Right-leaning libertarian and talk radio host Neal Boortz speaks to undecided voters and makes the case for John McCain. (HT: RCP) It's a pretty long article, I'll try to just hit the highlights but read the whole thing, it's a pretty good summary of the reasons I will definitely not be voting for "the One". First he talks about his own voting history and the stakes.
"Never in those ten elections can I remember choices so stark and possible outcomes so perilous. For the record, over those 10 elections I voted for the Republican candidate six times and the Libertarian four. Never have I voted for a Democrat for president. I see no need to vote for a Democrat since I have no plans or desires to become a ward of the government."
Amen to that. I've never voted Democratic for the Presidential race, although I have for US Senate in the past. Personally, I tend to vote for the guy that claims he wants less of my money. All politicians want at least some of it.
Boortz discusses the race issue, and I have to agree that its understandable that a black person may desire to vote for a black candidate. He also disagrees (as I do) with the notion that if you vote against a black man, you're a racist. That's a huge bunch of bull. For example, I would vote for Ken Blackwell or Michael Steele in a hearbeat, and I donoted money to each in their last races for elective office. Boortz also examines his issues with the Republican party, which I tend to agree with - the bloat of the Federal bureaucracy and the profligate spending over the years 1994-2006 was...infuriating.
Boortz also discusses some of the rather questionable associations that Obama has and notes that those associations would disqualify Obama from serving on his own security detail becuase he couldn't get a security clearance. Yet he is in line to become our commander in chief.
Then he gets to the meat of the matter for me - tax policy, and notes the disconnect between the rhetoric and the facts on the ground. First he notes that the government takes your money at the point of a gun (or prison time), and you really don't have a choice in the matter, you're a customer whether you like it or not. And Obama really likes the idea of taking your money and giving it to someone else.
"Obama was asked if he understood that tax increases have often resulted in decreases in government revenue. Obama responded that he was aware of this fact. He was then asked why, then, would he be so eager to raise taxes? Obama responded that, to him, tax increases were simply a matter of "fairness." In other words, Obama didn't wish to use the police power of the state to collect taxes necessary for the legitimate functions of government; he wanted to use his taxing power to promote some vaporous "fairness" in our economy. After all, as Obama put it, the people he wants to tax have more money than they actually need and he wants to give that money to people who really do need it.
Now I ask you, does any of that sound vaguely familiar? Hmmmmm, let's see. I know I've heard something like that somewhere before. Wait! I think I have it. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Some character named Marx made slogan quite popular around 1875 in a writing called "Critique of the Gotha Program." This phrase is one of the most well-known principals of communism. You can yell, scream, spin around on your eyebrows and spit wooden nickels all you want, but what Barack Obama is pushing here, at least insofar as his tax policies are concerned, is communism. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering Obama's self-professed affinity for communist student groups and communist professors during his undergraduate years."
Boortz goes on to say that government is an unpleasant fact of life, and you can argue the relative merits of the proper role of government are, but it is a necessity at some level. But government should not be involved in creating winners and losers, or plundering my wealth to give it to some lazy shmuck unwilling to work but whose vote is being purchased. What is fair, and who determines who is in need?
"Listen to the rhetoric of the left. Those who are in need are called "the less fortunate." This means that their status as needy was due to nothing but bad luck. It stands to reason, then, that those with more than they need were just lucky. The fortunate and the less fortunate. The lucky and the not so lucky. And here comes Barack Obama riding over the rainbow on his Unicorn to set everything right and make it all fair. Isn't that the world you want to live in?"
Not me. He also notes the old quote about how democracy works only until the point the majority decides to vote itself bread and circuses, until such point there are neither bread or circuses.
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
It appears to many we are fast approaching the point where the collapse of the Republic is inevitable. And if you think the economy is in the tank now, just wait until the 5% Obama is talking about raising taxes on starts to cut expenses in their businesses, just watch the jobs disappear. 80% of all new jobs come from small businesses, and these are the people with the targets on their back.
"The WSJ reports that the National Federation of Independent Business says that only 10% of small businesses with one to nine employees will be hit by Obama's tax increase. However, almost 20% of the small businesses that employ from 10 to 19 people will get nailed, and 50% of small businesses with over 20 employees get punished.
Again ... it is not the percentage of businesses that will have to pay the increased taxes; it's the percentage of the total of small business employees who work for those businesses. The Obama campaign is counting on you not making that distinction; and they know the media won't make it for you; so Obama's "95% of all small businesses don't make $250,000" line will probably rule the day."
Boortz goes on to talk about unions and the Card Check legislation that will eliminate secret ballots on union votes in the workplace and how the Supreme Court would look after an Obama administration. Yikes.