The Iraq War is Hillary Clinton's Fault

Lessons on Government

Presidential Powers: War

The Iraq War is not President George W. Bush's War. It is Hillary Clinton's war and every other Senator and Representative who voted for the war.

I hate to say it, but America as a whole is ignorant. Most Americans have not read or know much about the constitution. Within the pages of our countries most sacred political document the Congress is given the Power to declare war, not the President. The average person on the street will not be able to explain this simple fact. I find this very disturbing.

The President does not have the ability to commit our troops to a conflict for any longer than 60 days without Congressional approval. This comes from the War Powers Act of 1973.

The War Powers Act requires:

1. The President notify Congress within 48 hours of committing our troops
2. The troops may not remain for more than 60 days without:

• a. Congressional Approval or
• b. A Declaration of War

This Act was introduced to help bring an end to the Vietnam Conflict (started by a democrat). The Vietnam Conflict is not technically a war because we never declared war on Vietnam.

President Bush did seek out a declaration of war from Congress and it was almost unanimously given. Congress had the ability from the beginning to avoid war with Iraq, but they chose military action instead. They also have the ability to end the war now, but they have chosen to stay. (Keep in mind the Democrats have controlled Congress for two years now, these are the guys that say they didn’t want the war. If they don’t want the war, end it.)

You can criticize President Bush for the management of the war; this is something that I have done regularly. President Bush has done a much better job over the last few years, but we would have benefited greatly if he had started the war with this approach. All that to say, calling the Iraq War only President Bush’s is a lie, Congress has their hand in the cookie jar too.

This Newsweek article offers up some good criticism of President Bush. I recommend you read it, I was pleasantly surprised there wasn’t more bias within the pages.

Previous Lesson on Government.

Man Dies In Wal-Mart Stampede

Buying presents is good. Killing people is bad. This is absolutely ridiculous. An employee of Wal-Mart was trampled to death by blood thirsty shoppers. Their greed for toys and good deals knows no bounds. No present or toy or gadget is worth a human life. I am disgusted by the greed that has engulfed our country.

What are your thoughts?


This is the Wal-Mart.

This is the crowd.

Lessons on Government: The Electoral College

Do you know what the Electoral College is?

If you don't then you should keep reading, I'm going to explain it.

First, let me start by saying the President of the United States is not directly elected by the people! The popular vote of the entire nation does not count. This is something that you must understand, many people are under the impression that the popular vote counts for something. Pres. Bush won in 2000 because he had more Electoral votes than Al Gore, Gore won the popular vote by 500,000.

Article II, Section 1 created the Electoral College. Each state will have the same number of Electors as Senators and Representatives. For example, Texas has 2 Senators and 32 representatives, this means that Texas has 34 electoral votes.

Now if the Texas popular vote sways towards John McCain, then he will get those 34 electoral votes. There is a total of 538 electoral votes.

How many votes does it take to win the Presidential Election?

A majority. That means half + 1. In other words, 270 electoral votes wins the election.

It is possible to become president and only win 11 states. Here is what you need to win:

California (55 votes)
Texas (34)
New York (31)
Florida (27)
Illinois (21)
Pennsylvania (21)

Ohio (20)
Michigan (17)
Georgia (15)
New Jersey (15)
North Carolina (15)

With these 11 states you will have 271 electoral votes. Of course this could change depending on the mobility of the population.

What if there is a tie?

If both candidates receive 269 votes each then a tie breaker must happen. This will go to the House of Representatives. In the tie breaking vote each state will get 1 vote. A majority is again required, which means 26 votes. However, the house is only voting on who becomes president.

The VP will be chosen by the Senate.

What are the flaws with the current system?

The biggest, most glaring flaw is the lack of concern for the states with a lower population. There is not enough of an incentive for a candidate to visit a state that only has 3 electoral votes.

This is a map of swing vote states. Most of these states have a decent amount of Electoral votes. This map illustrates time and money spent by both John Kerry and George W. Bush during the last five weeks of the 2004 presidential election.

Another problem, what if the people choose a different president. For example, in 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote, but Pres. Bush won the election. Some believe that this doesn't represent the views of the people. All I can say is the founding fathers did not feel that the American people were intelligent enough, at the birth of our country, to decide on a leader for themselves.

Why can't we switch to popular vote?

We haven't switched to popular vote because nobody has given their congressmen enough grief about the current system.

Speak up if you want your voice heard.

Here are some good resources:

NY Times Electoral Page

270 to win

Stay tuned for more Lessons on Government.

The Ballard Economic Plan

We are in an economic crisis. That is easy to see. As individuals we have overspent our incomes and as a country we have overspent our tax revenue. How are we going to fix this monumental problem? I have a few ideas on how we can solve our mounting economic problems. I am going to call this plan the Ballard Economic Plan. This plan is simple and designed to pay off debt and save money.

The Ballard Economic Plan

A.

The first thing that we need to do is fix our "broken" tax system (our tax system is not really broken, but we are told it is). Many complain that corporations and the wealthy do not pay their "fair" share of the tax burden. Politicians (Democrats mostly) tell us this. Politicians have their opinions and they lie. They like to blur the lines between fact and fiction. You have to realize that their biggest concern is getting your vote, not helping your income. Like I said Politicians lie, numbers don't. Take a look at some of these numbers:

The top 1% of the wage earning population pays 37% of federal tax revenue.

The top 5% pays 57%

The top 10% pays 68%

The top 25% pays a whopping 85% of all federal tax revenue!

Now look at this, the bottom 50% pays a measly 3% of federal tax revenue!

For more information on who pays the taxes go here.

Everyone assumes, falsely, that under the Pres. Bush tax cuts the rich were paying less than everyone else. This could not be further from the truth. The fact is the wealthy pay a higher dollar amount with the Bush tax cuts, than without them. This can happen because the tax cuts allow them to make more money through investments and new business ventures (which creates jobs and more wealth for everyone). This theory comes from the Laffer Curve.

I have two suggestions to help solve our tax issues. Both of these will generate revenue and silence those who don't understand how our current tax system works.

1. Flat Tax. This has been proposed before, but it is not getting the attention that it deserves. Our current tax system is progressive, this means the more you make the more you pay. In a flat tax system everyone pays the same percentage, say 17%. If we went to a flat tax we could get ride of all of the IRS rules and most of the IRS all together. Corporations and the wealthy wouldn't have large tax deductions available that us poor folk don't have access to currently. Everyone pays the same percentage, everything is fair. If you make $30,000 a year you will pay $5,100 in taxes. If you make $200,000 a year you will pay $34,000 in taxes. In this system the wealthy still pay more.


2. Sales Tax. The second option is paying a higher federal sales tax. The state of Texas does not have to rely on an income tax to earn it's tax revenue. Instead there is a higher sales tax. With a higher sales tax and no income tax you only pay tax when you spend money. This means more money in your pocket to begin with. The Sales tax in Texas is 6.25%, this is actually lower than California's which is 7.25% along with an income tax.
   

B.

The second part of my plan would allow large companies to go bankrupt. It is not in the country's best interest to bail out companies that do not have good accounting practices. Companies that are not able to keep their doors open based on their merits should go out of business.

A few things can happen if large companies go out of business. First, a once crowded market is now open for new start-ups. Second, it promotes the idea of accountability, which is slowly going by the wayside. Third, it will actually shorten the recession, which is moving towards a depression. The Great Depression could have been avoided had the government not become so involved with the economy. Growth in government slows the economy.

C.

Allow the president to have Line-Item Veto (view my previous post). This is will allow the president to trim pork barrel spending.

D.

Term limits for Congressmen. Currently congressmen and women are able to serve unlimited terms. There should be a limit here, just like there is for the president. We should not allow these people to make careers in Washington. This creates stagnate waters, which is unfit to drink. Right now too many people are drinking the Kool-Aid that is being sold by our current politicians.


This concludes the Ballard Economic Plan. Additions and Revisions are possible, stay tuned.

Line-Item Veto

The President of the United States needs the ability to cut the fat out of a bill. This is what we call the Line-Item Veto. As you know, or should know, the President has what is known as the Veto Power. This allows him to cancel or nullify and bill that he feels is not in the best interest of the country. A Line-Item Veto would allow the President to pass good bills, but cancel or nullify those provisions that are detremental to our country and economy. This would provide a much needed way to reduce out of control Congressional spending.

In his 1986 State of the Union address Pres. Ronald Reagan asked congress to give him the same power that all but seven of our states have, Line-Item Veto. This tool has helped governors in 43 states limit wasteful spending, unless they are a socialist governor, and hold the state congresses accountable for their spending.

For a brief time in our history the President had a limited Line-Item Veto. The Line-Item Veto Act of 1996 was signed into law by Pres. Bill Clinton on April 9, 1996. The new law was used only a handful of times before being ruled unconstitutional by Judge Thomas Hogan on Feb. 12, 1998. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision on June 25, 1998. The majority opinion felt that the Line-Item Veto gave the president too much power.
Let’s be honest for a minute, the Congress clearly has more power than the President. The President cannot declare war, he cannot write and pass laws on his own, he has to seek approval for treaties and appointments, and his Veto power can be overridden. How can the President have more power than a Senator who can attach their pet project for their district onto a bill as a “cosponsor”? The Line-Item Veto power would allow the President to keep these Senators and Representatives in check. It would add value to the checks and balances system. If the President Vetoes a certain provision, it can be reintroduced as a new bill and pass on it’s own merits.

Congress, hear me, you need to give our President Line-Item Veto. It is time for a constitutional amendment that will end the wasteful spending of tax payer’s dollars. This is billions that the goverment should use to pay off our national debt. Go to it.