Kudos to Glenn Beck for pursuing the question as boldly as he did, because this one is a bit of a shocker.  Medina has been making noise in the polls suggesting that she could be a viable candidate in the Texas governor's race, but I surmise that this surge in the polls will be very short lived.  Below is an interview with Glenn Beck, so listen for yourself.

The question poised by Beck should have been a softball and instead Medina flopped so badly I think she made Buckner look like a genius.   There are two major problems with this particular revelation.  First and foremost, why in the world does every single Constitutionalist carry so much tin-foil baggage with them?  Ron Paul is constantly surrounded by Truthers and now we discover that Medina has not reached a conclusion herself, which is basically a resounding YES.  Sure she is not submitting her name on petitions a la Van Jones, but with this tremendous flop of an answer, she might as well be.  Secondly, the Tea Party is already faced with a fringe stigma as many Partiers refuse to let go of the Obama citizenship question, but now pile on the Truther disease and you have a movement that is destined to be ridiculed into obscurity.  

This of course gets us back to the original question, what the hell is going on?  Why can't people get together and passionately argue and discuss the merits of smaller government for economic, moral and personal reasons?  Is it really that difficult to explain why an overreaching federal government is dangerous to our liberties and wallets?   Is it that hard to demonstrate why entitlement programs fail, education should be privatized and health decisions should be made between citizens and doctors?  No, apparently to make that point you need to insist Obama is a Kenyan and Bush organized 9/11 as if either can be pulled off by the gross incompentence swirling in Washington.  If Birthers and Truthers are not expunged out of this movement and laughed back into the cave from which they emerged, you can kiss the Tea Party good bye.

In a string of rapid announcements we learn that Senator Byron Dorgan of ND, Senator Chris Dodd of CT and Governor Bill Ritter of CO are all planning to retire.  Given their polling numbers in their respective states none of this should come as a big shock, although Dorgan was planning to run again as of very recently. 

This of course has the Republicans salivating harder than Congress over tax revenues.  Should it?  In the case of Ritter, possibly, in the case of Dorgan/Dodd probably not.  Dodd is an especially interesting case considering how much corruption is circulating around this man stemming back from the mortgage crisis.  Even if Dodd runs and somehow manages to win his primary he has virtually no chance against the Republicans.  In fact the Republicans would use Dodd as a battering ram to humiliate and highlight the Democrat party as the party of corruption, given that 9 of the 10 most corrupt politicians happen to be Democrats. Now that this battering ram has been removed, Republicans are back to slinging their rocks of "fiscal conservatism" - a term that has by now become nothing more than a punch line.  At the same time Democrats can regroup and place someone in the primary with a much cleaner message and an even cleaner history.

So what does this mean to the average American sick and tired of Democrat's liberal policy and equally sick and tired of Republicans paying cheap lip service in the name of fiscal responsibility?  This means that before you begin cheering for the casualties of ObamaCare, take extra care and caution in examining the inevitable Republicans lining up to take the spots.  For example there are several candidates vying for the Connecticut position and only Peter Schiff will offer anything new from the usual Republican rhetoric, rhetoric that has already failed. 

Example of failure:  Charts are nice, they can say more in one glimpse than I can say in an entire post.  Keep in mind too, that the average pay of Federal employees is higher and their benefits better.  To make matters worse these employees vote more regularly and support all candidates pledging to maintain or grow growth of government.  This chart would make the Communist Party very proud.



I would like to remind my Republican friends that under Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 government grew by leaps and bounds.  Yes, I said Reagan despite what appears to be a minor blip in federal employees (federal spending still increased)!  The marginal tax rate may have been cut, but under Reagan Social Security was saved and taxes raised, Departments of Energy and Education remained.   Bush Jr. expanded Medicare more than any other time since it's original inception in 1965 and solidified Department of Education's role in school via the deplorable No Child Left Behind.  Without even examining the individual programs the level of spending starting in the 1980s grew at a steady clip only slowing down under Clinton and a Republican Congress.  Unfortunately for you and me this unchecked spending means that more and more money is leaving the private sector thus making every recovery that more difficult and ordinary life harder, not to mention the increasing burdern of supporting more and more federal employees and their gigantic pensions.  A Federal Reserve with a free ticket to print money and debt monetization exacerbates the issue significantly or if you prefer, may very well be the root cause of it all. 

Either way, unless you want more of the same, unless you are perfectly content with the direction and infiltration of Federal and State expansion in the past 30 years - stop repeating the same mistake over and over.  As the 2010 elections heat up, find candidates that do not represent the status quo of "limiting" government, find candidates committed to really eliminating spending.  Limiting did not work, does not work and will never work.  Cutting spending works, make them earn your vote.

WBZ-TV hosted the first televised debate for the Massachusetts's special election being held on January 19th.  The full video can be found on the WBZ archives.

My impressions for each candidate. 

Scott Brown (R):   Mr. Brown has demonstrated his polish and was extremely smooth, on message and confident.  While he generally espoused traditional Republican talking points about taxes, jobs and fiscal responsibility there was a very obvious and underlying big government aura about him.  On one particular question about single mothers he mentioned offering government assistance, training and education while in the same breath talking about tax cuts - a contradiction in terms.   Just like staying in Afghanistan indefinitely, Brown offers nothing new from the standard GOP platform yet used his political skills to sound very appealing to fiscal conservatives.  Truth is Brown's record demonstrates that as far as lowering taxes he has been missing in action.  He can claim that he never voted for a tax increase, but he also never voted for a tax decrease and his support of RomneyCare simply solidifies his big government stance - a stance that many Massachusetts residents are ignorant of. 

Martha Coakley (D):   Mrs. Coakley was also on message and will be very appealing to big government liberals.  She was very respectful to Mr. Kennedy, most likely because she sees him as an ally in siphoning votes from Brown and delivered her ideas eloquently and effectively.  There is hardly anything negative to say about Coakley, a candidate who is very honest about her socialized medicine, cap-and-trade and wealth distribution approaches. 

Joe Kennedy (I):  Mr. Kennedy definitely stands out against the two seasoned politicians and comes across as nervous, closed off and reserved.  Of course plunging head first into a nationally televised debate is extraordinary difficult for someone who spends his life in the private sector and the disadvantage is apparent.   That being said, Kennedy did attempt to distinguish himself from the two seasoned politicians and was mildly effective.  Unfortunately it seemed like Kennedy fell into the trap of discussing and debating issues that are entirely irrelevant to Kennedy's fundamental message.  There were several opportunities where the question should have been and could have been flipped to deliver a small government message and instead were wasted on technicalities that were too complicated.  A perfect example involved the health care question, an area where government intervention has lead to out of control costs involving federal work subsidies, Medicare, Medicaid, FDA not to mention legislation that created the much hated HMOs.  Instead Kennedy chose to discuss tort reform instead of promising to repeal the coming ObamaCare and removing federal intrusion in a system that has suffered from government intervention for almost 50 years.   Other than several poignant attacks on Scott Brown that were effective, Kennedy's message was muddled and lost with no clear solutions.  I did like the mention of America losing it's AAA bond rating, but it most likely went over people's heads.

Overall:  For anyone seeking a break from the two party system, a system that has essentially delivered us one unified party interested in expanding federal intrusion into our lives, this debate left us yearning for more.  Kennedy is an attractive choice for those that believe government has become too large, too fat and too wasteful.  However the smooth Scott Brown and equally comfortable Martha Coakley stole the show with smooth evasive answers, undermining Kennedy's presernce entirely and paying lip service through political finesse acquired over years of public service.  My hope is that Joe Kennedy can, in the future, hone in on his small government message and provide real attractive solutions like cutting enough spending to end the income tax or making Social Security optional.  Still, a nice and welcomed change to at least have a second option in a two party system offering the same big government proposals.

 

The race for the MA Senate special election is on and it's a three-way race between Independent Joe Kennedy, Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley. 

Invariably the old cliche of the independent "stealing" the Republican votes will surface and early discussions are already hinting that animosity towards those supporting the third party is on the rise.  This of course assumes an age old fallacy.

The assumption is that the candidate "stealing" the vote is extremely similar to the candidate whose votes are being "stolen".  This is a big assumption and varies from race to race. 

I have presented a table below with three candidates and several major positions that affect Massachusetts, federal policies and general attitudes.   I have compiled the information primarily based on the candidate's websites, public statements and interviews. Examine the table and I will meet you down below.

Issue
Abolish the MA Income Tax	Yes	No	No
Support RomneyCare	No	Yes	Yes
Federal Income Tax	End It	Status Quo	Status Quo or higher taxes
MA Sales Tax rollback to 3%	Yes	No	No
Support Prop 2.5 Override	No	Yes	Unknown
Illegal Immigration	Make it harder to collect social services, but make contributing to society easier.	Stronger border enforcement, opposes amnesty.	Unclear, but stresses equality for all regardless of race or origin.
Health Care	Wants to make private insurance cheaper, supports HSAs, repealing federal regulation and replace government agencies with free-market alternatives.	Believes every American deserves health coverage.	Believes every American deserves health coverage.
Social Security	Make voluntary, protect existing retirees through shared sacrifice.	No position.	Protect and maintain Social Security
Education	Dismantle the Department of Education, return education to state level.	Passionate about improving public schools.	Deeply committed to public schools
Welfare	End the welfare state by encouraging job growth through sound lending	No position	No position
Same-sex marriage	Not the business of government.	Only between a man and a woman, should be left to states	Supports equal marriage.
Environment	Force government to clean up it’s own pollution	Supports reasonable federal policies on green technology.	Supports Cap and Trade

According to this table it would appear the first two candidates are extremely different, while the last two candidates are extremely similar.  Operating on the assumption of stealing votes due to similarity it becomes rather unclear as to who would be stealing votes from whom.  I would also suggest not to use the term stealing, as stealing implies that some candidate is losing entitled votes.  No votes are entitled and all votes must be earned.

If you believe the candidate in the first column more accurately reflects your position - then you need to vote for Joe Kennedy. 
If you believe the candidate in the second column more accurately reflections your position - then you need to vote for Scott Brown.
If you believe the candidate in the third column more accurately reflections your position - then you need to vote for Martha Coakley.

You do NOT need to vote for the lesser of two evils, nor do you need to vote based on who you believe will or will not win.  You must cast your precious vote for the person you believe best deserves your support. 

1) RC: Kamal Jain, thank you for giving us the opportunity to find out more about your campaign. What is your political background?

KJ: Thank you giving me the opportunity to talk about my campaign. Growing up, I always felt disenfranchised from the political system. I could see that everything was run by the Democrats or Republicans, and neither of those groups represented my values, so for many years I stayed away from politics and just complained about ever-growing government. Then in 1996 I found the Libertarian Party and became a member. Most of their values aligned with my own. In addition to being an activist, I found myself rising up through the ranks of the state party until I found myself Chairman. In the end though, as with all party politics, disagreements come up over seemingly silly things and labels just don't feel right -- so I left the party and became an independent or "unenrolled" voter.

RC: Do you foresee obstacles running as an indepenent in a state where third party/independents are shunned by the establishment?

KJ: Not at all. More than half of registered voters are not enrolled in any party, and history has shown that voters are partial towards an INDEPENDENT Auditor. The candidates from the two entrenched parties will have their respective political machines behind them which gives them an edge when it comes to campaign activities, but they will also have to contend with primaries.

2) RC: A lot of people in this state and probably every other state do not know much about what the Auditor does, who the Auditor is and the importance of an Auditor. Why are you interested in running for a position so few people understand and know about?

KJ: The Office of the State Auditor is responsible for ensuring all state agencies are audited every two years in compliance with state law, and generally making sure that standard financial controls and reporting are followed. There is also some control over privatization and outsourcing, and some overall financial opinion-sharing. In theory there is an opportunity to identify waste and corruption as well, but I don't believe it is possible for the government to really audit itself. Not only do they not have the resources, but they don't have the right incentives -- self-auditing and self-reporting present an inherent conflict of interest, especially when someone else's money is involved (the taxpayers' money). The current Auditor is Joe DeNucci, and he has been in office since 1987. The reason I am running for State Auditor is because it is the only statewide constitutional office elected by the people with the authority and oversight necessary to bring transparency and accountability to state government. It is not in the purview of any other office.

3) RC: What is your assessment of current Auditor Joseph DeNucci who claims to have saved billions of dollars in waste?

KJ: Quite simply, you have to look at the numbers and what it means to "save money". While Mr. DeNucci may have identified waste, the amounts he claims are highly speculative and also pale in comparison to the total amount of money that was spent during his tenure. Most importantly, if he had saved the taxpayers any money, it would have come back to the taxpayers. Instead, government simply spent it on other things while raising taxes and spending year after year. There's no savings.

RC: Assuming you become our next Auditor and are able to locate and identify billions in "waste", what authority do you have to request this money be returned to the citizens? If you can convince Beacon Hill that they are in posession of extra money they clearly do not need, how can you convince a group of people to do something they traditionally never do - give the money back.

KJ: Remember, most waste and corruption will be found by the people and the Massachusetts "Grace Commission" (for lack of a better name). It will be an ongoing process starting from the launch of the portal and going on perpetually. The point is that the people will have visibility into all parts of government spending and operation, and therefore have the information they need to tell their elected officials how they would like the priorities adjusted. As Auditor, I see one likely role as helping to provide the people with more in-depth efficacy and efficiency analysis that might be more difficult for private citizens to assess without the inside knowledge the Auditor has. No matter how good an accountant or auditor one is, identifying waste and corruption within state government is far too big a job for any one person. Every transaction, contract, project, program and agency must be scrutinized from the top-down and the bottom-up.

4) RC: In a speech you gave recently in Boston you mentioned the existing lack of transparency within the financial tangle known as the Massachusetts state budget. Is this lack of transparency due to the current auditor or simply “the way things work”? How do you plan to address these hurdles?

KJ: It is just the way things have worked for decades and currently do work on Beacon Hill. The blame belongs to all of the politicians, including the current Auditor. The truth, however, is in the audited figures. It is available from within the state's data warehouse. The trouble is that in addition to the politicians playing their games of what "the budget" is as opposed to total spending, the media and most private analysts let them get away with it. People have accused me of trying to redefine "the budget", when in fact I'm simply trying to draw attention to total state government spending, which is almost double the official budget because so much has been taken "off budget" through political and legislative sleight of hand.

RC: We have been hearing about these off-budget figures for some time now, particularly moving certain kind of spending off-budget a tactic made popular during the Romney administration. It would sound like it is the politicians who are trying to redefine the budget, but what is the underlying reasoning behind these accounting gimmicks? Just so that our readers are perfectly clear; Is there any distinction between state spending whether it be on-budget or off-budget and which one has grown faster?

KJ: Looking back at total spending for the past decade or so, the percentage that is off budget versus on budget has remained about the same, but both have steadily grown. It is not clear to me when the politicians started played games with "budget" versus off-budget spending, but based on my read of data available I would say it has been a tactic used by Governors and legislators from both major parties for at least a couple of decades. There has been a lot of change in how financial data is reported over the years, so one cannot easily go back and compare budget v. off-budget from today to say 20 years ago. Also, a lot of detail that is now electronic was not always the case.

5) RC: Why is transparency important for the average citizen and what can we do with the information once the transparency is exposed to us?

KJ: Transparency will allow individual citizens, taxpayers, businesspeople and contractors -- all kinds of people -- to find out how much money is being spent, where it is going, and how effectively it is being spent on what. Government has to be subject to the same basic laws of economics and mathematics as the rest of us. The state government has largely existed outside of those constraints because of politically-driven spending. It's driven by special interests who get in line for taxpayer money, and the politicians count on those special interests for votes and contributions. The state government is chock full of waste, and I hear that directly from state government employees every time I speak with them outside of their offices when they feel safe saying it. The stories I hear from people of waste and corruption are not the whole picture either. You have to remember that the state government spends over $50 billion a year and that is made up of millions and millions of individual transactions, awarded contracts, payouts, pensions, etc. When the people have the tools and information to be able to ask questions like "how much did that cost?" and find their own answer, it will become more and more difficult to hide waste and corruption. Imagine having millions of auditors right here in Massachusetts, with no conflict of interest!

RC: So After the Masachusetts "Grace commission" begins producing results and the citizenry becomes enraged at the level of waste - what can this citizenry do? After all, the people in power always maintain the advantage of being more organized and in a position to do whatever they please. As we all have learned "throwing the bums out" mantra only goes so far in state where the incumbency rate is in the stratosphere. So what can be done?

KJ: Feeling helpless comes from years of people being taught to be victims, and to not take things into their own hands. Not surprisingly, this feeling has been inculcated into people by politicians and demagogues for centuries to control and subjugate the people. Yet, these schemes always eventually fail and people do rise up against their masters who, in this case, claim to be "public servants". For decades, the Berlin wall stood, seemingly impenetrable and impervious. But fall it did, and few imagined or predicted it, even until days before it fell. My goal for transparency in Massachusetts includes extending it to all 351 cities and town. Waste and corruption at the local level will be the easiest to address because the people can easily demand remedies at town or city meetings. It's very hard for local politicians to escape the wrath of local voters. Success at the local level will likely come first, which will then help empower people to root out waste and corruption at the state level.

6) RC: Let’s say you become Auditor, what is the very first thing that you want accomplished and what obstacles do you foresee?

KJ: The first thing I would do would be to commission two separate groups made up of specialists and concerned citizens -- all from the private sector. One would be tasked with developing a citizen information portal with lots of input from the people and experts in the fields of forensic accounting, statistical analysis, law, etc. The second would be much like the famed Grace Commission, which was made up of thousands of private sector people working for two years to identify and analyze Federal government waste. They showed that at the Federal level there was more than 30% waste. Formal and informal polls of citizens and government workers in Massachusetts estimate waste to be even higher, but we can't know until we look, and again...only those outside of government can be dispassionate, rational and unbiased in identifying waste and corruption.

RC: This sounds like a wonderful idea and an immediate and direct benefit to the citizens of Massachusetts. If these polls are correct then based on your previous answer, I conclude that our politicians are wasting roughly $15 billion dollars - ironically the total revenue of the state income tax. When the Grace commision reported it's findings in 1984 they warned that unless things change we would see a 13 trillion dollar federal deficit by the year 2000 - apparently they were off by 9 years. This would suggest that a report alone is not enough to curtail waste.

KJ: As I often remind people, government lacks the right incentives to not only audit itself, but also to act in the best interests of the most people in the long-term. Politicians generally seek to get re-elected, and to do that they need votes and support from the special interests they often pander to; that's just the reality of politics. 1984 was the beginning of yet another boom time in America and the politicians were able to escalate unsustainable government spending and growth at all levels of government (Federal, State, County and Local) for almost another 25 years. It was unsustainable all along, and sooner or later the party would end with one heck of an economic hangover. The voters are waking up and getting angry. That's why the Tea Party movement across the country is gaining strength every day. I had the privilege of speaking at 4 or 5 Tea Party events in 2009, and I see the people awake and excited and ANGRY in ways I've never seen in my life. Presenting Grace Commission results to Congress in 1984 was a waste of time (though remember that people still remember reports of $600 toilet seats and such), but presenting such results to the PEOPLE in 2010 will set off a firestorm among the electorate that will compel the politicians to change their ways or get removed from office by the people.

7) RC: Here in Massachusetts we have what some may call a one party state rule, do you believe this one party rule hinders the office of the Auditor?

KJ: Not at all. The Auditor, like the other five statewide constitutional officers and the legislature all work for the people of Massachusetts, not any political party. That is something most of them today seem to have forgotten once they got into office.

8) RC: Do you have any piece of advice for our readers as to how they can better inform themselves on the decision to vote for Auditor?

KJ: As with all voting, they should do their research. But with the race for Auditor they should ask themselves what they think the Auditor should be doing for the people, and if the official State Auditor should belong to either of the parties which control government. Looking at the growing field of likely candidates, that questioning will help make their choice obvious.

9) RC: Mr. Jain, thank you for sharing your valuable time it has been a pleasure, please tell us how can people learn more information about your or your campaign and whether you are looking for volunteers.

KJ: Thank you again for the opportunity to talk to you and your readers about my campaign -- my campaign team and I are very excited. We are most definitely looking for volunteers. For more information, or to volunteer, people should just email info@kamaljain.com and someone will get back to them right away.

An independent Auditor is a crucial component in reigning in the excesses of a state government whose budget is now approaching 50 billion dollars. A completely unbiased and objective source whose only interest is to serve the public and provide us the crucial information we need to make the right decision in respect to our own government. The current auditor’s presence in office of over 20 years should be a great concern to you, because like any other politician spending too much time in government one's effectiveness becomes heavily compromised. We need a change and Kamal Jain is the man capable of delivering this change.  RightCondition proudly endorses Kamal Jain for Auditor.

Contacting the campaign:
http://kamaljain.com/
info@kamaljain.com
+1 757 726 7098

Kamal Jain for Auditor
20 Butterfield St
Lowell MA 01854

RC: Congratulations on your successful ballot drive, what are your thoughts on your challengers this coming January; Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley and Republican State Senator Scott Brown?

JK: My challengers are both Party Candidates. For me the parties are very much 2 sides of the same coin. Both parties are for more wars, bigger government, more taxes (or a significantly devalued currency), fewer liberties, ignore the constitution, etc. Bush pushed for wars, vast budget and trade deficits, increases entitlements and subordination of America’s interests to foreign interests. We know where the left stands… the same place.

RC: How would you answer to those people who accuse your supporters of throwing their vote away or an equally common accusation of splitting the vote with the Republican thereby paving the way for the Democrat?

JK: As for people who continue to grasp the argument about throwing away their vote: 51% of Massachusetts is Unenrolled – as I am. Rasmussen Reports that a Tea Party Candidate would top the GOP (link)I have been to Tea Parties and Can You hear us Now protests and I didn’t see Scott there. I am in the Majority (Unenrolled). Scott is Pro-Health Care. He urged people to vote against Question 1 (End the Income Tax) last year. I am not splitting a Vote with anyone. Me and Scott are very different. I am for Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, Defending All Liberties and total Equality. As for throwing a vote away, Rasmussen also states that the vast majorities do not trust either party – hence I am neither.

RC: Considering this is a special election and you have only a month to campaign, what are some of the obstacles and challenges that you must overcome in a political landscape that is not terribly friendly to third party candidates?

JK: The media is very biased and not interested in informing the population of independent candidates. Simply look at the sharp contrast in media attention I am getting to the attention of the other candidates. Even the losers of the primary have received more press than I a person who has made the final ballot. I do believe in Gandhi’s statement: First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. I will also not ignore the 10,000 pound gorilla in the corner, if I am completely ignored and not allowed to speak, Scott Brown will do well. As much as I want to make sure every person in the State knows I am Joe Kennedy of Dedham, Technology Professional and not the Oil guy; as much as my campaign staff has called all the networks and issued press releases the fact is they are ignoring us. The truth is if I am not followed at all some people will make the mistake and just check Kennedy. My intention would be to be interviewed often by the media, people need to know all their choices, but it’s not the media’s job to inform voters, it’s the media’s job to make money or protect the party system that funds them. Up till now I have been largely ignored, which as much as it’s unfortunate, it’s great for Scott Brown.

RC: Many Americans are very sympathetic with your plight and many more should be informed at just how stacked this political game really is. There is also the matter of capital; from what we can tell both Coakley and Brown are sporting impressive war chests for their time in the public sector. Will you be able to challenge their message with your own unique ideas through television or radio presence?

JK: To be honest, I do not have the funds to compete on radio and tv. I do not have companies or the media in my back pocket; I am like every other middle class person out there. I am actively taking contributions and I am doing my best online. If people find me and donate I may be able to put something up, but it’s the same problem as we have always had… the person who comes from the population and is going into politics for the right reason always has the problem of being new and under-funded.

RC: What prompted you to run as an independent and embracing the difficulty of a third party candidacy as opposed to running in the Republican primary?

JK: Well I am not a Republican, but based on the people in the Federal Government, neither are the Republican’s any more. To be specific, I had no choice but to run as an Independent: Mass State Law requires you to run as you are enrolled and I am un-enrolled.

RC: Moving to the issues. If you were elected Senator what would be the first changes and reforms you would propose?

JK: would immediately put Pay-Go back in place. That simple act would require us to address any additional war or entitlement issues in a fiscally responsible manner.


RC: What are your thoughts on the Federal Income tax? What steps would you take to address this tax?

The 16th Amendment was not ratified according to the laws of the state and should be repealed. I would put forth legislation to repeal it, at the same time I would encourage the states who did not properly ratify the 16th amendment to acknowledge that and create the public pressure needed to move that motion forward.

RC: The issue of improper ratification has indeed been mentioned and discussed, although at this juncture it would seem like a moot point. Indeed, a more relevant question would be: What spending cuts would you make such that the Federal Income tax can be safely abolished?

JK: You are correct the point is moot, however, the reason I bring it up is we need public support and outrage to move a bill through. I believe that massive acknowledgement of the fact would help. I don’t have a list as of yet as what to cut, but let’s start with putting Pay-go in place, ending the wars. Limiting government expansion (staff, transportation, etc.) There are literally thousands of earmark projects that need to be eliminated (Study of Icelandic pollen) and stop paying out the stimulus. Again the list would be a million little things. The problem is there are a million little things.

RC: What are your thoughts on the Federal Reserve’s ability to print and create money at will? How would you possibly address this?

JK: The FED should be Audited and if needed ended (and once it is audited, I am confident that everyone will want it ended). As hard as it would be to get back to the Gold standard we need to work towards that goal or a similarly stable goal.

RC: Social Security is known as a “sacred cow“ and maligning this misunderstood system has hurt many politicians. How would you fix Social Security and do you think it is fixable?

JK:
Number 1: Make Social Security voluntary immediately.
Number 2: Offer people a payout, even a reduced payout will work for some (i.e. we will give you back 70% of your contributions tax free and you opt out –its better than nothing and some people will take it. I would).
Number 3: Grandfather in the People retiring, you can’t take it away from them. Then ask the population to work longer, or at least adjust the age of SS for future generations to 4 years of the age of life expectancy. The SS rate must move with the age of the population, it’s a Ponzi scheme which doesn’t unless it adjusts.

RC: Those sounds like great common sense solutions. However as you know Social Security is already suffering from fiscal shortages, if the younger generation elects to put money back in their wallet then the fiscal gap will widen even faster. How will those seniors dependent on Social Security checks get paid without driving the country further into debt?

JK: There is no real way… the reason I am willing to forfeit some of my money is to prop the system up temporarily. In reality the economy has to recover and the government has to make tax revenue to fund the agreements in place and rapidly change the agreements for people who are under 58 or so … they have to work 2 more years etc… again I don’t have the exact numbers but the concept is there. The point is you can’t wait to make a correction that you know must be made. My plan will continue the need for foreign bonds, but putting the sliding scale in place rapidly will limit the amount of time it will be that way. The truth is there is no perfect solution, we know some things that must be done, get them done and lessen the blow. As it is today SS is just part of a large bucket all of which is somewhat funded by the sale of Bonds…

RC: Where do you place yourself on the economic spectrum? Are you a Keynesian, Monetarist or Austrian?

JK: I lean Austrian but would be hesitant to say I am 100% in any camp.

RC: You have spoken about creating jobs as a solution to our welfare state and you plan to do so via bank loans to businesses. Many believe that the current economic crisis is due to an already overwhelming amount of credit and loans due to a cheap money policy perpetrated by the Federal Reserve. Why is more credit the solution to what appears to be a saturation of credit.

JK: You are correct that is my statement. I look at the issue as an issue of Leverage. I believe the issue is not actually lending it is the absence of reserves backing up the loans banks make. Right now there is infinite leverage… I give a bank 100 they hold 5 and lend out 95 to you. You take that money and deposit it in another bank, they hold 5 and lend out 90, but that original $95 is not real money etc. We need to enable people to obtain money (loans) and we need to ensure banks cannot be greatly leveraged. Notably once loans are properly collateralized we should not have to bail out banks because they are not based on fake leveraged assets. And if a bank is in trouble – let it go under, the vacuum created will be picked up by others.

RC: I think many readers can appreciate letting the banks fail, a sentiment sorely missing during the TARP fiasco. What you are describing sounds very much like fractional reserve banking and some of us certainly understand the danger that fractional lending creates. How will you ensure that banks do not operate under dangerous leverage levels without resorting to more federal bureaucracy?

JK: There needs to be no additional fed tampering than there already is. The limit just needs to be raised, the mechanism is the same. Banks must show how much actual collateral they hold and the amount of liabilities they have to depositors.

If you are sick of supporting the "lesser of two evils" and believe that Joe Kennedy has a message that more closely resembles yours, then he needs all the help you can offer.  Whether it be a contribution or even lobbying the local media to at least give Joe Kennedy a fair chance to promote his ideas.  We do not need to live in a two party system if we do not have to!

The race for the MA 2010 Senate is now heating up with prospective candidates blasting the airways and spamming the television channels.   I have already examined the Democrat candidates in an analysis of the first televised debate.  In summary, the four liberal democrats are all competing between themselves in who can expand government faster.  Virtually every one is a disgrace, could care less about our Constitution and has virtually no understanding about economics.  So now we turn to three other candidates.

Republican Scott Brown
Republican Jack E. Robinson
Independent Joe Kennedy (no relation).

Jack E. Robinson:  Appears to be an eccentric fellow, but unfortunately has been missing in action when it comes to any debate.  Ironically he claims that Scott Brown is the one dodging the debate, but in an opportunity to debate the issue on a local radio station 96.9 only Scott Brown showed up. Therefore Robinson's approach to this race leaves a very sour taste and an impression that he is not terribly interested. 
A highlight of Robinson's approach is his position on the Fed, a position that really separates that true responsible politicians from the rest.  As Robinson states on his website, he strongly supports S 604, a Senate bill designed to audit the bill.  This position is extremely favorable and gives Robinson a major advantage.  Before you get too excited, further examining Robinson's positions quickly demonstrates that his approach to government is not any different than the failed policies of the past many decades.  His idea to reform our broken health care system is to:

Federal government should fund 100% of Medicaid costs. Unfunded Medicaid mandates are close to bankrupting many states.

There are no words to describe how awful this proposal is.  Yes, Medicaid mandates are bankrupting states, but it thereby exposes the faults of the system!  A proposal to shield the glaring errors of government interference in medical coverage is not only stupid, but dangerous.  Medicaid/Medicare liabilities are exponentially rising at a rate that will soon eclipse all other federal/state spending.  Moving state obligations to the federal level is backward and simply expands government faster.  At this point looking any further is a waste of time, Jack E. Robinson is not a legitimate candidate.

Scott Brown: Brown has a lot of name recognition being a State Senator and a seasoned politician.  He markets himself as a fiscal conservative and has many Republicans (all 14% of them) in MA very excited.  He is clearly the front runner although his ability to beat the Democrat Martha Coakley is very questionable.  Here is what we know about Scott Brown.

• Supported and still supports RomneyCare.  Universal medical coverage here in Massachusetts and clearly responsible for insurance rates climbing double digits in the past several years.  He believes that all Americans deserve health coverage and blames the failure of RomneyCare on the current governor. Perplexing at best.
• Voted to override proposition 2 1/2 in Wrentham.  Proposition 2 1/2 is designed to keep real estate taxes in check, yet the fiscal conservative felt that supporting an override to extract more money out of Wrentham residents "made sense".
• Opposed Question 1 in 2008, the ballot initiative to abolish the state income tax.  Scott Brown was a special guest on the Michelle McPhee show on 96.9 where he publicly slammed Question 1 and labeled it as radical and irresponsible.  Ask yourself a simple question.  What kind of politician opposes a ballot initiative to return 5.3% of taxpayer's income back to them?  Especially when you consider that it represents a 12 billion dollar cut from a budget of 50 billion.  I think most would agree that there is more than 20% waste in state governments. 

The rest of his page does not delve into any specific issue nor does it propose any ideas other than the usual vague promises.  His position on the economy is as follows:

I am a free enterprise advocate who believes that lower taxes can encourage economic growth. Raising taxes stifles growth, weakens the economy and puts more people out of work. Our economy works best when individuals have more of their income to spend, and businesses have money to invest and add jobs. I have been a fiscal watchdog in the state legislature fighting bigger government, higher taxes and wasteful spending.

This claim appears to be in sharp contrast with his voting record.   Scott Brown is not a conservative, not a friend of the taxpayer and is just another big government Republican wooing people with promises.  A prototypical silver tongued politician and not someone deserving of your vote or trust.

Joe Kennedy:  Joe Kennedy is running as an independent, but is also endorsed by the Libertarian party.  Obviously Mr. Kennedy is an outsider and a major underdog as his name recognition is non-existent and officially not recognized as running by the two party loving media.  However he just completed the signature drive and will at least be on the ballot and therefore deserves an examination.

On his website, Kennedy markets himself as a true free-market believer and has the following positions. Unfortunately most positions are strictly in video format and do not contain a corresponding written synopsis.

• Wants to alleviate small business burdens, like the RomneyCare mandates.
• Wants to take away federal control of Marijuana and hand it over to the state.  It would be nice if other drugs were mentioned.
• Wants to significantly reduce Federal involvement in health care and setup Medical Savings Accounts such that health expenses become 100% tax deductible.  This appears to be an extension on HSAs and is a great proposal with our current tax code. 
• Wants to dismantle the welfare system and focus on job creation and tax credits for charities.  While the job creation aspect is a bit questionable the idea to encourage and promote charities is admirable.  After all, early America's charity system worked wonders in aspects of education, health care and other social needs.  With our current tax code this is the next best step.
• Wants to alleviate credit to promote lending to small businesses as a mechanism for job creation.

Overall, Kennedy appears to be a prototypical small government kind of guy. He is not a politician and it shows by his no nonsense approach and focus on business.  Unfortunately his approach to jobs leaves much to be desired, specifically his proposal of credit loosening.  This is a big error and a major flaw of Kennedy's approach to the "job problem". Cheap credit is precisely how we got into this mess in the first place and it's not the government's job to promote credit. Credit is a function of the banks and if the banks believe that enough money has been stored away to merit low interest rates, then credit will flow. Promoting lending for the sake of lending leads to disasters like Fannie/Freddie and ultimately sets up the boom/bust scenario that we have been experiencing for so many decades. Naturally due to his appreciation for cheap credit, he makes no mention of the Federal Reserve and the need for Americans to gain access to the Fed's balance sheets via an audit. 

Still, his stance on health care, welfare and entitlement programs is a refreshing change of pace for this state and embodies the true small government approach that is sorely needed in this time of peril. 

For this reason, I support and endorse Joe Kennedy for Senate and urge you to explore his website for more information.  The time for "voting for the lesser of two evils" MUST come to an end and only you can make it happen. 

Show to Scott Brown, that we will not blindly support him just because he claims to be something he is not.  Show the Republican establishment that we the people are tired of choosing between crap and a turd sandwich.  If they keep feeding us candidates that expand government without stop to feed their ambitions of power, they will have to do so WITHOUT our support.  We do not need another Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins in the Senate and we sure as hell do not need the GOP's false promises of fiscal salvation.  Stop giving them money and stop giving them your support.  If you believe in the free market, then trust that your demand for small government politicians will produce candidates that are worthy of your support. 

With Jim Bunning's decision not to run again, Kentucky's senate seat could be an interesting race.  While this seat should go to Republicans, the outcome of the primary could play a role here. 

Rand Paul (yes, son of Ron Paul)
- Opposes the bailouts
- Wants to cut the military budget
- Wants to ban lobbying for companies with contracts exceeding 1 million dollars. 
- Sees inflation as a major threat
- Critical of Bush's Medicare and no-child-left-behind programs as examples of Federal expansion.
- Supports term limits
- Supports auditing the Fed.
- Wants to end subsidies for illegal immigrants, build electric fence.

Trey Grayson
- Wants to end/reverse the TARP
- Opposes the bailouts, cash for clunkers
- Supports auditing the Fed.
- Supports GOP health reform proposal.
- Wishes to co-sponsor a bill to amend the Constitution to match spending to revenue.
- Support permanent repeal of the estate tax or “death tax” and the AMT
- Fight anchor babies, better fencing, ending subsidies to illegals.

From a fiscal standpoint, the only aspect we should be interested in the two candidates appear to be extremely similar.  Both are fiscally responsibly and understand the mounting threats to our financial solvency and both are willing to fight against wasteful government programs.  Rand being Ron Paul's son probably understands better than anyone of the danger the Federal Reserve poses to our nation and the implicit tax of inflation.  I would assume he is probably sympathetic if not fully embracing of Austrian economics, a school we need as Americans need to embrace because it's the only school that explains our financial woes we are currently experiencing. 

Still, Grayson to fully explain how plans to cut the existing budget surplus and how he plans to shrink government.  Cutting taxes is certainly great and something that can be supported and even drafting legislation to cap spending, but how can something like this be achieved?  There appear to be no plans to reduce entitlement programs or departments that violate our constitution.  Paul's approach to this problem is also unclear, but he is pledging to cut military spending which represents 40% of our budget.  This is an excellent start, but is not enough as it will prove to be very difficult.  Our Constitution allows for national defense, therefore gaining traction on cutting constitutional programs appears to be the wrong start. 

As promised, here is my analysis of the one hour debate between four prospective Democrat challengers vying for the late Ted Kennedy's seat.  The four candidates are:

Attorney General Martha Coakley
U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano
City Year co-founder Alan Khazei
Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca.

Let's quickly get to the point, the four candidates are extremely similar and appear to be creepy clones of each other citing traditional liberal talking points via embedded recording devices.  Their unique qualities can be summarized in the following manner.  Coakley thinks she is guaranteed to win and is extremely cocky despite being asleep at the job here in Massachusetts.  Capuano is extremely proud of his work as a member of the House and constantly makes it a point that only he knows the dirty tricks played in Washington and is capable of, as he puts it, "trading horses".  Khazei has a sense of humor about him and at least makes an effort to deviate from the pack with some unique ideas.  Pagliuca is extremely uncomfortable and apparently admires Capuano a great deal because all of Capuano's ideas appear to be synchronized with Pagliuca's, he said so several times. 

Every candidate promises to return jobs to our state, fix the financial crisis and boost the economy.  All promise to continue Kennedy's traditions which is to effectively siphon as many taxpayer dollars out of the federal coffers into Massachusetts as quickly as humanly possible.   None of the candidates understand anything about basic economics and all vigorously support passing a second stimulus package either because the first one failed or because it was wildly successful - take your pick.  Capuano objects to the crushing debt and proposes to raise taxes on the wealthy and distribute the money while Coakley sees no problem adding more debt because as the economy recovers tax receipts will go up.   Pagliuca may consider tax hikes while Khazei wants to directly help small businesses.  All four absolutely love the idea of a public option and spend more of the time arguing over how robust it should be, but all agree government competition is the best way to encourage private markets to lower prices.  I guess Medicare and the Post Office are such stunning examples of federal government excellence it would be foolish not to continue it. 

When it comes to war, Capuano eloquently stated a position I have written about several times.  We won in Afghanistan and it's time to pull out!  Frankly the matter of Afghanistan is so obviously trivial that only the most ardent of war hawks would disagree.  Unfortunately the remainder of the candidates expressed no confidence in understanding foreign policy and simply stated they would object to a troop surge.  Leaving our military in it's current state in Afghanistan is simply criminal.  If we do not have enough guts to pull the troops out then we have to surge, but leaving them pinned down under growing Taliban hostility is stupid and negligent. 

On matters of illegal aliens the tone got depressingly desperate as every candidate expressed more concern over exploitation of illegal aliens than focusing on the reason they are here in the first place!  Beyond the blatant legality of the matter, all candidates want to provide paths to legalization as Coakley put it, it is our moral duty to respect their rights.  An attorney general, the most powerful police officer in our state, thinks our duty toward illegal aliens is to maintain their rights?  What rights exactly?  Khazei pointed out that deporting 11 million illegals is not practical and therefore we should legalize them, which begs the question as to what we shall do in ten years when 20 million more illegals show up.  If they were not so hell bent on distributing wealth they would realize that restricting Medicaid access, housing subsidies, food stamps and social services is the absolute best way to discourage illegals from coming.  The more free items you give out to illegals paid for by us the taxpayer, the less there will be to dispense to those who truly require the aid and the more impoverished we shall all become.   Dismantling the welfare state will work better than a 1,000 foot high fences laced with electricity, barbed wire and border guards. Think about it.

One of these candidates WILL become a United States senator (pending a miracle) and to accuse them of being out of touch with reality is an understatement. 

Yes, I live in the bluest state in America we have one party rule and it is driving us into the ground. Worse yet, my fellow residents continue to vote the same political hacks into office over and over. Things are bad, real bad. Big Dig is still siphoning dollars from our drivers, sales tax went up, we have one of the highest tax burdens in the country, our Governor is completely inept, property taxes are high, RMV offices are closing down and we could be looking at a California style meltdown. Surprisingly Massachusetts residents are cranky but they are not fuming, tolerance level of these frogs is truly amazing because some of us are boiling alive.

We have two organizations that attempt to fight for liberty, choice and freedom.

Citizens for Limited Taxation
Center for Small Government

However these organizations badly need funding and support, something difficult to obtain from people who continue to vote the same liberals into office and then complain about the inefficiency of government.

However in about one year we will have an opportunity to finally stand united and recognize that the expansion of state government has improved the life of only one group of people; state employees. Rest of us poor shmucks are left forking over the bill, bend over here it comes again...

We have an exciting race with very different candidates running, up to date polling information is available on my 2010 Election page.


Democrat: Deval Patrick (Incumbent)

The original hope and change, a youthful and exciting black man became governor two years ago on promises of lowering property taxes and changing Beacon Hill. Never happened of course, worse yet Deval stumbled out of the gate and continues to stumble to this day. Not only did he skip town during his most important piece of legislation to sign a million dollar book deal, Deval has not seen a tax hike proposal he did not like. Extremely weak on illegal immigration, apologizing to INS for busting up a factory full of illegal aliens. Mired in all sorts of scandals, Deval is the prototypical liberal limousine riding around in his fancy $46,000 Cadillac while adorning his mansion with $10,000 curtains. What the hell goes into $10,000 curtains? Gold? Sure, he gave those up, but only after a major stink. Let's not forget the 72k/year aide for his wife, a completely useless job. Deval is everything that is wrong with politics and even though his approval ratings are in the dumps, there are enough Massachusetts residents to give Deval at least 30% of their vote.

Republican: Charlie Baker


Not much is known about this man, other than his savvy business skills. A CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Charlie appears to be someone capable of reigning in our fiscal madness. His website currently has no information about his positions, but if he is a typical Mass. Republican there might not be much to be excited about. More information coming...


Republican: Christy Mihos

Christy ran in the previous election and gained some traction for being a zany and unusual businessman. His positions are extremely favorable to the taxpayer and he seems to give off a strong libertarian aura. Some of his positions include:

• Supports rollback of sales tax back to 5%
  
• Supports initiative that I am personally involved in: Rollback sales tax to 3%.
  
• Slash state salaries and jobs to raise 600 million dollars. Yes!
  
• Stifle NCLB, supports charter schools and school vouchers! Yes!
  
• Eliminate many toll plazas
  
• Penalize businesses for illegal immigrant hiring.
  
• Favors the death penalty. Bad, but not relevant.
  
• Tort reform and investigation into our insurance premium hikes. Let me give you a hint Christy, it's called RomneyCare. Make a promise to abolish it and you will have my full support.

Independent: Tim Cahill

A democrat turned Independent, Tim has been in politics for decades in our state and is our former State Treasurer. His intent for switching party affiliation is unclear, but I suspect he was planning to run for Governor and wanted to avoid a Democrat primary? However this might be beneficial for the Republicans/Independent as Tim will split the vote with Deval in the general, while Baker/Mihos duke it out in the primary. Tim does not outline his issues, but does say the following in his profile.

Republicans believe in making government smaller. Democrats believe in making
government bigger. I believe in making the government we have work.

Unfortunately, this is not good enough in Massachusetts, our government is already too large. I appreciate Tim's fiscal conservative policy and social liberalism, but his belief in a government working correctly is as misguided as the idea that Socialism would work as long as the right people are in charge. No, unless Tim makes a commitment to reduce government, he is just another Massachusetts Democrat.

States being followed by RightCondition, link of the name will bring you to the latest RCP poll. The color of the row represents which way the state voted in 2008.
Full coverage can be found on Wikipedia.

SENATE
State	DemocraticChallengers	Republican Challengers	Notes
Connecticut	Dodd (incumbent)	Simmons Schiff	Christopher Dodd was involved in the Housing crisis of 2008, corrupt mortgage deals, etc.
Ohio	Brunner Fisher	Portman Ganley	Close race as of 9/17/2009
Nevada	Reid	Lowden Tarkanian	Reid is an insufferable and manipulating bastard that uses scare tactics to get bills passed.
New Hampshire	Ayotte	Hodes	State has been slowly drifting Democrat.
Colorado	Bennet	Buck Frazier	Purple state with Frazier recently taking the lead.
Arkansas	Lincoln	Baker	Close race as of 9/17/2009
Pennsylvania	Specter Sestak	Toomey	Toomey is a strong conservative, would be a great victory. Currently crushing Sestak, but losing to Specter.
Massachussetts	Capuano Coakley Khazei Pagliuca	Brown Robinson	This is a special election and will be held in 2009.
GOVERNOR
Massachussetts	Patrick (incumbent)	Baker Mihos Cahill (Independent)	As of 9/20/2009 Mihos is beating Patrick.

Just a quick update, but in case you have not heard, Arlen Specter left the GOP after decades of work in the Senate and joined the Democrats. Arlen Specter has been a source of so much pain to the right and so many questions have been raised regarding his true allegiance, that he finally realized that he can no longer continue this lie. Without beating around the bush too much, I truly believe that he has been living a lie all this time and either had the wrong conception of what the GOP stood for or after decades of being a public servant bent under the inevitable sway of connections, backroom deals and shady politics.

Either way, unlike what the news article suggests, Specter's switch does not threaten the filibuster majority because nothing changed. He will continue to vote the same way he always voted and his new label will simply keep the conservatives off his back.

No, this switch was more political. I personally suspected he was going to retire this upcoming election, but it turns out that the old man still got some fight in him. He is clearly intending to run again, but he KNOWS that he lost a good chunk of his GOP support back in PA. By switching parties he can pick up new voters who tend to vote down the D line anyway and retain some of the loyalists he relies on every 6 years. This way he can avoid the utter embarrassment of getting smashed in the primaries and can pose a formidable challenge to any Republican taking his place. Lastly, he can rely on the support from his new found friends and Obama with whom he probably already brokered a deal with.

I for one am extremely delighted that Specter will no longer be a source of disappointment and frustration for the GOP. Now if only Collins and Snowe grew a pair and realized that they need to switch out of the GOP, everybody can mind their own business and be on their merry way. We need to stop deluding ourselves into thinking that the GOP is still retaining some filibuster blocking minority, because they do not.