As you know, I'm a huge admirer of President Ronald Reagan. I really miss his courage and leadership, especially with the country the way it's in right now. But yesterday a thought popped into my head that made me realize just how popular Reagan was as President. In 1980 and in 1984, he won in two of the biggest Electoral College landslides in history. Now I want to put his victories in a different context.
In 1980, Reagan beat President Jimmy Carter 489-49 in the Electoral College. In 1984, he
then crushed former Vice President Walter Mondale 525-13! Mondale won only the District of Columbia and Minnesota. This means that Reagan gathered 1,014 Electoral votes in just two elections. Now I want to spread this out just a little bit.
It takes 270 votes to be President. Reagan averaged 507 votes in his two elections. But if you divide 1,014 by three, you'd get 338. This means that Ronald Reagan would've won three land-slide elections in the Electoral College based on his vote total in only two elections. This shows you the power of Reagan's personality and popularity with the people. In the six elections since Reagan's departure, the average margin of victory has been much smaller in terms of popular votes and the Electoral College. If the Republican Party is to get back to greatness, it must bring back the 49-state landslides. This way there would be no contest regardless of how you look at the numbers.
G.J. LaRouche, 31 July 2010
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Extend the Bush tax cuts!
I may not be the biggest supporter of President George W. Bush, but I thought he did the right thing by cutting taxes across the board. The problem now is that the tax cuts will expire on January 1st, 2011. What I don't understand is why he would agree to put sunset provisions on a bill that actually reduced taxes. Have you ever heard of a bill of any kind that will expire? There are thousands of laws passed annually. There are millions of pages of arcane regulations on every aspect of our lives. Since President Obama took office, we've had tax increases, bailouts,
stimulus bills, the health care bill, mounting debt, and so on. None of these bills have expiration dates. It's too bad that tax cuts are only temporary and bills that make the government rule us with an iron fist keep going strong for decades. It should be the other way around.
One example of the temporary tax cuts is the estate tax, also called the death tax. It's a tax on people's estates when they die. On July 13th, the morning of baseball's All Star Game, New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner died of a heart attack at the age of 80. The New York Yankees are worth at least $1 billion. In 2010, the estate tax went down to zero. Yet in 2011, the estate tax will go up to a staggering 55% with a $1,000,000 exemption. Had Steinbrenner died next year, his family would've paid at least $550 million to the government. Say what you want about George Steinbrenner. He wasn't a saint, but that doesn't entitle the government to wipe out the New York Yankees.
Now I know a lot of you will say that Steinbrenner was a greedy capitalist and he did some very controversial things as owner. I can't defend the man. He did pay somebody $40,000 to dig
up dirt on Dave Winfield. He fired a lot of managers and general managers and was tough on players. But I will defend his family's right to keep what they built. If the Steinbrenner family had to pay all that money to the government, hundreds of people's lives would've been severely impacted. Salaries would've been cut. Employees wouldn't be able to spend their own money to stimulate the economy. And down the line it goes. It's bad enough New York state and New York City, along with Washington, have so many other taxes in addition to the estate tax. But had Steinbrenner's death come at a different time, the Yankees would've been devastated.
There is absolutely no reason why the government should take anybody's wealth when that person dies, regardless of what that person is worth. It is not only anti-American, but also not
constitutional. Think about it. When you're dead, you don't have the right to vote, the right to speak, the right to bear arms, or the ability to do anything else. You're dead. Steve Forbes once said that there should be no taxation without respiration. We should extend the tax cuts and add to those tax cuts. It'll be the right thing to do. The original Yankee Stadium was the house that Babe Ruth built. Let's not make the death tax the tax that crushed the New York Yankees.
G.J. LaRouche, 26 July 2010
stimulus bills, the health care bill, mounting debt, and so on. None of these bills have expiration dates. It's too bad that tax cuts are only temporary and bills that make the government rule us with an iron fist keep going strong for decades. It should be the other way around.
One example of the temporary tax cuts is the estate tax, also called the death tax. It's a tax on people's estates when they die. On July 13th, the morning of baseball's All Star Game, New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner died of a heart attack at the age of 80. The New York Yankees are worth at least $1 billion. In 2010, the estate tax went down to zero. Yet in 2011, the estate tax will go up to a staggering 55% with a $1,000,000 exemption. Had Steinbrenner died next year, his family would've paid at least $550 million to the government. Say what you want about George Steinbrenner. He wasn't a saint, but that doesn't entitle the government to wipe out the New York Yankees.
Now I know a lot of you will say that Steinbrenner was a greedy capitalist and he did some very controversial things as owner. I can't defend the man. He did pay somebody $40,000 to dig
up dirt on Dave Winfield. He fired a lot of managers and general managers and was tough on players. But I will defend his family's right to keep what they built. If the Steinbrenner family had to pay all that money to the government, hundreds of people's lives would've been severely impacted. Salaries would've been cut. Employees wouldn't be able to spend their own money to stimulate the economy. And down the line it goes. It's bad enough New York state and New York City, along with Washington, have so many other taxes in addition to the estate tax. But had Steinbrenner's death come at a different time, the Yankees would've been devastated.
There is absolutely no reason why the government should take anybody's wealth when that person dies, regardless of what that person is worth. It is not only anti-American, but also not
constitutional. Think about it. When you're dead, you don't have the right to vote, the right to speak, the right to bear arms, or the ability to do anything else. You're dead. Steve Forbes once said that there should be no taxation without respiration. We should extend the tax cuts and add to those tax cuts. It'll be the right thing to do. The original Yankee Stadium was the house that Babe Ruth built. Let's not make the death tax the tax that crushed the New York Yankees.
G.J. LaRouche, 26 July 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
A Con-Con is relatively inexpensive!
Okay, now I'm back to the issue of a Constitution Convention in Michigan. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce claims that a CON-CON would cost up to $50 million. I believe this is absolutely false. The convention would most likely cost $10 million and it would call for many changes that Michigan needs quickly and effectively. Let me give you one specific example of the advantages of a CON-CON.
In 2006, Proposal 2 was on the ballot in Michigan that would ban the affirmative action program
in the admissions office at the University of Michigan. Although I agree with this proposal and was glad that it passed, the method upon which it had to pass was arduous at best. First of all, the supporters of the proposal, who were good friends of mine, had to collect over 300,000 valid signatures just to get it on the ballot. On the other hand, Proposal 10-1 (the CON-CON proposal)
will automatically be on the ballot, so there's no need to collect signatures. The other problem with Prop 2 was that special interests poured millions of dollars in advertising both for and against the proposal. Despite being heavily outspent, the supporters of Prop 2 were victorious because the measure passed. Even though people fear that special interests will influence a CON-CON, it's much easier for these special interests to sway the masses than they could sway 148 Constitutional Delegates.
It's also very frustrating to wait until election day to wait to vote on one more thing to add to the Michigan Constitution. And it can even be disappointing. Of the 67 Constitutional proposals that have been on the ballot since the people ratified the 1963 Constitution, only 31 passed. Thus,
the amendment process has a failure rate of over 50%. Why would the people even bother to approve a state constitution if they've had to bother voting on so many additional amendments to that same constitution? A CON-CON can bring up dozens of new ideas instantly without having to wait until election day. Half of all registered voters don't even bother to show up at the polls. A CON-CON would bring 148 dependable people who will meticulously look at every word of a new Constitution.
The costs of bringing up one proposal on the ballot - when you consider the signatures, the advertising, and everything else - would be about $5 million. And I'm being conservative. The cost of a CON-CON would be about $10 million, and it would be much more productive. Such a convention would do the work of about 100 amendments. This means that a CON-CON would do the equivalent of $500 million worth of work for $10 million. Now that is money well spent.
G.J. LaRouche, 20 July 2010
In 2006, Proposal 2 was on the ballot in Michigan that would ban the affirmative action program
in the admissions office at the University of Michigan. Although I agree with this proposal and was glad that it passed, the method upon which it had to pass was arduous at best. First of all, the supporters of the proposal, who were good friends of mine, had to collect over 300,000 valid signatures just to get it on the ballot. On the other hand, Proposal 10-1 (the CON-CON proposal)
will automatically be on the ballot, so there's no need to collect signatures. The other problem with Prop 2 was that special interests poured millions of dollars in advertising both for and against the proposal. Despite being heavily outspent, the supporters of Prop 2 were victorious because the measure passed. Even though people fear that special interests will influence a CON-CON, it's much easier for these special interests to sway the masses than they could sway 148 Constitutional Delegates.
It's also very frustrating to wait until election day to wait to vote on one more thing to add to the Michigan Constitution. And it can even be disappointing. Of the 67 Constitutional proposals that have been on the ballot since the people ratified the 1963 Constitution, only 31 passed. Thus,
the amendment process has a failure rate of over 50%. Why would the people even bother to approve a state constitution if they've had to bother voting on so many additional amendments to that same constitution? A CON-CON can bring up dozens of new ideas instantly without having to wait until election day. Half of all registered voters don't even bother to show up at the polls. A CON-CON would bring 148 dependable people who will meticulously look at every word of a new Constitution.
The costs of bringing up one proposal on the ballot - when you consider the signatures, the advertising, and everything else - would be about $5 million. And I'm being conservative. The cost of a CON-CON would be about $10 million, and it would be much more productive. Such a convention would do the work of about 100 amendments. This means that a CON-CON would do the equivalent of $500 million worth of work for $10 million. Now that is money well spent.
G.J. LaRouche, 20 July 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Let's stop complaining!
My goal this year is to convince enough people to vote YES on State Proposal 10-1 to call for a Constitutional Convention (a CON-CON) in Michigan next year. But it seems like the Republican Party is afraid that Marx, Lenin, and Alinsky will crawl out of their graves and dominate the convention. I want to assure people that if we elect conservatives to the convention, with me being President, ordinary people can design a Michigan Constitution that will serve the people better for many generations to come.
Lately, conservatives have been demanding that proposals be placed on the ballot to amend the Constitution. While these are noble causes, they can change everything much more efficiently with a CON-CON. The Tea Party organizers wanted to amend the Constitution to oppose the massive health care bill that President Obama signed into law. They needed at least 380,000 valid signatures to put it on the ballot this November. The organizers failed to collect even half of that amount. I told these people from the beginning that it would be better to call for a CON-CON, but they ignored me. I've been involved in politics for a long time. I knew it wouldn't work, and my instincts served me well. Prop 10-1 will be on the ballot, so no work needs to be done.
Now they want to amend the Constitution to say that we have the right to hunt and fish, to limit salaries for state workers, and to give people the option not to join a labor union in order to work. The amendment process would be very costly and frustrating. A CON-CON can deal with these issues and many more very quickly and inexpensively.
Of course, we can go too far demanding this right or that right. The system can easily be abused.
Any issue can rile up the masses for a short time, but logical minds must prevail. Let me give you an example. Let's say I wanted to amend the Constitution so that everybody would be entitled to a free pizza every Friday night. Well, who could possibly argue with that? I like pizza as much as anybody. I'm sure Mike Ilitch would capialize on that. We can just put it on the ballot by collecting the 380,000 signatures. Then the proposal will pass with 75% of the vote. Now we can all have free pizza.
But just because we can do this doesn't mean we should. Can't you see how silly this sounds after you get your mind off of melted cheese and a crunchy crust? The Michigan Constitution already has 36,000 words in it. Must we add more? My goal is to shrink the Constitution so we can shrink the government. Then we can have a better job market, more money, and the ability to buy all the pizza you want. That is how we should do it.
G.J. LaRouche, 19 July 2010
Lately, conservatives have been demanding that proposals be placed on the ballot to amend the Constitution. While these are noble causes, they can change everything much more efficiently with a CON-CON. The Tea Party organizers wanted to amend the Constitution to oppose the massive health care bill that President Obama signed into law. They needed at least 380,000 valid signatures to put it on the ballot this November. The organizers failed to collect even half of that amount. I told these people from the beginning that it would be better to call for a CON-CON, but they ignored me. I've been involved in politics for a long time. I knew it wouldn't work, and my instincts served me well. Prop 10-1 will be on the ballot, so no work needs to be done.
Now they want to amend the Constitution to say that we have the right to hunt and fish, to limit salaries for state workers, and to give people the option not to join a labor union in order to work. The amendment process would be very costly and frustrating. A CON-CON can deal with these issues and many more very quickly and inexpensively.
Of course, we can go too far demanding this right or that right. The system can easily be abused.
Any issue can rile up the masses for a short time, but logical minds must prevail. Let me give you an example. Let's say I wanted to amend the Constitution so that everybody would be entitled to a free pizza every Friday night. Well, who could possibly argue with that? I like pizza as much as anybody. I'm sure Mike Ilitch would capialize on that. We can just put it on the ballot by collecting the 380,000 signatures. Then the proposal will pass with 75% of the vote. Now we can all have free pizza.
But just because we can do this doesn't mean we should. Can't you see how silly this sounds after you get your mind off of melted cheese and a crunchy crust? The Michigan Constitution already has 36,000 words in it. Must we add more? My goal is to shrink the Constitution so we can shrink the government. Then we can have a better job market, more money, and the ability to buy all the pizza you want. That is how we should do it.
G.J. LaRouche, 19 July 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Somebody was looking out for me!
I spend most of my days at the Sterling Heights Public Library doing research on the Michigan Constitution and checking my Emails. I usually come in by 10:30 a.m. on most days. Yesterday was an exception because I had to look after my 11-year-old niece and 12-year-old nephew who are visiting here from Connecticut for a month this summer. My mom told me to look after them until my aunt could pick them up around 11. When my aunt came by at around 11:30, she told me of a very serious car accident that happened on the way there.
According to Macomb Daily staff writer Gordon Wilczynski, a man driving a white Pontiac Minivan was driving southbound on Dodge Park when a woman driving a blue Jeep Liberty ran a red light while driving westbound on Metro Parkway. The woman hit the man's minivan on the driver's side. Both vehicles ended up on the grassy island on the west side of Dodge Park. When I witnessed the aftermath of the accident myself later on, the Jeep was flipped on its side. The man was listed in critical condition while the woman was listed in serious condition. The accident occured around 10:20 a.m.
When I drive to the library every day, I take Metro Parkway westbound before I turn north on Dodge Park. I often make this drive at about the same time the accident happened. As it turned out, I arrived later than usual because I had to watch after my niece and nephew. At the time, I must admit that I was a little anxious to get to the library because I like doing my work on the Constitutional Convention. But I think God was looking out for me yesterday, and I thank Him for it.
Sometimes it's alright to be a little late because you never know what will happen from one moment to the next. I will do my best to argue why Michigan needs a CON-CON next year. Now I'm not saying that I would've been involved in that accident if I didn't have to babysit my niece and nephew, but maybe I would've witnessed it. Either way, it would've traumatized me. The moral of the story is that you never know when an inconvenience will become a blessing.
G.J. LaRouche, 14 July 2010
According to Macomb Daily staff writer Gordon Wilczynski, a man driving a white Pontiac Minivan was driving southbound on Dodge Park when a woman driving a blue Jeep Liberty ran a red light while driving westbound on Metro Parkway. The woman hit the man's minivan on the driver's side. Both vehicles ended up on the grassy island on the west side of Dodge Park. When I witnessed the aftermath of the accident myself later on, the Jeep was flipped on its side. The man was listed in critical condition while the woman was listed in serious condition. The accident occured around 10:20 a.m.
When I drive to the library every day, I take Metro Parkway westbound before I turn north on Dodge Park. I often make this drive at about the same time the accident happened. As it turned out, I arrived later than usual because I had to watch after my niece and nephew. At the time, I must admit that I was a little anxious to get to the library because I like doing my work on the Constitutional Convention. But I think God was looking out for me yesterday, and I thank Him for it.
Sometimes it's alright to be a little late because you never know what will happen from one moment to the next. I will do my best to argue why Michigan needs a CON-CON next year. Now I'm not saying that I would've been involved in that accident if I didn't have to babysit my niece and nephew, but maybe I would've witnessed it. Either way, it would've traumatized me. The moral of the story is that you never know when an inconvenience will become a blessing.
G.J. LaRouche, 14 July 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
