The Seattle Times: Local News: Washington's top 50 political contributors in 2003-04

For those of you that doubt that the Democratic party gets the bulk of their contributions from the very wealthy (whereas the Republicans get the bulk of their money from everyday citizens).

Top 15 - 14 Gave to Dems, 1 gave to both
Remaining 35 - 9 Gave to Republicans, 5 gave to both parties

More detailed nationwide data is available at www.opensecrets.org. The same trend holds true nationwide.

The big question is why?

My theory (and yes, it's a theory), is that in a socialist/communist system of government (yes, Democrats are at the very least Socialists), there is less competition and less upward mobility. So those in power, retain their power indefinitely. In a free market system, companies and individuals rise and fall based on competition (innovation, hard work, and technology advancement play a role in competition).

So, despite what Democrats would have us believe, they are not the "friends of the middle class" or "working poor". They are all in favor of the rich getting richer and retention of power even though "Tax cuts for the rich" is one of the items they rail against. If I get a tax cut, I could care less about ANY millionaire getting a tax cut. The more money a millionaire spends, the more money that pours into the economy and puts us "Average Joes" to work.  Besides, do you really think a millionaire "feels" their tax cuts the same way I would getting a $1k tax cut?  No.  To me $1k is a significant tax cut.  But $50k to a millionaire is mind-boggling to the rest of us, but really insignificant to them in terms of a millionaires "way-of-life."  Envy doesn't grant upward mobility...hard work and innovation does.

The harder we work, the more unique ideas we can come up with, the more likely we can acheive "upward mobility".  Conversely, the more money that goes to the federal government, the less that goes into the hands of ordinary citizens.  The more people employed/supported by the government, the more power the politicians have....you get the idea. 

More government=more power for politicians.  Less government=more power to the people (self-empowerment).


10 Reasons to Fire Bush

Though I disagree with some of his points, I do agree with 3-9.

After I announced I was voting straight Libertarian Ticket in 2004, I had a rather heated debate with the die-hard Republicans around here. The primary reason they cited for NOT voting Libertarian for President was that I would "waste" my vote. Though they agreed with me (for the most part) on Libertarian views, they could not make the conceptual leap to vote with their conscience. I was criticized for "not trying to change the Republican Party from within."

I countered with the following:

1. I was active in politics in my youth and was elected a precinct delegate for the Republican party in my hometown in 1988.
2. I actively campaigned for George H.W. Bush based on the premise that he would "stay the course" of continuing Reagan's policies.
3. When Bush Sr. went back on his promise, I was deeply troubled...but I did vote for him in 1992 because I hated Bill Clinton.
4. Starting in 1996 I split my ticket, Republican for President, and Libertarian for all other offices.
5. Hopeful that the Republicans who controlled both the House and Senate would limit the size of government in addition to cutting taxes, I voted for Bush in 2000.

I DID try to change the party from within...and I am tired of it.  It's pointless and fruitless.  I basically came to the conclusion that it was time to vote in a different direction. 

It is now apparent to me that the Republican party is only moderately better than the Democrats ...or should I say not as bad. They have increased the size of government 5%+, passed the horrible Medicare and Education Bills, expanded protectionist trade policies (subsidies and tariffs), and pushed the Patriot Act through under the banner of increasing national security.

The other concern I have with this election is that the winner will likely be able to appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice. However, Bush (and Congress) have failed to stand up for any of his appointments which leads me to believe he would never appoint a strict constitutionalist and he'd stick us with another Justice Souter.

The only things I believe the Republicans got right were the tax cuts and the prosecution of the war on Terror (for the most part).

Though Liberals may whine about the 2000 election being "stolen" by the Supreme Court, I have a serious problem with any justice that considers the Constitution a "living" document. The activist Supreme Court has superseded their powers and is writing law rather than interpreting it.

To me, the Libertarian Party best exemplifies what I believe in:

1. Greatly reducing the role of the Federal Government.
2. Greatly reducing taxes (I personally prefer a National Sales Tax.
3. Eliminating government subsidies and tariffs which only hide inefficient businesses and are non-competitive.
4. Elimination of ALL foreign aid. Screw the rest of the world...they hate us anyway. We'll trade with them, but we wont' give them money. Furthermore, we should enact a "mirror" policy with our trade partners. If they won't trade fairly (such as China), then we won't either. Emergency AID for disasters would be acceptable.
5. Ending the "War" on Drugs.
6. Stay the hell out of the home. This includes anti-gay laws, drugs,etc. What happens in the home between to consenting adults is NONE of the government's business so long as they aren't killing each other, hurting anyone else, or stealing from anyone else.
7. Elimination of Affirmative Action. This is used as a crutch by the weak minorities and an insult the capable. Furthermore, it's condescending to minorities as it says, "You're not good enough to compete fairly so we'll tilt the field."

Though I take issue with the Libertarian Party on Defense and Immigration, I believe since the party is still relatively young, I can help to change the Libertarian Party from within.


FOXNews.com - Politics - Hundreds of Teachers Caught Cheating

Consider this a primer for my education post that is forthcoming. This is article is great. Rather than teachers spending the time TEACHING the subjects that the students are tested on, they coach them on the standardized tests that judge performance. What a great use of time. So when the students enter the workforce, they still don't know crap...but they can certainly pass the standardized test that judges teacher/school performance....and the best part is that the teachers keep their jobs!!!!

This quote says it all, "...But others say they put an enormous amount of pressure on teachers to make sure students pass, because if they don't, the whole school might end up facing consequences."

Personal accountability for teachers/schools? NEVER. It's not fair! It's too much pressure...whine, whine, whine. If the NEA would spend as much time teaching students as they did whining, we'd put out the best students in the world.

You don't hear private school teachers whine about performance-based testing. Why? Because keeping their job is based on Performance! Tenure is near meaningless. Competition creates performance. They are up to the challenge. Private schools RAISE standards and require student performance. The NEA corrupts young teachers and adds them to the whining bureaucracy that performs inefficiently and lowers standards in order to make themselves look better.

More to follow.