However, to date there has been no true “conservative” immigration plan. The “Leave Us Alone” principle many conservatives adopt towards government, and its role in governing, seem to be forgotten when discussing “conservative” immigration policy. Conservatives argue it is not the role of government to be involved in “X”. Whether is be it the regulation of home-schooling, the right to bear arms, business interference, etc, the conservative mantra has tended to be that the government should simply leave people alone to live their lives.

However, this principle appears to apply only if those people who are facing potential regulation are not native born Anglos.

In an effort to keep this short, those who claim to be “conservative” are either for regulation and government intervention, or against it. If our leaders continue to claim they are “conservative” but argue for government intervention in the hiring of persons (legal or not), the permits for working, the classification of jobs, etc - then they are not conservative.

While the United States was founded and built by those not born on this soil, some in Congress continue to place excessive blockades on those seeking legal employment in America. At the same time, laws and restrictions are placed on businesses which force compliance with arbitrary caps and quotas just to hire willing and able workers.

Just as we have no “conservative” healthcare platform, we have no real “conservative” immigration platform, either.

Conservatives should stick to their basis of conservatism and develop a truly conservative platform, and quickly. The Left and Obama have successfully courted much of the Hispanic vote (many Hispanics are likely to align with the Republican Party until something happens to turn them away - i.e. Tancredo).

The “border security” plan supported by Senators such as John McCain are an issue of national security and should not be confused with, or discussed in the context of, the regulation of a migratory workforce.

The “E-Verify” plan, favored by those such as Sen. Jeff Sessions, which will place the burden on businesses and force all workers to be run through a computer system, has failed miserably in Arizona. This has even resulted in 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics, born in the U.S., to be red-flagged by the system and prohibited to work in the state as a result. The system is not only flawed in its practical implementation – it is flawed in the fundamental justification that any conservative should endorse such blatant government interference in the employer/employee relationship by forcing compliance with E-Verify.

A conservative immigration platform should consist of the following principles:

Workers should have a right to pursue employment free of government restraints, without invasions of privacy or violation of their civil rights; and that employers have a right to pursue workers without government coercion or presumption of guilt.

In the United States, workers and employers should be free to establish mutually beneficial employment arrangements, i.e., the government should not interfere with employers’ hiring nor should it regulate workers’ employment decisions.

With regard to border security, it is a legitimate function and indeed a central role of the federal government to secure our national borders. However, that issue lies solely within the realm of national security and should not be established to hinder a migratory worker flow.

Businesses should not be required to enforce laws that are rightly the responsibility of the federal government.  Employers are ill-equipped to do so and such requirements place an undue burden on a free economy. Businesses should also have a mechanism available to them to be secure from the threat of lawsuits on the one hand, and severe government sanctions on the other.

The American economy requires growth in our domestic workforce at levels that are beyond our current rate of natural population growth. The best way available today to meet the challenge of a workforce too small for our economic needs is to allow increased levels of legal immigration.  Failure to do so leads to both illegal immigration and loss of effective control over U.S. borders. The organic level of workers needed for the U.S. labor force should be determined by free and unfettered labor markets.

The current workforce residing in the U.S. should be free to continue to work in the U.S. to the extent that the labor market demands their services.  Any reform should provide a means for allowing illegally working residents to eventually enter the process to become documented immigrants.

Are these the perfect tenants of conservative immigration policy? No. But they are much more in tune with the actual principles of conservatism than our current policy.

WHY?

Sincerely,

Republican Hope

How about paying tax on that 99-cent music download? The new pair of shoes you just ordered online? What about a tax on viewing online streaming videos? That’s right – the effort to tax binary code is underway.

For years, the internet has flourished as a free marketplace where the only extra cost a consumer pays for is shipping – unless you buy the product digitally. It’s opened expansive new markets, lowered product costs for consumers across the country, and given rise to tons of new online businesses.

Enter the money hunger politicians. Forty-six states overspent their way into budget crises this year, and to cover their tracks state legislators and governors are becoming increasingly desperate to steal more of your hard earned dollars. As such, now they want to tax your online purchases.

Americans for Tax Reform recently started a project called “Stop eTaxes.” The website (www.StopETaxes.com) tracks state and federal legislation and is working to mobilize grassroots opposition to these targeted tax hikes.

Kentucky, Wisconsin, and Mississippi have passed tax hikes on digital music, movies, books, and ringtones this year. Washington, Vermont, North Carolina, and Minnesota are now looking at similar legislation – some which goes so far as to tax “additional digital goods,” whatever that means.

More frightening, states like California and New York are seeking ways to tax everything you buy online – both digital and tangible goods. The so-called “Amazon Tax” provides that a business has a sufficient nexus in the state (which is necessary to collect the tax) by simply advertising through a third party in the state. This nexus can be anything from a newspaper to a state blogger putting up ads on their site.

Say you live in New York and want to buy some super sweet, rare pogs (or a ShamWow or whatever) from an online retailer in Florida. If that Florida company advertises at all in New York, not only do you pay tax, but the out-of-state company is tasked with trying to figure out which of the thousands of tax jurisdictions you live in and how much you have to pay.

If it sounds like a complicated scheme to raise taxes and circumvent the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution – that’s because it is. But what else is the government for?

For more information, visit www.StopETaxes.com. Also, follow “Stop eTaxes” on Twitter (@eTaxes) and Facebook (search “Stop eTaxes”).

Every week, ATR will find the most mind-boggling move committed by the ever-growing, ever-taxing, ever-spending group of thinkers that roam the Nation’s Capital (and then make fun of them).

The introductory story? The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has found a new “enemy”, since it appears they are deciding that “terrorist acts” no longer exist, and that the “War on Terror” has also vanished from the face of the planet. So who is DHS now focusing on that merits the greatest potential for harming the nation? You guessed it… CONSERVATIVES!

An excerpt from this first installment:

Seriously? The Department of Homeland Security? The guys with the multi-billion dollar budget who are supposed to protect us from terrorists and other bad people are targeting the conservative grassroots tea parties? Really!?!

You have nothing better to do? Really!?!

So when you think terror, you think Edmund Burke admiring, tea wasting, tax hike loathing, free speech upholding, constitution loving protestors who took the day to symbolize their opposition to the current statist agenda. Really DHS? Really?!

Please visit www.atr.org daily to see what the weekly installment of “Really!?! wtih ATR” will highlight next. If you know of something that you feel is worthy of a feature, please comment under the most recent “Really!?!” post for consideration.

Also - for Twitter, use #Really!?! for all your outrageous news stories.

The recent push to “go green” by many industries in America was a theme that echoed throughout President Obama’s endless campaign rhetoric. However, what Obama didn’t tell his listeners was just exactly who America would be “partnering” up with to make this dream a reality.

Let there be no doubt that the need to look to alternative energy is real, as well as making use of the energy sources we use now both as efficient and safe as possible. We can also take solace in the idea that going “Green” will not hurt American productivity as long as we incentivize it making sure that those doing the “heavy-lifting” are the ones who will be rewarded.

Enter President Obama (stage left)… and standing by his side Organized Labor, ready to reap in the benefits of the push for “Green Jobs”; while at the same time making sure they add more names to their roll sheets regardless of whether those names want to partner up with the unions or not. The provisions for the Green Jobs Act of 2007, contained in the recently “passed” Pelosi-Obama-Reid Stimulus Bill explicitly state:

ELIGIBILITY- To be eligible to receive a grant under clause (i), an entity shall be a non-profit partnership that—

I. includes the equal participation of industry, including public or private employers, and labor organizations, including joint labor-management training programs, and may include workforce investment boards, community-based organizations, educational institutions, small businesses, cooperatives, State and local veterans agencies, and veterans service organizations; and…

This is a far cry from “change we can believe in” However, is anyone surprised that a Democratic President is trying to benefit Labor, without any regard for the individual employee/employer?? If you have even the slightest doubt, just look at how much money Labor has given to the Democratic Party over the years. STAGGERING.

The fight to make sure that the “Green Jobs” initiative gets revamped and looks more like legislation that can benefit taxpaying workers as opposed to “fat-cat” Labor Donors, is not without a few good men. Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.) has put forth the Green Jobs Improvement Act, endorsed by the Alliance for Worker Freedom, and several other organizations, which will ensure that every company that wants to help America “go green” can do so without having to be beholden to the Labor Unions that fill the donor lists of the DNC.

This entry was authored by Amir Iljazi, federal affairs associate at Americans for Tax Reform.

]]>

The recent push to “go green” by many industries in America was a theme that echoed throughout President Obama’s endless campaign rhetoric. However, what Obama didn’t tell his listeners was just exactly who America would be “partnering” up with to make this dream a reality.

Let there be no doubt that the need to look to alternative energy is real, as well as making use of the energy sources we use now both as efficient and safe as possible. We can also take solace in the idea that going “Green” will not hurt American productivity as long as we incentivize it making sure that those doing the “heavy-lifting” are the ones who will be rewarded.

Enter President Obama (stage left)… and standing by his side Organized Labor, ready to reap in the benefits of the push for “Green Jobs”; while at the same time making sure they add more names to their roll sheets regardless of whether those names want to partner up with the unions or not. The provisions for the Green Jobs Act of 2007, contained in the recently “passed” Pelosi-Obama-Reid Stimulus Bill explicitly state:

ELIGIBILITY- To be eligible to receive a grant under clause (i), an entity shall be a non-profit partnership that—

I. includes the equal participation of industry, including public or private employers, and labor organizations, including joint labor-management training programs, and may include workforce investment boards, community-based organizations, educational institutions, small businesses, cooperatives, State and local veterans agencies, and veterans service organizations; and…

This is a far cry from “change we can believe in” However, is anyone surprised that a Democratic President is trying to benefit Labor, without any regard for the individual employee/employer?? If you have even the slightest doubt, just look at how much money Labor has given to the Democratic Party over the years. STAGGERING.

The fight to make sure that the “Green Jobs” initiative gets revamped and looks more like legislation that can benefit taxpaying workers as opposed to “fat-cat” Labor Donors, is not without a few good men. Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.) has put forth the Green Jobs Improvement Act, endorsed by the Alliance for Worker Freedom, and several other organizations, which will ensure that every company that wants to help America “go green” can do so without having to be beholden to the Labor Unions that fill the donor lists of the DNC.

This entry was authored by Amir Iljazi, federal affairs associate at Americans for Tax Reform.

]]> http://www.redstate.com/brian_m_johnson/2009/04/09/obama%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cgreen-jobs%e2%80%9d-mean-another-kind-of-%e2%80%9cgreen%e2%80%9d-for-the-unions/feed/ http://www.redstate.com/brian_m_johnson/2009/03/26/atr-to-congress-i-told-you-so/ http://www.redstate.com/brian_m_johnson/2009/03/26/atr-to-congress-i-told-you-so/#comments Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:09:52 +0000 Brian M. Johnson (Profile) http://www.redstate.com/brian_m_johnson/?p=56 A new blog series created at Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) called, “I Told You So” pokes fun at the outrageous policies being implemented at the federal and state level. These common sense posts draw very simple, but obvious conclusions on several policy issues.

What’s great about this new series, it allows people to see the fact that ATR has notified members of Congress that if you do X, then Y will happen. Do they listen? The smart ones do…the others…not so much.

For example, a posting today reads:

ATR and CFA have long been critical of the “saved and created jobs” claims made by the Obama administration, and were even joined by in their skepticism by finance committee chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) who on March 4 stated:

You created a situation where you cannot be wrong. If the economy loses 2 million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would’ve lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You’ve given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct.

Sen. Baucus apparently learnt this the hard way, as this news story from Montana, which ran the day prior to his statement:

A joint press release from Montana Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester claimed that $1.3 million in federal recovery funding would create 40 new jobs for the Flathead City-County Heath Department.

However the actual employment plans at the Flathead Community Health Center – adding only two more jobs during the next fiscal year – paint a different picture. Both Senators’ offices attributed the jobs claims to the Administration, and could not elaborate on how these employment estimates were generated.

What people should take away from these posts is that members of Congress are often warned by ATR and other organizations that their actions are going to result in negative consequences. Here’s a thought - LISTEN!

ATR - 1

Congress - 0

I was asked to talk very very briefly about “card check” and the Employee Free Choice Act. Here’s the clip!

Or click here to visit AWF’s YouTube page at www.youtube.com/workerfreedom.

What happened?

Sincerely,

Republican Hope

PS - In all due respect, we love what you’re doing in New Orleans…but wow, that was unfortunate.

From the people who brought you the Taxpayer Protection Pledge (which almost saved California from higher taxes), and the famous “Wednesday Meeting“, comes a new play-at-home game that is fun for the whole family.

Americans for Tax Reform, providing wholesome family fun since 1984, has created “O-BINGO”. Played just like regular bingo, “O-BINGO” allows you and your family to follow along with Obama’s speech and see who can get the most squares covered in one line.

This soon to be timeless game includes such memorable Obama phrases like “let me be clear”, “vulnerable Americans”, and who can forget the classic “toxic assets”.

Get your “O-BINGO” card below and visit the newly remodeled www.ATR.org for more information and to leave your comments and scores from the game.

For those who were a bit naughty, the presents might resemble lumps of coal or switches.

But what do you get if you were very naughty…but…happened to give $600 million to the left? Well, Santas Pelosi and Reid will probably give you whatever you wanted. Oh, and I am sure Obama will be just as jolly.

What exactly can you deck your halls with for $600 million? Well, “card check” for starters. What better Christmas gift than to disenfranchise millions of workers by taking away their right to a private, secret ballot when voting on unionization? I can think of a few…

Of course, I am referring to labor unions. With Big Labor giving 91 percent of political contributions to Democrats according to OpenSecrets.org in the recent 2008 giving cycle, the Alliance for Worker Freedom (AWF) has put together a “Christmas Wish List” of what Big Labor wants. This new 111th Congress has the choice: either side with worker freedom or become union puppets.

In addition, AWF will be discussing various items on Big Labor’s Christmas Wish List with their new YouTube Series “A Very Big Labor Christmas” featuring several special guests. View all the episodes and other videos at www.youtube.com/WorkerFreedom.

Heritage has a history of getting health care wrong.  In 1994, they got Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) to sponsor a plan which was opposed by virtually every conservative organization.  In 2007, they backed a plan which would result in a net income tax increase.  Heritage is like the red kryptonite on “Superman” or the box of chocolates in “Forrest Gump”—you never know what you’re going to get, but there’s a high probability of something going wrong.

The Good: Heritage opposes a “public plan” designed by the government, and toward which all incentives would over time direct.  This is rightly regarded as socialized medicine through the back door.  Heritage also calls for auto-enrollment in health insurance plans, for similar reasons that conservatives have called for auto-enrollment in 401(k) plans.  Finally, Heritage opposes a “Federal Health Board” (endorsed by HHS Secretary-designee and former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle) which would become the politburo for American health care.

The Not-So-Good: The Heritage outline calls for a reform of the tax treatment of health insurance.  The problem here isn’t that this is wrong, or a bad idea—the problem is that every single proposal (with the notable exception of President Bush’s “standard deduction” concept) to reform the tax treatment of health insurance has had the result of raising net income taxes.  This is because 40% of households don’t have an income tax liability, and 10-15% of households don’t even owe payroll taxes.  In order to get resources to these families, taxes are raised higher up the income ladder.  In the aggregate, the refundable credits that do this wealth redistribution tends to raise overall net income taxes.  This is a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge which virtually every House and Senate Republican has signed.

The Heritage plan also calls for health plan portability, which is a great idea.  However, it would create a new tax preference for health insurance obtained through an “exchange” (formerly known as a “connector,” and last seen failing miserably in Massachusetts).  For a couple of decades now, Heritage has had a fetish for these “exchanges.”  After the failed field test in Massachusetts, this infatuation should end.

Finally, Heritage calls for letting the states be the laboratories of health insurance reform.  States could apply for waivers of laws and regulations in order to experiment on new and innovative health insurance reforms.  This harkens back to the successful state experiments in welfare reform in the early 1990s, and is a good idea.  The fly in the ointment is that the federal government would set the “broad goals” of the health system.  This risks letting the Left rig the game and prevent the states from doing what they need to.  If you tell someone to bake any pie they want to, but they must use pumpkin, you’re pretty much guaranteeing a pumpkin pie outcome.

The Ugly: There are two really ugly parts of the Heritage outline—bipartisanship and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP).  Let’s take each separately.

When it comes to conservatives and health care, bipartisanship is to be avoided at all costs.  Republicans don’t know health care.  Those that think they do usually know just enough to get snookered by the likes of Ron Wyden and Max Baucus.  There’s not a health care bill that would pass out of this Congress and be signed by this President-elect which would not be a complete disaster for free markets and liberty.  In that environment, it’s incumbent on the Republican opposition to do just that—oppose.  Calling for Republican fingerprints on an Obama-Daschle-Wyden health care bill is dangerously-naïve.

Also, like the “exchange/connector,” Heritage has long had a thing for the FEHBP.  This is the menu of health insurance options that 1.8 million federal employees and their families choose from once a year.  Heritage has (several times) in the past called for using the FEHBP as a model.  Here, they reinforce that.  The only problem is that the FEHBP stinks.

You can find the range of plans on OPM.gov.  In the District of Columbia, family plans range in price from $7044 for Aetna’s HSA option to $15,249 for Aetna’s “High” option.  On average, family plans cost $10,516.  That’s right in line with the national average of $11,000 per family, and is overly-skewed by the number of high-deductible, low-premium plans available.  In an Obama-Wyden-Daschle regime, these HSA-compatible plans would almost certainly go away.  Furthermore, most people would probably sign up for something like the Carefirst option, which has a price tag of $12,150 and is 63% more expensive than it was in 2002.

The FEHBP, in short, is one of the most expensive health insurance plans in the country.  It has “guaranteed issue,” which means a healthy person could wait until they get sick or pregnant to sign up.  It has “community rating,” which means that the plans must charge a chain smoking obese man the same premium as a marathon-running vegetarian woman.  “Children” are covered until age 22.  The benefits package must be “comprehensive.”  In short, it’s some of the most gold-plated health insurance available.

The FEHB is the exact opposite of where conservatives should be going on health care reform.  Conservatives should not be for this at all.  We—and Heritage—should instead argue in favor of consumer-driven health care that gives patients and doctors power, not governments and insurance companies.  Health insurance should be like car insurance—used only in emergencies.  All other times, patients should pay for routine care in a free market with price competition.

The above post was authored by Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) Tax Policy Director Ryan Ellis. Ryan can be reached at rellis@atr.org.

In a blog post today, ATR says

In today’s WSJ, Perry and Sanford express their opposition to state bailouts saying:

“Our Founding Fathers were clear and deliberate in setting up a system whereby the federal government would only step in for that which states cannot do themselves. An expansionist federal government of the last century has moved us light-years away from that model, but it doesn’t mean that Congress can’t learn from states that are coming up with solutions that work.”

We couldn’t agree more.

You stay classy Perry and Sanford, because I don’t think you can get anymore awesome!

Awesome!

I for one will be celebrating this at a press conference at the National Press Club as part of a Food Before Fuel campaign.

First, let’s a take a moment to examine this situation.

The government wants people to use cleaner fuels - ok, nothing wrong with that. Simply create a market where all types of energy can compete (wind, solar, water, electric, coal, gas, ethanol, etc.) and let the consumers and the free market decide. The most optimal market choice will win out. It’s simple economics, there is no arguing that.

However, the smugness of the government (like those who drive hybrids to tire burning parties), tends to over-shadow the markets because the policies that win out may be not what they want to win.

Currently, the technology simply isn’t there for a lot of these - the answer is to wait! Don’t force it. Forcing policies by using mandates or subsidies is command-and-control market economics that this country simply can’t afford.

Rather than allowing the market to work, this is what happened. The government decided 30 years ago that ethanol should be the “clean” fuel to push. So the mandates began to flow. In doing so, the market was “forced” to try and accept something that wasn’t derived naturally (i.e. there is no real demand) and the market rejected it. The “demand” was artificially stimulated by the forced government mandates.

What happened next?

The government currently subsidies a domestic inefficient producer (i.e. farmer John in the Midwest).

The Congressmen from that district (even the R’s) know it’s bad public policy but do nothing because they are shills to “Big Ethanol.” The government forced market inefficiencies are then promulgated.

Negative externality hits - food, milk, dairy - all things that depend on corn - start to increase in price.

Families start struggling just to buy groceries to feed their children because the government decided 30 years ago it wanted to force ethanol on a market that didn’t want it.

Thanks Uncle Sam.

Was there at least a positive effect on energy/fuel costs?

While we subsidize domestic production of an inefficient product (with negative externalities), we impose tariffs on a more efficient, cheaper, and cleaner burning sugar based Brazilian ethanol.

This is what you call a “loose-loose” situation.

So, we subdize inefficient, expensive ethanol and put tariffs on cheaper, cleaner ethanol (makes your head spin, I know).

This action has done nothing to the cost of energy and actually hurts the environment as domestic corn based ethanol produces more pollutants in the processing than burning regular fossil fuels.

The solution:

Uncle Sam needs to do what all good parents do if their children are still living at home and leeching money from them - kick them out!

30 years later, it is finally time to stand up and end these government driven market mandates once and for all!

Congress should follow fiscally responsible energy legislation. Call your Congressmen and urge them to adopt these policies.

However after today, there might be another point added to that list.

According to The Washington Times, Grover Norquist sent a letter to the Treasury Department asking the government to give him the $700 billion.

An excerpt from the letter reads:

*I write today to formally request $700 billion from the TARP Capital Purchase Program. Since unionized auto companies, state and local governments, and certain credit card companies are applying, I thought I should, as well. Attached you will find the two-page application which I downloaded from www.treas.gov.

I am fully aware that some $125 billion has already been allocated as of October 29, 2008. However, given that the federal government has the full weight of the army, the FBI, etc. behind it, I am confident that you can re-appropriate this money from the likes of Wells Fargo (or their successor companies, if the current over-regulatory and over-taxing economic climate has caused them to go under).

I have a plan for this $700 billion which should be just what’s needed to get the American economy going. Since the money came from the taxpayers in the first place, I propose giving it back to them. With $700 billion in TARP funding, ATR would facilitate the following tax cuts:*

The tax cuts include:

Cut the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 15%, giving us one of the lowest corporate income tax rates in the developed world. We currently have the second-highest rate in the world (behind only Japan). This new 15% rate would give us the third-lowest rate in the world (ahead of only Ireland and Iceland). It would put us well below the Euro-zone average rate of 25%. Companies would be dying to set up shop in the United States. Estimated JCT cost: $170 billion.

Eliminate the capital gains and dividends tax. These rates are currently 15%, but actually represent a double-tax on corporate profits. When combined with the new, lower 15% rate on corporate income, capital costs would be at their lowest levels in nearly a century. Tax something less, and get more of it. This would also be an improvement over a suggested change we have made to the Treasury for years—allow taxpayers to index the cost basis of their capital assets to inflation (something which Treasury has the unilateral authority to do and which would be the equivalent of a 50% cut in the capital gains tax rate). Estimated JCT cost: $35 billion.

Cut the top personal income tax rate from 35% to a flat 15%. This would give the U.S. the lowest personal income tax rate in the developed world. Estimated JCT score: $235 billion.

Kill the death tax. Almost nothing is more capital-killing for small businesses and family farms than the estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer taxes. Estimated JCT score: $24 billion.

Allow companies to fully-expense capital assets purchased the first year. Under current law, businesses and other taxpayers must usually “depreciate,” or slowly-deduct, capital asset purchases the first year. This capital-boosting proposal would allow taxpayers to deduct 100% of the purchase price from their taxes in year one. Estimated JCT score: $240 billion.

That sounds like a good idea to me! Click here for the footnotes.

I’d rather them give ATR and Grover the money any day than use it to bailout the sweet-heart union pension plans over at GM (of course I am a bit partial).

Surprisingly, the Catholic shift. Not surprising, the immigration shift. Talk about messaging. Seriously, just take Latino immigrants. Catholic, family-centric, hard-working, familiar with small businesses, and until we piss them off, most likely to be Center-Right. What happens when we do make them mad by, oh, I don’t know, coming off as protectionist racists…they vote for the other guy. Duh!

So note to GOP - learn lessons. Don’t have “Bush-Syndrome” and never learn from anything you do, take notes, actually learn a lesson and DON’T DO THIS AGAIN!

Obama, first D since Carter to win 50%+ of the vote. (Carter won 50.1%)

Obama won 66% of the Latino vote

Obama won Latinos in Florida by 15 points, a group that voted Republican by )12 points only 4 years ago

Bush won 44% of Latinos in 2004

Rejection of immigration as perceived as part of the Republican platform )caught up and probably helped cost the R’s Florida. Messaging on immigration )is crucial this coming cycle.

Obama won 95% of black vote; Kerry won 88% of black vote

Obama won 66% of people aged 18-29 and 68% of first time voters

Obama lost whites without a college education by 18 points

Almost 1 in 5 voters who voted for Bush shifted to Obama

Obama won 54% of Catholics - Kerry won 47%; big gains.

D’s improved 17 points on voters who earn more than $200k a year - would )have been nice if McCain actually talked about the differences between him )and Obama on taxes, investments and the economy!

So…get to work GOP. With the redistricting in the House and a chance to take back some seats (think 1994 revolution) there is [insert synonym for hope as that word is now tarnished].

Well, ATR has put together some educational voter guides on energy, taxes and labor. Enjoy!

McCain vs. Obama on Energy Taxes

McCain vs. Obama on Taxes: Which April 15 would you rather have?

AWF: McCain vs. Obama Labor Matrix: How Do They Compare on Worker Freedom?

Obama’s Tax Hikes = Patriotism?

UPDATE: Hell in a Handbasket: Life Under a Democrat Congress

Guess what…If Barack Obama’s tax hike had been in place since 2001, he would have paid over $250,000 more in income taxes than he actually did. This assumes that the 33% bracket stayed at 36%, and that the 35% bracket stayed at 39.6%.

Here’s the breakdown:

2001 - $420

2002 - $585

2003 - $910

2004 - $0

2005 - $60,257

2006 - $27,002

2007 - $161,555

Total Tax Gap - $250,727

Americans for Tax Reform today challenged Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to put his money where his mouth is and pay up on his “tax gap.” Specifically, if Obama’s tax-increase policies had been in place since 2001, he would have paid $250,727.70 in additional income taxes.

This does not even count the additional Social Security payroll taxes he would have had to pay under his tax-increase plan, nor any interest or penalties!!!!

So…before Sen. Obama continues on his “spread the wealth” socialism tour, he may want to put his money where his mouth is. I say, either put up or shut up! If he is so convinced that repealing the tax cuts are good for the economy, why doesn’t the Senator pay what he would have owed if those cuts where not their in the first place.

Doesn’t sound like such a good idea anymore now does it?

Yet with the millions, or even billions, of dollars the business community and some trade associations represent, this election should not be the worker freedom election.

Why? Because presumably, businesses (represented by the business community) support lowering the corporate income tax, oppose massive unionization, support lowering the capital gains tax, oppose EFCA (card check), etc, etc and the list goes on and on. There is one candidate and one party that supports all of the things the business community wants and the other candidate and party opposes - on tax issues, energy issues, and labor issues.

So with all that weight, the Republicans, who support lower taxes and oppose card check, should have the full support of the business community and their resources and we should be taking back Democrat Senate seats in districts and states that went Bush twice, right? Wrong!

So why isn’t that happening…

Well, a funny thing happened and it has a lot to do with the fact that a compromise is not a compromise if one side wins and the other side loses.

Allow me to provide an example (this is just one example-there are many).

A group opposes Card Check, publically and vehemently. A candidate endorses, co-sponsors and votes for Card Check. Then that same group who opposed Card Check, endorses the candidate who endorsed Card Check.

I will be the first to admit that I do not know all of the circumstances surrounding this specific case, but a quick gut check would tell you that if you are, on principle, opposed to Card Check, then you do not endorse a candidate who co-sponsors the bill that you have spent your members dues to oppose.

Not surprisingly, that Democrat candidate is now winning, by a clear margin, in a state, in the deep South, that went Bush twice.

Now that your head has stopped spinning and you have stoped cursing at the monitor, this is a debate and a dialogue (a painful one at that), that is vitally necessary and important to have.

So, let’s have one…thoughts?

Grover Norquist has called it the “401(k) Election.”

Some groups are calling it the “Take Back the Flag Election.”

However the Alliance for Worker Freedom is calling it the “Worker Freedom Election.”

Yesterday, AWF released a 15-variable matrix that compares John McCain and Barack Obama on issues concerning labor, trade, unions and, well, for lack of a better word, worker freedom.

Regardless of where you stand, it seems more and more as if being for “worker freedom” runs counter to the left-wing union agenda.

What type of tricks are being used to convince (or coerce) American rank-and-file workers that taking away their right to a private, secret ballot when voting on membership is a good thing. Not to mention the forced union dues paying as a condition of employment, which, by the way, [91 percent of] (http://www.workerfreedom.org/index.php?content=300bill)go toward Democrats (so, if you’re a Republican union member…sorry).

Click here for the one page handout version of the matrix, perfect for conferences or birthday gifts.

Or…for those untrusting souls out there…click here for the very detailed version with full citations, vote record references, etc. PDF or EXCEL

Given the current climate today, I would have to think long and hard about that one.

However, my current leanings are more toward the “yes” side than the “no”.

Thoughts?