The Deficit Reduction Committee

Surprise, Surprise! The Deficit Reduction Committee did not reach agreement.

Our media, as is their wont, bills it as a failure of our two parties unwillingness to compromise, and as a symptom of our broken government. But it is not the former, and it is the latter, only in so far as one of our two major parties, the Republican Party, is determined to keep government from working. As the old saying goes: “it takes two to tango.”

No compromise was possible because the Right (Republican Party) has no interest in what the Committee was charged with accomplishing, i.e. deficit reduction and they demonstrated this again in blocking any possibility of agreement.

           

As I have demonstrated in past writings on the deficit, Republicans have no interest in deficit reduction. It is simply a weapon with which to destroy the hated, “Welfare State.” I discussed this at length, and I urge you to go back and read my posts starting with my latest post on the subject: "The Deficit – One Big Hoax (Part VI)" and working backwards from there, using the links provided.

           

To repeat part of what I said in these posts:

Their lack of concern with the deficit can easily be seen in that not one of their proposed “reforms” decreases the deficit. The Ryan plan, which has passed the House with almost unanimous Republican support (four Republicans voted against it and no Democrats voted for it) would, according to Representative Paul Ryan himself, add $6 trillion to the national debt over ten years as reported by the Economist, hardly a left wing source, and as far as I can find nowhere else in the media.

This lack of concern with the deficit surfaced again in the deliberations of the “The Deficit Reduction Committee.” Democrats genuinely concerned with the deficit and anxious to reach agreement offered to agree to cuts in entitlement programs, which need to be cut in any case for their sustainability, as I discussed in my post which you can find here. 

They asked that Republicans come to the table with an agreement that would raise revenues, and until a few days before the deadline the Republicans on the panel would not put one dime in increased revenue on the table. With the deadline fast approaching they finally talked about an “increase (in) tax revenue by $300 billion, which was seen by some lawmakers as a breakthrough given the party’s resistance to increased revenues.”  

Since the committee was charged with coming up with at least 1.2 trillion in reduction to the deficit, this would have meant that Democrats would have to agree to $ 900 billion in cuts, a three to one ratio. The Dems swallowed hard and indicated they might be willing to go along. They thought they had a breakthrough, in so far a Republicans finally appeared to have put “added revenue” on the table. Then came the kicker! In order for them to agree to 300 billion in added revenue, Dems would have to agree to extend the Bush tax cuts, or a decrease in revenue of $4 trillion. It doesn’t take a mathematical genius to see that if you deduct 2.1 trillion from 4 trillion, you get 1.9 trillion, the amount by which the deficit would be increased. Or to put it another way, it’s the Ryan budget all over again. You cut entitlement spending and you increase the deficit at the same time, which, according to their logic requires further slashing of entitlements and other programs that they don’t like. Or heads we win, tails you lose. Needless to say, there was no agreement.

But where was the media to explain all this? As usual they were missing in action. All they could come up with was a shake of the head and the usual bromide, “Why can’t they agree.” Well there is a damn good reason why! There was no desire on the part of the Republicans to offer anything that remotely accomplishes anything, other than do away with entitlements.

How could any sane Democrat agree to this?

Why doesn’t the media, who even with their fear of speaking the truth is denounced by the Right, speak the truth for once. Why are they so afraid of being accused of partisanship? Telling the truth wherever it may lead, is what good journalism is supposed to be all about.

One of the few media outlets, The Christian Science Monitor reported what happened accurately:

Republicans insisted during the super committee negotiations that curbing tax breaks to raise revenues be coupled with guarantees that all the Bush tax cuts would continue beyond 2012…Democrats countered that the super committee was created to reduce the budget deficit, not add to it by extending tax cuts.

The Economist all alone tells us the way it is:

The game being played here has little to do with the budget itself. It is an ideological debate about the role and obligation of government. First, cut taxes for the wealthy to create a big hole in the budget, have a Great Recession aid the cause by stripping government at all levels of tax revenue, increasing costs of serving people, and creating short-run deficit problems (and a war here and there doesn't hurt the cause either), and finally use the deficit as a club against social insurance programs such as Medicare and Social Security. 

So we have ended up with $1.2 trillion cuts going into effect beginning in 2013. $600 billion of that will be in defense spending which is in addition to a cut of $450 billion previously agreed to. Not the worst of all possible outcomes, and in 2013 the Bush tax cuts will expire. No Congressional action is needed. Beginning in 2013 the deficit will be reduced over the following ten years by 6.1 trillion. The hammer of using the deficit to justify attacks on needed spending will be gone. Not bad negotiating by our President.

In response to my post “What can we, and should we do about the deficit?” Bruce Weintraub wrote:

Republicans should be forced to make choices too:  Either an increase in marginal tax rates for the superwealthy or steep cuts in ‘defense’. But Democrats NEVER put them on the spot.

Well Bruce, they did, and the “Elephants” were maneuvered into agreeing to steep defense cuts.

            

Would Bruce and the Left please apologize to our President and admit he did a brilliant job of negotiating under the most difficult circumstances.


The threat to our National Security according to Admiral Mike Mullin then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is our debt, as shown below:

While Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, has talked about all kinds of disasters from cuts in defense of $1 trillion, this does not square with the facts. As an article in US News and World Report points out: 

Despite the doomsday scenarios continually espoused by Secretary Panetta and the military chiefs, a cut of that size would amount to only 15 percent, in real terms return spending to its 2007 level, and still leave the United States above what we spent on average in the Cold War. Finally, such a cut would be far less than cuts made by Eisenhower (27 percent), Nixon (29 percent), and Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Clinton (35 percent), which were done without jeopardizing security.

           

Now the Republican deception takes full form in a column by Charles Krauthammer that appeared in the November 24 issue of the Washington Post, under the heading “The Grover Norquist tax myth." I will analyze this point by point in my next post.

I regret that I was forced by events to abandon my analysis of where we could beneficially cut spending. Hopefully events will make it possible for me to return to beneficial cutting without ignoring developing news.

Comments are welcome and will be distributed with attribution unless the writer requests not to be identified.

What can we, and should we do about the deficit?

Where can we and should we cut?

I last addressed this in my post of October 28th under the title: "The Deficit – One Big Hoax (Part VI)," which I urge you to re-read.

In that posting, I address the insincerity of Republicans claims of concern with the deficit, while every one of their proposed budgets would vastly increase the deficit.

I then went on to point out, that despite the gamesmanship, there is only one purpose in creating the deficit and making it an issue, and that is to eviscerate and destroy the safety net that has been built over many decades, and the protections to our health and safety, so that those who already have the bulk of the nation’s income and wealth, can further increase it at the expense of the poor and middle class.

But that does not mean that we should descend into our own fairy tale world, and pretend that the course we are on is sustainable. Increased revenue is essential, but controlling our ever-increasing costs, is equally essential.

For instance if we leave the Bush Tax cuts in place for those making $250,000 per annum or less, as has been proposed by the President, we would be increasing taxes only on the top 3% of earners and we would only be increasing tax receipts by $800 billion over 10 years. See here at 1:44 minutes. When we consider that the deficit was projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) at $1.3 trillion for the year 2010 alone we can see this is a piddling sum. However if all the Bush tax cuts were left in place, the deficit would be decreased over ten years by four trillion dollars, a much more significant sum, but still not enough to solve our projected deficit, which the CBO estimates at six trillion over ten years, without counting interest payments, and assuming that no laws were to be changed, which is unlikely.

But the attempt to put a rosy, but untrue, picture on our outlook can be seen from an article which appeared in the Washington Post, written by E.J. Dionne, a man who has written many insightful columns in the past, but who posits that doing nothing would lead to $7.1 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade. Now what is interesting about this is that the CBO says doing nothing would still lead to over a 3 trillion deficit over ten years, and doing nothing is unlikely. Most important, doing nothing would mean not extending the Bush tax cuts for those earning under $250,000, when the President, the Left, and the Wall Street occupiers give us the impression that if we just focus on the top 99% all will be honky dory. It’s a fairy tale! I say wake up!

Furthermore changing nothing, outside the Bush tax cuts, is neither likely nor desirable. If you will look here, you will find the Dionne article reproduced, with my comments interjected in red, showing why many of the things Dionne assumes could be left unchanged, need to be, and are likely to be changed.

Reverting again to my post of October 28th I point out that according to the Social Security Administration, “Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative modifications if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.” But I go on to say, “this should be addressed, not as a budget issue, but as a sustainability issue.”

As can be seen from the above we will not solve our deficit problems with increased taxes alone, and certainly not with increased taxes on the top 1% alone, or even those making less than $250,000. We need to end the Bush tax cuts in their entirety and we must look to making intelligent cuts.

It is for that reason that I address this subject. In my post entitled "The Deficit – One Big Hoax (Part VI)" I began to address some of the areas where we could, and should, beneficially cut, and I begin with the drug wars, where, I point out that there are already major voices across the political divide calling for an end to this destructive and expensive war.

According to Bernd Debusmann, a Reuters columnist:

The budgetary impact of legalizing drugs would be enormous, according to a study prepared to coincide with the 75th anniversary of prohibition’s end by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron. He estimates that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy — $44.1 billion through savings on law enforcement and at least $32.7 billion in tax revenues from regulated sales. (For a total of 76.8 billion per annum or 760,800 billion over ten years, over 3/4 trillion. And this is before we add in the benefits to the economy. 

The war on drugs has helped turn the United States into the country with the world’s largest prison population…The U.S. has 5 percent of the world’s population and around 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. Ibid  

In addition to the law enforcement expense, we must add in the cost of incarceration. Here we find that his cost alone amounts to over $6 trillion per year to the states with additional costs to the federal government.

We begin to see that cutting in order to deal with the deficit can be beneficial. The only purpose for reducing some benefits in entitlements is to make them sustainable.

I must add, however, that I do not favor states passing laws to make Marijuana available as a medicine. This has the effect of bypassing the FDA, and no substance should be made available for therapeutic purposes without the rigorous double blind studies, that all such drugs are required to undergo.

Comments are welcome and will be distributed with attribution unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. 

An Announcement – Discussion III

I concluded my last post with the comment, “Next time I will continue with my discussion of "what can and should we do about the deficit…Where can we and should we cut?” which I started in my post "The Deficit – One Big Hoax (Part VI)."

However, after publishing my post "An Announcement – Discussion II" I received a comment from Robert Malchman Esq. of Brooklyn, NY, which led to an exchange that I would like to share with you.

Malchman wrote: 

I think you overlooked a key social policy point. All the current contenders want to see a constitutional amendment that life begins at conception. This is an outrageous, anti-life position for them to take. Every human ovum has the potential to become a life, and it is women's duty to ensure that every oven they have is fertilized. Willful failure to become and remain constantly pregnant during the years of fertility should be prosecuted as a murder every month. Anyone who can prove she tried to become pregnant, but was not able to conceive, should be prosecuted for criminally negligent homicide. 

The piece was fun. I'm stunned that anyone could have taken it for something other than satire -- the tip-off is in the first paragraph where you discuss consulting your dog. I guess the Republican Party has become so cartoonish that satire is indistinguishable from reality, a poor state of affairs. 

To which I responded:

I think your own piece of satire touches upon an important point, but I think you are wrong.

What I think you are suggesting is that the point of the Right's position on abortion is to require women to be continuously pregnant, i.e. to be plentiful, and there is support for this in the Bible. Genesis 1:28 “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

But from what I hear them saying, does not suggest that to me. I rather hear an anti-sex message. More than anything I hear abstain from sex outside of marriage, and this too has support in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 7:1-40 and to have sex only to procreate.

But while I think this underlies their views, they rely on the idea of "when life begins," for which I can find no support in the Bible. Furthermore, the idea that "life" must be protected is silly, since life exists in the form of a mosquito, and surely they do not mean that mosquitoes, or for that matter bacteria, which too is life, must be protected. What they must mean, though they never seem to say it, is that human life must be protected. They then postulate that human life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg. But that is completely arbitrary. The egg looks no different after fertilization than before. If they argue that this ultimately leads to human life, than it can equally be argued, that the sperm itself, or the egg itself, leads to human life, and there is no doubt that the sperm is alive, even before it enters the egg.

What really drives this, outside the hard-core fundamentalists, is that traditionally, abortion was frowned upon, and the physician who performed them illegally was looked down upon as the lowest of the low. But this always coexisted with the dangerous back-alley abortion, or self induced abortion, and the abortion sought by those with the means to go to a jurisdictions where it was legal.

Just as we have learned, that many prejudices of the past don't make sense, whether it was that left handed was unacceptable, to that being gay is not normal, or that contraception in immoral, so it is simply moving with the reality that abortion is simply a late term contraception.

The question is not when does life begin, but rather when does human life begin. While abortion was frowned upon in past generations, it was never considered the killing of a person. It was never murder. The introduction of the idea that a human life begins at fertilization of the egg, inevitably leads to claims of murder, but it has no basis either in the past, or in logic.

The fertilized egg is no more a human that a tadpole is a frog, or a fertilized hen egg is a chicken, and I think few, if any would claim that to be so.

When does human life begin? I think that even during the time when abortion was always illegal, and even birth control was a violation of law, that it was when the fetus is capable of existing outside the womb, i.e. when the umbilical cord is cut.

Any other approach has no basis in religion, in the Bible or in precedent.

Please let me know if you agree, or if not point out my fallacies.

Malchman in turn rejoined: 

No, of course the point of the Right Wing is not the protection of "human life"; it's to discourage pre-marital sex. That's why it's fraudulent for them to call themselves "pro-life," they are, at best, anti-abortion and anti-sex. The point of my satire is to engage the Right on their own hypocritical term, "pro-life.” If you are really pro-life as opposed to anti-sex, then you would want women to be having sex all the time to get constantly pregnant. 

I hope finally to return to the subject I had embarked upon before digressing into this attempt at satire. So once again Next time I will continue with my discussion of "what can we, and should we do about the deficit…Where can we and should we cut?” which I started in my post "The Deficit – One Big Hoax (Part VI)" I will do that under the heading, “What can we, and should we do about the deficit… Where can we and should we cut.”

An Announcement – Discussion II

On November 8, 2011 I posted "An Announcement – Discussion" that set forth the comments and my responses with respect to "An Announcement" which was posted on November 4, 2011.

Since then I have received some additional input, which I would like to share with you. Paul Negri of Clifton, NJ the former President of Dover Publications and the editor of more than two dozen books made this comment:

Satire is, I think, one of the most difficult genres to write and you've done a good job with it here. The trick is expressing what you want to say by preposterously advocating the opposite. I think you do that well, particularly with Cain and Romney and your treatment of Obama. Perry and the others get rather short shrift here. I do think Perry and Bachmann make even better targets for satire, as they are truly ridiculous figures (frankly, I think Cain is ridiculous too). 

My taste in satire runs to the absurd, to an even more overtly over-the-top humor and a more poisonous wit. So I've edited the first several paragraphs of your piece to show you what I mean. It doesn't mean that my edits are better, just illustrative of a more absurdist satirical style (see attached).

I'd love to see you skewer Perry and Bachmann in more detail and deflate that windbag Gingrich too. Of course, none of this will convert the conservative faithful, but may tickle the fence-sitters into thinking a bit more.

Had fun with this and only wish American politics was not, at heart, so sad.

 In addition he lent his editing skills to my efforts in "An Announcement" His revisions with his additions shown in blue and his deletions in red can be found here.


Albert Nikemkin of Vienna, Virginia sent my essay to a friend, Benjamin A. Feinberg and shared his exchange, as follows:

I take it that Scheller is kidding or not feeling well?

To which Nikemkin responded:

It's a satire, of course! He anticipated that it would be a risky initiative and, as your response proves, he was right!!

Nikemkin then added this observation directed to me:

I like your foray into satire, especially your willingness to take the risk that some readers might think you serious--which is always the risk of satire. Nevertheless, I hope you will forgive me for not making a campaign contribution, at least for now. Your approach was to push the envelope and exaggerate what we are actually hearing from the Republican candidates--a risky venture since what they really say is veering closer as every day passes to your intended exaggeration!

Next time I will continue with my discussion of, “What can and should we do about the deficit… Where can we and should we cut?” which I started in my post "The Deficit – One Big Hoax (Part VI)."

An Announcement – Discussion

On November 4, 2011 I posted my satire entitled "An Announcement." Clicking on the name will take you to where this was originally posted.

I received a number of comments that I would like to share with you.

Pam Tisza of Branchburg, NJ reacted as follows: 

I am confused. In one of your last expositions you criticized Paul Krugman for not supporting Obama, and now you castigate him in a much worse way. Further, if you plan to run for President, why on the Republican ticket, when you sound as if Obama needs to be opposed. Lots more contractions, but I must remind you that most of our ancestors came here as illegal immigrants---not much control for a couple of centuries, so sneaking in is an old habit here. And it persisted into the 20th century. The boats came into New Bedford and Fall River ---and the crew walked to some nice town and got a job. No questions asked. It's just a bigger problem these days. And a different ethnic mix.

To which I responded:

You are apparently not familiar with the long tradition of satire, whether we are talking about Jonathan Swift's Gullivers travels or Voltaire's Candide, later made into a musicale by Leonard Bernstein. The problem with satire is that it is not always obvious that the writing is tongue in cheek and meant to poke fun at a person, a group, or a point of view, by exaggerating that viewpoint to the point of absurdity. Obviously, I am not up to the skills of the great satirists of all ages and my attempts may fall flat. I hope on rereading you will see that I am making fun of the extreme and downright silly positions of the Republican field.

I don't often attempt this. The last time I attempted satire was in 2004 when I wrote an essay entitled: "Unisex Toilets.” That too was tongue in cheek, but a lot of people missed my attempt at irony or satire.

To which Pam Tisza replied: 

It was the very derogatory comments on Obama that really confused me. Without that I think I would have gotten it, but I am overly sensitive on immigrants. We offer them so much they cannot get in their own countries--greater safety, education--most of them will say, I came for the kids--and work, even when it is hard and degrading I am watching Alabama with great interest. The farmers are already hurting. 

I concluded:

Perfectly understandable!

I totally share your sentiments. As you may remember I am a refugee and an immigrant.

Janet Cooke of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania gave her reaction with:

I've opened the latest issue of your Commentary On Politics.

It's just great! Makes lots of sense and I can already feel the wellspring of support for your candidacy forming! I'm in. Listen, there's not much else we mortals can do, is there? So we might as well have fun! Let's get rolling! 

Janet Wood of Toronto, Canada chimed with this tongue in cheek response:

I loved it!! Although I am still holding out hope for Obama, I might have to vote for you! 

One person who asked to be kept anonymous said supplied the best humor with:

The FBI has informed me that neither you nor your wife were born in this country - therefore I cannot condone turning the White House and the country over to two foreigners who may be atomic spies. On the other hand for a substantial sum to be negotiated, I may overlook this technical defect.

It's bad enough that we have a president, who was born in Kenya or Indonesia, to elect a president who came here from Austria, then part of Nazi Germany, and a first lady (my wife was born in England) whose ancestors opposed our revolution is carrying things too far.

Another anonymous contributor said:

Not having been born in the US of A, you are not eligible to be President; however, I suppose you are eligible to run. Would a contribution to your campaign be tax deductible? 

Since this comment was posted to my blog anonymously I could not respond.

Finally another anonymous contributor declared:

My first reaction was that you are certainly qualified to be President, but I am equally qualified, so I should also throw my hat in the ring. On further consideration, however, I realized that as my only program would be to shoot the Republican candidates, you are probably better qualified than me...besides, you need a woman on the ticket. Therefore, I would be happy to join you as your candidate for Vice President. 

If I receive additional comments in the next few days, I shall share them with you.

An Announcement.

After long and careful consideration and extensive discussion with my family and my dog, and with an abiding faith in the greatness of America, I hereby announce my candidacy for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

I have made this decision, not out of any desire to advance any self–interest for me or my friends or supporters, but out of a deep conviction that I may be the only one who can save this country from the decline, which everyone agrees it is in, and to save it from the fascistic, socialistic Nazi who now occupies the White House.

At a time when our economy is in a funk, when our working people are unable to find jobs, and the world has lost respect for our leadership, I intend to turn that around and bring back the America that our founding fathers knew.

Now I don’t intend to waste my time talking about the present incumbent, who has given up America’s world leadership and after three years has left the Nation with unacceptably high unemployment, slow growth, and has allowed between 11.5 million to 12 million criminals to live among us. Let me be clear, the undocumented among us, have broken our laws and therefore are criminals and even their children, their anchor babies, have not been admitted legally and are therefore criminals.

What I do want talk about are my opponents for the Republican nomination and why I am better suited to be President of the United States than any of them.

On the domestic front the leading contender right now is Herman Cain. Now my good friend Herman has promised that if elected he will abolish the income tax as we know it and give us a 9-9-9 plan which he assures us will increase our growth of our GDP from the present anemic 2.5% to 5%. I say that isn’t good enough. Now my plan is 4.5-4.5-4.5, which will be a much lower burden on the American Taxpayer and will increase our growth rate to 10%. The trouble with Herman and the rest of the field is that they just are not ambitious enough.

I recognize that there will be many among the elite and pointed headed economists who will say that this is pie in the sky. But I tell you – don’t listen to them- they are the ones who have brought us to the fix we are in. We don’t need, and don’t want a lot of Ivy League graduates dictating to us. Most of us have never gone to any college and we have more common sense than the elite pointy headed fools, many of whom spend their time teaching, and have never learned how to make real money.

Now let me talk about my good friend Mitt Romney. He wouldn’t even say how much his tax plan would increase our economic growth. He put out a plan that he calls “Believe in America” that is 85 pages long. Now anything that long is obviously not something most Americans are likely to read and that’s the way he wants it. Because he doesn’t want Americans to know that he plans to only increase the growth in GDP By 4%. 4%! That just isn’t good enough. I say vote for me and get a 10% increase in GDP and full employment.

Now Romney wants to eliminate taxation on capital gains, dividends, and interest for any taxpayer with an adjusted gross income of under $200,000. That is nothing less than class warfare. Why should we tax capital gains, dividends, and interest on any one? I propose eliminating this tax all together, so that it can be used to invest and create jobs. My 4.5-4.5-4.5 tax will do that.

Now on defense, I believe that we must regain our leadership role in the world. We have to stop allowing other countries telling us what they want. We need to give them their marching orders and demand they get in line. That is leadership and we are not going to get that with Namby Pamby diplomatic negotiations.

Now my friend Herman doesn’t think he needs to know the names of the heads of state, or the names of a bunch of countries, and I agree with him. There are 193 countries in the UN. I bet even that pointy-headed Obama doesn’t know them all and forget about knowing their heads of state. Who cares?

But I do think it is important to know who has the atomic bomb. Herman said about China, “They’ve indicated that they’re trying to develop nuclear capability.” Herman, they did that in 1964, and our then Democrat President let them.

Now Romney said: The choice facing Americans is “very simple,” “If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your President. You have that President today.”

Now I agree with him about Obama. But Mitt and Brother Herman wouldn’t be much better. Where were they when they let our Congress agree to a deal with Obama that cuts defense spending by $600 billions, on top of cuts already agreed to, if the super committee doesn’t reach agreement, and I bet they wouldn’t? We need to increase defense spending if we are going to be the leaders of the world that I want us to be.

I am outraged that Obama is pulling our troops out of Iraq and getting ready to pull out of Afghanistan. If we are going to protect our vital interests in that part of the world we have to dominate it and we can’t do that with namby pamby military policies.

We have the atomic bomb. It is time we used the power that goes with it. We need to tell Iran stop your atomic program or we will stop it for you, by dropping the bomb on you. That will solve that problem. We need to have a similar approach to Pakistan. They have the bomb but they don’t have a delivery system that can reach the US. So we are safe from their atomic bomb. Tell them to cooperate in fighting terrorist groups, or we will drop the bomb on them. I bet we will get cooperation and the rest of the world will get the message. That is leadership.

We need a President who does not believe in half measures. Half measures will not get us there. I am the only one who has the will to do what is necessary to return America to greatness.

And I am the only non-politician in this race. I never ran for or occupied any political office and never ran for one till now. I spent my whole life in the private sector.

Romney was the governor of that Democrat-Socialist state of Massachusetts, where he gave us Romneycare, and where he was for babykilling. I wouldn’t trust that guy. And how can he say he is not a politician?

My brother Herman ran for the Senate from Georgia in 2004 and he was a lobbyist. He also lost his race for the Senate, which makes him a loser. We don’t need that.

Perry, who has made a fool of himself again and again in this run for the Presidency, is the Governor of Texas, where he set up a huge patronage machine. I think that makes him a politician.

And on and on. Bachman and Paul are in Congress now, and Gingrich even used to be Speaker until he got kicked out in a scandal.

So there you have it. Vote for Scheller for President. Contributions to my campaign are urgently solicited.

Comments are solicited and will be distributed unless the contributor requests that they not be or that the comment may be distributed without attribution.