Is Rubio For Real?

2013 CPAC begins today and I will watch the doings to see who will be building their props for a national run……..

Marco Rubio is everywhere!  Fox News, SOTU response, letter against Hagel, everywhere….a lead man on immigration ………….it is as if they are trying to set him up for a presidential run in 2016……remember Jindal, his first appearance was a disaster…….Mr. Vaginal Probe of Virginia was a disaster……..hopefully the GOP is using their heads in this not so subtle attempt to make Rubio a candidate…….

But is he for real?

Hydration issues notwithstanding, Marco Rubio is in a strong position in terms of the 2016 presidential race, writes Nate Silver in the New York Times. Rubio is “reliably conservative,” which would help him in the primaries, and his favorability ratings are solid, which would help him in the general election. (Silver knows it’s early to be worried about primary season, but he notes that the “invisible primary,” in which candidates woo party insiders, is already under way.) Rubio’s challenge will be to maintain his popularity as voters learn more about him and realize his positions are pretty much the same as those of his Republican rivals. (His support of immigration reform is an exception to the rule.) Great political talents, such as Reagan and Obama, have “the ability to sell ideas to voters across a wide range of the political spectrum,” writes Silver. It’s too soon to know whether Rubio is in their league, but his White House prospects hinge on the answer. Click for Silver’s full column.

We will see who buys this ad campaign.  Thoughts?

What The Hell Is ‘Chained CPI’?

Two days left before the sequestration kicks in…two days left of endless accusations….two days left of the tragedy that is our Congress……..the drama continues and with every drama we have had our buzz words….remember ‘death panels’?  Or maybe fiscal cliff?  And the ever popular…..’Obamacare”………and now we have a new one….’chained CPI’………but what the Hell are these people talking about?

The National Journal has a good explanation……..

“Chained CPI,” writes Quinton, “is an idea that almost everyone supports in theory but hardly anyone is willing to risk in practice.”

Chained CPI is a measure of inflation created by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that has been touted as a more accurate way to factor rises in the cost-of-living into, among other things, social security benefits and the tax code. Chained CPI doesn’t rise as quickly as the measure of inflation that the government uses now, so if the government switched to chained CPI to calculate social security benefits, benefits would increase more slowly over time. Similarly, if chained CPI was applied to the tax code, tax brackets would change at a slower rate, moving tax-payers into higher brackets faster.

Chained CPI rises slower than the measure of inflation that the government currently uses by making different assumptions about how people spend money. Chained CPI hinges on the idea that when the price of one good rises, people are more likely to buy a similar, cheaper good. Or, as a former staffer for President Obama’s fiscal commission told NPR, when the price of apples goes up, maybe you’ll buy oranges or bananas instead. The current measure of inflation assumes that you’ll just keep on buying apples, raising your cost-of-living faster.

What chained CPI does here is “chain” together groups of goods. This change could save $200-300 billion over the next decade by slowing the growth in cost-of-living adjustments, trimming social security benefits and increasing taxes.

So, why the controversy? Many Democrats have scoffed at the social security benefit hit that comes with chained CPI — especially to older seniors who rely most on the social security income. Also, it isn’t always as simple as chaining apples and oranges, especially when broader necessities like medical care and heating come into play. There are also of course ways of making chained CPI less severe to the social security benefits of needy seniors. Sophie Quinton points out that the Simpson-Bowles plan, among others, features such protections.

There you have it….now when the mouths start rattling on and on……..you will hgave an idea on what the Hell the blowhards are talking about…..and with luck uyour ears will not bleed.

2nd Is Here To Stay

College of Political Knowledge

Subject:  Early American History

This is my final paper (for now) on the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution….I have looked at historical events that lead to the inclusion of the 2nd into the Constitution……we have the first person to mention the guns, the events that lead to the inclusion and a look into the use of the word, ‘militia’ in the writing of the document…….and finally my conclusions on this part of the Constitution…….

Hopefully, my readers will remind themselves that my research was along historical lines, not from an ideological or judicial perspective……so there will be NO emotional ramblings, just historical facts and events……and I pray that the reader will read this for the historical content and not as a diatribe condemning or condoning………

Let’s look at the republican (small “r”) thinking of the day…….as it pertains to guns……”standing armies are dangerous and should be avoided.”  As the Constitution is being written the ideas put forth in 1787 were…….1) separation of powers, 2) authority of Congress to declare war, 3) guarantee the legality of slavery, 4) creation of electoral college, 5) provision for impeachment, 6) presidential state of the union message, 7) provision for ratifying the Constitution, 8) federalism, 9) bicameral legislature, 10) enumeration of powers of Congress, 11) finally, the 3/5ths compromise……and when it was ratified there is NO inclusion of an arms provision….that would come later, 1791 to be exact…….

At the time of the ratification of the Constitution there was NO American standing army to speak of, however each state had its armed factions that we call militias…..back in the days between the 7 years war and the revolution states had border skirmishes with neighbor states and even skirmishes  within the borders of a single state had its share of in fighting…Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island quickly come to mind……..in other words arms were necessary to protect ones self from ones neighbor.

The only mention of ‘arms’ in the constitution is the 2nd amendment……I believe that the key words in that amendment is “a well regulated militia”…………because of the always present conflicts between states and groups and the lack of a standing army…..it was necessary to keep a militia on stand by to help quell any and all uprisings…..I continue to believe that it was not included because the founders were concerned that government might intrude on the people but rather to keep the people from intruding on government.

The two leading thinkers of the constitutional era were Jefferson and Hamilton……different sides of the same coin, if you will……..as far as the document goes….Hamilton favored an interpretive approach to the constitution and then there is Jefferson who believe in a strict interpretation of the document…..

If the constitutional convention had taken more time to write and ratify I believe that it would have been substantially different in its make up……..with more time from inception to ratification the constitution would have had a different feel about it…….why do I say that?  Look at some of the items NOT included in the final draft……1) 2 term limit for prez, 2) universal manhood suffrage, 3) presidential cabinet, 4) direct election of senators, 5) political parties……..most of these became part of the laws of the country and if there had been more time in the drafting of the document they might have been included………… since there are NO founders left alive we are left with what others tell us the content of the constitution means…….and few of these analysis are from a historical perspective but rather from an emotional, ideological and judicial point of view……..the 2nd is here to stay…..and NO amount of scrutiny will change that and NO amount of debate will ever venture beyond the emotional or the ideological…….personally, it is something that the founders NEVER intended…..