Ten myths about gay marriage

Same-sex marriage is once again in the news. This week the Supreme Court is hearing two cases on same sex marriage, either of which could conceivably make gay marriage the law of the land and strike down the definition of marriage laws in place in 37 states and the federal government.

There are many myths and much misinformation surrounding the same-sex marriage issue:

Myth #1: Defense of marriage laws are “gay marriage bans.”

While the media and homosexual activists often refer to these laws as “gay marriage bans,” in reality they do often do not ban anything. The laws simply create a definition of marriage according to the government. The heart of the federal DOMA simply states, “… the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.''

Similarly, a North Carolina marriage amendment passed last year reads, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

In other words, most state laws do not prevent same-sex couples from entering into private contracts or holding private religious marriage ceremonies. Likewise, nothing prohibits private companies from offering benefits to same-sex partners of their employees. Definition of marriage laws only mean that the government will not recognize, sponsor or encourage the union of same-sex couples.

The marriage amendment to the Georgia Constitution is more ambiguous on the issue of private ceremonies. Article I Section IV Paragraph I (a) reads, “This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.” In reality, however, Georgia does not persecute same-sex couples. Georgia would not be likely to object to a private religious ceremony and does not penalize companies who choose to offer benefits to same-sex partners.

Myth #2: Marriage laws violate the Equal Protection Clause.

In reality, rights are held by individuals, not by couples. This means that people of homosexual orientation have exactly the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. No one, not even a heterosexual, has the right to marry anyone they choose or whoever (or whatever) they happen to love.

According to USmarriagelaws.com, all 50 states have laws against bigamy, marrying more than one person at a time. All 50 states also have laws establishing a minimum age of consent to marry. In Georgia, the minimum age is 18, but 16-year-olds can marry with the consent of their parents or a judge according to Findlaw.com. Some states recognize common law marriages. Georgia is among the states that do not. Some states don’t allow cousins to marry. Georgia is among the 26 that do.

Definition of marriage laws are simply one more example of states legislating how their citizens want marriage to be treated. The laws apply equally to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Myth #3: The Constitution requires states to recognize same-sex marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Proponents of same-sex marriage argue that the Constitution requires traditional marriage states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in same-sex marriage states because the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires that states recognize “the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State….” In their view, this means that if a state like Massachusetts issues a marriage certificate to a same-sex couple, every other state is constitutionally required to recognize it. Section Two of the DOMA specifically states that federal law should not be interpreted this way.

In this case, the ruling by the First Circuit does not address Section Two. Subsequent lawsuits probably will. The Supreme Court could also choose to invalidate the entire DOMA when it hears this or other cases on the issue, but the question of the Full Faith and Credit Clause has not yet been addressed by the courts. In the future, Georgia might be forced by the courts to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states even though Georgia law prohibits such marriages.

It is evident that the original intent of the clause was not to engineer a back door way of forcing states to accept new laws. Instead, the clause was intended to allow the states to honor similar laws and proceedings in other states. To require a state to honor a marriage license between a same sex couple merely because one of a minority of states that permit those unions had issued the license is outside the bounds of the intent of the clause and would set a disturbing precedent that liberals would probably rather not follow through to other issues. For example, a majority of states have enacted “shall issue” laws for concealed gun carry permits. Perhaps blue states such as Illinois, Wisconsin, California and New York should be forced to allow these gun owners to exercise their right to carry when they travel.

Myth #4: The DOMA is inconsistent with state’s rights and federalism.

Proponents present the DOMA as a case of the federal government usurping the state power to define marriage. In reality, the DOMA defines marriage only for the federal government. Section Two of the DOMA protects state rights by stipulating that traditional marriage states cannot be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage from states that have chosen to recognize same-sex marriages. Lawsuits to mandate same-sex marriages and invalidate state definition of marriage laws usurp the will of the people and their elected representatives.

Myth #5: Only religious nuts oppose same-sex marriage.

Proponents of same-sex marriage portray supporters of traditional marriage as bigots and religious fanatics, while arguing that the U.S. is not a theocracy and that the separation of church and state prohibits the government from taking a religious view of marriage. In reality, much of the support for traditional marriage can be traced to secular arguments.

It is in the vital national interest of the state to ensure that children, the next generation of taxpayers, have a stable family unit. There is strong evidence that children need both a mother and a father. It seems that the absence of fathers is particularly damaging to children. In the book “Life Without Father,” David Popenoe noted that the absence of fathers was strongly linked to many societal ills. Sixty percent of rapists come from fatherless homes, as do 72 percent of young murderers and 70 percent of long-term prison inmates. When viewed in these terms, there is a compelling government interest to encourage marriage relationships between men and women as a stable unit for childrearing. The burden of proof should be on those who seek to overturn thousands of years of history, tradition, and law that point to both a mother and a father as the best unit for raising children.

A 2012 a study seemed to confirm what many people already suspected. The New Family Structures Study, published in Social Science Research in July 2012, has one of the largest sample sizes of any study on the subject as well as improved methodology over previous studies. From more than 15,000 people, the author of the study, Mark Regnerus, found 175 people with mothers and 73 people with fathers who were in gay relationships for at least part of their childhood.

One surprising finding from the study was that Georgia has more children living with same-sex couples than any other state. In general, gay families live in the same places heterosexual families do. Gay families are not concentrated in homosexual meccas like San Francisco.

Not so surprising is the fact that gay families tend to be less stable than traditional families. Only two of the 175 children of lesbians reported spending their whole childhood with a single set of parents. None of the children of gay men spent their entire childhood with the same two parents. According to the study, only 57 percent of the children spent more than four months with the same lesbian parents. Only 23 percent had the same parents for three years.

This instability in the family leads to problems for the children. Regnerus said in Slate, “Such respondents were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, and report… more sexual victimization.”

Even though not all heterosexual couples bear children, biologically the potential is always there. Even couples who cannot have or do not want to have children have the possibility of procreating, whether purposely or by accident. Additionally, the same need for a stable, nurturing family unit with parents of both genders applies to adopted children as well.

Further, there is the argument that recognizing same-sex marriages would be expensive for cash-strapped governments. The First Circuit ruling estimates that more than 100,000 couples are affected by the federal DOMA. Recognizing these marriages would generate untold billions of dollars of costs that were not planned for by government actuaries. Likewise, extending marriage tax credits to same-sex couples would mean millions or billions in lost tax revenues. With governments already paying out more in benefits than they take in, they simply cannot afford to pay out more in benefits.

Other rights that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution have limitations as well. The First Amendment does not permit a person to yell “fire” in a crowded theater or protect a slanderer. The Second Amendment does not mean that a person can manufacture pipe bombs in their home and permits states and cities to enact reasonable regulations on guns.

If marriage is merely a statement of love without a societal consequence, then why limit it to only two people? Why not allow polygamy as well? Why limit it to people at all? Recent news stories have detailed how different women have shown their love by marrying the Eiffel Tower, the Berlin Wall, a dog, and a dolphin, One woman even married herself.

Myth #6: Definition of marriage laws are similar to interracial marriage bans.

Same-sex marriage proponents point to older state laws against interracial marriage as a similarly unjust regulation. In reality, interracial marriage was very different from same-sex marriage. Where same-sex couples are biologically incompatible and infertile, interracial couples were of the male and female genders and created a fertile couple.

Bans on interracial marriage did violate the Equal Protection Clause because they treated people differently based on race. Under these laws, two men, one black and the other white, did not have an equal chance to marry a given woman. Definition of marriage laws are different in that they hold that the state will not recognize the marriage of any person to any other person of the same gender, treating everyone equally.

Myth #7: Homosexuality is genetic.

No one knows exactly why some people are homosexual. There is no conclusive proof that it is genetic. It may well be a combination of both “nature” and “nurture.” The increasing numbers of bisexuals seem to indicate that something other than genetics is at work.

The issue is not whether gay people can help being gay or whether they can be “cured” of homosexuality. The issue is whether a fundamental building block of society that rests on centuries of tradition should be reordered on a whim.

Myth #8: Same-sex couples need marriage so they can visit in the hospital.

The need to be able to visit partners in the hospital has long been a justification for same-sex marriage, but Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor and gay rights activist, wrote as far back as 2008 that, “Hospital accreditation standards include those who play a significant role in a patient's life, even if not legally related, within the definition of family. Neither gay nor straight couples should have to marry to visit each other in the hospital.”

Myth #9: Same-sex marriage now has widespread acceptance.

A number of recent polls on Polling Report show that the nation is split over the issue. While most polls show advocates of same sex marriage with the advantage, polls often seem to overstate the popularity of redefining marriage. For example, polls in North Carolina seemed to indicate that the marriage amendment there might be defeated or that the vote would be close. In reality, the amendment passed by a margin of more than 20 percent. One theory is that people are not being honest with pollsters because of the heavy-handed rhetoric used by the media and the left on the issue.

It was only in 2012 that a majority of voters finally endorsed same-sex marriage. In most cases, when the issue went to the voters it wasn’t even close. In contrast, the votes that approved gay marriage in Maryland and Maine were very close. Georgia’s marriage amendment passed with 76 percent in favor according to CNN. To date, 31 states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and woman. Six more states define marriage by statute. Only nine states and the District of Columbia do and in most of those states the law changed by judges.

Myth #10: Conservatives are using same-sex marriage as a wedge issue and attempting to force their morality on others.

The reality is that no conservative wants to be talking about same-sex marriage. The most important issues that we face are the economy and the likelihood that Iran will soon have nuclear weapons. President Obama and the Democrats are using the issue to rally a base that is disillusioned by the president’s poor performance on economic issues.

When same-sex marriage is in the news, most often it is because the left has made it an issue. As the ruling itself notes, the federal DOMA was a response to a 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in a lawsuit filed by homosexual activists. Hawaii’s legislature then defined marriage in 1994 and Congress passed the DOMA, introduced by Georgia congressman Bob Barr, with broad bipartisan support in 1996. President Bill Clinton signed the DOMA into law. When judges in Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that the state could not deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, other states started enacting defense of marriage laws to prevent judicial activists from issuing edicts redefining their own marriage laws.

In reality, as Ryan Anderson wrote in National Review, the question is not whether same-sex couples will be allowed to express their love for each other; “the question is whether the rest of society will have the freedom to choose which type of relationship to honor as marriage” and whether a minority can force their view of morality on the nation at large.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/list/ten-myths-about-the-gay-marriage-debate?cid=db_articles

Elections 2012: Georgia T-SPLOST referendum

On July 31, Georgia voters will go to the polls to decide on T-SPLOST, a transportation special purpose local option sales tax. The election will decide whether voters will approve a one cent sales tax to fund statewide transportation projects. Although Election Day is July 31, early voting has already started.

Details about T-SPLOST can be found on the Investing in Tomorrow’s Transportation Today (IT3) page of the Georgia Department of Transportation website. The T-SPLOST referendum was authorized by the Transportation Investment Act of 2010. The Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan (SSTP) was approved by Gov. Sonny Perdue and the State Transportation Board in 2010.

According to the SSTP, Georgia is currently below average on state transportation funding. This threatens Georgia’s ability to receive federal matching funds. The planners predict that Atlanta’s congestion costs will double over the next 20 years and that the number of workers available within 45 minutes of metro Atlanta will actually shrink by a third due to increased congestion. Congestion in Georgia’s medium-sized cities is forecast to rise to level comparable with Atlanta and Charlotte.

The solution, according to the plan, is three-pronged. First, the plan calls for $15 billion in improvements to Georgia’s freight transportation system including new bypasses, rail capability, and relieving bottlenecks and gaps.

Second, the Atlanta area would receive $29-36 billion, including $8-11 billion from tolls or user fees, for a variety of work. There would be more “managed” (toll) lanes on major routes. The plan would focus on these and other “dual-purpose investments” that can be used by private vehicles as well as mass transit. Atlanta would also have funding for rail transit. The initial plan would maintain the current system and expand short-haul rail lines that connect to the core system. Later, long-haul rail to the suburbs and other cities would be considered.

Finally, new capacity and safety needs for the remainder of the state are estimated at $14 billion over the next 20 years. Much of the spending outside Atlanta involves managing traffic patterns and coordinating transportation growth with developing areas.

Total cost for the program is estimated at $65 billion over the next 20-30 years. The SSTP estimates that the plan will generate 425,000 new jobs and $480 billion in economic benefit for the state. The expansion and upgrade of Georgia’s transportation system is intended to make Georgia more attractive to new business and make its existing businesses more competitive.

T-SPLOST supporters may have an uphill battle. Tax increases are often unpopular and the current economic and political climate is unlikely to help matters. The Georgia Tea Party Patriots is hosting an online petition against the measure, calling it “the largest single tax increase in Georgia history.” The group charges that T-SPLOST funds will be used to bail out MARTA, which is in financial trouble. The GTPP also says that the T-SPLOST will tax food and medicine and points out that the tax is likely to be renewed in 10 years to cover maintenance for the new projects. The group is also concerned about “regional appointed quasi-governments” that are not elected and therefore unaccountable to taxpayers.

Many Georgia businesses favor the T-SPLOST. In an AJC blog, Sadie Fields, former chairwoman of the Christian Coalition of Georgia, alleges that many employees of Atlanta-area businesses feel that their employers are pressuring them to vote for the measure. A rebuttal by John Brock, CEO of Coca-Cola Enterprises, points out that Atlanta traffic is limiting growth and that T-SPLOST is needed to turn things around.

The Georgia Public Policy Foundation issued a report on the vote that lists several pros and cons. Among the reasons to vote for the bill is the fact that Georgia is 49^th in transportation funding and there are improvements that are genuinely needed. In regions where the tax is rejected, local governments will be responsible for an increased percentage of the cost of maintaining local roads. This may lead to higher local taxes. The next chance to vote on transportation improvements will be in 2014.

On the con side, the GPPF notes that a sales tax is not linked to transportation usage. A one cent increase in the gas tax might be better suited to transportation. Much of the money is slated to be spent in Atlanta and too much of Atlanta’s money will be spent on rail transit. Only three percent of commuters use MARTA, but public and rail transit gets almost half of Atlanta’s funds. Finally, the foundation notes that spending is political rather than based on need and there is no long term plan.

The GPPF recommends that voters examine the list of proposed projects for their region when deciding how to vote on the issue. T-SPLOST.com lists the projects by region. The website is a pro-T-SPLOST site paid for Yancey Brothers, a Caterpillar heavy equipment dealer.

The AJC Political Insider blog reports that the T-SPLOST is indeed in trouble. The column quotes a Rosetta Stone poll that shows public opinion is against the new tax by a margin of 37-48 percent. Support is strongest in the Democratic strongholds of DeKalb and Fulton counties where the measure is supported 49-32 percent. Democrats favor the plan 57-24 percent while Republicans oppose it 19-68 percent. The Political Insider also reported that Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers is likely to oppose the plan.

In an election year that is centered around the struggle against government spending and higher taxes, it is ironic that Georgia’s Republicans find themselves advancing a huge tax and spend bill. It is even more ironic that Georgia’s Democrats are the biggest supporters of a measure advanced by Gov. Deal. The down side for Gov. Deal is that Georgia has far fewer Democrats than it did just a few years ago.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/two-sides-to-t-splost

Georgians vote against Democrats, not for GOP

If polls leading up to Election Day are a reliable indication, the Democrats will suffer a crushing defeat at the ballot box today. Republicans are almost certain to take control of the House, likely to win a majority in the Senate, and are poised to take control of several governorships as well.

To read the rest of this article and learn what the GOP should learn from this election, click the link below.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5961708/many_in_georgia_are_voting_against.html?cat=8

Voting Absentee in Georgia

If you are a citizen of Georgia who may not be able to visit a polling place on Election Day, you can vote with an absentee ballot. In my full-time job I travel frequently and so I commonly vote with an absentee ballot. I actually prefer to vote absentee because it helps me to avoid long lines at polling places.

You don’t have to be out of town to vote absentee. You can also get an absentee ballot if you are sick or if you are simply unable to find time to reach your poll. In fact, you do not have to list a reason why you are voting absentee.

To obtain an absentee ballot, contact your county registrar and request an application. You may do this within 180 days of an election. Military and overseas voters are an exception to the 180 day rule. They may request an application at any time. You may also download an absentee ballot application from the website of the Secretary of State here: http://www.sos.ga.gov/elections/quick_access.htm

After you have received your absentee ballot, return it to your county registrar. Both faxed and mail copies are accepted. The link to the Secretary of State’s website above also provides contact information for county registrars. The registrar must receive your application no later than the Friday prior to the election. As an alternative, you may also visit the office of the registrar to vote absentee in person before Election Day.

When your application is received and approved, the registrar will mail your absentee ballot to you. You simply complete the form that affirms your identity, fill out the ballot, and return it through the mail. If you are unable to fill out the ballot yourself, it is legal to have someone assist you.

There are several pros and cons to voting absentee. The pros include not having to schedule a visit to the polling place on Election Day and not having to deal with long lines (except at the post office). Also, ballots can often be long and complicated with some of the races and ballot initiatives being very obscure. With an absentee ballot, you can research these little known races and initiatives rather than having to make a split second decision in a voting booth. Finally, if you submit an absentee ballot application, you are exempted from Georgia’s voter ID law.

There are a few problems with absentee voting as well. One problem is the relative inefficiency of the mail. I always am a little concerned over the possibility of my ballot getting lost or arriving too late to be counted. The bigger issue is that if you submit your ballot early, you lose the ability to change your mind about a candidate if new information comes out just before the election. After your ballot is mailed, you have voted and you cannot retract that vote.

An additional alternative to absentee voting is early voting. Now in Georgia, polls are open for several days prior to the actual Election Day. Early voting combines many of the aspects of absentee voting while eliminating the trips to the post office. Typically, early voters go to the registrar’s office and vote on an actual voting machine rather than a paper ballot. To find out when and where to vote early, contact your county registrar.

Absentee and early voting provide a great alternative to going out of your way to stand in a long line on Election Day. If you are interested in voting early or absentee, start by registering now. Then be sure to request your absentee ballot within 180 days of the election. Do your research and mail your ballot back in plenty of time. Congratulations on becoming an informed and active citizen!

Sources:
http://www.sos.ga.gov/elections/quick_access.htm
http://carrollgaelections.com/home/absenteevoting.asp
http://www.longdistancevoter.org/georgia

Registering to Vote in Georgia

If you intend to vote in an election in Georgia, you should register as soon as possible. While most elections are still several months away, there are deadlines to register for each election. It is important to remember that you cannot register and vote on the same day.

Georgia law requires prospective voters to be at least 18 years of age and to be a citizen of the United States and the county in which they intend to vote. People serving a sentence for a felony or judged by a court to be mentally incompetent are not eligible to vote. It is illegal to register and vote in more than one location. For example, if you have a home in Georgia and vacation home in Florida, you must choose only one state in which to vote.

There are several ways to register to vote in Georgia. Voter registration forms can be found in many public buildings such as city halls, libraries, fire stations, and public assistance offices. The form can also be downloaded from the website of the Georgia Secretary of State. The form is postage-paid for return to the Secretary of State or can be returned to your county Board of Elections. When the registration form is processed, you will receive a precinct card showing the location of your polling place.

You must register to vote at least thirty days prior to any election in which you want to vote. This means that to vote in the 2010 primary election on July 20, you must register by June 21. If you do not register for the primary and wish to vote in the general election on November 2, the deadline is October 4. Once you are registered to vote, you remain registered as long as you keep voting.

It is also important to note that you must bring a valid photo identification card when you vote. A Georgia driver’s license is the most commonly used form of identification. If you do not have a Georgia driver’s license (even if expired) or one of the other valid forms of ID, then the state will provide a free voter ID card. To obtain this free voter ID card, contact your county registrar or the office of the Secretary of State.

Remember that voting is not only a right; it is a civic duty. In exercising your right to vote, it is also your duty to become educated about the issues at stake.

Important Links:
http://www.georgia.gov/00/article/0,2086,4802_4973_11785786,00.html
http://carrollgaelections.com/home/reginfo.asp
http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/elections_events.htm
http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/voter_registration/GA%20VOTER%20REGISTRATION%20%20APP%28Fill_2007%29.pdf
http://sos.georgia.gov/GAPhotoID/default.htm

Why Do Voters Not Act in Their Self-Interest?

Since Scott Brown’s senatorial victory last week, there have been many questions from the left about why people don’t vote in their economic self-interest? In this case, the reasoning goes, the vote for the Republican makes it all the more difficult for President Obama and the Democrats to pass their version of health care reform, which some believe will help most voters. Such questions often arise after the Democrats lose important elections.

The author of one study wrote that the voters “do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best” [BBC]. This statement makes sense and is true to a point. The problem is that it doesn’t go far enough.

The bottom line is that voters and liberal politicians don’t always see eye-to-eye on what the self-interest of the voters actually is. Is it always in the self-interest of the voters to receive a government handout? The answer is a resounding “NO!”

In the most obvious sense, a government handout is not in the self-interest of voters when the voters must give up some of their freedoms to receive it. And this is often the case. Government money frequently comes with strings attached. In the case of the health care reform, the handout comes in the form of a loss of the freedom to choose your own insurance. It would eliminate the right to not have insurance and add numerous government mandates on what insurance policies would be required to cover.

If this legislation is only the first step toward a national single-payer health care system, as many Democrats hope, then ultimately we would all lose some of our freedom. We would lose the freedom to choose our own health insurance to a mandatory plan run by government bureaucrats. We would also lose economic freedom through the value of our time and money lost to higher taxes needed to pay for our “free” health care.

Under our current system, if you don’t like your health insurance company you can fire them and hire a new one. You can shop around for the best price, tailor coverage to suit your needs, or even choose to self-insure and not buy a policy at all. President Obama’s health care reform would place many of these rights at risk.

Voters also know that government policy is often a victim of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Rules and regulations designed to fix one problem often create a whole new set of other problems. A recent example was the ethanol mandate.

In 2007, high oil prices pushed congress to pass a renewable fuels standard that required more ethanol to be produced for biofuels in the United States. As more corn was diverted to ethanol production, the price of food increased sharply and there were food riots in poor countries around the world. At the same time, the price of oil remained high until the demand dropped [Heritage]. The only winners from the renewable fuel standard were corn farmers.

Voters, particularly those in Massachusetts, were probably aware of the unintended consequences of the Massachusetts experiment in government health reform as well. Massachusetts law, which is similar in many ways to President Obama’s proposed legislation, has not solved Massachusetts’ health care problems. According to the Wall Street Journal, even though the number of uninsureds fell by about half (which may be overstated), “costs have exploded.” Unsubsidized coverage fell as total coverage increased and health costs in Massachusetts have climbed faster than the rest of the US. Additionally, there have been reports of shortages of doctors as previously uninsured people rush to make appointments [NPR].

Voters probably also sense that much of what they have been told about the health cannot be true. They have been promised that coverage will be expanded to the whole country with adding to the deficit. They have been told that they can keep their current plans if they want, even as economic incentives are created for employers to dump their plans in favor of fines that are cheaper than coverage or a federally funded “public option.” They have been told to trust their health care to a government that just spent over $700 billion on a worthless stimulus package; a government that chose to carry out the negotiations for the proposed health care plan in secret, violating President Obama’s campaign promise to carry out government business in the open. Many of these statements were made by representatives who had not read the bill and did not know what was in it. The BS-detectors of many voters have probably been pegged for some time!

Finally, many voters likely realize that the dramatic increases in government spending cannot be paid for. They realize that the ballooning federal debt is a real danger to the future of our country. We are mortgaging the future of our children to pay for our doctor visits and prescriptions (not to mention worthless light rail projects, tattoo removal, and other boondoggles).

The voters implicitly realize, many from their own experience, that when you run up the balance on your credit card, the bills eventually come due. At this point, our national debt is at the highest peacetime level in our history. Much of the debt is owed to countries, such as China, that are not necessarily our friends. To owe a large portion of the value of your national economy to an unfriendly power is a frightening prospect.

Voters are not necessarily ignoring their self-interest in voting to stymie President Obama’s health care reform. In contrast, they are looking past the immediate handout. Voters are weighing what they are being told with what they believe to be true. They are voting in their long-term self-interest and in the interest of their country.

Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93293391&ft=1&f=1007
http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1925.cfm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013080421218008.html
Villa Rica GA
February 2, 2010

2010 Georgia Elections

Many people probably don’t vote because they simply aren’t sure when the elections are. As a frequent traveler, I’ve almost missed several due to being out of town and forgetting to request an absentee ballot. In this blog, I’ll try to fill in the important dates to remember for Georgians in 2010. There might be additional city and county election dates as well, so check with your local elections officials and mark your calendar.

The first elections in Georgia will occur on March 16, 2010. This will be a special election held to fill vacancies only. Check locally to see if you need to head to the polls. To vote in this election, you will need to register to vote by February 16. There will be a similar special election held on September 21. Register by August 23, to vote in this election. If needed, runoffs for these elections will be held on April 13 and October 19 respectively.

The first truly statewide election of the year will be the Georgia primary election. The primary will be held on July 20. To vote in the primary, you must register by June 21. A runoff for the primary will be held on August 10, if it is required.

The general election, 2010’s main event, will be held on November 2. If you haven’t registered by this point, you have until October 4 to do so. A runoff for the primary election will be held on November 30, if needed.

If you cannot visit a polling place on election day, you can request an absentee ballot. In Georgia, the deadline to request an absentee ballot application is the Friday before the election. Absentee ballots can be cast up to 180 days before the election. I will discuss the process for absentee voting, as well as the registration process, in later posts.

Mark your calendar with these important dates. Remember that voting is a civic right and duty. It is also your duty to be an informed voter. Follow my posts to learn more about the issues at stake in Election 2010.

Chicago IL
January 11, 2009

2009 Predictions Revisited

Last February, after Barack Obama had been president for about a month, I posted a series of predictions for the next several years on my blog, CaptainKudzu. Almost a year later, as Obama’s first anniversary in office approaches, I decided to revisit my forecasts and see how well I fared. The unedited version of my original predictions can be found at http://captainkudzu.blogspot.com/2009/02/twenty-predictions-for-next-few-years.html. I should note that I did not say that my predictions would be fulfilled within 2009, but over the next several years.

The current stimulus bill will fail, just as the TARP program and the 2008 stimulus checks failed.

At this point, it is generally agreed (outside the Obama Administration at least), that the stimulus bill had little or no stimulative effect on the economy. In truth, the stimulus bill was a special interest spending bill that cobbled together numerous pork-barrel projects.

The ineffectiveness of the bill can be seen in the administration’s claim that without the stimulus, the unemployment rate could top 8.5% [FNC]. With the stimulus, unemployment continued past the 8.5% and remained at 10% for December 2009 (ino.com).

While some sectors of the economy have seen short-term surges through programs such as cash-for clunkers and mortgage modifications, these have not lasted. These surges reflect government-created bubbles rather than a truly recovering economy.

Additionally, there have been widespread reports that many of jobs that were reported as created by the stimulus were reported incorrectly or fraudulently. The stimulus job numbers were often inflated to ridiculous proportions or were outright fabrications.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090526101952.aspx
http://news.ino.com/headlines/?newsid=10820100903
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=512766

When the current stimulus bill fails, the government’s solution will be enact another, probably larger, stimulus bill.

A second stimulus bill is still in the future. Such a bill has been discussed throughout 2009, but has been slowed by both voter anger and the gridlock that has met the healthcare reform bill. This is still a possibility for the future.

http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/118_222/stimulus-bill-1004019-1.html

Massive government spending will create high inflation as the government prints money to pay its debts.

Inflation is also a possibility for the future that has not been realized. Currently the inflation rate remains very low with some economists concerned about the possibility of deflation due to the contracting economy.

The Obama Administration has already over more than $1 trillion to the national debt and there are no signs that the spending spree is drawing to a conclusion. There remains a strong possibility that as the government prints money to pay its debts, the dollar will become further devalued and inflation will return. This is especially true if China slows or stops its purchase of US government securities.

The government will also raise taxes. They may not call it raising taxes. They may call it “allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire,” but most Americans who pay taxes will be keeping less of their own money.

Some taxes have already been increased. Others are yet to come.

The first Obama tax increase came in April 2009 when the federal tobacco tax increased by 62 cents per pack. This tax increase primarily affected the middle and lower-class taxpayers that Obama had pledged would pay higher taxes under his administration.

Next will likely be an extension for the estate tax. Under Bush-era legislation, the estate tax was scheduled to be repealed for one year in 2010. Democrats tried, but failed, to reach an agreement to extend the tax into 2010 at 2009 levels. Extending the tax retroactively is likely to be a priority for the first sessions of Congress in 2010.

Another upcoming tax is related to the healthcare reform bill. Most obviously, the bill would require Americans to buy health insurance and fine those who do not. Senator Max Baucus calls the fine an “excise tax” (fnc).

Additionally, however, the bill also contains a surtax on the wealthy and a tax on so-called “Cadillac” health plans. Some reports are that the surtax is not indexed for inflation and will capture more and more middle-class taxpayers in a manner similar to the alternative minimum tax. Many union workers would find their health plans taxed.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/01/cigarette.tax/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/31/pf/taxes/estate_tax_extension/index.htm?section=money_latest&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fmoney_latest+%28Latest+News%29
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/21/health-insurance-mandate-includes-tax-despite-obama-denial/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/25/health.care.insurance.tax/index.html

The recession will be long and the recovery will be slow.

The accuracy of this prediction is self-evident.

Job creation will be stagnant in most sectors of the economy. Government jobs will be an exception.

As noted earlier, the unemployment rate remains at 10%. It has been noted that the real unemployment rate, counting underemployed workers and those who have given up looking for work may be as high as 17.5% [cnbc].

As to the second half of the prediction, government jobs have increased since Obama took office. Not only are there more government workers, they are also earning more than in the past. USA Today reports that the number of federal workers earning more than $100,000 is at an all-time high, even before bonuses and overtime are considered.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/34040009
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/08/20/Government-jobs-up-in-recession/UPI-83631250777855/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries_N.htm

Unemployment will continue to remain at or above current levels for the next several years.

As noted earlier, unemployment remains at 10% with real unemployment rates as high as 17.5%.

A nationalized healthcare system will be enacted in some form.

The enactment of a national healthcare system is still ongoing. There are two healthcare bills at this point, one of which includes the so-called “public option.” The senate version has no public option, but either bill would stack the deck against private insurance. As insurance rates skyrocket due to federal mandates, congress would likely blame a failure of the market and revisit the idea of a national healthcare system.

There will be new restrictions on guns and ammunition.

The Obama Administration has not attempted to enact new gun control legislation yet. To this point, they have been pre-occupied with their version of healthcare reform.

There is a real concern that if the government takes control of the healthcare industry, they could pursue gun control as a matter of public health. This has already been considered by the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health.

The Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. Public opinion is also firmly against strict gun control. Neither obstacle should be considered as a permanent impediment to the desire of many Democrats to enact strict gun control laws. Again, the fact that healthcare reform has become so bogged down in Congress has likely slowed the Democratic agenda.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/22/the-feds-take-a-shot-at-guns/

There will be at least one terrorist attack on US soil.

Sadly, there were several terrorist attacks in 2009. Two of the most notable were US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s massacre of soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas on November 5 and the failed bombing of a Delta airliner on Christmas day. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, now known as the “Dingaling Bomber” or the “Underpants Bomber,” failed to successfully set off his bomb, but his attack called a success by a Yemeni branch of al Qaeda because it exposed holes in US security.

Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon.

Iran is still edging closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon. So far as we know, they have not yet been successful. Likewise, western efforts to convince Ahmadinejad to abandon his nuclear weapons programs have also been unsuccessful.

Iran’s announcement may come in the form of an attack on Israel. Even Iran does not attack, it will cause an increase in tensions in the Middle East.

Iran has not yet attacked Israel… or vice versa. Tensions remain high, however.

In an unforeseen development, the Ahmadinejad regime is fighting for its life against its own subjects. A protest movement launched several protests in 2009 after fraudulent elections which President Ahmadinejad won handily. Shamefully, the US has done little to support the dissidents. The ultimate outcome of the second Iranian revolution is yet to be seen, but is the best hope for peace in the Middle East.

The slow economy will keep oil prices fairly low for the next few years unless/until an Iran-Israel war drives prices higher.

In recent weeks, gas and oil prices have increased, due largely to cuts in production. January 2010 saw an increase to $80 per barrel. Oil consumption is still down from 2008 levels due to the recession and winter weather. In the short term, prices are forecast to remain near this level throughout the winter.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that both oil and food prices have been inching upwards. Many economists see this as a sign of a recovery. Others believe that the recovery will be “W” shaped with a second dip to come. No forecasts that I have seen predict a return to the near $150 per barrel prices of July 2008 in the near future.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126300087414822579.html

A federal carbon tax, probably in the form of a cap-and-trade system, will drive energy prices, including electric bills, higher.

Again, a cap-and-trade bill is on the Democratic agenda, but has been slowed by the failure to pass a healthcare bill.

The carbon tax will also drive the prices of other goods and services higher, due to increased production costs.

It has been suggested that one reason for the slow recovery is that businesses are waiting to see the effect of impending legislation. This applies to both the healthcare bill and cap-and-trade.

An attempt will be made to censor conservative media with a revived Fairness Doctrine, although it probably will have a different name.

This has not yet been introduced, but might be in the future.

The situation in Pakistan will continue to deteriorate. Militants from Afghanistan will flee across the border to safe havens there.

Afghanistan and Pakistan remained a hotbed of terrorists in 2009. The situation in Afghanistan deteriorated even as Iraq became more stable. President Obama committed more US troops, and asked our allies for more, in the spring and finally decided to commit even more troops in the fall. Taliban attacks and both allied and American troop deaths increased in 2009.

In Pakistan, Taliban militants actually took control of the Swat Valley before being ousted by the Pakistani army. The Pakistani army also took on the insurgents in the province of South Waziristan. There are reports that insurgents who escaped the government offensives have regrouped in the mountainous areas around the Afghan border.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34644331/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/pakistan/northwest-pakistan/swat_valley/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580076,00.html

The Republicans will make large gains in the 2010 elections, possibly taking control of one or both houses of Congress.

We will know the accuracy of this prediction in another few months. Early indications are that the Republicans will indeed make large gains in both houses of congress.

The Democratic Party will become fragmented as moderate Blue Dog Democrats are pressured to support increasingly leftist legislation and their constituents become more and more angry.

This prediction has already come true. Since the Democrats hold a 60 seat majority in the senate, the Republicans cannot defeat or block any legislation. It is moderate Democrats who are providing the key resistance to the healthcare bill and other controversial legislation.

Interestingly, abortion is the root of much of the dissension in the Democratic ranks. The original bills in both houses provided federal funds to pay for abortions, violating longstanding precedent. Pro-life Democrats were able to insert language in the bills to keep the ban on federal funds for abortion in place. It remains to be seen whether this language will survive into the final versions of the bill, but, if not, the loss of key Democratic votes may block the bill entirely.

By the time he leaves office, President Obama will have an approval rating that is equal to or lower than President George W. Bush’s approval rating at that future time.

As of this writing, a Real Clear Politics average of polls shows President Obama’s approval rating as 48.8% [RCP]. A new poll also shows that Obama is losing ground to George W. Bush with only 50% of people preferring him over Bush and 44% saying that they would prefer Bush as president [Politico].

According to Politifact, President Obama is tied for the worst approval rating at the end of the first calendar year in office. Interestingly enough, the other president with a 49% approval rating at the end of the first year was President Reagan. A key difference in subsequent approval ratings will be that President Reagan’s policies improved the economy and national security, where President Obama’s do not.

For the record, President Bush’s final approval rating while in office was 22% [CBS] to the low 30s (politifact), depending on the poll. Obama has some distance to go to reach that range, but he is off to a good start. His current rating is a sharp decline from the 70+% that he enjoyed when he took office.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30413.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/17/karl-rove/rove-says-obamas-approval-ratings-after-year-are-w/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/16/opinion/polls/main4728399.shtml

The biggest unforeseen development of the year was the legislative quagmire that President Obama and the congressional Democrats found themselves in. I thought that they would use their majorities in both houses of congress to quickly ram through a healthcare bill on the heels of the stimulus package, followed quickly by cap-and-trade. The fear instilled by voters into the Blue Dog Democrats is the primary reason that this did not happen.

By my count, ten of my twenty predictions have already become fact. Another ten have not yet happened but are still likely to happen over the next few years. None of my predictions have been proven incorrect. Of the ten predictions that have not yet occurred, I will be happy if they turn out to be incorrect, but my belief is that we are still on course for their fulfillment. To prevent such predictions as inflation and nuclear Iran from happening, it will be necessary for the US to change course. That will likely require a Republican win in 2010. That, in turn, may prevent Obama from being more unpopular than George W. Bush as he leaves office.

January 8, 2009
Secaucus NJ

Federal Government Rejects Georgia's Voter Citizenship Test

After the state of Georgia fought a protracted court battle over its voter identification law, the US Justice Department is again rejecting a Georgia voter verification law. Georgia voter laws are still required to pass federal muster under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In a letter released June 1, the Justice Department said that the new law discriminates against minority voters.

The charge of discrimination was also used to challenge Georgia’s photo ID law. In spite of the fact that the law offered identification cards free of charge to voters, opponents claimed that the law placed an undue burden on minorities. The law was eventually upheld by upheld by an appeals court.

The new law would have cross-referenced voter social security and driver’s license numbers to ensure that they were citizens, a requirement for voting. The Justice Department charges that many of the voters flagged by the system were citizens who were flagged in error. Further, the citizens flagged in error were disproportionately from minority groups.

For anyone who paid attention during the 2008 elections, the need for voter verification is obvious. Groups like ACORN were implicated in massive amounts of voter registration fraud. The Minnesota senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken is still contested, in part because of numerous irregularities in vote counting. The 2000 presidential election in Florida is a case study in the need for integrity in our electoral system.

Additionally, Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel said that Georgia is currently investigating 30 cases of non-citizen voting. One case involves a Jamaican woman, living legally in Georgia, who has been voting illegally since 2004. The woman turned herself in after she learned that she was not legally entitled to a vote.

Voter fraud comes in two areas. First, there is the possibility that people who are not eligible to vote will cast illegal ballots. This may include illegal aliens, dead people, or people casting multiple ballots. It is this possibility that the Republican Party tends to focus on. The second possibility is that legitimate voters will be barred from voting. This gets the most attention from the Democratic Party.

The obvious answer is that both angles need to be covered to have a trustworthy election. People who are entitled to vote need to be able to vote, but only once. People who shouldn’t vote need to be barred from casting a ballot. If people can’t trust election results then the very foundation of our democracy is in danger.

In keeping with that line of reasoning, if the current system of validating citizenship for Georgia voters doesn’t work, fix it. Don’t throw it out.

Some Democrats seem to understand this; others do not. For instance, Rep. John Lewis said the citizenship checks were “an attempt to take us back to another dark period in our history when people were denied access to the ballot box simply because of their race or nationality.” Evidently, some people feel that any burden of proof is too much.

I seriously doubt that there is any plans withing the General Assembly or the Georgia Department of State to deny minorities the right to vote. The only minorities that should be denied the right to vote are non-citizens and people who have lost that right, such as felons.

Interestingly enough, there have been several proposals around the country to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. There have also been proposals to allow felons to regain their right to vote. It should come as a surprise to no one that these proposals originate from the left side of the political spectrum. (Georgia already allows felons to vote upon completion of their sentence.)

For that reason, Secretary Handel has decided that the Obama Justice Department may require some urging to approve any such citizenship test at all. To that end, she has created a petition asking President Obama and Attorney-General Holder to allow Georgia to prevent illegal aliens and non-citizens from voting.

You can sign the petition here.

Sources:

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2009/01/14/georgia_voter_id.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKbnt8hNDF4uWrTudYii_cvprHcwD98I5V8G0
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/metro/stories/2009/06/01/georgia_voter_screening_immigration.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab&imw=Y
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/09/BAGB57IUMF1.DTL
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02202007/news/regionalnews/let_aliens_vote__activists_regionalnews_frankie_edozien.htm
http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/exoffenders/statelegispolicy2007.html
http://www.karenhandel.com/site/c.nmL0KhN0LxH/b.5208601/k.ADFC/Help_Karen_Handel_Stop_NonCitizens_from_Voting_in_Georgia/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=nmL0KhN0LxH&b=5208601&en=ghJHJSNCKhJLLTMBJ7IGLYPLLkJLKZPFKdKLK3PQKvE&msource=KH060209B&tr=y&auid=4927846



Burbank CA

6/4/09

California's Tax Revolt

On Tuesday, May 19, 2009, Californians went to the polls in one of the first elections of 2009. On the ballot were five measures that would have allowed the State of California to increase taxes for various purposes. Governor Schwarzenegger and state leaders had billed the ballot measures as a way to keep state services operating and deal with the state’s deficit.

The problem was that the measures would not resolve California’s spending problems. According to the Wall Street Journal, passage of the measures would still leave the state with a massive deficit. If the measures passed, California would face an estimated $15.4 billion deficit in its general fund for 2010. If the measures did not pass, the deficit is estimated to hit $21.3 billion.

By now you may have heard that five of the six measures that were being voted on failed. The five tax increases all failed by two-to-one margins. The sole proposition to pass was a measure that would prevent elected officials from getting pay raises in years when the state ran a budget deficit. This measure passed overwhelmingly with almost 74% approval.

As returns came last night and this morning, California’s leaders must be realizing that they cannot tax and spend their way out of the mess. How did this bluest of blue states get in this fix?

California has a history of high taxes and higher spending. California’s spending has more than doubled in the past ten years. This outpaces both the rate of inflation and the rate of population growth. Much of this spending is considered untouchable. Education, spending on government employee salaries and pensions, debt service, and parks all fall into the politically untouchable category.

As California has increased taxes to attempt to pay for this spending, many of the state’s residents began fleeing to neighboring states with more attractive business environments. California refugees have found the lower cost-of-living in states such as Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and Idaho very attractive. As California’s productive citizens and companies leave, California is left with fewer taxpayers while the number of people on the government payroll remains high. These factors combined with the current recession to create a large decline in state tax revenues.

In the past, many people believed that as California goes, so goes the nation. That might be true in this case as well. Under President Obama, federal deficits have spiraled out of control. Federal budget deficits are expected to average approximately $1 trillion per year for the foreseeable future. President Obama’s plans to start a new healthcare entitlement would increase deficits even more.

To finance President Obama’s borrow-and-spend policies, the United States must find more tax revenue. President Obama has already announced plans to repeal President Bush’s tax cuts on the wealthiest five percent of Americans. Many in Congress believe that more tax increases will be necessary. One of President Obama’s first actions was to increase the federal tobacco tax. Proposals have already been floated to increase taxes on employer-paid health insurance, soft drinks, gasoline, and carbon as well as an increase to the death tax.

If the mood of California voters is any indication of the national mood, any new taxes will not be accepted happily. The grass roots anti-tax tea parties that were held around the nation on April 15 are an early sign that politicians who vote to raise taxes may face an unhappy electorate at their next election.

The federal government should realize what the California state government did not. That heavy government spending is a drain on the economy. High taxes slow the economy even further as well as causing real pain to families. In order to prevent the United States from going the way of California, we need real spending cuts.

Sources:
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/props/59.htm
“Schwarzenegger Puts Legacy on the Line With Budget Vote,” Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2009
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/California_state_budget
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/02/09_rosen.shtml
http://cbs13.com/business/federal.budget.deficit.2.963947.html

Should You Vote for Obama?

If you believe that the United States can tax itself into prosperity, vote for Obama.

If you believe that we can simultaneously create jobs while heavily taxing those who create jobs, vote for Obama.

If you believe that a person can associate with a seemingly endless stream of anti-American activists over the course of twenty to thirty years and not only not be affected by their viewpoint, but not even be aware of it, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the 40% of Americans who already do not pay taxes should get a tax cut (translation: a bigger tax refund), vote for Obama.

If you believe that banning the private use and ownership of firearms is a “reasonable restriction” on the second amendment, vote for Obama.

If you believe that abortion should be legal with no restrictions, vote for Obama.

If you believe that you don’t pay enough taxes, vote for Obama.

If you believe that a senator can take over $125,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (more than any other member of Congress save one, even though he has only served four years in the senate) and it will not affect his objectivity on reforming and overseeing these mortgage companies, vote for Obama.

If you believe that most traditional Americans are bitterly clinging to guns and religion, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the government should force banks to loan money to people with poor credit, vote for Obama.

If you believe that opposing same-sex marriage is akin to racism, vote for Obama.

If you believe that we can solve the problem of international terrorism by opening a dialogue, vote for Obama.

If you believe that America wasn’t great until you decided to run for office, vote for Obama.

If you believe that gas will be cheaper if we tax oil companies more, vote for Obama.

If you believe that increasing oil supplies will have no effect of the price of gasoline, vote for Obama.

If you believe that taxing carbon will have no effect the economy, vote for Obama.

If you believe that experience and knowledge don’t matter as much as charisma and hope, vote for Obama.

If you believe that making students into political radicals (through programs such as the Annenberg Challenge) is more important than teaching them subjects such as math and science, then vote for Obama.

If you believe that the government can run the healthcare industry more cheaply and efficiently than doctors and insurance companies, vote for Obama.

If you believe that Jesus was a community organizer, vote for Obama.

If you believe that Iraq is not important in spite of what Osama bin Laden says, vote for Obama.

If you believed that the surge wouldn’t work in Iraq, but is needed in Afghanistan, vote for Obama.

If you believe that Al Qaeda or Iranian radicals wouldn’t fill a vacuum left by the US in Iraq, vote for Obama.

If you believe that healthcare is a constitutional right, vote for Obama.

If you believe that it is ethical to take money from other people to pay for your health insurance, vote for Obama.

If you believe that a trillion dollars worth of new spending is a good thing, vote for Obama.

If you believe that ACORN is a valuable resource in spreading political awareness, vote for Obama.

If you believe that banks should be pressured by community groups such as ACORN to loan money to people with poor credit, vote for Obama.

If you believe that ACORN should receive federal money even though they have perpetrated voter fraud on a massive scale in the last several elections, vote for Obama.

If you believe that more government regulations are the answer to most of our national problems, vote for Obama.

If you believe that our economic problems are caused by corporate greed and not government intrusions into the market or massive deficit spending, vote for Obama.

If you believe that social programs are more important than defense spending, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the US should borrow more money from nations like China to fund entitlement programs, vote for Obama.

If you are reassured by the phrase, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” vote for Obama.

If you believe that the Democratic Party can suspend the laws of economics, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the US can make socialism work where all others have failed, vote for Obama.

If you think that Truth Squads, which intimidate media outlets that present information unflattering to Obama, are a good idea, vote for Obama.

If you think that America needs a domestic national police agency with a budget similar to that of the military, then vote for Obama.

If you agree with the political views of most Hollywood celebrities, vote for Obama.

If you enjoyed the Carter years and would like to revisit them, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the government’s plan to increase bio-fuels, which also increased food prices by 75%, worked well, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the government should tell you what kind of light bulb to use, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the government should force the auto companies to produce cars like the Prius, which are smaller and more expensive than comparable cars, vote for Obama.

If you believe the government, not private companies, creates jobs, vote for Obama.

If you believe that we should have judges who rule based on their personal beliefs rather than written law, vote for Obama.

If you believe that our judges should apply the laws of other countries to American courts, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the most leftist member of the US Senate is capable of forging bipartisan unity, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the government can spend your money more wisely than you can, vote for Obama.

If you believe that next year, your income level won’t be considered “rich,” vote for Obama.

If you believe that character is not important, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the party of higher taxes can suddenly become champions of tax cuts, vote for Obama.

If you believe that allowing tax cuts to expire is not a tax increase, vote for Obama.

If you believe that giving tax refunds to those who don’t pay taxes is not welfare, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the government should be involved in wealth sharing, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the government bureaucracy is more efficient than private enterprise, vote for Obama.

If you believe that Barack Obama is your new bicycle, vote for Obama.

If you believe that any change is good, vote for Obama.

If you believe that Iran armed with nuclear weapons is not a problem, vote for Obama.

If you believe that we should invade Pakistan, vote for Obama.

If you believe that liberal Democrat control of the presidency, along with filibuster-proof majorities in both houses of Congress, is a good thing, vote for Obama.

If you believe that more government is the answer, vote for Obama.

If enough people vote for Obama, you’ll get the government that you deserve.

If, on the other hand, you believe that, as President Lincoln said, “America is the last, best hope of mankind,” and that the founders of our country were wiser than our current crop of politicians, don’t vote for Obama.