Friday, December 06, 2013
Can there possibly be a power shift in the Senate in the 2014 midterms – Absolutely.
Politico has suggested that the GOPis targeting several states, both “blue “and “purple” in an effort to regain control of the Senate – they rank these specific races all but “mission impossible”. The efforts of some to tie the fate of the Democrats to that of the President and the especially unpopular Obama Care program is one that is one somewhat firm ground, however, there just maybe another reason why the balance of power will shift, having a small percentile hinging on the President himself, and the balance – a general distaste by the voting public for the current crop of politicians residing in Washington.
A recent Pew poll suggests that the younger generation, those 18 to 29 year olds, have soured on the President, and although it is written as if it is a personal issue with President Obama, it is more than likely that the rank and file “masses” (to use Progressive Speak) have learned to see the forest through the trees as regards to policies that work, politician’s that make promises they don’t keep, and generally a need to change – everything. It is the Progressive (or far left) policies, just as it is the Far Right policies that turn the general populace away – and in this case, there may be heck to pay on both sides of the aisle. What is being suggested is that no one Senator or Congressional Representative is truly “safe”, especially in those blue and purple states. It is the fact that an entire generation has lost the opportunity they were promised, and they are not alone. Those that are in or nearing retirement are not enamored of either “brand” of politician; there isn’t an age demographic in any recent polling that suggests anything other than contempt for the government.
The question is; what happens in 2014? One might suggest that it is going to be a free-for-all, regardless of billions spent, or where the challenger is on the political spectrum, the incumbent should not get too cozy or comfortable should this trend continue.
Should this occur, anticipate new voice in both halls of Congress, along with those standard “Party Bearers, be they Socialist, Communist, Tea Party, Independent, Left, Right or Center, the net effect would be a Congress and Senate that would most closely resemble the founders vision of government, or a complete break of the political party system. Which sounds a bit far-fetched, as it should, sound logic dictates that those with the most cash and the most personality will surely sway the electorate – but what if?
On the November day in 2014, those going to the polls decided to do the unthinkable, vote for anyone that was not an incumbent. It might be the high cost of living, specifically in blue states where taxes are a driving factor, or something as banal as a general distrust of the government which has Congress seeing approval ratings that are almost in minus territory. When the dust settles, one might find the status quo intact, or the Congresses radically changed. A radical change would be a combination of the two major parties, holding some majority, with new elected officials that hold both right, left and center viewpoints – which, contrary to the current shift where party liens dictate movement of legislation, there would be a set of “brokers” in their midst that would, regardless of “sides” shake it up a bit and get things done.
Thursday, December 05, 2013
Wednesday, December 04, 2013
Pew: American’s turning Isolationist – Libertarian view towards U.S. role on the world stage.
Jefferson & Washington- Washington Surrounded Himself with men of unlike -mind -to further debate and bring to bear the best of the new nation - which one might humbly suggest, good management was the reason that the U.S.got off the ground and in approximately 100 years became the rival of the world in economics,opportunity and rising individuals to a level of prosperity never seen since. image first peace dot It has happened before and was bound to happen again – previous to WWII, and after struggling for years economically, the vast majority of U.S. Citizens preferred not to engage in any wars or conflicts. In fact, up until the Japanese’s bombed Pearl Harbor, did the public get on board? Today, with similar economics in play, the majority of Americans, according to Pew Research See the U.S. Power Declining as support for “global engagements “slip, for the first time in over 40 year, the public sees less intervention. (Pew) To be fair this is a political poll based upon the current administrations overall job approval, as well as their foreign policy which is brought to bear when concluding that the public is displeased with the policy, rather than war weary. That said, wither or not one feels that the President or his administration is not doing a stellar job vis a vis foreign policy maneuvers, then that does not overall, take away from a gut decision to prefer not to enter any conflicts period.
This is, historically, one of those periods where the general public, and perhaps some leadership of like mind, (the honorable Jr. Senator from Kentucky for example) would before to build from within rather than use the military to intervene in global conflicts. These cycles began with the First President, George Washington, who felt it better for the fledgling U.S. to take more reasonable approach to building first, before becoming involved in conflicts that would drain the economy and the young army. He suggested a twenty year hiatus on any involvement that did not directly affect or attack U.S. sovereign soil.
Granted we do have a global economy, and must as citizens of the larger world have interaction to insure that all continues to run smoothly, however, as a rule, that would apply to economics and a “Mind you own business” approach to anything further, specifically military. The Military should be used to protect the U.S. soil, and only when the U.S. is attacked should the Government respond. It is one of the few jobs laid out in the Law of the Land – or the Constitution, that is specific tot eh Federal Government, the others being to maintain common currency, and to provide for roads and such structures as necessary. One might find the government today, would make the founders weep.
The perfect scenario would be that the Federal Government ran exactly to the Constitution where the people mattered more than the next election or what cash could be found to line one’s pockets further – it is the great divide now, between the Federal government and The American People, so evident that may have further lent to the poll results.
A non-interventionist policy is extremely appealing, especially when combined with a smaller federal government, allowing the states to prosper as they should, instituting term limits for Congress would be more beneficial, as well as lengthening the time the Congressional Rep would serve, equal to that of a Senator – two terms each, at 4 years per term would give ample time to legislate, perform one’s service to the nation, and go back to the law firm, doctors’ office, or farm.
The Government at work
Washington’s first act was to surround himself with able men, who should be his advisers. He chose for his cabinet four men. Two of when were heartily in favor of the Constitution, and two had been opposed to it. The Secretary of State was Thomas Jefferson and the attorney general was Edmund Randolph. Both of these men had preferred a confederation of the Sates to a strong union.
(This is from the book: A Short History of the United States by Horace E Scudder written in 1890 from Cambridge. It is recommended that this particular book in its original form be introduced as a class on American History, up to the Reconstruction – for what it tells, in a story designed to interest those students how might not otherwise care for history, to enjoy and find a love for the subject.
What the above illustrates is that, regardless of the time, from the very beginning to present, there were men who agreed and disagreed, hwoever, in the past it was such that money and power did not get in the way of what was a reasonable debate over the best interest of the nation.)
Ironically, as Jefferson was a states’ rights man and is the found of the Democrat Party, it is interesting to note that the limited federal government founder of a political party would be considered a “tea Party terrorist today.
Monday, December 02, 2013
Massachusetts - Obama Care Hikes in Employer Premiums – Businesses Hold Breath for 2014 – MA Health Care Connector (Formerly Romney Care) Uses Community Organizers to Canvas Prior to Election Spends Federal Obama Care Grants
Massachusetts businesses are growing increasingly concerned about the erratic premium increases due to Obama Care mandates according to the The Springfield Republican (Masslive) Apparently, some will find no increases, while others will find increases up to 50% - forcing small businesses to drop coverage, according to the article.
Over at Red Mass Group – it has been discovered that the Health Care Connector is using Federal Obama Care grants to fund Community Organizer Groups to “educate” the public – prior to a statewide election – they knocked on doors. Apparently, paying organizers to solicit votes prior to an election using Federal Funds is raising a few eyebrows (Red Mass Group)
What on earth did they expect? Massachusetts has consistently voted a more progressive Democrat track in the past 10 years, and therefore, the writing should be on the wall. Romney Care was far from perfect with many families opting to pay fees rather than buy the pricey Health Care Connector (Romney Care) insurance – however, with some of the highest premiums in the country, one might not have considered it could get any worse – apparently, Romney Care is not Obama Care or Obama Care is Romney Care on steroids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
