Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Some of My Thoughts on GOOOH

I have some serious reservation about

1 They paint with to broad of a brush. To say we need to replace all 435 members of the house is a cop out and lazy. There are Representatives who are worthy of retention. Not many, but they are there. It is easy and popular to say get them all out, but that is the lazy part; if we say this, we don't need to do any research or put any thought into who needs to go and who needs to stay!

2 take the questions then you have to pay $100

3 The questions are not necessarily principle based, but read like the agenda the writer wants to push. I agree with some things, like the fair (consumption) tax versus the progressive tax. I read other questions as a continuation of big government while seeming like goooh is for reducing government:

Will you vote for or against allowing government assistance (of any kind) to a company that has A- or lower bond rating (S&P)?
Why would we consider allowing ANY government assistance? No one is to big to fail.

Will you vote for or against requiring those who have entered our country illegally to, when caught, work on a government project without pay for one year before being deported? One example of a project could be a wall that separates the United States and Mexico, though all other projects could be considered.
WHAT? Isn't this slavery? The cost of this, the lose of a job?

Will you vote for or against amending the Constitution with a “law of predominant majority”, which says the “rights” of groups can be denied if they have consistently demonstrated behavior that 95% of the population considers unacceptable? For example, 95% of the population would likely vote that a public KKK rally should NOT be allowed, overriding the “right” of free speech for that particular group.
Any problem here? More abuses of the 1st amendment if this one goes through! (some poitician will decide when to apply this, again picking winners and losers based on politics!)

Will you vote for or against amending the Constitution to exclude people with a law degree from serving in the House of Representatives?
Really? Some people may not like ambulance chasers, but where do the limits stop? Pretty soon we can only have three eyed Martians with freckles elected to congress!

Will you vote for or against limiting the total amount of money that any person can inherit in their lifetime, including through trusts and other “loopholes”, to 250 times the median income ($11.5 million)?
Isn't this redistribution of wealth? Who gets the dollars above this arbitrary limit. If you earn it, YOU, not the government, decide what happens to it.

I could go on and on. Think about the questions and the relationship to the Constitution. For example, we don't need to reduce spending at the Department of Education, we need to eliminate the Department of Education and return these duties and responsibilities to the STATES!

Monday, January 11, 2010