I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a very happy new year!
My endorsement for the Michigan U.S. Senate race – Scotty Boman
It appears that there are now around 7 candidates in the spotlight for the 2012 U.S. Senate election for Michigan. More may enter the race, but there is one particular candidate that I feel everyone should focus on as I strongly agree with his stance on shrinking the size of government, free market principles, and strictly adhering to the Constitution – Scotty Boman. Please check out his web site to learn more about how he intends to help restore America at http://boman12.org and his Facebook campaign page.
Michigan residents permitted to use silencers
I didn’t see much news of this around Michigan, but on September 2nd, 2011, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette gave the people of Michigan Opinion #7260. This Opinion specified that Michigan residents are permitted to do as 38 other states have – use a silencer with their firearms. “The possession, manufacture, or sale of a firearm silencer is permitted in Michigan under MCL 750.224(1)(b) if the person is licensed or approved to possess, manufacture, or sell such a device by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as required by MCL 750.224(3)(c).”
Michigan Smoking Ban Sunset Act addition to “My Bills”
Michigan Public Act 188 of 2009. When it passed, businesses were forced to follow this new law which banned smoking in their establishment. It was passed on the notion that second hand smoke affects public health and is a public health hazard.
It’s one thing for a business to ban smoking in their own establishment – after all, they pay several taxes, lease or mortgage, are responsible for the business, and more than likely are a private establishment. What the smoking ban does is interfere with the free market and the ability for people to make their own decisions. For example, there were smokeless bars before the ban and they catered to those who didn’t care to be around smoke. People who frequent bars have the choice of going there or not going there whether smoking is allowed or not. Just as they can decide to not go because of the band that is playing, the type of beer served, the type of service given, or any other reason. What’s next? Banning the sale of alcohol at bars because it could also be a health hazard?
Due to this ridiculous overreaching government intervention, I believe that this act should be repealed immediately with the Michigan Smoking Ban Sunset Act.
How to bring jobs back to Michigan
Politicians are going back and forth on how to bring jobs back to Michigan. Most of your typical politicians in Lansing want to give tax breaks or tax-funded grants to businesses to bring their business here. Some are only temporary as we witnessed with the Michigan Film Incentives, in which some reports show the film industry took in more than they gave back. Temporary business is not what we should be looking for – we need permanent jobs from businesses who are willing to come to Michigan and stay.
However, with a high, unnecessary business tax that punishes businesses for staying in Michigan, why would they want to come? Currently, sales tax and income tax are the two primary sources of Michigan tax funding by far. 56.4% to be exact versus only 8% in revenue from the business tax. So how can more of the two primary sources of income for the state be generated without raising income and sales taxes? Simple – remove the business tax completely, which will bring businesses, and the jobs that come with them, to Michigan. As we all know, when businesses sell a product, they charge a 6% sales tax on the majority of items purchased by consumers. When people go to work for those businesses, they pay an income tax. When more businesses come to Michigan, they will generate more sales tax and more income tax (with no raises to either) and will easily make up for the “lost revenue” by the removed business tax.
I have had people ask “So are we just going to not tax businesses at all?!” They’re already being taxed on several levels already, so the business tax is no more than a tax for doing business in Michigan. Penalizing businesses to stay here is not the way to keep businesses here. They’re already being taxed and pay taxes, so why add another? They pay property taxes just like we do on our homes, or their landlords do if they rent. They collect and pay income taxes on employees. They pay capital gains taxes. They pay taxes on their profits. They collect and pay sales tax on purchases by consumers. Then on top of that, they pay a business tax. Currently, Michigan ranks 48th out of the 50 states regarding corporate-friendly tax rates according to taxfoundation.org. That won’t bring businesses or jobs to Michigan.
Besides, we would not be the only state who does not have a business tax. Texas, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming do not have a business tax. In fact, Texas, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming go one step further – they don’t have an individual income tax either. Now putting that into perspective, the unemployment rate in Michigan is at 11.2%. The unemployment rates for the other states with no business tax or individual income tax are:
- South Dakota: 4.7%
- Texas: 8.5%
- Washington: 9.1%
- Wyoming: 5.8%
So remove the business tax and businesses will come to Michigan with jobs? The simple answer is…yes. However, changing the name to a “corporate tax” and taxing pensions will NOT bring businesses to Michigan and will NOT stop the mass exodus of people leaving Michigan in search of jobs.
Comments Off
more...
Taking a new direction
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Dear friends,
I would like to first say thank you to everyone who has offered their support and encouragement regarding my run for U.S. Senate. Due to the aggressive nature of running for a higher office without being a high-profile politician, and after speaking with family, friends, and others currently holding office, I have decided to bring it down a notch. At this time, it is simply the right thing to do for my daughters and myself.
I have been told by many that my beliefs for a smaller, limited government, a strict adherence to the Constitution, and free market principles are exactly what Washington D.C. needs. However, it would be best to allow people to get to know me better in a smaller political role – specifically starting with a state government role.
So having been given sound advice by many in the direction to take going forward, I have officially removed myself from the U.S. Senate race as a Republican candidate. Instead, I am now running as a Republican State Representative candidate for Michigan’s 96th district in 2012. While I may be running for a different office, my principles and beliefs have not changed.
Please join me in 2012 to reign in big government, bring back prosperity by allowing free market principles to work, and encourage personal liberties to move Michigan in the right direction.
Comments Off
more...
What is with this shifting of blame?
People who support Obama and his administration commonly tell people that “why weren’t people outraged 10 years ago when we attacked Afghanistan?”. This is a way that Obama supporters tend to justify Obama’s illegal attack on Libya. Sorry, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Yes, I was outraged 10 years ago too. Especially after the USA PATRIOT Act was voted in as Law due to a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. It was drafted by Joe Biden in 1997, but wasn’t called the USA PATRIOT Act at the time. People seem to forget that bit of information.
A bit of history for those who support Obama’s attack on Libya – the last true formal declaration of war was our entrance into WWII (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Formal). Afghanistan did not meet the criteria of a formal declaration of war. Neither did Iraq. Neither does Libya or Pakistan.
Speaking of the Constitution, when does Obama plan to adhere to his Oath as President:
“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”" (Article 2, Section 1)
If he followed the Constitution, he would need to have many people arrested for counterfeiting – the Federal Reserve and all of it’s members:
“To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States” (Article 1, Section 8 )
He also needs to be arrested and charged with high treason and impeached because he has served an entity other than the United States while performing his duties as the President of the United States (source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/NATLObama-to-Chair-UN-Security-Council-58022432.html) (Article 2, Section 4) (Article 1, Section 9)
When will this madness end? January 20th, 2013.
Comments Off
more...
Extraordinary Rendition
For those that aren’t familiar with extraordinary rendition, please make yourself aware of what it is and not only how unconstitutional it is, but how downright evil it is. The first line describing extraordinary rendition on Wikipedia describes it quite well:
Extraordinary rendition and irregular rendition describe the abduction and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one nation to another. “Torture by proxy” is used by some critics to describe situations in which the United States has transferred suspected terrorists to countries known to practice torture.
I don’t know about you, but putting a black bag over someone’s head, kidnapping them, and shipping them off to another country to be tortured in the name of preventing terrorism is completely disgusting. That’s right, forget about that pesky 4th Amendment, forget about a warrant being signed, forget about the fact that you may have been an American citizen minding your own business – if you don’t give up your Constitutional rights, the terrorists win!
Hogwash.
And if you think for a moment that this couldn’t happen to you or rarely happens, think again. Since 2001, the United States has captured an estimated 3,000 people and transported them around the world for this type of brutal “interrogation” to “combat terrorism”.
So when did this brutal tactic become a policy? Most would think right after 9/11 and it was signed as an executive order by George Bush. You would be wrong. The CIA was granted permission to use extraordinary rendition by a presidential directive signed in 1995 by Bill Clinton. Bush, of course, used extraordinary rendition often to “fight terrorism”. Obama had the chance to shut down this type of behavior immediately after taking office. Instead, Obama actively allowed extraordinary rendition to continue even though one of his promises was to cease extraordinary rendition. To be quite frank – I don’t care who has decided to allow it. IT IS ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL AND NEEDS TO BE STOPPED!
Comments Off
more...
Attack on Libya an impeachable offense
At least Obama and Biden used to think that way when Bush was President (see quote and video below). The President of the United States is in violation of the War Powers Act of 1973. He must report, in writing, to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate. This has not been done. He has also violated the act in such that “…The President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.”
There is no American interests involved. U.S. Forces have not been attacked. The United States has not been attacked. This is an impeachable breach of U.S. Law. It doesn’t matter what the U.N. says in regards to U.S. Law as we are a sovereign nation not subordinate to the will or threats of others with the exceptions of treaties such as NATO. However, NATO was not attacked. This is an internal Libyan problem.
Barack Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” – Senator Barack Obama, 2007
Joe Biden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dRFJ6CF2Mw
I guess their previous statements and their current actions would make them hypocrites.
Comments Off
more...
The Department of Education is irrelevant. Here’s why…
The Department of Education does nothing and cutting funding to a useless, bureaucratic entity is not a bad thing. You’re confusing the Department of Education with schools like most people do. Besides, most of the money comes from property taxes for schools, not the Department of Education. Of course most of you probably don’t realize that the Department of Education didn’t even exist until 1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education). It was one of the last things Carter did before he was elected out of office. It gave the feds a lot more influence (see: control) on state schools…and when the feds get their hands on something, they have the reverse Midas touch. No Child Left Behind for example. Isn’t it amazing how schools existed before 1980? Unfortunately, they were much better off back then without so much government intervention.
SB-1154 was introduced here in Michigan, which caused quite a stir because of this misunderstanding. The details of the bill that caused controversy:
“House version of the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Department of Education budget. This would appropriate $132.8 million…, compared to $112.8 enrolled for the previous year. Of this, $93.9 million will come from the federal government, compared to $76.4 million the previous year. The House adds $17 million in federal money for programs created to make the state eligible for federal “Race to the Top” grants.”
Those who love to blame everything bad on a Republican were quick to bash some Republicans for voting “NO” on this legislation. What they decided to do is not to look to see that the bill was originally introduced by a Republican, but why let facts get in the way when you can simply forget to include them in their argument. After all, facts don’t work well when you’re trying to manipulate the truth or create new “facts”.
So let’s break down the bill. As you can see, this is specifically just for the Department of Education alone. Imagine that money actually being used on schools instead of the bureaucracy…
For reference, Midland Public Schools has a budget of ~$82,000,000 for 2010-2011: http://www.mps.k12.mi.us/assets/400/2010-11_BUDGET-June_2010_summary.pdf
Now wrap your head around this one using last years budget. If you abolished the Department of Education and spent that money on teachers (you know…all the ones that were laid off over the last few years), you could have a LOT of teachers. Say each teacher grossed $50,000/year:
112,800,000 / 50,000 = 2,276 teachers could be employed.
Let’s take it more into a “real” budget and say including benefits, it cost the school $80,000 per year to employ a teacher:
112,800,000 / 80,000 = 1,410 teachers could be employed. But nope – let’s spend it on red tape instead.
On top of that, you’re looking at an almost 20% increase for the budget of this bureaucracy! When was the last time you got a 20% raise for doing less work? Michigan public school enrollment hit it’s peak in the early 70s and has declined ever since: http://www.crcmich.org/PUBLICAT/1990s/1990/rpt298.pdf
At the end of the day, voting “NO” on SB-1154 was the best thing anyone could do for Michigan education regardless of party affiliation.
Comments Off
more...