About Me

Name: Steve Edmondson
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Trust in Obama and Give him "your hand and your heart"

Posted by Steve Edmondson on Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:55:40 AM
 

The following quotes are all taken from Obama’s "Blueprint for America" found on his campaign website. I have added a few of my thoughts and questions following each quote for your consideration. Vote in the manner that best serves your conscience, but know who and what it is you are voting for.

“Social Security is the cornerstone of the so­cial compact in this country…Coming together to meet this challenge won’t be easy…It will take restoring a sense of shared purpose in Washing­ton and across this country. But if you put your trust in me — if you give me ‘your hand and your heart’ — then that’s exactly what I intend to do as your next President.”

–Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 27, 2007

Since when did we want to give our hands and our hearts to a presidential candidate? I may give a candidate my vote, but not my hand and certainly not my heart. Is it just me or is this request not weird coming from anyone other than a romantic interest or God? Will our currency need to replace in “In God We Trust” with “In Obama We Trust”?

“I went to De­troit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”

–Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 14, 2007

Where in the Constitution is the power given to dictate to private industry what products they will produce and where is the part about the federal government being involved in retooling factories? Is he running to be Commander-in-Chief of the military or Chief Executive of the automobile industry? Will he also dictate to Nissan, Toyota, Honda, and other foreign auto makers that they must make cars that use less oil?  Pardon me, I forgot that Obama not only intends to change America, but the world as well.

“I’ll be a president who stands up for working parents. We’ll require employ­ers to provide seven paid sick days each year. We’ll enforce laws that prohibit caregiver dis­crimination. And we’ll encourage flexible work schedules to better balance work and parenting for mothers and fathers."   
                                                                                                                                                                                                               –Barack Obama, Speech in Bettendorf, Iowa, November 7, 2007

Again Obama is dictating to businesses what they must do. Who will pay for these paid sick days? Think about it a minute or two before you agree with this compassionate mandate. The employer would be paying an extra $406 dollars a year to a worker making $7.25 per hour, the soon to be minimum wage, and would lose the productivity of the worker for those 7 days or would have to bring in another worker and pay them to do the job of the worker that is out sick. The employer pays at least double to get the same productivity.   How will businesses cover these costs? They could lower profits, but many businesses run on small profit margins already and could be driven out of business. They could raise prices, but that could make them less competitive in a global economy. They could offset the sick days by lowering the wages of the employees to compensate for the difference, but that would defeat the whole purpose and Obama probably wouldn’t allow it anyway. Another option would be for the company to hire temporary workers and let some of the full-time workers go. None of these are good options, but this cost will have to be covered in someway other than dollars pouring down magically from above. But then again, if we trust in Obama and give him our hands and our hearts maybe he can make it happen with no cost to anyone.  

One final note: Obama also proposes raising the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour by 2011. Really the raising the minimum wage is nothing more than a tax increase on businesses in order to make the legislators that support it look compassionate towards lower income earners.   Just as with the sick days there is no free lunch and the price will be paid by workers who get their hours cut or lose their jobs altogether, consumers who will pay higher prices, and by the workers that will not be hired either because the employers can’t afford to hire them because of the increased payroll of those already employed or because they don’t have the skills, training, education, or experience to be productive enough to justify the higher wage.   Is this really the hope and change we need for America?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Incumbent Protection

Posted by Steve Edmondson on Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:13:48 PM
   I don't know about other states, but Tennessee election law is all about incumbent protection.  My suspicion is that what is true in Tennessee is probably true all around the country.  I'll describe how things are set up in Tennessee and maybe others can respond with descriptions of elections shenanigans in other states. 
   Tennessee is a relatively easy state in qualify to get on the ballot, but the qualifying deadline has been moved from May to early April.  The reason for moving it earlier was because most of the more controversial bills in the legislature don't come up until later in the session so they are now less likely to have someone challenge them because of public dissatisfaction with their votes.  If someone does decide to challenge them with a write-in candidacy they must get a certificate of write-in candidacy at least 50 days prior to the election.  If you don't have a certificate of write-in candidacy any write-in votes cast in one's name will not be counted.  So much for freedom of choice.  Some years the legislature is still voting on controversial issues after this 50 day deadline has passed which means if a candidate is unopposed in the primary there can be no write-in candidate to challenge him after that date and they are safe. 
   Here is the icing on the cake: if a party doesn't have anyone qualify before the deadline and someone decides to run as a write-in candidate for the nomination in the primary and he is unopposed he must receive votes from 5% of all of the registered voters in the district he is running in.  Until 2 years ago the number to be met was 5% of the voters that voted in the primary, a much lower threshold.  In the case of a congressional race that means the number of votes needed by the write-in candidated will likely exceed 20,000 votes, a tremendously high threshold for a primary considering that 1/2 or more of the registered voters may be in the other party, turnout is usually low for primaries, and that the candidate's name isn't on the ballot and voters must remember to write him in.  If one is unopposed and on the primary ballot they have no minimum threshold to meet.  Does there seem to be some inequity in this?  Why does an unopposed write-in candidate have such a high standard to meet, while an unopposed candidate on the ballot has no standard at all to meet?  Shouldn't they at least have the same standard to meet, which should be much easier for a candidate on the ballot than one that is not?  Such rules are great for incumbents, but limit the choices of voters.  It must be great to compete in a contest where you get to rig the rules to give yourself the greatest advantage, but that's politics in TN.  I should say that is Democrat politics in TN, as they were the ones that pushed these laws through the legislature.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Taking all the risk and fun out of life

Posted by Steve Edmondson on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:18:09 AM
Watching a report on a local television station reveling in the fact that their report on novelty lighters had led to a statewide ban on these products, making Tennessee the second state to do so, made me ponder how we are slowly giving away all our freedom to avoid risk that are insignificant.  The ban will go into effect today in Tennessee though, as far as I have seen, these lighters have not caused any deaths or injuries in the state.  It was reported that two children in Arkansas had used such a lighter in Arkansas to start a fire that burned their apartment and killed these children, but aren't there fires started and children injured by lighters that are not novelty shaped?  In my home we generally don't leave lighters lying about, novelty or not.  Maybe better parental supervision would have prevented the deaths of these two children.  I regret that any child gets injured with any product, but should everyone be banned from using any product that has caused a child's death or injury?  If that is the case our options to buy products will be reduced to nearly nothing.
     Some states and localities have outlawed the sale of fireworks in the name of safety, but they have taken away some of the fun in celebrating holidays such as New Year's and Independence Day.  Its less risky, but its less fun.  Maybe the state of Tennessee should be the first to take the bold step of outlawing backyard swimming pools unless there can be a certified lifeguard on duty at all times since multiple deaths occur each year caused by small children falling into unguarded pools.  Or maybe bicycles should be banned, because even with helmet requirements, many children are still maimed and killed each year in bicycle accidents.  While we are at it let's also ban swing sets that can result in the accidental death or injury of children.  No doubt the children would be much safer if dangerous sports such as football and baseball were banned.  It is almost unimaginable that a caring society would allow children run full speed with the intent of crashing into and knocking other children down such as is done in football or allow children to throw hard objects and swing metal bats in the vicinity of other children as is done in baseball.  If we really try we could make life so much less risky for our children, but we could also make it a dreadfully boring existence for them as well.        
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Government Lotteries are Corrupt

Posted by Steve Edmondson on Monday, June 30, 2008 9:20:27 PM
   I have always opposed state sponsored lotteries on the grounds that they undermine the work ethic, prey on those that are least educated and most desparate, and they put the state in the position of promoting an addictive and destructive behavior.  I also believe that it is common sense that gambling invites corruption whether it is illegal or state sponsored.  After reading a USA Today story about states, including my home state of Tennessee, continuing to sell scratch-off lottery tickets that are advertised as offering million dollar prizes even after the top prizes have already been awarded I am more covinced than ever that this is the case.  Lottery players could still win smaller sums, but I would guess that sales would fall off substantually if purchasers were aware that they had no chance to claim the big prizes.  Often business people are portrayed as being deceptive and corrupt, but is it not true that corruption is just as likely to present in other fields, including government bodies, as it is in business.  This is the second time in the last year or so in Tennessee where a situation like this has occurred.  Previously it was discovered that because of a supposed computer program glitch that certain combination of numbers chosen by players had no chance of winning.  The funny thing about it is that if this were a privately run business government regulators would be investigating and looking to shut the business down and class action lawsuits would be in the works, but since it is government run it is essentially immune from lawsuits and there will likely be no one held accountable for these situations.
   One last thought: Why is it legal for the state to run gambling operations, but illegal for private citizens to do so? 
Tags: government  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Uncommon Sense

Posted by Steve Edmondson on Saturday, June 28, 2008 4:19:03 PM
This is the first posting of Uncommon Sense and I thought it would be valuable to readers to know purpose of this blog.  It is not to point out that I am the possessor of uncommon sense, but instead to make reference to the lack of what used to be known as common sense in many of our elected officials, judges, policy makers, mainstream media, and even the general public.  As example, it was until recently considered to be common sense that marriage was the union of a man and a woman and that having a father present to help with the rearing of a child is in the best interest of both the child and the mother except in extremely rare cases.  However, on daily basis these common sense beliefs are not only questioned, but mocked as old fashioned, outdated, and even bigoted.  In establishing energy policy it would seem to be common sense that making one of the main food staples of both the American diet and much of the world an energy resource would create higher food prices and food shortages.  Apparently, such sense is uncommon in the halls of Congress and in the, supposedly, brilliant minds of those in the climate change/global warming movement like Al Gore.  It would seem to be common sense that drilling in ANWR and the outer continental shelf would increase the supply of oil, lower prices, and reduce our dependence on foreign sources while we move to find other alternatives for future energy use, but to the Democratic nominee for president and many others in the Democratic leadership this seems beyond their logical powers.
My hope with this blog is to shine light on such violations of common sense and point out where common sense solutions can be applied to the challenges that face our families, our nation, and our world.  In short the goal is to make uncommon sense common again.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »