Sunday, May 07, 2006

Analyzing the numbers

Sylvia Smith of the Journal Gazette on Sunday wrote;

"Throughout the 3rd District last week, Souder received a noticeably smaller share of the GOP vote than he did in the 2004 primary."

"There’s a message under those statistics. Though the precise wording isn’t clear, we can make some educated guesses."

"One reasonable interpretation could be that Souder’s opponent ripened between 2004 and this year. If, for instance, Bill Larsen had used the intervening two years to improve his skills as a candidate, to increase his profile, to amass a following and to raise money, an argument could be made that Larsen drew people into the election.

But that was not the case. Larsen wasn’t a far better candidate this year than 2004. Yet he got about 3,600 more votes this year; Souder got 7,200 fewer."

So what did I do differently in 2006 than in 2004? I certainly became more vocal, wrote more, spoke to far more people, but is that enough to be responsible for the impact? Maybe people got fed up with deficits, energy, social security, Rx drug bill and more. Did I recieve more votes because of my stance on issues?

Deficits: When I speak to people my age (50), the single largest issue is budget deficits. They do not like them and fear for their children's future. Even Dr. Hayhurst views deficits as bad. A large contributor of deficits is earmarks. No one likes them! On Sunday morning John McCain said President Bush has promised to veto the latest bill that is to pay for Katrina and Iraq because of the earmarks. McCain hopes he does and so do I. The president should veto every bill that has earmarks in it. The president should have a web site created solely to identify those who push earmarks similar to the Sex Offender Web Sites. Call it the "Earmarking Offenders" and identify the amount, state, county and special interest associated with it. It is immoral and un-American to borrow money, reap the benefits and give the bill to our children.

Energy: Gasoline in California is over $3.00 a gallon, but the difference between here and there is primarily due to the special formulation requirements for California. The oil embargo was 1973. It is now 2006, 33 years later and we are no closer to being energy independent now than we were then. Politicians are being bought by special interests to build Ethanol plants. They view it as alternative energy and even renewable. In reality it is a waste of energy, costs more, costs the tax payer 51 cents a gallon to subsidize and drivers have now noticed that with E-85 they do not get nearly the same gas mileage. We need a truly 21st century energy source that is renewable, clean, reliable and cheap. Do you really think Mark Souder understands energy? If he did he certainly would not have been in Lagrange for the ceremonial dig for the new ethanol plant. But then Mark Souder thinks we should have reliable energy at any price. Energy is our countries Achilles heal. High energy costs lead to high inflation, loss of jobs, slow to flat economic growth and a decreasing standard of living.

When I speak to young people the single largest issue is Social Security. They view it as a rip off, con, they are being hustled, its a ponzi scheme and when you compare Mark Souder's proposal with my own, well there is only one choice they make, Bill Larsen.

Souder's position on Social Security:

The Elkhart Truth 2006-04-16
"Souder expects Social Security to become a "capped benefit" where future benefits are given only to those below certain income levels. He said the solution is for people to start private retirement accounts and savings plans.

"What can we do taxwise to help encourage more people to set aside more money?" he said. "The pension systems ... need to reward people and create an incentive to earn additional income" after they reach "retirement age.""

Mark Souder spoke to Prime Time 39 on 3-12-2004 and referred to Social Security as a "shell game." He stated, "For people under 30 its probably going to be income based. I am not saying we're going to pass that. It will probably be passed after I am dead." He continued "If you're 40, you might make it through the system. But if you're under 40, and certainly under 30, you had better start planning because if you want to have a decent retirement you’re going to need supplemental funds."

Mark supports Social Security Savings Accounts. Tax-free savings is an oxymoron. We have a $8.4 Trillion national debt and ran a $85.5 Billion deficit in March 2006. This is no different than you borrowing money to pay for retirement. Tax credits reduce federal income taxes; increasing the deficit.

Three issues, all concerning money. All affect the economy.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home



NBC-33 Debate poll results from 2002