Tuesday, January 28, 2014

The Perfect Presidential Candidate


          We are already getting a lot of speculation about who the next Republican and Democratie Presidential candidates could be in 2016.  I think one of the parties should nominate a sure winner based on the profile of that candidate.  That candidate would be a gay, black female.  Just think about it.  This candidate would be assured over 90% of the black vote and over 90% of the gay vote.  The female vote would not be 90%, but would be a strong majority.  The advantage would extend way beyond these captive voter blocks.  If anyone criticized or disagreed with this candidate in anyway, they risk being called a racist, sexist, and a homophobe.  Sounds like a sure winner to me.
        This candidate should also be an atheist, as this would insure the vote of everyone that thinks total separation of church and state is desirable.  Anyone that criticizes the candidate could be called a right-wing Bible thumping nut.  A Muslim would be better than an atheist because that would guarantee 90% of the Muslim vote, and anyone criticizing the Muslim candidate could be perceived as a being against freedom of religion.  The problem is finding an openly gay Muslim woman that was still alive, so that probably wouldn’t work. 
        Think of all the people that will vote for her so they can say they voted for the first woman president or the first gay president.  It’s too late for the first black president, but still a factor.  When President Obama was elected, I heard a lot of people say, “Isn’t it nice to have a black president?” 
The next thing is experience.  The candidate can’t have any.  I had a college professor once told me that a truly qualified candidate could never be elected president, because their record would offend too many special interest groups.  He may have had a valid point.  The candidate cannot have a successful record in the private sector.  An undistinguished career in the public sector is best.  If the candidate is an elected official, they need to be fairly nondescript. The majority of votes cast should be simply “Present” so no one is offended. 
        Personal wealth is good, but it must be inherited or earned in some way other than being successful in the private sector.  Being a show business celebrity, star sports athlete, or an author are okay.  If an author, the writings cannot spell out specific political agendas, as this could alienate too many people.  Marrying wealth is also okay, but in this case the candidate should be from a state where same-sex marriages are legal.  The spouse’s wealth must meet the previously mentioned criteria. 
Academic achievement is good, but if it is marginal or if the candidate received special consideration due to affirmative action, the records must be sealed.  Political science and law degrees are always good for politicians. 
Personal history is not too important, as long as there are no sex scandals.  Most drug history, financial indiscretions, fraud, and even some felonies can be handled in most cases.  The crime or indiscretion is not a problem, but the candidate can’t get caught in a cover-up.
The candidate does not have to have any real talent, except she must be photogenic, she must have a good speaking voice, and she must be able give a good speech.  She does not have to know what she is saying or memorize.  She just needs to be able to read the teleprompter and deliver the speech convincingly.  There are plenty of speechwriters that can write a speech to appeal to any audience and still keep it generic enough so people can hear what they want to hear.
Let’s recap.  We have a gay, black female with money, but no achievements, record, history, or talent in business or politics.  She is photogenic and can deliver a good speech.  Sounds like a sure winner to me. 
This blog was fun, but it is just a tongue-in-cheek spoof, or was it?

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Promoting Obama Care


       In my book, Business Fits, I state that every business must have marketing of some kind to survive and be successful.  The saying, "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." describes one of the major mistakes of new inventors or entrepreneurs.  History shows that the people marketing a product are the ones making most of the money and not the inventor.
       Marketing includes many things like sales and advertising.  The problem with advetising is it is expensive and often has a lot of waste coverage.  All of this is covered in my book Business Fits.  I also point out that the best advertising is often free publicity.  If you can get your product covered by the media, more people are made aware of your product than is possible with most acvertising and it is free.
        With all the free publicity the media has given Obama Care, there obviously is little or no need to advertise.  I was appalled when I recently learned the federal government is spending over $684 million of our tax dollars to advertise Obama care.  Who is stupid enough to think some advertising with celebrities and a few good speeches can make an unworkable concept successful.  If any private business operated this inefficiently, it would be quickly out of business.  Of course we know big government does not have to use common sense or operate efficiently. 
        Obama care cannot work economically, unless large numbers of healthy young people sign up for the insurance.  This will not happen, as healthy young people do not feel they need the insurance yet.  It is cheaper to pay the penalty, plus they can be covered under their parent’s plan to age twenty-six.  They can wait until they do get sick because they can’t be denied medical insurance because of a prior existing condition anyway.  An ad featuring a celebrity is not going to change this.
        The workable solution for more affordable health care is catastrophic medical insurance and medical savings plans.  We must move toward this solution.  Obama care will fail, but big government never goes away, so the next step is the government as a single payer followed by a government provided healthcare.  That is socialism and I don’t like it or want it.  We better start voting for representatives that reduce the size of government and observe the Constitution.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Cloward & Piven

       Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were a married couple who were both professors at Columbia University School of Social Work.  They proposed a political strategy in 1966 to have the federal government take over all welfare from the states and expand welfare until it overloaded and collapsed the government and the economy.  This would then force the federal government to provide a guaranteed income to everyone, and eventually take over the private sector of the economy.
       Cloward and Piven’s plan was much more detailed, and involved many steps, but the basic plan and objective was as I have stated.  Their proposal is quite interesting and I would recommend reading it in detail.  I must warn you it is a little scary when you look at recent history.  Cloward and Piven felt the Democratic Party was the best vehicle to implement the plan.  I think the plan kind of sounds like socialism, communism, Marxism, or Maoism.  I don’t think the term Progressive was the politically correct term then.
       In 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson became the 36th President of the United States.  His vision for the country was what he called the Great Society.  In 1964 LBJ announced what he called the war on poverty, which drastically expanded federal welfare programs.  There are now over eighty federal welfare programs, and total welfare expenditures have increased 11,000%.  Yes, that is eleven thousand percent since LBJ’s war on poverty. 
       Has the war on poverty worked?  The percentage of the population living in poverty is about the same.  We now have two and three generations that know nothing except living on welfare.  We have enslaved these people to a life of welfare.  I understand I have used a politically incorrect term, but it best describes what we have done to these people and it has nothing to do with race. 
       If these policies have not worked after fifty years, do we make a change in policy, or just throw more money at the problem?  Our national debt has increased $6 trillion since President Obama took office and we a now approaching a $17 trillion debt.  What did Einstein call the Definition of Insanity?  I think it was, “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. 
        Maybe creating jobs and teaching a responsible work ethic is a better plan.  Is it time we elect some fiscally responsible representatives with some real plans for change?

Monday, January 6, 2014

The Plan


        I get so tired of hearing liberal Progressives say no one has a plan for the country except them.  It does not matter if the problem is the economy, jobs, healthcare, immigration, or anything else you can think of, liberal Progressives think they are the only ones with a plan.  These plans always have several things in common.  They increase government spending, increase the size of government, increase government debt, and restrict individual freedoms.
     I can understand why Progressives, liberals, socialists, and communists all support these Plans, because they all believe the Enlightened Political Elite should be making the decisions on how the rest of us live our lives.  I can also understand why the rich support these Plans because they have the resources to buy privilege and get even richer.  I can understand the poor supporting these Plans because they get things for free.  The poor don’t understand that these Plans enslave them to a life close to poverty.  The end result is; the political elite become more powerful, the rich get richer, and more people become poor. 
        I have a big problem with our elected officials that claim to be conservatives supporting and voting for these Plans.  Some politicians sell out to campaign donors in order to stay in office, and increase their power and personal wealth.  Representing the people that voted for them becomes secondary in some cases.   What I don’t understand is why the working middle class of this country allows partisan politics and special interest groups to divide the country and avoid any real plan for change. 
        The real Plan for Change is simply; cut government spending, reduce the size of the federal government, balance the budget, pay off the debt, and obey the Constitution.   The solution is simple if we stick to the most important issues and not get sidetracked with issues that probably should not be the responsibility of the federal government anyway.  We better address these major issues first, because if we don’t, some appointed bureaucrat with no responsibility to the public could be making many decisions controlling our live.