My Full Endorsement Of Fred Thompson For President

While Fred Thompson is not leading the polls, Thompson does have a majority of endorsements from prominent conservative bloggers. Here are some of the higher profile conservatives on the Internet who have come out and endorsed or support Thompson (H/T to Josh Painter):

Polipundit, IMAO, Pejman Yousefzadeh on Red State, SayAnything blog, Rick Moran of rightwingnuthouse and the American Thinker, Rightontheright, Bob Krumm, Eugene Volokh, Beldarblog, FloppingAces, The DailyPundit (Bill Quick), David Hinz (The Hinzsight Report), Alo Konsen (Brainshavings.com), Gamecock (Race42008.com and The Hinzsight Report), John Hawkins (Rightwingnews), Jonathan Adler (NRO and the Volokh Conspiracy), TraderRob (Opinipundit), Haystack (hick politics, Redstate), Erik Erickson (Redstate), Professor Steven Brainbridge, Conservativesuperiority.com

There are many more, but not enough space or time to mention them all. Blogger endorsements obviously don’t have a large impact on the actual voting process, but what is important is that all of these pundits follow the race and the candidates closely, and make up their minds not only on soundbytes, but on substance and record. Some of these bloggers have been on board since the beginning, while others have only endorsed Thompson recently.

Well, it is time to officially add my name to the list. Of course, our readers here are well aware of who I support and I even work with the campaign, but I realized I have never really officially said “I endorse (insert candidate’s name) for president).” I’m not in the same league as some of these prominent bloggers, but this site has its share of readers and we hold our own against many on the web.

So, now it is time to officially announce that I, Tommy Oliver, contributor to Race42008.com and a member of the Federalist Society, will throw my endorsement and support behind………….

No surprise………. Fred Dalton Thompson for President of the United States.

How did I come to this decision? Well, since I actually have supported Thompson from the beginning of the draft campaign in March, it wasn’t a very hard decision. My endorsement is based on this criteria (in no particular order): philosophy, trust, policy, and the ability to appeal across the board to conservatives. However: before today, I thought that since everyone who reads my posts on the internet would obviously have a pretty good idea of which candidate I supported and I didn’t see any point in saying anything official, but today Rick Moran said that the bloggers who have a good size audience need to stand up and make your pitch explaining why they support Thompson, if they haven’t done so already. Time is running short, and this post is not only for our regular commenters here, but for those who just read this site for updates and those who might just be passing through.

Let me explain why Thompson is the candidate that measures up the best to my standards:

Philosophy:

My personal philosophy is deeply rooted in federalism. I am a member of the Federalist Society, and that principle is what guides me politically. Fred Thompson is supported by a majority of the founders of the Federalist Society, and for good reason. He is the most conservative viable candidate for the nomination, and there is little dispute of that. He has been a voice for federalist principles long before he decided to run for President this year. His views on the role of government have been consistent since the early 1960’s. Although his book, 1975’s At That Point in Time, was not necessarily about political ideology, one could have an understanding of his beliefs after reading it. From the time he was elected to the Senate in 1994 until he left in 2002, he was always guided by his principles. He was the author of the Federalism Accountability Act, which he introduced in 1999. He was the first to introduce a bill for defining term limits for members of the House and the Senate in 1994. In 2000, Thompson was the recipient of the “Restoring the Balance” Award from the National Conference of State Legislatures, which is awarded to national policymakers committed to federalism and its impact on issues involving state legislators. The following is from the press release announcing the award:

Thompson’s dedication to the principles of federalism and sound government policy has resulted in the Committee’s advancement of the Federalism Accountability Act, and Senate passage of the Regulatory Right to Know Act, the Federal Financial Information Assistance Management Improvement Act, the Truth in Regulating Act, and revision of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

In 2000, Thompson authored a report that was aimed at specifically reducing the size of government and wasteful spending in DC.

On his website, Thompson wrote at length about the need for federalism in today’s atmosphere:

When you hold firm to the principles of federalism, there’s another advantage: our federal government can better carry out its own defining responsibilities - above all else, the security of our nation and the safety of our citizens. Sometimes I think that our leaders in Washington try to do so many things, in so many areas, that they lose sight of their basic responsibilities.
We saw some improvement in the post-1994, “Contract with America” takeover of Congress - strings to federal programs were cut, more federal programs were being turned over to states, historic legislation to reduce unfunded mandates became law, and we rolled back the Clinton anti-federalism executive order. But in recent years we’ve seen backsliding.

And

It is not enough to say that we are “for” federalism, because in today’s world it is not always clear what that means. What we are “for” is liberty for our citizens. Federalism divides power between the states and government in Washington. It is a tool to promote freedom. How we draw the line between federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom are questions we must answer. Our challenge - meaning the federal government, the states, our communities and constituents - is to answer these questions together.

Out of the viable candidates for the Republican nomination, this is one area where Thompson is clearly head and shoulders above the rest of the field, with the exception of Ron Paul. No other candidate has outlined a clear set of principles that would guide their presidency, and among some of them, those principles that guide them are not exactly clear. After Thompson, Rudy Giuliani probably has spoken about the need for federalism the most and spoke at the Federalist Society Lawyers Convention, but he was not a known believer in federalist principle during his time in office, and didn’t claim to be at the time. John McCain’s beliefs are rooted in federalism and when he has voted on the issue in the past, more often then not, he came down on the right side of the argument. McCain has a record that, more often than not, strengthens his case. At the same time, McCain is famous for his maverick tendencies, which makes it harder to pin him down to a consistent set of beliefs. Mitt Romney has spoken about federalism during his run for the nomination, but Romney is also a pragmatist and a manager. While there are obvious advantages to that type of experience, it doesn’t necessarily lend itself well to identifying a philosophy that guides a politician. Romney is a candidate who would likely govern conservatively, but what his definition of conservatism is cannot be readily identified. Mike Huckabee’s candidacy is not based upon the need for federalism, and though that is not a negative in some areas, it is at odds with my values. Ron Paul is a strong, principled candidate, but there are too many areas of concern for him to be my pick.

Trust:

This is another area where I feel Thompson is the best representative of the Republican nominees. Thompson has become known for his refusal to pander or fudge on his facts. If one checks factcheck.org after every debate, Thompson is the one candidate whose facts check out each time. He is not afraid to tell the truth about what is going wrong and what he believes is the best remedy to fix the problem. His policy proposals are strong and firm. Even those who do not support Thompson for the nomination don’t question his substance. With Thompson, what you see is what you get, and his word is firm. He doesn’t weasel his way around an issue, for he has shown that he will tackle the toughest problems head on. No other GOP candidate has touched an issue as politically dangerous as social security besides Thompson, and he has done it repeatedly throughout the campaign. According to NumbersUSA, Thompson introduced the toughest immigration proposals, and although he didn’t recieve Tom Tancredo’s endorsement, the majority of Tancredo’s staff has gone with Thompson, as has Steve King, the immigration hawk from Iowa.

Policy:

Once again, when it comes to conservative policy proposals, Thompson comes out on top. Thompson has been the leading voice for reducing the size of government (with the exception of Ron Paul). For a more detailed outline on Thompson’s policies, check out his proposals on his website here, and read this article from NRO:

Fred Thompson may have started his presidential campaign late, but he is the first candidate in either party to come out with solid plans to reform Social Security and immigration. And while most candidates have called for increasing the size of the military, Thompson laid out a detailed plan to achieve that end in a Tuesday speech at the Citadel Military College. On these issues, Thompson has set a standard for specificity, conservatism, and soundness that we would like to see the other Republican candidates measure up to.

…

It’s obvious why conservatives see something to like in Thompson. He has offered clear, conservative ideas on fixing Social Security, policing immigration, and expanding the military. We encourage the other candidates to follow his lead.

Across the board Appeal To Conservatives:

Thompson has the advantage over his rivals is that he is the one candidate that can unite the base. Every other candidate either has issues with certain segments of the base, or has questions that remain unanswered. Rudy Giuliani would have real problems uniting the social conservatives. John McCain has angered many on the right, making it more difficult for him to enjoy universal support inside the party. Mitt Romney has been saying the right things, but the questions about his movement towards the right remain. Mike Huckabee has a very strong base of support among social conservatives and the Religious Right, but has real problems outside of his core support. Ron Paul? I like the guy, but he can’t realistically unite the GOP around his candidacy. In the end, all of the candidates have their strengths, and each one is strong in their own right, but only Fred Thompson has the ability to unite the conservative movement completely behind his candidacy.

Foreign Policy Experience:

This is an area where the republicans have more than one solid choice. Out of the top tier candidates, two have extensive experience in dealing with foreign policy, and one could make a legitimate claim that Rudy Giuliani would make three. Most who follow the race closely would agree that John McCain is probably the most experienced candidate in this particular area, but the gap between him and Thompson is not that large. One would only have to look at Thompson’s resume to realize this:

Chairman of the International Security Advisory Board of the Department of State currently; a high-level panel charged with evaluating long-term threats to U. S. security

Served on the US-China Economic Review Commission

AEG Scholar specializing in Diplomatic Relations and Foreign Intelligence

Special Counsel to both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations under President Reagan

Member of the powerful Senate Committee on Finance, which has jurisdiction over, among other things, international trade

Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Member of the National Security Working Group, which observes and monitors executive branch negotiations with foreign governments

Member of the American Enterprise Institute for Policy Research, studies national security and intelligence, with a focus on China, North Korea, and Russia

Member of the U. S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee

U.S. Senate Finance subcommittee- Member, International Trade

In 2008, the United States needs a President who has experience dealing with affairs on an international level, and Fred Thompson’s resume is quite impressive.

National Security:

Once again, more than one candidate has experience dealing with national security. John McCain and Fred Thompson both have the experience of being legislators during 9/11 and the build up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Rudy Giuliani served on the Baker Committee and was the Mayor of New York during 9/11, performing admirably. Mitt Romney has experience dealing with security from his time running the Salt Lake City Olympics and serving on the Homeland Security Advisory Council.

Since McCain’s credentials match any of the other candidates, I am taking it for granted that everyone feels that he is strong in this area. Fred Thompson’s resume is impressive in its own right. Note that some of these overlap with his foreign policy resume:

Chairman of the International Security Advisory Board of the Department of State currently; a high-level panel charged with evaluating long-term threats to U. S. security

Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Member of the National Security Working Group, which observes and monitors executive branch negotiations with foreign governments

Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee 1997-2001 (which covered Homeland Security)

Chairman of the Youth Violence Committee in the Senate

Member, Technology, Terrorism and Gov’t. Information Committee in the Senate

Special counsel, Senate Committee on Intelligence, 1982

Important Proposals, bills and Inclusions Introduced while in the Senate:

Nuclear Proliferation Act

Aviation Security Bill Amendment

Homeland Security Workforce Act

Homeland Security Education Act

Thompson Amendment to the National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act

The Federal Emergency Procurement Flexibility Act

The Government Information Security Reform Act (GISRA)

The Thompson Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act

The Truth in Regulation Act

The Thompson Amendment Requiring Stricter Performance Standards for Aviation Security

The China Regulation Act

co authored the Homeland Security Act

Thompson served as Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee from 1997-2001, and then as the Ranking Minority Member from 2001-2003, when it was renamed the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. The committee has always been responsible for national security measures in the federal government, and had an even greater role during Thompson’s tenure, before the creation of the Homeland Security Department.

Conclusion
Here are some words from people I respect on Fred Thompson:

“Fred Thompson has, over his career, much better defined federalism than almost anybody else in Washington. He is one of very few people voting against feel-good popular legislation that was not the proper domain of the federal government.”
-Pat Toomey, President of the Club for Growth

“the genuine moderate as opposed to conservative aspects of three of the top-tier, four of the top-tier candidates were on full-fledged display last night. There was one candidate who did not display any moderateness or liberalism or have any of his past forays into those areas displayed, and that candidate was Fred Thompson.”
- Rush Limbaugh

“he shows great political courage in taking on half of the single most important long-term economic issue facing this country (the other half being the long-term Medicare mess). On this proposal, conservatives ought to be rallying to Thompson’s defense, not greeting him with silence.”
-Quin Hillyer

”Good for Fred. Good for his excellent, broad based, tax-cut plan — including a flat-tax option and a corporate tax cut… Good for Fred for mentioning National Review and Investor’s Business Daily for speaking positively about his candidacy… Good for Fred for showing fire, energy, and animation throughout the interview. It’s the same fire in the belly that I witnessed in our CNBC interview earlier this month.

I vastly prefer positive policy visions to down-in-the-mud trashing. (I know, I know, criticizing each other on the issues is a key part of politics.) But my great hope is that the Republican contenders will emphasize their key policy visions as the race heats up.”
-larry kudlow

”That’s why I’m pleased that Fred Thompson has thrown his hat into the ring. Thompson has been talking and writing about his belief in federalism. In a recent speech, he argued that “centralized government is not the solution to all our problems…this was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007. Thompson rightly argues that the abandonment of federalism has caused a range of pathologies including a lack of government accountability, the squelching of policy diversity between the states, and the overburdening of federal policymakers with local matters when they should be focusing on national security issues. Federalism “is a tool to promote freedom” as Thompson puts it. So for the supposed heirs to Ronald Reagan who are running for president, let’s hear more about expanding our freedom by cutting the federal government down to constitutional size.”

- Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policies at the CATO Institute

“Fred Thompson says that he will base his campaign on the ‘first principles’ of ‘individual freedom and limited government.’ If he follows through, he will have an opportunity to position himself as the only small-government conservative in the race. … Does Fred Thompson, then, offer an alternative for small-government conservatives? While he is not quite the second coming of Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan, a look at his record shows that he has generally supported limited government. … Of course, spending the last several years in Hollywood has enabled Thompson to avoid taking positions on many current issues. Now that he is in the race, he’ll have to be much more specific about his positions. But, given the fact that McCain, Romney, and Giuliani are clearly big-government conservatives, Thompson has an opportunity to seize the small-government mantle.”

- Michael D. Tanner, Director of Studies at the CATO Institute

One reason President Bush has lost the trust of the American people is his secrecy and the extension of the executive arm. Out of all the Republican candidates, only Thompson has clearly made the case of a more open White House. Thompson is a candidate who holds a cautious view of executive secrecy. Matthew Nather, of Congressional Quarterly, thinks this has everything to do with his professional experience.

According to Nather in the 12/20/07 issue of CQ:

”As the counsel in the 1970s to the Republicans on the Senate Watergate Committee and as the Chairman in the 1990s of what is now the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Thompson has much more experience than any other candidate in leading congressional investigations of presidents. He has spent much of his career, in fact, thinking like a prosecutor and standing up for Congressional oversight responsibilities.”

Nather also reminded readers that it doesn’t mean that Thompson would necessarily give away presidential power:

As one of the main authors of the 2002 legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security, Thompson defended Bush’s insistence on having maximum flexibility on hiring and salary decisions for the departments employees. He claimed that a Democratic alternative would “actually diminish the president’s national security authority that other presidents have had.”

In his 1975 memoir, Thompson wrote that “He (Nixon) undoubtedly felt that the institution of the presidency, and he as the holder of that office, were so powerful that no force on Earth was strong enough to make him relinquish the tapes. In this, the master politician misjudged Congress, the Supreme Court, and the American people.”

From his past experiences, from serving on the Watergate Committee to his investigations in the Senate, out of all the Republican nominees, Thompson is the one who seems to have an understanding of the responsibility of the President to the Constitution and the American people.

I endorse Senator Fred Thompson for President.

To Join me in helping Thompson win the White House, click here. Now is the time to step forward.

Crossposted from:
http://race42008.com/2007/12/27/my-full-endorsement-of-fred-thompson/

Historic Times

With one week to go before Iowa many bloggers, this one included, have chosen today for a blog burst for Fred Thompson.  I include the list at the bottom, please check out these blogs.  There is a lot of good people and a lot of good writing by these folks.  The main point of this blog burst is to help raise money and awareness for Fred Thompson.  Fred is the only conservative running for President.  Fred has been consistent to conservative principles his entire life.  Several other candidates in the field have tried to claim they are conservative, but when you review their proposals today, when you look at what they said their entire life in public office you see that they will say anything to get elected.

Conservatism has never been under greater assault than it is today.  All the Republican candidates except Fred Thompson are trying to redefine conservatism, they need to do this because they have supported higher taxes, big government, etc.  Things that they should be opposed to.  Fred Thompson has not only been the most consistent in adhering to conservative principles, but he is the only candidate that has put forth a clear plan for taxes, immigration, national defense, healthcare, energy security among others.  To this point none of the other candidates, nor the media, have criticized Fred’s plans.  They can’t debate Fred on issues, so they attempt to criticize him personally.

This country faces great challenges in the coming years.  The younger generations will be asked to shoulder a greater burden, our entitlement programs are out of control.  Democrats’ only plan is for more entitlements which history has shown don’t work.  We as a people are under attack from Islamic extremists who are bent on hate and oppression.  Again Democrats and too many Republicans, don’t see the threat and choose to bury their head in the sand.

Fred Thompson has a greater understanding of these issues, and how to solve them, than any of the other candidates.  Please if you are not familiar with Fred’s stance on the issues that we face today please take the time to read at Fred’s website.

If you consider yourself conservative then be true to conservative principles and support the only conservative in field.  Donate everything you can, don’t think that any amount is too small, we all donate in various amounts and nothing is insignificant.

Again here are other bloggers participating in this blog burst.  Please visit these sites and read some of the great material from these great people.

John Hawkins of Rightwing News, Erick Erickson of RedState.Com, Pejman of RedState, Eugene Volokh of Volokh’s Conspiracy, Polipundit of Polipundit, Ala from Blonde Sagacity, Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Kender at Kender’s Musings, Gribbit at Gribbit’s Word, Bill Quick of Daily Pundit, Misha of Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller, Bob Krumm, Brandon at Conservative Superiority, Curt at Flopping Aces, Darrell of Alpha Patriot, Jimmie of the Sundries Shack, Justin Higgins of Right on the Right, Kim du Toit, MacRanger of Macsmind, Rick Moran of Right Wing Nuthouse, Mike Hendrix of Cold Fury, Rob Port of Say Anything, Stix of Stix Blog, TraderRob of Opinipundit, William Dyer of Beldar Blog, Nate of Irate-Nation, William Teach of Pirate’s Cove, Tommy Oliver from Race 4 2008, Ray Robison, Frank J. at IMAO, Michele at Reformed Chicks Babbling, and The Discerning Texan.

Not to mention Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Former Sen. George Allen (R-VA), Former Sen. Al D’Amato (R-NY), Former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK), California State Sen. Tom McClintock, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), former CA State Senator Dick Mountjoy, and Tom Tancredo’s former Iowa State Chairman Bill Salier.

Why Fred Thompson Part II

The next topic I wish to address in explaining my reasoning for supporting Fred Thompson is taxes and tax reform.  Some candidates, Huckabee most recently, have supported the fairtax proposal.  Please go to their website and spend some time, read it thoroughly.  When you have most of you will come to the same conclusion I have which is that this is just another expansion of government that will become the single biggest entitlement program we have.  It puts everyone on the government entitlement program so that the ever efficient government will dole out checks to everyone each month.

Now let’s contrast that with what Fred Thompson proposes.  There are many people in this country that are resistant to change, Fred recognizes that and has come up with a plan that addresses the problem of tax reform without forcing everyone into a new system they don’t support.  Details of Fred’s plan are here but below are some highlights:

1. Permanently Extend the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts. Tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 has proved critical to generating a strong economy that has experienced growth despite the war on terror, the collapse in the housing market, and other economic challenges over the last six years. Unless action is taken, every American taxpayer will see a massive tax increase after December 31, 2010.

2. Permanently Repeal the Death Tax. Current law provides death tax relief, but only through 2010. The death tax is inherently unfair. Under the Thompson Plan, the death tax would be permanently repealed, thus protecting millions of American families, including small business owners and family farmers, from double taxation at rates ranging as high as 55 percent.

3. Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is a separate tax system that was intended to ensure that a few high income Americans could not use deductions and credits to eliminate their tax liability. However, because the AMT is not indexed to inflation, it is penalizing Americans it was never intended to affect. While in the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson authored legislation that would have repealed the AMT. Consistent with that earlier proposal, the Thompson plan will eliminate the AMT as part of broader tax and spending reform. Until comprehensive reform is feasible, the Thompson plan would index the exemption amounts annually so that millions of middle class families will not become subject to this tax.

4. Reduce the Corporate Tax Rate. The United States has one of the highest rates of tax on businesses of the industrialized nations, second only to Japan. EvenJapan is currently considering reducing its corporate tax rate. Economic studies suggest that the U.S. Treasury is actually losing tax revenue by keeping the corporate tax rate so high. In order to increase the competitiveness of U.S. companies in the global marketplace, the Thompson plan would reduce the U.S. top corporate tax rate (including the corporate capital gains tax rate) from 35 percent to no more than 27 percent, which is the approximate average of the world’s leading economies—the nations of the Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development. This tax reduction will promote U.S. competitiveness, encourage companies to keep their operations (and jobs) in the U.S., and spur continued economic expansion and growth.

5. Permanently Extend Small Business Expensing. Small businesses create two-thirds of all new jobs in America, and employ nearly 59 million Americans — more than half of the nation’s private-sector workforce. Women own a quarter of all small businesses, minorities are nearing the 20% mark, and Hispanic Americans are opening their own businesses at a rate three times the national average. Current law allows small businesses to write-off purchases of equipment of up to $125,000 per year, rather than depreciating those assets over time. Making expensing of equipment and other small business items permanent will encourage greater investment and growth.

6. Update and Simplify Depreciation Schedules. The current depreciation schedules are outdated and in many cases do not reflect the realistic useful life of an asset. This is particularly true for investments in high technology. For example, computers must be depreciated over three years, even though they become obsolete in half that time. The Thompson plan would simplify and update these schedules to allow American businesses to make the investments they need to compete and create more high-quality jobs.

7. Expand Taxpayer Choice. The Thompson plan would give Americans greater choice about how to pay their federal taxes. This plan is based on a proposal developed by the House of Representatives Republican Study Committee that would provide taxpayers the option of remaining under the current, complex tax code or opting for a simplified, flat tax code. The simplified tax code would contain two tax rates: 10% for joint filers on income of up to $100,000 ($50,000 for singles) and 25% on income above these amounts. The standard deduction would be more than doubled to $25,000 for joint filers and $12,500 for singles. The personal exemption amount would be increased to $3,500. Therefore, a family of 4 would be exempt from income tax on the first $39,000 of income. The simplified tax code would contain no other tax credits or deductions. It would also retain the 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends. This approach would dramatically simplify taxes for tens of millions of Americans. In addition, the larger standard deduction and personal exemption amounts will still provide significant tax relief to families with children. This proposal would serve as a stepping-stone to fundamental tax reform.

Now, this shows that not only has Fred drafted a plan that appeals to individuals in terms of fixing the punitive nature of the tax code but he understands economics today better than the so called experts that seem to be surprised at all the positive things we have in today’s economy.  Now I would wager that 99% of the public has no idea that this country has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate of any industrialized nation.  After all we constantly hear how evil corporations are taking advantage of workers, or polluting the air and water, blah blah blah.  Yet while many European countries have high individual tax rates they have smaller corporate tax rates.  Is it any wonder the Euro is doing so well against the dollar?

As for Fred’s plan for expanding taxpayer choice.  His approach couldn’t be better, he has put this out in terms that everyone can understand and in a way that Democrats will look like idiots to criticize.  A basic flat tax rate for everyone with joint incomes of under $100,000.000 per year that is 10% and a family of four exempts their first $39,000.00 in income.  This means that a family of four with a joint income of $100k pays $6,100.00 in federal tax.  For those of you that get paid every two weeks that breaks down to roughly $254.00 per pay check (assuming $100k income).  If you’re making $100k per year I urge you to go get your last pay stub and see what your federal confiscation was for the last pay period.  For 95% of you I would bet that it was higher than $254.00

Again we are getting close to election time and I urge people, even if you have made up your mind on what candidate you support, do your homework.  What plan does your candidate have to address tax reform.  Does that plan make sense, can you easily figure out how that plan will impact you?  Research the plans of the other candidates, research what all the candidates have said not only today but what have their positions been over their life in public service?

This election is too important to make our judgements based on how a candidate packages not only himself, but also how he packages his message and his past record.

Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson, Tax reform, tax cuts

Why Fred Thompson Part I

As we get close to Iowa several people have begun asking for details about Fred Thompson and where he stands on issues so over the next week I will detail the case for Fred Thompson.  I will pull this information from Fred’s website, interviews, etc.  Fred is really the only candidate who has detailed where he stands on the issues.  The others tend to talk in Clintonspeak about what they believe, or what they say now is different than their record.

I begin with immigration.  I refer to parts of the “Securing the Border and Enforcing the Law” section of Fred’s plan.

1. No Amnesty. Do not provide legal status to illegal aliens. Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States. In some cases, those law-abiding and aspiring immigrants have been waiting for several years.

2. Attrition through Enforcement . Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty.

3. Enforce Existing Federal Laws. Enforce the laws Congress has already enacted to prevent illegal aliens from unlawfully benefiting from their presence in the country:

    A. End Sanctuary Cities by cutting off discretionary federal grant funds as appropriate to any community that, by law, ordinance, executive order, or other formal policy directs its public officials not to comply with the provisions of 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644, which prohibit any state or local government from restricting in any way communications with the Department of Homeland Security “regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.”

    B. Deny discretionary Federal education grants as appropriate to public universities that violate federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens without also offering identical benefits to United States citizens, regardless of whether or not they live in the state, as required by 8 USC 1623.

    C. Deny discretionary Federal grants as appropriate to states and local governments that violate federal law by offering public benefits to illegal aliens, as prohibited by 8 USC 1621(a).

4. Reduce the Jobs Incentive. Ensure employee verification by requiring that all U.S. employers use the Department of Homeland Security’s electronic database (the E-Verify system) to confirm that a prospective employee is authorized to work in the U.S. Now that the technology is proven, provide sufficient resources to make the system as thorough, fast, accurate, and easy-to-use as possible.

5. Add to the Cost of Hiring Illegal Aliens. Deny a tax deduction to employers for the wages they pay to illegal aliens, thereby dramatically increasing the real cost of employing illegal aliens. Businesses that do not play by the rules should not be rewarded under our tax system.

6. Bolster Border Security. Finish building the 854-mile wall along the border by 2010 as required by 8 USC 1103. Extend the wall beyond that as appropriate and deploy new technologies and additional resources to enhance detection and rapid apprehension along our borders by 2012.

7. Increased Prosecution. Deploy the additional assets outlined above to prosecute alien smugglers (”coyotes”), alien gang members, previously deported felons, and aliens who have repeatedly violated our immigration laws much more vigorously.

8. Rigorous Entry/Exit Tracking. Complete the implementation of a system to track visa entrants and exits, as has been required by federal law for more than ten years, and connect it to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC), in order to curb visa overstays and permit more effective enforcement.

Now it is clear that Fred has a grasp of the issue that is not seen in many of the other candidates.  Fred goes further and details some changes to the legal immigration process.  From the “Improving the Legal Immigration Process” section of Fred’s plan.

The United States is a nation of immigrants. We must continue to welcome immigrants and foreign workers who come to our country legally, giving priority to those who can advance the nation’s interests and common good. Immigrants and foreign workers who play by the rules need to be rewarded with faster and less burdensome service, not delays that last years. Advancing the following initiatives will require close cooperation between all levels of government, the business community, and concerned citizens:

1. Maximize Program Efficiency. Reduce the backlogs and streamline the process for immigrants and employers who seek to follow the law. Also, simplify and expedite the application processes for temporary visas. This can be accomplished by hiring more personnel at Citizenship and Immigration Services and the FBI. Caps for any category of temporary work visa would be increased as appropriate, if it could be demonstrated that there are no Americans capable and willing to do the jobs.

2. Enhanced Reporting. Improve reporting to the government by businesses that rely on temporary workers so that the government can track whether the visa holder remains employed.

3. Modernize Immigration Law/Policy. Change the nature of our legal immigration system to welcome immigrants who can be economic contributors to our country, are willing to learn the English language, and want to assimilate.

    A. Reduce the scope of chain migration by giving family preference in the allocation of lawful permanent resident status only to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, and no one else (no siblings, no parents, no adult children, etc.).

    B. Eliminate the diversity visa lottery.

4. English As Official Language. Make English the official language of the United States to promote assimilation and legal immigrants’ success, and require English proficiency in order for any foreign person to be granted lawful permanent resident status.

5. Freedom from Political Oppression. Preserve U.S. laws and policies to ensure that the United States remains a beacon and a haven for persons fleeing political oppression, while assuring appropriate admission standards are maintained.

6. Service to Country. Place those foreign persons who are lawfully present in the country and who serve honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States on a faster, surer track to U.S. citizenship.

I urge you to read Fred’s plan in detail, immigration is one of the single biggest issues of this campaign.  We know that Democrats have no meaningful plan on fixing this, or anything else, because they have been promising to fix it since the 60’s and have proven that they aren’t interesting is solving the problem only making people afraid of Republicans that actually want to fix the problem.

Part II will focus on Fred’s plan for reforming the tax system.

Why Huckabee needs Rush Limbaugh

Huckabee hires Ed Rollins, probably the biggest idiot in Republican politics, and Rollins immediately goes out and bashes 70% of the republican party by criticizing Rush Limbaugh.  Rollins should back out and write about how to win friends and influence people perhaps.  Anyway Huckabee try’s to put the horse (or horses’ ass) back in the barn by extending an olive branch to Rush.

I love Rush Limbaugh; I’ve always loved his show,” Huckabee assured.  “I think he’s been great for the conservative movement.

Ask him. I don’t know. … All I can do is hope that Rush loves me as much as I love Rush.

The reality is that as Rush goes, so goes the conservative wing of the country and so goes the rest of the country.  Rush doesn’t endorse candidates during the primaries but he isn’t afraid to speak his mind about candidates.  Recently he has, correctly I might add, compared Huckabee to Ross Perot.  Huckabee is liberal on criminals, liberal on taxes and he fits in better with Hillary, and Obama than he does with Fred Thompson and the conservative movement.

There is little that Huckabee brings to the table in terms of this race.  He is perhaps conservative on social issues, but that’s it.  He brings no experience on foreign policy and again sounds more like Hillary and Obama on the subject than he does someone that actually knows something about foreign policy.  He has raised taxes more than Bill Clinton did as governor, he has released more criminals than the six (larger) surrounding states combined.

No wonder Huckabee is appealing to the social conservatives, he needs social conservatives to turn a blind eye to his fiscal liberalism and ignore the fact that someone else (Fred Thompson) has been endorsed by the right to life groups.  Huckabee, like Romney and McCain, can’t afford for voters to find out what his record really is because when they do Huckabee will lose.

The fact remains that there is only one candidate in this race that is the complete package for conservatives, fiscal and social alike, and has the record to back it up, and that is Fred Thompson.  Rush has noted that Thompson is the only conservative in this race, a fact that the liberal media, as well as the Rudy McRomney media of Fox, Drudge, etc has largely ignored.  Hopefully the conservatives in Iowa will see the truth and not fall for the slick marketing and packaging that Romney and Huckabee provide.

Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, GOP

Tancredo bails on immigration

By endorsing Mitt Romney Tom Tancredo proves to us that he was all about getting attention and not really serious about the issue of illegal immigration.  Mitt Romney doesn’t have a plan to deal with immigration, he has done nothing as former governor to deal with the problems of illegal immigration, and this insures that we could look forward to continuing the status quo should Romney get the nomination.

We can only hope that Tancredo’s supporters, who care deeply about this issue, are much more intelligent about the candidate they support than this candidate was.

Next Page »