Popular Revolt

How can the Electoral College be a bad thing? It sounds so … what’s the opposite of uneducated? It has been an American institution for more than 220 years. That’s longer than “under God” has been in the Pledge of Allegiance! Don’t mess with a tradition that works. But that’s exactly what Governor Moonbeam is trying to do. Jerry Brown recently signed legislation providing California’s support for the National Popular Vote movement. This suspiciously sounding initiative advocates for national election for president by popular vote, rather than by the classic, sacred Electoral College. I see this as nothing more than sour grapes. The Electoral College has been a liberal target since George W. Bush beat Al Gore in the 2000 election, despite losing the popular vote. Crybabies! Get over it. Brown said: “It seems logical that the occupant of the White House should be the candidate who wins the most votes. That is basic, fair democracy.” Haven’t you heard of hanging chads and the Supreme Court? You lost. Move On, for gosh sakes. So now California adds its clout – and 55 electoral votes – to the movement to do away with the Electoral College. Who else is supporting this? New York. Vermont. Massachusetts. New Jersey. And Illinois. Not a red state in sight. Previously, California Governator Schwarzenegger vetoed National Popular Vote legislation, calling it “counter to the tradition of our great nation, which honors states rights.” But advocates are pressing on and hope to enlist enough support from other states to replace the Electoral College in time for the 2016 presidential election – the legislation would take effect nationwide if states controlling a majority of electoral votes agree. Prior to 2000, three presidents had won election without carrying the popular vote. The last one was Benjamin Harrison in 1888. With powerhouse presidents like Bush and Harrison, I shudder to think of what the American people would have been denied if the “popular” vote had won out.

Blue Money

Thank goodness football season is here. I was getting tired of trying to keep track of who is “number 1” in what’s become the GOP presidential candidate national sport. Mitt once held the pole position. But now Rick Perry has surged to the lead, replacing Michele Bachmann, who yesterday’s news. It’s hard to keep my scorecard up to date. Frankly, I’m waiting for Sarah to step forward and put to rest the “will she or won’t she” saga that has kept me absolutely riveted all summer long. Mr. Perry has the backing of evangelicals and seems to be the latest darling of my Tea Party buddies. And with good reason. His record of job creation, as George W. Bush’s successor as governor of the great state of Texas, appears impressive at a time of jobless recession, even if many of those new jobs are low-paying service industry and state government positions. Hey, minimum wage work is better than no work at all! But Rick is more than a one-trick pony. He’s a big advocate of states-rights, shifting “democracy” to the more efficient local level and away from wasteful Washington. Sounds logical to me. After all, Texans receive only $0.94 from the federal government for every tax dollar they send to Washington. No wonder Perry is “Fed Up!” as the title of his book exclaims. And I’m sure that “small government” politicians in other red states are equally outraged. Senator Jim Demint’s South Carolina grabs $1.35 from Washington for every dollar its citizens pay in federal taxes; Mitch McConnell’s and Rand Paul’s Kentucky collects $1.51, Sarah Palin’s Alaska gets back $1.84, Haley Barbour’s Mississippi hauls in $2.02 and John McCain’s Arizona attracts $1.19. What? Wait a minute, that can’t be right! So, who is subsidizing all of these reliably Republican strongholds? How about Nancy Pelosi’s California, which receives just $0.78 for every federal tax dollar paid by it’s tree hugging, pot smoking residents. Chuck Schumer’s labor union-coddling New York gets only $0.79 and John Kerry’s Obamacare-loving Massachusetts attracts but $0.82. Sounds suspiciously like a communist-style transfer of wealth from wealthy to poor. And patriotic Americans like Mr. Perry just can’t stand for that.

BofA Savior

I’m confused. Is Warren Buffet a blue-blooded, American hero capitalist? Or is he a tax-and-spend, class-warfare socialist? This week, Mr. Buffet purchased $5 billion in Bank of America preferred stock, shoring up the company at a time when it needed a white knight to come to its rescue. Seems that Wall Street has lost faith in BofA, due in part to its bone-headed acquisition of Countrywide, a key sub-prime mortgage lender in the eye of the now three-year national economic storm referred to as the Great Recession. But not Mr. Buffet, the “Oracle of Omaha;” you don’t get to be the richest man on earth by following the crowd. He saw an opportunity. Was it shrewd capitalism that motivated his bold move? Profit motive – the invisible hand that guides our economy – was certainly in play. Some speculate that Mr. Buffet stands to make at least $300 million a year from this investment, and could earn as much as $2.2 billon before all is said and done. Bravo, sir! Well done. You “saved” a cornerstone of American finance AND made a tidy profit. If he wore a flag pin on his lapel, the Republicans just might draft Mr. Buffet to run for president in 2012. But wait, not so fast. Is this the same Warren Buffet who just two weeks ago publicly stated that the rich – people just like him – were not paying their fair share in taxes? That Warren’s secretary was paying a higher percentage of her income to taxes than he was? That the US should reinstate the Clinton era tax rates on the wealthiest Americans, making over $1 million per year? That, my friends, sounds like reckless socialism to me. And we just can’t afford to listen to irresponsible people like that.