I’ve decided. Newt sucks. Vote for Mittens.

Don't you see I'm smarter than you?

Is it just me, or has this whole “Republican Primary” thing somehow turned into the opening act for America’s version of the Night of the Long Knives?  Personally, I blame Newt and his anger at anyone who doesn’t find him to be the smartest guy in the room.  Now, don’t get me wrong; he might be the smartest guy in the room.  But he’s certainly not a guy I’d trust with my collection of 1984 World Series champion Detroit Tigers baseball cards.  Plus, people who act like they’re the smartest ones in the room usually aren’t.  Ask my wife.

It seems like everyone has gone crazy; with the exception of Mittens…who doesn’t have enough personality to go crazy.  Seriously, why is everyone who claims to be a “conservative,” but didn’t have the balls, or ability, to run a successful campaign, hating on Mitt (I’m looking at you Palin and Perry)?  And more importantly, why are they throwing their support to Gingrich? Santorum I could understand.  But Gingrich?

Newt fails every “conservative” test you throw at him.  Hell, he fails most “decent person” tests.  While I admittedly don’t spend too much time on the personal lives of my candidates, character does matter (at least a little).  And Newt has none.  In fact, he owes me for character I let him borrow last week.  He’s cheated on two wives, while asking the second to marry him while he was still married to the first.  And if you believe the second wife, Newt only divorced her after she refused to be part of an open marriage with his current wife.  Classy.

In addition to being a gigolo without the hourly rate, Newt’s also a liar.  The attack he made on Romney for the whole Bain Capital thing contained more inaccuracies than one of my algebra tests in high school.  For crying out loud, some of the “victims of Romney” in the video have admitted they weren’t even talking about Romney or Bain.

And of course, the whole Bain Capital thing transitions nicely right into my primary complaints against his candidacy: he’s an enemy of the right.  First, he attacked Paul Ryan’s budget.  That’s right.  Newt attacked the only guy who actually put pen to paper and stuck his neck out in an effort to reform Medicare and Social Security.  Next, he attacks Romney/Bain for investing in failing businesses, saving them, and then having the nerve to make a profit. In other words, he attacked capitalism.

And then there are his positions on illegal immigration (let ‘em stay) and man-made global warming (it sure is hot in here).   Finally, he got booted from being Speaker of the House by his own party, for being an unethical jerk.  Oh, and most important of all: he’d get killed in a national election.

Those that support Newt argue that he’s full of good ideas.  So was Darth Vader.  In other words, let’s ignore the obnoxious kid in the class who is always telling the teacher he’s wrong, and vote for Mittens.

Paul Ryan actually has a plan to save Medicare. And he explains it on the interwebs with colorful graphs.

Everybody seems to realize that Medicare is driving our economy into the ground long-term.  Few seem to have the guts to tackle it though.  Paul Ryan has taken up the mantle of being the only adult in the room, and has actually provided a detailed plan that works. Except he’s losing the messaging battle.  The Dems have convinced America that Ryan’s plan amounts to throwing granny off of a cliff.  It doesn’t though…in fact, it doesn’t affect Medicare benefits to anyone 55 or over at all.

The problem with Ryan’s plan: it involves too many numbers.  As such, Americans are falling asleep, only to be awakened to the sound of lefties yelling about grand-dad being left to die alone in the dark somewhere…while surrounded by lots of laughing-and evil-oil executives.  Fortunately, Ryan has realized the nature of Americans, and created a video with handy graphics.  I’ve embedded it below.  After you’ve watched it, and reviewed your copious notes, you can educate your parents and grandparents.

Social Security. Why?

I'll be dead before people realize this was a bad idea.

I’ve always wondered what the American people were thinking in 1935, when they allowed FDR and Congress to pass the Social Security Act.  Well, strike that, they probably weren’t thinking about it at all because of the Great Depression and trying to eat and stuff (example of never letting a good crisis go to waste? hmmm…).  Seriously, is there anything more un-American than the federal government passing a law that forces you to pay a certain amount in taxes so that the government can hold the money until you retire?  And the rationale behind it all is that you’re too stupid to save for retirement yourself?  We’re not talking about the “common good” here.  We’re talking about a government-mandated ”stupid tax,” and we’ve allowed it to not only exist, but expand ever since.  I find it shocking. 

Well, thanks to the inevitabilities of our duly-elected representatives raiding any pot of money in existence, maybe Social Security will be going away for good.  I previously posted about the President’s Debt Commission this past summer.  I’m not going to link it because, well, I’m too lazy to look for it.  But the gist of their findings were we’ll never get out of debt until we do something about the three biggest black holes of tax revenue: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.  This finding elicited much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left, because they luv their entitlement programs.  The most contentious issue was Social Security though.  Why?  Because, as libs like to say, SS doesn’t have any impact on our budget.  It’s funded entirely by the FICA tax, and it shouldn’t be receiving any money from other tax revenue.  Thus, it shouldn’t contribute to the deficit.  Well, they’re right in that it shouldn’t use other federal tax revenue…just like my son shouldn’t place himself within biting distance of his two year old sister over and over again.  The point is: they do.  And with respect to SS, there’s no more blood coming from that stone.

New congressional projections show Social Security running deficits every year until its trust funds are eventually drained in about 2037.

This year alone, Social Security is projected to collect $45 billion less in payroll taxes than it pays out in retirement, disability and survivor benefits, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. That figure swells to $130 billion when a new one-year cut in payroll taxes is included, though Congress has promised to repay any lost revenue from the tax cut. 

Oh no!  The oldies are going to starve!  Just kidding.  The deficit will be made up with money from the general budget.  The problem, though, is that we can’t afford to pay for it out of the general budget.  So, we’ll borrow it from the Chinese.  Problem?  Not for me.  I enjoy kung pao chicken, so I welcome our new overlords. 

Is all lost then?  Probably.  But my hero, Rep. Paul Ryan, has a plan.  He would like people to have the option of opting out of SS, and invest the money themselves.  Sounds good to me.  I’m more comfortable using my money to “make it rain” in a crack house than letting the government “lock it away” for the future. 

Will Rep. Ryan’s plan ever be codified into law?  Probably not.  Why?  Because all politicians love slush funds.  But remember, it’s projected to run out completely in 2037, so those of you that are my age…I would recommend starting to save for retirement. 

Paul Ryan is Why I’m a Republican, and Why You Should Be Too.

I’ve been hearing a lot of self-described conservatives say things like “I’m not a Republican…don’t put a label on me…I think for myself” lately.  My response to those statements falls somewhere between “congratulations…here’s your medal for being an individual…now it’s nap time” and “you’re right, they’re not perfect,” depending on how well I know the person who’s saying it.  Look, people can identify themselves however they want in life, but when it comes time to vote in November, there are only two choices: the party of Paul Ryan or the party of Paul Krugman; and there’s a HUGE difference between the two.

Mr. Ryan hails from Wisconsin, is a member of the House of Representatives, and is a Republican.  And contrary to  the mindless rhetoric from the Democrats, he has a plan.  More specifically, he has a plan to get us out of debt and improve the economy.  And he does it by lowering taxes.  His “Roadmap,” as he call it, has been met with great disdain from the left because of its radical ideas; namely, cutting government spending.  Now, I understand that nowadays, actually cutting back on federal spending is the equivalent of riding a unicorn with the president, but there was once a day when the federal government didn’t employ the entire state of California.  The Roadmap cuts spending, decreases taxes for both individuals and businesses (which will create jobs), and simplifies the tax code to some extent.  Is Mr. Ryan your typical modern-day Republican?  Maybe not.  But you will never find a Paul Ryan in the Democrat party.

Paul Krugman.  I’ve written about him before.  While he identifies himself as an economist, he’s actually just a liberal shill in a tweed sport coat.  He believes spending cuts are stupid, or evil, or something.  He believes, like all liberals, that “tax cuts must be paid for.”  Of course, such a position constitutes lunacy when one considers the fact that those “tax cuts” are not expenditures, but simply less theft.  Like many liberals, Krugman believes increased government spending will create jobs by “stimulating” the economy.  Of course, he never identifies how much spending is necessary, since it’s never actually worked.  His convenient answer to continued failure is “we should have spent more.”

In response Krugman’s recent rambling and nonsensical criticism to his “Roadmap,” Ryan stated,

‘At the core of this is a big ideological fight between those who believe in the Founding principles and the sense of limited government—the American idea—and those who believe in the progressivist welfare state.’

‘The Roadmap is designed to maintain a limited government in the 21st century, and it is the antithesis of the progressivist vision which [Krugman] subscribes to. That’s fine. I understand it violates his vision for a progressivist society.’

In these statements, Ryan has admirably described the foundational difference between conservatives and liberals.  Liberals seek control by way of taxation, government spending, and entitlements.  Conservatives believe in self-reliance, small government, and opportunity.

The point of all of this is that it matters what Ryan believes vs. what Krugman believes.  It matters because, regardless of your feelings on “Republicans” vs. “Democrats,” the simple fact remains: Ryan, and those like him, will never be Democrats, and Krugman and his followers will never be Republicans.  For those that want a better shot at more opportunity, fewer taxes, sustained job growth, and smaller government, then vote Republican in November.  The only alternative is a vote for liberals like Krugman.