Archive for the ‘John McCain’ Category is a Democratic Party Drone

Monday, May 11th, 2009

Will.I.Am of the Black Eyed Peas decided to become politically active last year along with a large number of celebrities pushing for Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy. Will.I.Am did that corny “Yes We Can” YouTube video where Will I Am got a bunch of celebrities to proclaim their worship to Barack Obama and his candidacy. That was okay. That was not a problem for me. I kind of liked Barack Obama as a Presidential Candidate he was talking about transparency and rolling back some of the horrific foreign policy decisions of the Bush Administration. If I had to vote for Barack Obama or John McCain, I probably would have voted for Obama. Lots of celebrities supported Obama and still do because he was cool and liberal among other things.

Now Will.I.Am is planning on meeting Terry McAuliffe at at least four events as he campaigns to get the Democratic Party’s nomination for Governor. Terry McAuliffe is not from Virginia and has not spent any amount of time in the state of Virginia other than parts of Northern Virginia inside the beltway. stated in a press release:

“Terry is my good friend and my closest political mentor,” said in a statement released by the campaign. “He will be a great governor because of his passion to help people and his understanding of the grassroots community. I look forward to joining him on the campaign trail.”

To me this sounds like does not have a specific reason other than he probably met Terry McAuliffe with Barack Obama once. is a hack. Hip-hop should not support professional politicians.

Earmarks Aren’t Free

Monday, March 9th, 2009

Earmarks by themselves do not add to the cost of the federal budget. Earmarks just direct general funds to be appropriated to specific projects. As a slice of the budget, earmarks represent a small portion.

This does not mean earmarks are not a fiscal problem. Earmarks direct resources away from areas where they would be appropriated. This causes programs to go unfunded until later years when bigger federal budgets come along.

Voting Is Scary

Thursday, October 30th, 2008

Voting isn’t really scary in the United States unless something goes extremely wrong. Choosing candidates to vote for now that is the scary part. Reason Magazine has a survey of its writers and contributors and who they plan to vote for President.

My answers are down below:
1. Who are you voting for in November? Bob Barr. He is not a perfect candidate but who is. Voting for Bob Barr gives the clearest signal to the world that I side with libertarians. I’m not going to vote for John McCain because he strikes me as crazy and believes that national greatness can be brought to the country by the government. Barack Obama is a liberal who wants to spend more than most of the other candidates running and would make George W. Bush look like a fiscal conservative. So I am voting for a former member of Congress who has recently lobbied on behalf of the MPP and opposed the bailout of the banks.

2. Who did you vote for in 2004 and 2000? In 2004: I voted for Badnarik and was a candidate for the electoral college for Badnarik in New York. Badnarik was a loon who could not drive himself anywhere because he refused to give the DMV in Texas his Social Security number. But Badnarik was not Bush or Kerry and he talked and believed in smaller government. In 2000: I voted for Harry Browne. I thought about voting for George W. Bush because he said he was against nation building but I am sure glad I did not make that mistake.

3. Is this the most important election in your lifetime? I’m not sure. Looking back the 2000 Presidential Election was a big deal. I don’t think we would have gone into Iraq after 9/11 if Al Gore had been President.

4. What will you miss about the Bush administration? Laura Bush. Laura Bush has been a very gracious first lady who has had very little involvement in policy which I admire in a first lady.

5. Leaving George W. Bush out of consideration, what former U.S. president would you most like to have waterboarded and why? I’m tempted to agree with what Grover Norquist told Reason that it should be Dick Cheney for poetic justice reasons. I guess it would have to be one of the warmongering Presidents like Polk, Jackson, Wilson or Johnson.

Social Security Is A Disgrace

Tuesday, September 16th, 2008

Earlier this year John McCain said that Social Security is a disgrace. John McCain meant that Social Security benefits may not be there for future generations, but John McCain would be correct to say that Social Security is a disgrace..

Social Securtiy is a disgrace not just because Social Security is a multi-generational Ponzi shceme but also because Social Security increases poverty by giving people a disincentive to save because a belief will be created that the government is saving for them. Edgar K. Browning,Research fellow at the Independent Institute, explains:

While it reduces poverty by providing income to retired persons, it discourages private saving during the working years—ultimately decreasing the private assets people bring to their retirement. The net effect of this is increased poverty among the retired population.

To understand this conclusion, it is important to compare the rate of return on taxes paid that is generated by Social Security to the rate of return people could receive on their private saving. For those retiring in 2008, the average implicit real (inflation-adjusted) rate of return on Social Security taxes paid was slightly below 3 percent—and it is scheduled to decline to under 2 percent in the next forty years. In contrast, if people retiring in 2008 had invested the taxes they paid into Social Security in a balanced portfolio (60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds), they would have received a return of 5.5 percent.

The difference between a 5.5 percent return and a 3.0 percent return may not sound like much, but in annual returns compounded over a lifetime, this difference has a huge influence on the income available during retirement. In fact, the annual retirement income provided by a 5.5 percent return is double than that provided by the 3.0 percent return of Social Security. Even more compelling, an investment in the stock market averages a 7 percent real return, which would mean an annual income of three times what Social Security provides.

In short, it is likely that we would have fewer poor among the elderly had they been free to invest their taxes in private assets. Once Social Security’s rate of return drops to below 2 percent, it will only continue to aggravate poverty in the future.

While this simple comparison is compelling, it overlooks the huge hidden costs of this system. By reducing the incentive for workers to save privately for their own retirement, we reduce the economy’s saving and investment in productive assets. This means the economy grows more slowly as a result of Social Security and people end up with lower incomes even before they pay their taxes. When this cost is taken into account, the real return from Social Security to those retiring today is actually negative!

And things are only going to get worse. Although Obama assures us, “the underlying [Social Security] system is sound,” economists have emphasized for years that this is not the case. Today, government expenditures on Social Security and its companion retirement program, Medicare, are 7.3 percent of GDP. However, the Boards of Trustees of Social Security and Medicare tell us that figure will rise to 15.2 percent by 2040 if we don’t change the rules for determining benefits.

Ultimately that means we will have to more than double tax rates to pay the benefits Congress has unwisely legislated. Or we will have to cut benefits in half, or some combination. Raising taxes would be disastrous—imagine a 35 percent payroll tax rate (compared to the present 15.3 percent) and higher income tax rates as well. And since Medicare is partially funded by the federal income tax, its rates would have to rise as well.

Neither option is attractive, but cutting benefits is clearly preferable since people would then depend more on private saving. Most economists favor gradually raising the retirement age as the least painful way of cutting benefits. But the longer we wait, the harder it is to implement this option and the more likely we will be forced to accept substantially higher taxes.

The elderly poor, as well as the rest of us, are ill served by politicians who systematically downplay the huge costs of Social Security and delay confronting what is indeed a true crisis.

John McCain Goes With Inexperience

Sunday, August 31st, 2008

Less than 24 hours after Barack Obama finished making his acceptance speech, John McCain shifted all the media coverage by choosing Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, as his Vice-Presidential running mate.

From a timing standpoint this was a smart move because the media was concentrating on McCain’s speculation for Vice President rather than on Obama’s speaking skills.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is a good choice from her record. She has been Governor of Alaska for two years which is a bit of a welfare state. Palin has tried to clean up corruption in Alaska. She supports increased domestic drilling including drilling in ANWR which is further than John McCain is willing to go on the issue.

Strategically, it seems pretty clear that Sarah Palin is partly a quota pick. A governor,with two years experience of a small strong-Republican state would have been chosen without the rise of Hillary Clinton. In fact, Sarah Palin made reference to Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro during her speech earlier this week. Sarah Palin’s lack of inexperience may actually be a plus for Obama because each time a Democrat or the media points it out it will point to Obama’s lack of experience.

Will this choice pick up Hillary Clinton voters? Probably not but it will excite the Republican Party base.

I’ll House You

Friday, August 22nd, 2008

Politico was interviewing John McCain and John McCain did not know how many houses he has. Members of the media seem to be covering this non-stop on the TV news networks.

Research has been done and according to Barack Obama, John McCain has seven homes.

It does not matter how many homes John McCain owns. Some people would like to use this as another example of how John McCain is old, senile and probably out of touch but the truth is that John McCain doesn’t know how many homes he is part owner of because his wife is the one with the money. Politicians who are treated as serious Presidential candidates have lots of money and that is not going to change.

John McCain = J-Love

Tuesday, July 8th, 2008

Yesterday this blog mentioned an analogy between John McCain and 50 Cent, today this blog would like to point out the similarity between John McCain and J-Love.

What could old Washington insider Senator John McCain and underground rapper J-Love have in common? They both hate bloggers.

Below is the audio of J-Love dissing bloggers.
This was put together by Robbie at
John McCain also hates the bloggers as seen from this clip from New Hampshire:

Spending Like Their Ain’t No Tomorrow

Thursday, July 3rd, 2008

Tim Pawlenty is one of John McCain’s likely choices for Vice President. Tim Pawlenty is not a great candidate on fiscal issues. Here’s the text of a post by Sam Batkins lifted from NTU’s blog:


Like Governor Romney, Pawlenty’s spending record started off strong. During his first year in office, Pawlenty was actually able to cut general fund spending by 1.2%. This penchant for fiscal probity waned in later years, however. In the next four years, general fund growth averaged 6.6%.

This rate in government growth is average when compared to the rest of the United States. From FY 2004-07, spending increased 17.2% (from $13.6 billion to $15.9 billion).

Unfortunately for taxpayers, government employment in Minnesota grew 27.7% (from 33,279 state employees to 42,515) during Pawlenty’s tenure.


Pawlenty’s record on taxes can rightly be characterized as a disaster for Minnesotans. There have been no broad-based tax cuts in Minnesota and the largest reduction during Pawlenty’s time in office is only $28.7 million.

Overall, during Pawlenty’s tenure, taxes have increased $1.74 billion (with a b). Some supporters might attempt to describe these increases as merely fees, but consumers and corporations nevertheless have to pay the bill. To his credit, Pawlenty has proposed a modest $77.3 million reduction in sales taxes for FY 2009, but this is more than offset with $138.7 million in other tax and fee hikes.

Rumors are abound that Pawlenty is the front-runner for McCain’s VP slot, but with over $1.7 billion in tax hikes to his name and even more on the way, McCain might think twice about choosing Pawlenty.

This certainly wouldn’t be a way for John McCain to get libertarian types of people to vote for him.

John McCain = 50 Cent

Thursday, July 3rd, 2008

The blogger Humanity Critic argues that John McCain is the 50 Cent of politics. Humanity Critc’s main point is that John McCain and 50 Cent have both retained higher levels of credibility with the media by bragging about their wounds:

At the height of 50′s career, whenever I would antagonize some of his misguided fans by sarcastically questioning his street credibility, more times than not I’d find myself on the business end of an extremely strong rebuke. With that person usually arguing their case like a seasoned trial lawyer, their main argument being that 50 Cent survived multiple gun shot wounds, smirking as if they had just nailed the landing on a Perry Mason style closing argument. No matter how many times I’d question that brand of logic, the intelligence insulting suggestion that failed murder attempts that leave holes in your respective ass somehow makes a persons street credibility beyond reproach, always puzzled me whenever one of his supporters would act as if going after his main narrative was off the table.

In terms of John McCain, everyone respects his fine service to this country, and if most people are honest with themselves for even a moment they will readily admit that if faced with the same hardships that McCain faced in that POW camp – they’d spend half of their time soiling themselves, and the other half offering their captors a complimentary reach around in hopes of preferential treatment. John McCain is a bona fide war hero. That being said, I reject the media’s misguided narrative that Obama cedes all ground to McCain on everything Foreign Policy solely based on the fact that the Arizona Senator spent time at the Hanoi Hilton. Even attempting to respectfully question whether or not being a prisoner of war qualifies you to be president is often met with fierce resistance, with the offended party acting as if you had just wiped your ass with the American flag in front of them. My question is, because John McCain constantly cites his service in Vietnam when on the campaign trail(..don’t buy into the media’s notion that he’s resistant to do so, that’s horseshit) – why can’t we have a both respectful and substantive debate on how that does or does not relate to being a commander in chief. I’m not in any way talking about denigrating the man’s service or his time as a P.O.W, I’m not even talking about citing irrefutable facts like him graduating 884 out of 889 in the Naval Academy, the fact that he crashed 5 different planes as a pilot, was known to disobey orders, and owes his military advancement largely to family connections(His father and grandfather were both admirals in the Navy) I’m just suggesting that we challenge the silly notion that John McCain’s foreign policy cred is beyond reproach because of his time in captivity – its almost like someone making the “Wait a minute, his mother was white!” argument whenever some bumbling pundit discussed Obama’s one time perceived problem with white voters during the Democratic Primaries. That simply doesn’t work.

Being shot down in combat does not solely qualify someone to be commander in chief then again neither does being a state senator.

Barr Not Just Running for McCain Voters

Thursday, June 19th, 2008

The Washington Post has a video of an interview where Eric Pianin interviews Bob Barr about the election.

One of the things I liked about this interview was that Barr brought up Obama making it specifically clear he is not just going after John McCain’s voters. Barr should repeat to the anti-war Clinton voters that there is an anti-candidate running other than Obama.

Barr also brought up the point that McCain’s proposed assault on earmarks is not enough to fix the budget process. In many cases, earmarks just redirect funds that would otherwise be appropriated. Control of earmarks is a start but is not enough to get control of the increased rates of spending.