Meg Whitman for California Governor

From what I've read so far, I think Meg Whitman's principles are well aligned with mine, and probably those who follow my blog. I recommend that you look at her website and decide for yourself.

IMO, she needs personal stories of how her policies will translate into a more prosperous constituency - the speeches and articles I've read so far deal in the abstract. She'll need a tear jerker and a poster boy if she's gonna win this thing. She's got to have some "Mom and Pop" eBay sellers she can bring forward to put a face on tax policy and small business.

A last note: it may be difficult for me to be impartial about the Whitman campaign, so I probably won't blog about it as often as I might otherwise, and please take my posts with a grain of salt.

More Coming Out About New Administration's Ties to Housing Meltdown

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02172009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/rahms_rent_is_just_the_tip_of_ethics_ice_155536.htm

The bad economy is because of Republican failed policies.

-- Ministry of Truth

Stimulus Politics aka Creating a Welfare State

Paul Begala has elucidated the real motivations behind the stimulus bill better than I ever could: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/16/begala.carolina/index.html

He likens the stimulus package to steroids, and I think that's a great analogy. In sports, if you take steroids you gain an advantage over your opponent. So, without laws and regulations, all professional athletes would have to take steroids to compete.

Now, imagine that the Republicans are athletes who think that no athletes should take steroids, and that the Democrats are users and pushers. If you don't take steroids (receive bailout money) you and your fans (constituents) will be at an unfair advantage in a crooked game. Unless all players agree to not take steroids you're hurting yourself and your team by abstaining.

What I see as worse is the bribery implicit in the Democrat's stance. Implicit is that if you back the administration's policies, you should get money; if you don't back the policy you shouldn't get money. And the genius of the argument is that, absent my previous comments, it looks like the Republican principals have forced them into a lose lose situation.

Also note that if the Democrats subsidize everything, any individual who opposes the government will be easily destroyed by removing his/her government subsidy.

Goldwater's Words Still Ring True

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/presidentsessay/presessay2004.pdf

What is Happening to Freedom of Speech?

http://www.ketv.com/news/18585512/detail.html

Stimulus IS Government Spending

So they finally admitted it. The democrats think they can spend their way out of the recession. But remember that the government is by the people, for the people. So what they are saying is that they want to tax you (or borrow against the promise to tax you even more in the future) in order to pay you to do a job.

It's simpler if you imagine that you are the only citizen that they rule. They either collect taxes from you, or borrow from someone else with the promise that you will pay back more in the future. They then use that money to get you to do a project that they want done. Maybe you think it should be done, too - but why do you need a middle man to do it? Just volunteer your time and energy and fire the middle man.

America doesn't need a pharaoh, doesn't want a pharaoh, and never has. Build your own pyramid.

Schiff + 1