As the GOP Turns – The Old Guard and New Guard – Nothing More than Evolution

There’s that old adage: “history repeats itself”, that should be taken into account prior to ringing death knells on political brands, or “rebranding” if one prefers to parse words. The fact that, as we age, younger individuals move up the ladder, so to speak, bringing with them a “new” (or old, as the case may be), political point of view – one that fits neither of today’s establishment parties. Therefore, of one individual in that generation tends to lead in the political arena, it is what it is, a changing of the guard and with that a whole can of worms opens. Suffice it to say, that there has always been a right and a left, liberal and conservative thought, which those in power generally use to divide and conquer – some to their own demise (consider the French revolution). The Old Democrat party has been long gone for decades, only no one apparently noticed. The brand is there – the dutiful “D” printed on each ballot – but the formerly fiscally sound, social justice fighters, working class party – is now the party ruled by academic elitist, who have little experience outside of a classroom, and a philosophy that is decidedly socialist. The Democrat brand was co-opted by the rise of one Ronald Reagan, who, at the same time, rebranded the Republican Party – leaning on the tax cuts of John F. Kennedy, and challenging the establishment GOP, he embodied the working man - he drove the party elites and the media crazy. Over the following decades the two parties appeared to meld into the ebb and flow of partisan politics, with rare exceptions, one was either a “Democrat or a Republican” – there was no challenge to the status quo, and the political dynasties emerged – the Bushes, the Clintons, their respective allies in the Senate and the Congress and on K Street (where the lobbyist and political action committees reside.) Reagan was the last reformer, otherwise the Republican Party, like the Democrat Party, has been the dutiful “R” on the ballot.

Suddenly the media and Washington are on high alert, as a group of individuals who are not necessarily Republican, as in “rich old white men” (as opposed to the “rich old white men” that run the Democrat Party.) are suddenly calling themselves “conservatives” running as “Republicans” and winning elections, hearts and minds. There is about to be a shift – one would hope that the scenario of three or four (optimal) parties emerging from the two old behemoths would emerge, yet, the common approach would be to co-opt one or both of the established parties. Enter the “libertarians”.

Libertarians follow a political thought process based on personal liberty, with a strong emphasis on the U.S. Constitution. Those millions of Tea Party Strict Constructionists are also likely to lean “Libertarian” – so are most 18 to 25 year olds, a demographic that rarely votes, but if, as a group, they find someone relatable, they will vote in droves. (An unintended consequence seen under Reagan.)

Although the dutiful academics, installed in the schools across the nation, from kindergarten through one’s Doctorate, have been preaching the message of “progressive” philosophy for the past 40 years, it has become stale in its practice. The economic impact of the progressive Congress under Nancy Pelosi, followed by the election and reelection of President Obama, and the consequences of “bigger, more encroaching, government”, has begun to wear thin. For some it is the lack of opportunities, for others, it is the obvious installation of a “class system” – those who have, those how have not. Those who would promise to make everyone equal, everyone wealthy, and everyone on the same playing field, by virtue of the all important government - apparently cannot deliver on that promise.

Therefore, the sudden emergence and popularity of Rand Paul and Dr. Ben Carson are seen by the media as upheaval in the Republican Party – as dutiful “Democrats”, they report on the demise of the GOP, or the “upheaval” within the GOP – it is nothing more than growing pains, or an evolution – of a more centric, inclusionary political party, one that is based upon a fiscal policy that is morally sound, while holding the 10th amendment sacrosanct.

Therefore, one might suggests, that those that would be king, the McCain’s, the Clinton’s, will have to make way for those Doctors who will stand up for both fiscal sanity and humanity, but most importantly individual liberty and responsibility – the opportunity to become a success (rather than one of the “masses” – yes, Libertarian, and/or Conservative – but appealing to those who are sick and tired of the “old brands” that have run the nation with little differences between the two political parties since Reagan left office.

The Massachusetts Exodus - Is Income Tax Repeal the Answer?

Massachusetts residents will have an opportunity to vote to repeal the 5.3% State Income Tax this November. Secretary of State, Galvin, has placed the Tax Question in the first place on the ballot Boston Globe The Globe indicates that should this ballot initiative pass, it might end up costing the state approximately $12 Billion annually. Can Massachusetts afford to repeal the income tax?

The obvious problem with repealing a state income tax, or any of the taxes currently imposed on the people and businesses left in the State of Massachusetts would be the funding of state programs. The Massachusetts mandated health care plan is currently in debt, and those within the state who are unable to afford the coverage are assessed a $219 “fee” by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue NY Times

Additionally, there are 26 state mandated benefits under the Mandatory Mass. Health Care Act. It is projected that these mandates are costing employees and employers $1300 per year for a family plan.
Boston Globe Meanwhile, the legislature is currently considering new mandates to add to the plan, which will place an even larger burden on Massachusetts working families.

With the state’s population in decline (a growth estimate released by the US Census Bureau indicates a projected growth of 1.3 percent, compared to the national average of 7.2. Springfield, MA Republican

The States model insurance program cannot be entirely to blame for the continued exodus of Massachusetts residents, but is does play a roll. With rising fuel costs, (State Tax Added), and the subsequent rise in costs of essentials (Food and utilities) as a result, burdening the Tax Payers with any additional state programs may be why the ballot question is making special interest groups nervous and Baystate voters anxious to get to the polls in November.

Should the ballot initiative pass, will the State Income Tax be repealed? That is highly unlikely. The State legislature has a long history of placing a political party’s objective above the will of the people. A proposed ballot initiative on Gay Marriage was put to rest by the Mass Legislature this past year.
(The Ledger) The people wanted to vote - the Legislature felt it was not politically expedient to place a Marriage Question on the ballot. This is a Commonwealth, after all, where the will of the people matters little; which may go further to explain the Exodus. A note or two: Communism imploded due to heavy mandates and low to no business growth. Although one cannot see breadlines in the foreseeable future, one can absolutely see a change in the states population increasing objection and rejection of core principals that the legislature holds to be absolute. The Baystate is also affectionately referred to as “The People’s Republic of Massachusetts”. Should Massachusetts policy and political think be of national interest. Absolutely. A US House, US Senate and White house of like mind would be a disaster for the Republic.

To Learn More about the Initiative visit: Smaller Government Act

Hillary Clinton – A Unified Front

Yesterday in Unity, New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton joined Barrack Obama onstage in an attempt to unify the Democrat Party and encourage her supporters to vote for Obama in the fall. There is a definite difference between the two - Hillary Clinton is a moderate Democrat, one who is admired by the blue-collar working class Democrats who overwhelmingly supported Clinton in Key States and women – women who have lived through discrimination and understand that this race was hard fought by a candidate that faced sexism at every step of the campaign trail, especially from the media and members within her own party who felt that the country might not yet be ready for a woman. Barrack Obama on the other hand is a Progressive. This is a critical difference in political ideology – Hillary Clinton could never be accused of being anything less than a Patriot, while a Progressive is more inclined to have a world view, one that includes governments that are socialist in nature. Progressive, in political ideology, does not refer to Progress, rather, it refers to the Progressive Movement, one which many are lead to believe to be “dead” in this country, however, it is most assuredly alive – in our universities and in our media. Progressives admire individuals like Marx and Lenin and believe there is a distinct difference between the Elites (those who would run the country) and the Masses (those who would work for the country). There simply is no Middle Class in Progressive ideology. Many pundits, on both the right and the left, have called into question, the sincerity of Hillary Clinton’s speech. She is a member of the Democrat Party, and therefore, will ally herself with the party speak, that said, she must certainly be aware of the growing power and the absolute danger of the Progressive Party, one which has invaded the Democrat party over the past thirty years, simply because many understood that the country was not about to vote for a Socialist Agenda. Now, with the help of the media, and individuals with deep pockets such as George Sorros, the Progressive Party standard-bearer, Barack Obama is on the road to the White House.





Text from Hillary Clinton Email to Supporters: Subject line: “Unity”


“On February 8, in Unity, New Hampshire, 107 people voted for me, and 107 people voted for Senator Barack Obama.

Today, Barack and I were in Unity to celebrate a unified Democratic Party focused on electing him the next president. I was proud to stand with him today, and I will do whatever I can to help his campaign between now and November.

Senator McCain and the Republicans may have hoped that we wouldn't join forces like this. They may have wished that we wouldn't stand united to fight this battle with everything we've got.

But I've got news for them: We are one party; we are one America; and we are not going to rest until we take back our country and put it once again on the path to peace, prosperity, and progress in the 21st century.”

The question remains, will Clinton backers buy the party line, or send a clear message that it is time for the Democrat party to be taken back to its roots; and not become a Progressive party, one that is based on the failed ideology of communism. One can look to her speech and her letter to supporters – speaking of the party and politely enjoining her supporters to vote for Obama, but overall, the message is clear – 2012.