About Me

In writing the "About Me" portion of this blog I thought about the purpose of the blog - namely, preventing the growth of Socialism & stopping the Death Of Democracy in the American Republic & returning her to the "liberty to abundance" stage of our history. One word descriptions of people's philosophies or purposes are quite often inadequate. I feel that I am "liberal" meaning that I am broad minded, independent, generous, hospitable, & magnanimous. Under these terms "liberal" is a perfectly good word that has been corrupted over the years to mean the person is a left-winger or as Mark Levin more accurately wrote in his book "Liberty & Tyranny" a "statist" - someone looking for government or state control of society. I am certainly not that & have dedicated the blog to fighting this. I believe that I find what I am when I consider whether or not I am a "conservative" & specifically when I ask what is it that I am trying to conserve? It is the libertarian principles that America was founded upon & originally followed. That is the Return To Excellence that this blog is named for & is all about.

Friday, September 24, 2010

So Be It

Well the Republican 43 page document entitled "Pledge To America" was finally released on Thursday. It was attacked as "too weak" or "out of touch" by groups on each side of the political spectrum respectively. Please decide for yourself if it is what you are looking for. The Democrats deciding to not vote on the impending across-the-board tax increases, that will automatically occur on New Year's Eve, until after the election in a lame duck session is not what we are looking for if we are interested in ending this miserable jobloss recovery as soon as possible - but of course BO & the Democrats not only could not care less about jobs they really prefer people being dependent on government with no wealth creating jobs whatsoever.

The Pledge was designed to appeal to the Tea Party movement & indeed some of the provisions accomplished this. The question is did it go far enough to convince voters that establishment Republicans (i.e.; non Tea Partiers) can be trusted after they started the entire spending snowball rolling under Bush. Principal author of the Pledge Californian Kevin McCarthy acknowledged that the Pledge was not intended to be all encompassing & is just a start so it may be too little too late.

After speaking @ several Tea Parties I have wondered who makes up the Tea Party - & in particular are they new people (voters) or just ones who are now more vociferous than ever before but bring no new voters to the booth in which case we are in the same electoral predicament as in 2008 - all things being equal. Only time will tell - November 2.

So we don't know how many Tea Partiers there are but Tom Morrison could not have explained more clearly what they are looking for - when he wrote before the Pledge was released that "Tea Partiers want a political party that is absolutely committed to limited government & a substantial rollback of federal spending & entitlements. If that's not politically feasible until the nation is closer to the brink of bankruptcy so be it. Our most recent generation of Republicans paved the way for the progressives to vastly expand the power of Washington under President Obama. There is absolutely no Tea Party appetite to repeat that mistake."


  1. It is an upside down world when Bush 43’s legacy is he left a deficit while Clinton raised taxes and left a surplus. Is it really that simple?

    Blog Reply - It is not quite that simple - you have to add the Congress factor. Clinton had the Contract with America Congress who really produced the surplus. Bush was a spender & the more statist the Congress became under Bush the bigger the spending appetite & deficits got. BO is a bigger spender yet & so is his current Congress. Please remember that the deficit is not the important thing though - it is the amount of spending. Professor Friedman would rather have a budget of $1 trillion with a $500 billion deficit, than a budget of $2 trillion with no deficit. He believed that the burden borne by the American economy is measured by what government spends & disposes of, not by whether it calls its receipts "taxes" or "proceeds from bonds."