As Obama tries to use the Democrat majority one more time, Palin proves she is a leader with political and governing sense! by Mark Vogl
(conservative)
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Governor Palin was ahead of the pack when she rejected the bill which passed the Senate yesterday.
Republicans in the Senate once again collapsed. They could have stopped this bill, but they didn't.
Do we need an extension of the Bush tax rates? Yes, but permanently! Why? For two reasons. First, because a permanent extension of the Bush tax rates would help create a long term business friendly environment thus "stimulating" the economy. Second, because permanently lower tax rates wouldcompletely change the direction of government growth. Lower tax rates means a limit to spending to force cuts in government spending.
What else is wrong with the present bill? How bout billions in earmarks spending. This is spending which is important to one member of Congress, and is added to larger legislation to get their vote. Earmarks is a tool to get your representative to vote for legislation they would not otherwise support!
The last campaign was, in part, about the abuse of earmarks and the credit card mentiality of the Obama Administration and the Democrats.
What else is wrong? How 'bout the promotion of gay Rights by ending the policy against homosexuality in the Armed Services. Isn't this issue important enough to be addressed on its own?
Republicans in the Senate had the power to kill this huge 1.1 trillion dollar bill. This bill is in effect the budget for 2012. Do you see where the two parties don't really offer two different choices? Do you see where moderate Republicans are just Democrats?
There is still a chance to stop this bill. Wait til January to address these very important issues. Wait til the new Congress, representing the people's will today has taken their seats.
Sarah Palin had been almost alone when she opposed this bill. Now, most Americans reject this bill. A sign of a leader is knowing the mind of the nation, before even the nation knows...Sarah seems to be a leader with that skill.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 268
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mark Vogl only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mark Vogl is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: InformedVoter
Date: December 17, 2010 10:26:09 AM
I disagree with several comments in this post, but I will only discuss one. The comment that Palin was almost alone when she opposed this bill is misleading and downright false. I believe the overwhelming majority of people have a distaste for parts of this bill, Democrat and Republican congressmen included. What is evident is the two parties worked together to write a bill that would involve give and take for both conservative and liberal standpoints. The writer of this post even admits to liking parts of the bill (i.e. continuing Bush tax cuts). I myself dislike many parts of this bill, but would agree to it if I was voting because I realized the parts I do like would not pass in congress on their own. The idealism that a person has will not get very far if there is always a "no" vote to every bill that has a part that is disagreed with. Long term, the result of this bill is increased government debt which I have a problem with. I am willing to forgo this concern in the short term to add measures to stimulate the ailing economy. I would not agree to this bill as I am sure many members of congress would not, if the economy was healthy and unemployment was lower. I think that working together in a give and take format allows for a better solution to problems than always disagreeing and not offering any solutions that include both points of view
Posted By: Walt
Date: December 18, 2010 07:36:19 AM
Interesting Washington Post poll yesterday showed that 60% of Americans would not consider voting for Sarah Palin. With negative polling numbers like that, Sarah Palin can't win the presidency in 2012.
Posted By: Bentree
Date: December 18, 2010 09:33:26 PM
Walt, When Sarah Palin responded to the noise from the left when she misspoke, North Korea as opposed to South she kicked liberal pundent's heads down the stairs with her response. Many progressive sphincter's are cramping over Sarah Palin's fearlessness and prescient political beliefs as well as her appeal to conservative Americans, so to it seems many Libertarians. She may in fact be unelectable but it will be fun to watch.
infovoter, Alan Simpson put it best "Compromise is an umbrella over a leaky roof". Would you compromise your principals for expediency? The Founders compromised to establish principals, today those principals are compromised to get along or to be re-elected or to garner more power, with no regard for the Republic.
Posted By: nocando
Date: December 19, 2010 11:47:09 AM
I was guided to this article from a news aggregator site. I would like to focus on a single point raised in the article, specifically related to tax cuts.
With all due respect to the author, this is an opinion column which is devoid of facts. I could have easily reversed Mr. Vogl's sentence and said "...permanently raising tax rates would completely change the direction of government growth." Still a valid statement.
I would have preferred some unbiased facts and/or statistics included in Mr. Vogl's column to help, in a logical and educated fashion, to sway people like myself who have mixed opinions about raising/lowering taxes.
I believe that government spending is out of control. I also believe that the government is not best entity to spend or distribute money. However, I have not come across credible facts that demonstrate that lowering taxes directly contributes to economic growth.
It seems that the dominant crowd who favor lowering taxes have the belief that corporations are socially responsible. Unfortunately, this is once again an 'opinion' that can easily be disputed by facts.
I encourage all columnists and readers to provide unbiased facts and statistics. Unfortunately, current media is full of sensationalism, personal opinions, referential knowledge, and sound bites.
Posted By: Bentree
Date: December 19, 2010 05:27:56 PM
Nocando, For the sake of brevity, some things require and assumption of at least a modicum of experience and knowledge. Lacking that, I would suggest that you look at the tax reductions in the Kennedy Administration as well as the Reagan years. Don’t be fooled by whether or not budget deficits increased or not. Johnson made a down payment on the great society and began to fight a war with the extra money brought in by tax rate reductions. The point is that economic activity increased, then profits increased and money flowing into the treasury increased to a much greater level than had been occurring with higher tax rates. In the Reagan years Congress had promised to lower spending by $2.00 for every $1.00 in tax reductions. The truth of the matter is they increased spending, creating deficits even after the money flowing into the treasury doubled. Deficits do not negate the actual effects of tax rate reductions. Clinton raised taxes going into a recession successfully but and it’s a big but, Congress reduced spending at the same time, this helped to produce the Clinton boom years. So what’s more advantage’s? Did I mention Calvin Coolidge?
