Blue House Diaries

Would Jesus Be a Democrat Or Republican?

// February 17th, 2010 // No Comments » // All

Some might wonder why I would bring Jesus into politics. I confess to be both a political junkie and a follower of Jesus. I am not much into religion, but I do believe Jesus is the Higher Power. So, if he were here today would he be a democrat or republican?

The story of Jesus can be found in the first 4 books of the New Testament. Knowing well the content of these books I find it easy to answer this Christmas question. Jesus would shun both the democrat and republican brand. He would not join either party, but neither would they want him as a member. Here are some reasons why.

• Jesus would have condemned the Religious Right. He loudly criticized the legalistic and hypocritical lifestyle of the Pharisees, the religious zealots of his time. Jesus would not be welcome in the republican camp with this attitude.
• The democrats preach about the government taking care of the poor. Jesus would make it much too personal for democrat support. He would tell them, “Sell your possessions and give to those in need”(Luke 12:33). It is an individual responsibility not a “public option”. The 5 richest senators are democrats, which one would fulfill this request? Who would be the first to call Jesus crazy?
• Jesus taught humility and would have despised the arrogance of politics. He said, “Don’t sit in the seat of honor…take the lowest place”(Luke 14:8,10). Watch any ballgame and notice where the politicians sit. They proudly take the best seats and want to be seen.
• Politicians are all about policies and procedures, rules and laws. Jesus would remind them of the weightier issues that could not be legislated. He would speak of matters of the heart, such as forgiveness and love. He healed the souls of those who hurt the most. Politicians sell their souls and votes to the highest bidder.

It is not my goal to make politicians look bad. I am no better than any of them. It’s just that Jesus is that good, perfect in fact. I think we all get a little nervous around “perfect”.

Born to a poor family his first crib was a stable manger. He spent his life teaching about the Kingdom of God and healing the oppressed people of the kingdom of man. His death paid for the sins of every politician, plus you and me. His resurrection from the dead guaranteed there is life beyond the grave.

He now gives the greatest gift to all who will receive it – eternal life. A life with no politicians, or to be nicer, a life where there is no need for human governments. A life sweeter than we could ever know on earth.

Check out Bill’s blog at http://www.questionsbybill.com.

Article Source: A Christmas Political Question – Would Jesus Be a Democrat Or Republican?
By William H Watson

Civility in Politics

// February 12th, 2010 // No Comments » // All

Not long ago, one Washington politician looked at another Washington politician and called him a liar. Why is that news to me? Weren’t their lips moving? As the saying goes, it takes one to know one. Yes, it was rude to interrupt the man’s speech, but an apology was made and accepted. Politicians referring to each other as other liars is hardly a phenomenon. For instance, finish this sentence: Bush lied, people _ _ _ _. Remember that one?

Personally, I prefer that politicians express anger with one another. When our political heroes from the two major parties are going at each others’ throats, I know that they are currently too distracted to be stealing from me. When we see them posing for pictures smiling, holding hands and slapping each other on the back, what do you think just happened? And who do you think will be paying for it? As I explained in my book “7 Life Lessons You Should Know,” professional politicians are not in the problem-solving business.

And while we are on the subject of political parties, I don’t particularly care for the animals that have been chosen to represent the major parties. Here is a brief run-down of the history of these two symbols:

The Democratic donkey was first associated with Democrat Andrew Jackson’s 1828 presidential campaign. His opponents referred to him as a derogatory slang expression for a donkey and Jackson defiantly chose to use the image of the strong-willed animal on his campaign posters. The image of the donkey was later used in newspaper cartoons by Thomas Nast and the symbol became famous.

Nast was also responsible for inventing another famous political symbol – the Republican elephant. In 1874, Nast drew a donkey clothed in a lion’s skin, scaring away all the animals at the zoo. One of those animals, the elephant, was labeled “The Republican Vote.” From that point on the elephant became associated with the Republican Party. Democrats say the donkey is smart and brave while Republicans suggest that the elephant is strong and dignified.

A donkey and an elephant. The entire political process has been turned into a zoo. We have entered the new millennium and I think it is time for an update. The two major political parties have gone through numerous changes since those symbols were introduced in the 19th century so perhaps now is the time for them to be revised as well. I would prefer to see a mongoose and a cobra replace the old world trademarks. It doesn’t really matter which party gets what symbol. A snake and a weasel seem to be much more appropriate for today’s political environment. Throw a hundred of those into the senate chamber and stand back. Now that’s politics that can keep my interest.

Civility in politics. Who needs it?

Todd Lester’s career has spanned across many years and numerous industries. He has been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and licensed to sell investments and insurance, worked as a retail manager, turned wrenches as an automotive mechanic, served cubicle time as an office manager and even owned his own business for many years restoring car interiors. And that is just since graduating college with a Finance degree. During much of this time, he was also a citizen soldier, serving twenty one years in the Army National Guards of both Louisiana and Texas as an Army bandsman. He has even performed as a clown with the Shrine Circus.

Article Source: Civility in Politics
By Todd Lester

Banking Industry – Politics of Punishment

// February 10th, 2010 // No Comments » // All

The politics of punishment are tricky. Take the playground, for example. The boy in the striped shirt not only pushed your child out of the way at the top of the slide, but also gives your child a good kick for his efforts when he reaches the bottom. You can comfort your own child, but you can’t truly punish the boy in the striped shirt; he is a stranger. You can hope that his parents have a vigilant eye on the playground and will step in and say something, but that doesn’t always happen.

It’s even trickier to punish adults who are acting within legal parameters, if not moral ones. President Obama would like to create a tax to punish banks for effectively taking the bailout money and running. He is calling it a fee, but the proposal is actually for a 0.15 percent tax on the liabilities of large financial institutions. The tax only applies to companies with assets of more than $50 billion, a rather intimate group of about 50. (Reuters)

The tax is proposed to last 10 years and estimated to generate about 90 billion for the government, the majority of that from the ten largest banks. The question is who will really be paying? In all likelihood the banks will use creative accounting to sidestep the tax, as well as share the pain with bank customers in higher fees and tighter rules.

The idea behind the tax is that the Obama administration hopes this fee will give banks and other companies an incentive to whittle down burgeoning balance sheets. Even as President Obama defends the necessity of the bailout in the first place, he has criticized the banking industry for proposing nearly record-breaking bonuses. According to the Associated Press, “Six of the biggest U.S. banks are on track to pay $150 billion in total executive compensation for 2009, slightly less than the record $164 billion in 2007 before the financial crisis struck, according to the New York state comptroller’s office.”

The President is strongly suggesting that banks pay the fee out of the bonus pool, rather than find ways to pass the cost of the fee down to the customer. However, it is more likely that banks will keep the bonuses and find ways around the tax. Some of those solutions could involve risky loans, which is what started this whole mess in the first place.

While the President is insisting that Congress will pass the proposed bank tax, it is hardly a foregone conclusion. Republicans, not to mention the financial industry, is opposing it. And just what will the bankers spend all those billions in bonus money on? According to CNNMoney, at the top of the list is real estate. Bank execs will spend money on swanky New York apartments and European vacation homes. Also on the banking bonus wish list is private school tuition, expensive vacations, boats, cars and Botox. Yes, Botox. Apparently big time bankers need to look wrinkle-free to stay competitive.

Ki is helping streamline the search for homes in the Austin MLS on his website. He provides a free search of available Austin real estate. His site has a real estate blog covering statistics on the different Austin MLS areas.

Article Source: Banking Industry – Politics of Punishment
By Ki Gray

Rush Limbaugh and the 2012 Republican Primary Elections

// February 6th, 2010 // No Comments » // All

Rush Limbaugh has always been a boisterous vocal voice on conservative talk radio but only recently has he been elevated to the pinnacle of the Republican party. But this is exactly what the Democrats want.

Rush Limbaugh has a tendency to say the wrong things at the wrong times. He is not always politically correct and if the Democratic party can attach the entire Republican party to his voice, they will have succeeded at making the GOP look silly.

What the GOP needs to do is separate themselves and their ideology from Rush Limbaugh. Unfortunately for them, they are too coward to do so. Because Limbaugh carries so much weight on talk radio, he can tear down the approval ratings of any Republican politician that dares to challenge him. Liberals on the other hand would gain in popularity by challenging him.

As we approach the 2012 election, it would seem as though the Republican candidate for president will challenge Limbaugh but do so only to gain favors among moderate and independent voters.

So long as the economy does not convert into a depression, Obama will likely be seen as a good enough president for his second term. Remember, the United States reelected George Bush despite his having poor approval ratings. We would gather that the same will be true for Barack Obama.

The token question voters are asked when reelecting a president is “Are you better off now than you were four years ago”. Four years from now, voters will still remember how horrible things were when we had Bush as president.

Speculation is already abound as to who will be running for the 2012 primary election. Speculation currently has it that Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin will be running. And that Tim Pawlenty and Bobby Jindal will be testing the waters for a potential run for president.

The caucuses in Iowa will be January 2012 but potential candidates for president will likely start announcing their candidacies after the 2010 midterm elections. The primaries last about a year for the most serious candidates. December 2010 is 18 months away.

Article Source: Rush Limbaugh and the 2012 Republican Primary Elections
By Eshwarya Patel

Differences Between the Republican and Democratic Healthcare Reform Bills

// February 4th, 2010 // No Comments » // All

The Republican Party has spent the past several months serving as vocal opposition to the healthcare reform bills supported by the Barack Obama administration and Democratic members of Congress. During that time, they have seen success in influencing public opinion. However, many were frustrated that Republicans hadn’t offered their own plan. Surely they didn’t believe that the health insurance system in the U.S. is perfect the way it is? Well, the wait is over. Senate Minority Leader John Boehner has acknowledged the public’s demand for an alternative with the debut of the GOP’s healthcare reform bill. Obviously, a party that has disagreements with most parts of the Democrats’ bills in the House of Representatives and Senate has written a significantly different bill. How exactly are the proposals different?

• Length: The Democrats’ bill is a whopping 1,990 pages long. Meanwhile, the Republican version clocks in at a more reasonable 230 pages. Most politicians should find the latter’s length (akin to the average novel) more manageable than the entire encyclopedia that is the former.
• Mandate: Republicans have eliminated the mandate that would require virtually all individuals to buy health insurance plans, as well as one that would force employers to provide insurance. Those mandates are central to the Democratic bill; their intent is to make sure that the cost of health insurance is spread among a large pool, as opposed to only the sickest of our population.
• Pre-existing Conditions: Unlike the bills proposed by the Democrats, the Republican bill would not ban health insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. This falls in line with the party’s more anti-regulatory stance on business.
• Interstate Insurance Sales: People will be allowed to buy a health insurance plan across state lines under the Republican bill. Insurance is cheaper in some states, since there are fewer requirements or restrictions on what insurers do or do not cover.
• Abortion Coverage: The Republican bill includes stricter prohibitions on funding of abortions. Democrats have already included a provision that would prevent federal subsidies (given to low income individuals to buy insurance) from being used directly on abortion services. However, the Republicans go further by preventing people who receive the subsidies from buying any health insurance plan that covers abortion entirely–even if they never end up using that particular option. The Republican party has a stronger pro-life base, so this provision could help draw them in. On the other hand, this could also backfire against the Republicans, who have capitalized off the grassroots anger over the possibility of a government bureaucracy making your health care decisions for you.
• Medical Malpractice: Trial lawyers have been loyal contributors to Democratic politicians. That may be why there isn’t significant legislation involving medical tort reform in their bill. Republicans would like to limit jury awards for things like pain and suffering. The most plaintiffs could be awarded would be $250,000 in medical malpractice cases (excluding actual, proven economic harm)
• Cost: The most recent estimates show the Democrats’ plan as costing over $1 trillion over the next decade, while Republicans haven’t yet revealed how much their plan will cost. Given how much they complain about the Democratic proposals super-sizing the national debt, it can reasonably be expected that their bill will have a lower price tag.

As you can see, there are significant differences in the bills. Above all, Republicans acknowledge that their bill would insure less people than the Democratic bill. Although both parties care about lowering the percentage of uninsured individuals and families in addition to the budget deficit, there is a trade-off. The latter appears to be a higher priority for the GOP. It appears inevitable that healthcare reform will pass at some point, possibly before the end of this year. The details of the Democratic proposals have been discussed for weeks, while the solutions presented by the Republicans have just made their formal debut. Boehner plans to finalize his party’s bill soon, in order for it to be presented when debate on the finalized Democratic bill begins on the House floor. So far, neither strategy for reforming our healthcare system seems ideal. Despite that, it is positive that more options are being presented to the American people. The greater number of minds put together, the faster we can fix the unavailability of affordable health insurance plans in this country.

Yamileth Medina is an up and coming expert on Health Insurance and Healthcare Reform. She aims to help people realize that they can get affordable health insurance plans right now while waiting for a public option, if it ever gets passed. Yamileth lives in Miami, FL.

Article Source: Differences Between the Republican and Democratic Healthcare Reform Bills
By Yamileth Medina

Getting on the Ballot in a Democrat Campaign Election

// February 2nd, 2010 // No Comments » // All

The nominating petition system if you want to run in a Democrat campaign for office is, unfortunately, subject to a lot of abuse (or for any political party, for that matter). Reasonable regulations are adopted to promote democracy and foster efficient elections. It is not unreasonable, for example, to require that a candidate get some voters’ names on his petition. After all, if he can’t get a few signatures, he is not likely to get any votes and it is a waste of taxpayers’ money to have his name on the ballot.

Too often, however, a reasonable regulation in a Democrat campaign is subverted for political purposes. The “Ins” use the law to keep the “Outs” out. In one state, a Democrat or Republican can get on the ballot with 50 signatures on the nominating petition, but a third-party candidate or an Independent needs 250.

To get on the ballot for Judge of the Civil Court of Bronx County, New York, one must obtain signatures from 1 percent of the registered voters, but that means that a Republican needs about 1,500 while a Democrat campaign needs to have about 4,000 names.

Even when some of these roadblocks have been removed, the Ins have resorted to hyper-technical applications of the law to disqualify Democrat campaign candidate petitions. In one case, a candidate had 50 names, just exactly the minimum number of signatures required, but state law allowed a signer to withdraw his name from a petition even after it had been filed. The opposition got one of the signers to withdraw his name, and the candidate’s petitions were declared invalid because he had only forty-nine names, one short.

Visit Killer Campaigning to learn more about how to run a Democrat campaign.

Article Source: Getting on the Ballot in a Democrat Campaign Election
By Paul R Turner