Your Government the Way You Want It

The left and the right are divided into the way they see the world and how they choose to respond to the problems presented to them. They follow their beliefs in how things should be constructed and how lives should be led. The philosophy of government is one of many examples of where liberal and conservative ideology call for the government to perform different tasks and operate differently.

Left-The major difference between liberals and conservatives is the size of government. The left is quite happy with an ever increasing government. The size of government corresponds to the many things in which liberals ask the government to provide for its citizens. The result is a government rich with entitlements. These entitlements usually are called for as a proper right of the citizen and a guaranteed part of life. Whereas a conservative might see the private sector as a better distributor of services, liberals tend to rely on the government. For liberals the social problems of the society are to be corrected by the government. This may lead to programs being instituted to seek to eliminate those problems, welfare, racial inequity, etc. The result is that many problems are not solved or regulation is implemented to such a degree that it has a discouraging effect.

Right-Whereas liberals have no problem with an ever-inflating government, conservatives tend to want government as small as possible. This stems from the realization that government cannot solve every problem and should not attempt to do so in many cases. For conservatives would be happier with less control from Washington D.C. and more control being given to the states. Liberty is a main issue with conservatives, the idea of freedom and being left alone. The problem with the government growing they begin to have a bigger say over how you live your life. The right is happier letting markets solve the problem instead of the government in control. The private sector can work more efficiently then the bogged-down bureaucracies of the federal government. The right also believes that taxes can be lowered along with reduced spending instead of a large government that seek to punishes successful individuals with high taxes.

How do you want you government? You will have a clear choice this election.

Fight Still Left in Huckabee

Mike Huckabee apparently did not get the memo that he was not going to win the Republican nomination for President. But despite that he continues his campaign against John McCain, the all but officially declared nominee. Huckabee was able to perform admirably this past weekend winning two out the three contests. The former Arkansas governer was able to win in Kansas, Louisiana, and lost a closely contested contest in Washington. It appears for now that John McCain's official coronation will have to be put on hold for awhile. Republicans are now in the process of trying to unite the party around John McCain, this is more difficult with reservations about McCain by conservatives.

McCain Considered Abandoning Ship

John McCain has had to fight the label that he was a liberal or not in tune with conservatives. Speculation had it that McCain had considered leaving the Republican party back in 2001. Bob Cusack, a writer for The Hill newspaper, wrote about McCain's flirtation with leaving the GOP. Cusack talks about the meeting between Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) and former Rep. Tom Downey (D-NY) and McCain's chief political strategist. This was at a time when Democrats were trying to recruit Republicans to leave their party. Targets included Lincoln Chaffee, Republican Senator from Rhode Island, and Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont who became an Independent. In McCain's case it was apparently initiated from his end by his chief political strategist, John Weaver. McCain was apparently upset after his 2000 loss to George W. Bush in the Republican primary. McCain has denied any such reports that he was close to leaving the Republican party. Individuals like Daschle stand by their claims that such meetings did occur, Daschle even included it into his book. McCain has remained dubious to conservatives who have disagreed with him on many issues and his associations with Democrats, especially in regards to immigration and campaign finance reform. The year is now 2008 and John McCain is seeking the Republican nomination again. This time it looks as if his wish will come true as he leads in the polls and appears to have the Super Tuesday momentum. Conservatives are still wary of McCain and have made it known, especially radio talk show hosts like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. For Republicans it may come down to the choice of lesser of two evils in November, and whether they want to remain in power or hold on to their principles.
Read the original Cusack article from The Hill newspaper, http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html

According to Rasmussen McCain Tops Obama and Clinton

The latest Rasmussen Report compares John McCain head to head with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. John McCain comes out on top against the Democrat duo. The numbers are this, McCain leads Clinton 48% to 40% and Senator Obama 47% to 41%. The data shows an interesting and emerging trend by McCain on an upward surge, no pun intended. This has been in correlation with each of his primary wins. McCain leads the other two in most demographic areas. This would seem to bode well for Republicans hoping to maintain control over the White House. The problem is that John McCain has had his critics mainly from the conservative base who questions his conservative credentials. Some might argue that simply winning is enough no matter who the candidate is on the ballot. McCain is gaining momentum and Mitt Romney is trying to stem McCain's surging tide toward the nomination. Conservatives may have to chose between voting for McCain, not voting or turning to a third party. Either of the last two options would almost certainly lead to a Democrat win.
Find out more at www.rasmussenreports.com

Thompson Drops Bid For Nomination

Fred Thompson announced that he will be dropping out of the race for his party's nomination for president. Thompson, who entered the race late, never really caught any momentum. Mostly lackluster, Thompson's campaign lacked a great deal of passion except for moments during recent Republican debates. Many felt as if Thompson would be the one to fill the conservative void that many Republicans were looking to support. Instead after entering the race he enjoyed a spot near the top of the polls only to sink and be passed by other candidates. A series of disappointing finishes followed in the first primary and caucus contests. Some have speculated that Thompson helped John McCain in South Carolina by taking away from Hucabee support. Now those Thompson supporters will have to find a new home and I am sure all candidates would welcome them.

The Economics of the Left and Right

I ripped this post from a website I came across and I thought it would be interesting to share. For those who want a distinction between how the left and right view economics, here is one man's classifies that difference.

• The right sees large deadweight losses associated with taxation and, therefore, is worried about the growth of government as a share in the economy. The left sees smaller elasticities of supply and demand and, therefore, is less worried about the distortionary effect of taxes.
• The right sees externalities as an occasional market failure that calls for government intervention, but sees this as relatively rare exception to the general rule that markets lead to efficient allocations. The left sees externalities as more pervasive.
• The right sees competition as a pervasive feature of the economy and market power as typically limited both in magnitude and duration. The left sees large corporations with substantial degrees of monopoly power that need to be checked by active antitrust policy.
• The right sees people as largely rational, doing the best the can given the constraints they face. The left sees people making systematic errors and believe that it is the government role’s to protect people from their own mistakes.
• The right sees government as a terribly inefficient mechanism for allocating resources, subject to special-interest politics at best and rampant corruption at worst. The left sees government as the main institution that can counterbalance the effects of the all-too-powerful marketplace.
• There is one last issue that divides the right and the left—perhaps the most important one. That concerns the issue of income distribution. Is the market-based distribution of income fair or unfair, and if unfair, what should the government do about it? That is such a big topic that I will devote the entire next lecture to it.

You can find the original posting of this at http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-do-right-and-left-differ.html

Greg Mankiw's Blog

www.gregmankiw.blogspot.com

Giuliani Gets Evangelical Leader's Endorsement

With the endorsement yesterday of the 700 club's Pat Robertson, Giuliani may have silenced his critics who claimed he would be unable to draw evangelical support. In a surprising move the ultra-conservative Robertson threw his support to Giuliani who has supported gay marriage and is a pro choice Republican. The surprise is that Robertson chose not to endorse more traditional conservatives such as Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. This move might help conservatives and evangelicals coalesce around one candidate. As we have seen from past campaigns conservatives and evangelicals have been a major force in Republican politics. The move should help Giuliani in the south which tends to have a more conservative voting base.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071107/D8SOTN7G1.html

Break Down at the Border

Racist, bigot, xenophobe, these are all adjectives to describe Republicans and conservatives. It is the common response of the left to conservatives’ concerns about illegal immigration. This is the same tired response given when concerns are raised on this issue. This is in response to concerns about the immigration bill trying to gain life in the Senate. The main objection is the granting of amnesty to 12 to 20 billion illegal immigrants, and the still unsecured border. These are two common sense concerns that do not seem able to penetrate the nonsensical minds of liberals. The bill failed to garner enough votes in the Senate and looked to be dead but like Lazarus it is being resurrected for another go around. The Democrats are dangling carrots in the faces of Republicans in an effort to boost support. The sad part is we have many on the Republican side of the aisle who are eagerly supporting this bill. There seems to be a divide among the party between those who want comprehensive reform and those who want enforcement of the border first. Unfortunately our president supports the former option. He even went as far, in recent weeks, to question the motives of those who want to secure the border first. Needless to say this had a predictable reaction as congressmen were flooded with calls decrying the move to grant amnesty. To respond to my earlier statement, we are not racists, bigots, or xenophobes, we are concerned citizens. We have a right to be concerned considering amnesty was tried twenty years ago and we now have many times the illegal population residing within our borders. We also sit and wait earnestly for our borders to be secured as promised. How can we expect to curb the flow of illegal immigrants into our country when our door remains wide open? Every day our borders remain wide open we will se an influx of illegal elements crossing into our country, some well-intentioned and some not. I think Congress needs to take advantage of their world-class healthcare and get a prescription to restore their common sense. Instead we are left with a debate going nowhere, as a bridge in Alaska, and two sides unwilling to compromise. It would seem logical to secure the border first and then decide what to do with the people already in our country. Logic, however, seems to elude those in Washington. For all the talk about bipartisanship it would seem likely that both sides would agree that securing our borders would be a first priority. After all they are given this responsibility in the constitution. And we all know how Democrats love to quote and refer to the constitution when they think another right is being taken away from them. Our Congress needs to know our feelings about this and they have begun to hear them. The proof is the lack of a signed bill. This is an issue with great importance like the war against radical Islam. Not only are their national security implications but economic as well. We have all heard the statistics of what the cost will be if we allow the status quo to remain. That cost being left for future generations to pay like social security. The point is this, there are so many things we cannot control but his is one we can solve if we have the right leadership. Unfortunately the halls of Congress are increasingly devoid of such leaders.

Why Do Democrats Hate Minorities?

Why do Democrats hate minorities? I know many of you are saying to yourself that Democrats do not hate minorities, but embrace them into their party. I believe this is the general opinion of most Democrats because they are the big-tent party of minorities.I would agree with that statement. Minorities, especially African-Americans, have voted more for Democrats than Republicans. Another question I could pose is why do they? I would tie both questions together because they relate to each other in a cause and effect or action and consequence way. I pose this question because I think there is some evidence Democrats do hate minorities. The main reason is the policies they set and try to implement. Not only do they not work but they end up doing more harm then good. I fault the Democrats ideology as well-intentioned but misguided. They set up programs like welfare, social programs that create a dependence on the government. These types of social programs rarely are successful and cost the taxpayers millions if not billions over their lifetime. Why would you work any harder if you knew the government was going to take care of you? This nanny-state mentality is absurd and a wrong course of action.Take for example New Orleans which has been Democrat-run for decades. We all saw the conditions of the town when Hurricane Katrina hit. What should have been a panacea turned out to be anything but. What we got was a city crying out for the government to save them as if the government can really be counted on for much of anything. It seems like Democrats want to keep their core constituents under their thumb never wanting them to fully reach their potention for fear of losing their vote. When you are a party that constantly tells your voters that the government is keeping them from succeeding why would they ever try in the first place.Democrats even fail on one of the most important areas, education. Education is the cornerstone of personal success. But when it comes to school vouchers the liberal teachers union vote a resounding no. As a result many minority students fade away in poor schools. Maybe if we were truly focused on education and responsible choices we would not have the degree of minority teenage mothers that we do. We have children who are having children themselves at an alarming rate. As a result we have mothers with no education and very often no husband to help support them. Basically these women are starting life out with two strikes against them.Another smaller point deals with language. Democrats oppose making English the official language. They call it simply rascist and part of a far-right agenda. How successful a nation can we be when entire towns are unable to communicate with us and do not have enough workers who speak English, the language of success? Unfortunately this is a reality is at least one California town.Do I really think Democrats hate minorities? The answer to that is no, but based on their policies I wonder if they are truly concerned about their welfare as opposed to someone who will blindly vote for them. It might be a corny line but a hand up is better then a hand out.

The Real Crisis in America

When liberals talk about global warming they tend to present it as fact. More importantly, they portray global warming as an absolute fact not open for discussion or debate. I find this more than infuriating on many levels. First, liberals state there is a consensus on the issue and secondly, they close their minds to any reality that does not fit into their ideology. The truth is there is a significant segment of scientists and weather experts not yet willing to concede to this. Liberals, however, are tuned out to this message because it challenges one of their principle tenets, the environment. The "Blame America First" crowd has declared the Earth is on an ever increasing warming curve and humans are solely to blame. I hate that these are the same people that up until the early nineties thought we would encounter the next ice age. Well I must tell you that there are no polar bears or penguins in my backyard. But now we are to believe these individuals and their weather models. Sorry, but I ain't buying what they are selling.Listen, the earth may be warming but attributing it to humans is ridiculous. I am more than ready to blame the sun than humans for the warming. But I do thank Al Gore for telling our children that polar bears are going to die and the Earth will burn up. I thought the Republicans were the ones who played the fear card. I wish liberals would focus on the real and imminent threats to the planet like cancer. This disease, which takes the life of millions, is a real and present threat to humanity-- much more so than global warming. I do not know of a single person whose cause of death has been global warming, but I know many that have lost their lives as a result of cancer. How about throwing money at a real problem and not on carbon credits which are nothing more than modern day indulgences. Let's wise up, America, to the realities of our world. I fear this will not happen until the radical left stops seeing an SUV driving on a highway as a hate crime against nature.