The Lincoln Coalition

As such things usually play out, Jack Kemp is finally getting the credit he should have gotten during his life.  It took a bout with cancer and his recent passing to make his political opponents re-realize what a decent human being Kemp was.

Here’s Jonathan Singer today on MyDD:

But as much as Kemp helped move his party to the right during his time in public life, he also brought something else to his party that has been sorely missing: Compassion. I’m not talking about the type of poll-tested “compassionate conservatism” that George W. Bush proclaimed during the 2000 campaign. No, Kemp actually believed that the country would be better off if more people had the opportunity to live the American dream.

As Singer mentioned, Kemp was a conservative because he believed that conservative principles were good for people.  You never got the impression that Kemp wanted to just help those on top stay on top.  That’s what 90% of non-Republicans believe our party stands for.  We’re seen as selfish and unwilling to come up with ways to help those who need it.

Here’s Kemp himself in a column he wrote about Coretta Scott King after her passing in 2006:

Mrs. King went on to ask me to use my political influence to help address the pressing problems of impoverished urban and rural neighborhoods, the unacceptable levels of poverty and homelessness, and ultimately the lack of access to capital for all too many people of color with which to launch businesses and own their own homes.

The issue of poverty was a subject addressed by Dr. King in his “I Have a Dream” speech of August 1963, when he said, “the Negro lives on an isle of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.” Dr. King talked of the battle against the grinding abject despair that gripped all too many people and families left out of the American dream. He said that while we’ve come a long way, we still have long to go.

Obviously, education, homeownership and job opportunities are critical to a meaningful bipartisan war on poverty…

Education.  Home ownership.  Job opportunities.  Kemp believed that the American dream and that there was nothing wrong with pushing for a society that expanded that dream.

In light of an announcement that New York State will be raising taxes on those earning over $300,000 annually, Rush Limbaugh has stated that he will stop doing the occasional show in New York, and might even stop broadcasting from Florida, where his show usually is based.

“When I am there working I pay whatever, you know, my rate is based on income for that day in New York.  And I try to go as little as possible. If it weren’t for hurricanes down here, I would never go up there.  New York is the escape valve in case hurricanes are showing up in our area, because of the loss of electricity.  So I’ll tell you what I’m going to do.  I’m going to look for an alternative studio somewhere outside New York, perhaps Texas — another no-income-tax state — and I’m going to get the hell over there, when a hurricane starts coming our way, ’cause I told Mayor Bloomberg: I’ll be the first to lead the way.  You know, this is just… I’ll sell my apartment. I’ll sell my condominium. I’m going to get out of there totally, ’cause this is just absurd, and it’s ridiculous — and it isn’t going to work. It’s punishing the achievers for the mistakes and the lack of discipline on the part of a bunch of corrupt politicians that have run that city and state into the ground for I don’t know how many years — and I, for one, am not going to take the blame for it.”

There is no question that New York State is extremely bloated and inefficient, and has a dirty dirty habit of wasting the public’s money.  There is a common understanding among those who work in State agencies that they could cut their budgets in half and do pretty much the same job.

Here in New York, however, there is a more pressing, immediate concern than whether New York State has a culture of inexcusable government largesse.  That immediate concern is the decision by the Metropolitan Transit Authority to raise subway fares from $2.00 to $2.50, whilte also cutting services.  By law, the MTA is required to maintain a balanced budget, which led to this extreme decision.  Unless the state comes up with more money to bailout the MTA, working people, the elderly and everyone else will get a 25% hike in their transportation costs– basically a huge regressive tax– and for no reason other than the state’s inability to manage its finances.

The argument in New York against taxing the wealthy mainly revolves around the belief that if you tax the rich, they’ll leave the state, thus drying up our tax base.  With the exception of the Drug Addict radio show host, I’m not sure you’ll see much of this.  From my perspective, it looks like the defenders of the wealthy are saying that there’s little chance of low and middle class people leaving the state, so it makes a lot more sense to tax them.

I read with interest the news today that the government finally pushed the chairman of General Motors under the bus. Under normal circumstances I’d probably have problems with the action but considering the circumstances and the amount of money that the government is spending to keep this sinking ship from taking on more water I guess it’s the right move.

Many will probably think this is moving the government closer to socialism, but I ask this: What is more socialist than propping up the banking system in an effort to keep the U.S. economy from going in the drink? Maybe this will be the splash of cold water in the face of the banking system that will get them to straighten up and fly right.

First off… it’s funny to see which GOP members of Congress DON’T stand when Obama mentions the fact that families making less than $250,000 won’t get their taxes raised.

If Obama can pull that off, I think that’s reason for any Republican to celebrate.  We shall see.

Bobby Jindal:

I’ve never seen a more awkward reading off a teleprompter.

I want to root for the guy and to think he’ll be a good, new face of the party, but I just had a hard time listening to him.

Many of us are feeling somewhat helpless and stressed over the state of the economy, but there are small things that we all can do that will make a small difference in our lives, but can have a huge economic impact if we get others to join us in our effort.

With the upcoming Spring season, we should all join in an have our own family economic victory garden, even if you live in a city and decide to put a few vegetable pots on the patio or by a window. We all know how expensive fresh vegetables are at the grocery store, which is why any of us buy cheap preprocessed crap. It would take very little effort or expense to replace merely $100 worth of fresh food over the course of the season. This would serve to give us the following benefits:

1. Local food: The food would not have to be transported across the country via truck, which would reduce the usage of fuel.
2. Chemical free: The food would be fresh, without the chemicals and preservatives that even fresh food contains in order to get it to market without spoilage.
3. Better health: We all know the health benefits of eating better quality food, so I do not need to go into that here. But, add to that the opportunity to get out into the sun and fresh air as you tend to the garden.

Finally, think of the multiplier effect. What if 10 million families (a relatively small number) did this? What would that do? Well, that would free up roughly $1 billion that could be put back into the economy, allowing us to spend more, putting more of a demand on our products and services.

What if we grow more than we can use? Great! Donate the extra to a local homeless shelter. They never get fresh food, and that would free up additional resources at their facility to help more people.

Even small personal changes can make a big difference, both in our own lives, and in the lives of our fellow citizens.

David K. Sayers

It looks like Michael needs some of those crash courses that Palin was put through during the campaign.

Ok… I understand (kind of) the argument Steele thinks he’s making.  All things being equal, it’s better to add a private sector job than it is to add a public sector job.  Jobs in the public sector (generally) are a heck of a lot less efficient and unable to create wealth than are jobs in the private sector.  Also, it’s usually hard to eliminate a public sector job– even when it becomes necessary or advantageous to do so.

His argument against public infrastructure jobs boggles my mind.  If someone is being hired to fix a road or build a bridge, that usually will turn out to be good for everyone, since it will make transportation costs (and car repair costs) lower.  Why is Steele saying that such a job will go away in a year’s time or whatever.  If anything, we should be keeping those jobs and continually upgrading.

Is he just against building BAD public works projects that will benefit only a small number at a large price (think Bridge to Nowhere)?  Is he just against having the government pay people to fill in holes?  It sounds like that’s what he’s talking about, but I don’t hear anyone saying that the public sector jobs being proposed are simply busy work.