August 26, 2007

Clean Governance?

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Democrat Commissioner Candidates have signed a "Clean Governance" pledge! This time, it's Bucks County donkeys making these statements which sound vaguely familiar to claims leftist politicians from sea to shining sea (including Montgomery County) are making this election off-season. I'm sensing a pattern here.

First however, let's take a look at history. Many Democrats and media analysts assumed that the war in Iraq was the reason for both the United States House and Senate going Democrat in 2006. However, after numerous failed attempts to force Bush to abandon the troops in Iraq, that myth never materialized. Now that signs of the surge working in Iraq are surfacing, Democrats are quick to qualify "success" by stating that political progress is far from being realized. And calls for withdrawal are being replaced with suggestions (even by some leading Democrats) of how dangerous rushing troops home would be.

The real reason the Dems won last November was because Republican voters revolted against their party for a variety of reasons. The Senate might still be Republican today if George Allen had not made a stupid comment that made him look cocky and gave his opponent much-needed momentum. Tom Foley's email sex scandal, Tom Delay's relationship with Abramoff, Katrina, and even Terry Schaivo, all contributed to a general lack of confidence and/or trust in the GOP.

But Democrats are smart, if not hypocritical, for taking advantage of the slightest appearance of dirty governance. The truth is, perception is reality. Their calls for clean and transparent government is not a new concept, but one they all seem to be making in unison. This obvious strategy on Southeastern PA Democrats part, is a curious concept for them to tackle.

The party with Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) deep in his own scandal, the incompetent House Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and Ed Rendell's "sweetheart" Joe Hoeffel, might want to look in the mirror before they try those tactics.


Anonymous said...

Since when has hypocrasy bothered democrats? Even if they look in the mirror, all they would see is someone who is better and smarter than everyone else.

Anonymous said...

Listen…we cannot forget that all of our current problems come from years of incompetence and greed; at all levels of government. Even though the federal government hasn’t been in touch with the people for some time know, you could always count on your local state and city/county reps. Not anymore! Big business, powerful lobbies and the Chinese have our once pristine political chambers in their back pockets. We could vote every bum out of office and replace them with our own bums and it wouldn’t help because the money machine would wear them down and we would be back where we started, BUMS! Some people lament that their vote doesn’t count but I never subscribed to that notion. But more and more I’m beginning to lose faith in our political leaders and have begun to wonder if my vote really does count. I mean, every vote counts when you’re electing someone into office. The question is, does your vote count once their in.

page13 said...

Can't say that I disagree. Except there is a difference between perception and reality in a lot of cases.

Fact is, you don't ascend to power anywhere without not knowing how to work the system and knowing the players in it. So yes, a lot of politicians may abuse their power or sell out to their interest group (be it left or right), forgetting who got them their.

But just like the rest of us, some politicians are well-intentioned people, some are bums.

So how do we get rid of the bums? Take the money out of their hands! Stop looking for government to solve healthcare, poverty, gas prices, and other social issues we have wasted trillions of dollars on, without any results to show for it. Reduce government involvement in education and research. Instead, limit government's role to infrastructure, security, foriegn relations, and providing an environment which promotes free market exchange.

Now, which party has at least tried doing some of the above, only to be demonized by the other party? Think about it, if the poor were to no longer need Democrats, who would vote for them?

Anonymous said...

Government shouldn’t solve these issues but if you’re depending on the private sector to do it, you’re insane. We are where we are partly because corporate CEO’s can’t contain themselves and always need that extra 10 million…no matter what the consequences. We need a balance of private sector initiatives with sensible government regulations and restraints. Like a government cap on CEO and high level management salaries with respect to company wages. Instead of profits going in the pockets of a few individuals, take those excess profits and grow the business or give some back to the workers who make the company what it is. Create scholarships or help feed and house the poor. It makes me sad that I would even consider this but corporate America is out of control.

page13 said...

They take the risk; they make the investment; they hire the employees; they pay them a negotiated wage; they offer vacation, holiday, and sick time; they offer stock options to their employees; they help other investors make money when they turn a profit; they find innovative ways to produce their product or service cheaper.

But you want to tax them, forgetting that those taxes are just forwarded on to the consumers; you want to punish them, despite the potential impact on their employees; you want to tell them how much they are allowed to make.

Let me ask you, what is the "right" cap amount and who gets to decide? How many businesses owners would just shut down, cash out, and retire to the islands, rather than deal with someone "smarter" than they are telling them how much they are allowed to make?

Who exactly is out of control again??

Anonymous said...

Look Limbaugh Jr, I don’t have all the answers…maybe the private sector set limits. All I know is that I don’t think anyone would be too upset if a CEO made 30 million instead of 40; except the CEO. So the elite may have to cut out the toga parties or sell the $50M vacation mansion in Tahiti. If a company is doing well and putting profits back into the business or investing in their employees, I don’t think the investors will suffer. And yes, taxes paid by these individuals are hefty, but their just as hefty on some slob making 60k. Its fine naive men like you who think people will show restraint when it comes to inflated compensation for management while the company is losing money or there’re laying off some low level employee.
By the way, call me out of control again and you’ll see some lack of restraint!

Anonymous said...

I must apologize for that last was the Merlot talking.

page13 said...

Maybe try an Australian Shiraz?

A company with a CEO making $40 million, doesn't have that kind of success without there being some investment back into the company already. The board of trustees and minor investors like me wouldn't stand for it.

thanks for the Jr. comment...I take that as a compliment.