift to more fuel-efficient cars. and we would start to see a lessening of urban sprawl. The cost of gas would enter into the equation in many decisions consumers make. Conservation would be cost effective is prices were expected to stay high. Investment in alternative fuels and alternative technologies would be worth the investment if there were not an expectation that gas would stay high. If we want to continue the trend of reducing gasoline consumption then we do not want to lower gasoline prices.

It is best if we do nothing about high gas prices and let the demand for gas fall.

Hillary, I didn’t expect better from you. John McCain, shame on you.

Cuban Reintroduces Private Farms. Time to End the Embargo!

Cuba giving land to private farmers
The Associated Press, 12:55 PM EST April 6, 2008

In a country where almost everyone works for the communist state, dairy farmer Jesus Diaz is his own boss. He likes it that way - and so does the government.

Living on a plot of land just big enough to graze four dairy cows, Diaz produces enough milk to sell about four quarts a day to the state.This is independent production on a tiny scale, but it has proved so efficient that Cuba has decided on a major expansion of its program to distribute underused and fallow farmland to private farmers and cooperatives."It's a way for the land to end up in the hands of those who want to produce. I see it as a very good thing," said Diaz, 45.

He received his land and cows from the state in 1996, and now hopes to get access to more property.The government is preparing for a "massive distribution of land," Orlando Lugo, president of Cuba's national farming association, said last week.

Private farmers have begun receiving land for the cash crops of coffee and tobacco, and will soon be able to lease state land for other crops.The idea is to revolutionize farming, one tiny plot at a time. (link)

Commentary
End the Embargo Now!

This is more good news from Cuba. Following the announcement that individuals would be given the deed to their homes, that Cubans could own cell phones, that Cubans could stay in luxury hotels, now comes another liberalization.

This could be profound. Just a little market capitalism will reveal the superiority of markets over a command economy. This could be the camel getting its nose under the tent.

The US should use these changes as an occation for ending its failed policy of isolating Cuba.
The embargo of Cuba began in 1960 and may have been a mistake from the very first. The intent was to pressure Castro to Democratize. It had the result of pushing Cuba further into the arms of the Soviet Union. The embargo made a martyr out of Castro and helped prop us his regime. The poverty of Cuba was the result of Castro’s socialist policies, but he could blame it on the U.S embargo.

If one thinks that there was logic for the embargo in 1960, surely that logic no longer applies in 2008. The Soviet Union is dead. The only two remaining truly Communist countries in the world are North Korea and Cuba.

Cuba is changing; we could facilitate that change if we would simply end the embargo. American dollars flowing into Cuba would mean more Cubans with money to spend, which would lead to more opportunities for the flourishing of a non-government sector of the economy and more pressure for more liberalization.

I suspect that Cuba would welcome US investment and trade. Along with that trade and investment would come a clarification of private property rights and the rule of law.

If it is too bold of a move for the current administration to totally end the embargo all at once, they could do it incrementally. A good place to start would be with a change in the policy that restricts Cuban-American and Cubans living in America from traveling to Cuba. This would be a humanitarian move and the right thing to do. Let families unite.

These moves by Cuba to liberalize should be met with American efforts to reinforce good behavior. We should change our policy regarding Cuba because it is the right thing to do and the smart thing to do. If we want to see an end to socialism and totalitarian rule in Cuba, lift the embargo.