Who Are You Voting FOR?

Perri, of the eponymous Perri Nelson’s Website, asks, “Shouldn’t we look at why we want to vote FOR a candidate when we’re choosing one?”

Well, of course we should ask ourselves that, Perri! In fact, it’s usually the first thing I do ask myself when looking at candidates for office. Unfortunately, I have rarely found a political candidate who offered me much in the way of valid reasons to vote for them. In fact, I think I can count on the fingers of one hand the total number of political candidates–national, state and local–who have offered me much in the way of legitimate positives in their candidacy or persons.

Ronald Reagan was one such. After voting in several other presidential races for the “least bad” choice (and being monumentally wrong with one, to my shame–and no, I’m not referring to votes cast for Nixon), my first vote for Reagan was a relief.

Bob Xxxxx–(in a local race). Good guy, Honest. Does his office credit.

Kevin Zzzzz–yeh, not an interesting speaker, but a decent man for a state senator.

Ummm, just about running dry here. I guess I could include our district’s Representative to the House. He’s a blowhard who gives me a rash, and he has his head up his _____ on several issues, but overall, he’s been an “honest politician” (that is, he’s stayed bought). I’ll vote for this blowhard again this time based on his (few, IMO, though in one case profound–his son’s turned out to be a better man than he is) positive accomplishments and the fact that his opponent’s a snake.

That about covers the pols who’ve given me valid, positive reasons to vote for them in the past.

Perri notes some positives for McWhatsisname, and I have to admit they exist, though some of the ones he mentions as reasons to vote for McWhatsisname are negatives in my estimation. A commenter on Perri’s post mentions his reasons for supporting The Obamassiah. Funny thing, none of his reasons involve any actual accomplishments or anything else I’d count as a positive.

Frankly, I’d like to embrace Perri’s idealistic search for reasons to vote for political candidates and avoid voting against a candidate for the candidate’s negatives, but while I always look for positive reasons to vote for a candidate, in the last 4 decades, I’ve found few. Perhaps that’s just my natural ability to spot flaws–an ability that has served me both well and ill in the past–but almost every time I hear a politician speak my B.S. meter pegs out, and that can’t be a good thing. *heh*

(Of course, it’s the rare, exceedingly rare instance when a Mass Media Podperson doesn’t overload my B.S. meter, but that’s another problem.)

For now, I think I’ll concentrate on dumbasses who proclaim themselves “undecided” and fools (yes, fools–those who aren’t themselves active poisoners of the body politic) who have swallowed the Obamassiah’s sugar-coated cyanide capsule and attempt to compare and contrast those few McWhatsisname’s and Sarah Palin’s (many more than McWhatsisname’s) positives with the truckload of poisoned B.S. from The Obamassiah.

That’s about as positive as I can be about this election cycle’s presidential offerings, and frankly, one-on-one, the method has shown some apparent success. I’ve had former Obamaites and Obama-leaners come back to me with negatives they’ve discovered on their own once their eyes were opened… and in one case, simply pointing an Obamaite to facts about the McWhatsisname health care proposals opened blind eyes to the lies Obama’s been spouting about that. That alone was enough to persuade one more vote for McWhatsisname/Palin.*

Heck, that’s about as positive as I think I can be in our local (Sheriff/County/City) and State (rep/senate/etc.) races this year. Well, perhaps a bit more positive about the Democrat running for governor in my State. In fact, he could well be my fifth candidate in the last 40 years I can actually vote for in good conscience. (Heck, even my dad has had good experiences with the guy, and he lives in another State!) I don’t even have to think about what a snake the Repugnican’t candidate is.

Politicians *spit*. Can’t live with ’em; can’t live with ’em. I’d be happy to live without ’em. Heck, a constitutional monrchy could scarcely be as bad as the mess we have now. I’d probably be better. See the header quote on this blog for a part of the reason…

---

*BTW, Factcheck.org fails another fact check. According to the National Coalition on Health Care, “The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,100” while “The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,400.” Factcheck.org says,

Those with employer-sponsored coverage, however, also might want to know that under McCain’s plan, they will pay taxes on the value of health care benefits they receive from their employers. It’s not that families will receive a windfall of $5,000, but that the credit will more or less offset the increased taxes they’ll pay.

Mixing apples and oranges, friends. Now, admittedly, the health insurance carried here at tywc central, while offsetting expenses in the past for my Wonder Woman’s cardio care that woud have cost us four times what our home is worth now, only costs–between us and employer paid coverage–somewhere under $6,000/year, so we’re a bit out of the average cited above, still, even that doesn’t begin to address the silliness of Factcheck.org’s comment.

Consider: “It’s not that families will receive a windfall of $5,000… ” What?!? Who ever promised a “windfall” to taxpayers? Bogus, prejudicial and very revealing choice of terms.

Let’s make the tax credit for health care costs/taxing of health care benefits meet some kind of rational criteria here, OK? Not a “windfall” because it was never intended to be.

Then, consider: IF we posit a $12,000+ taxable income addition, then even if the family ends up in an after-deductions 30% tax rate, that’d only be $3,600, leaving a $1,400 “pad”. Does the family lose anything? Nope. Do families who do NOT have employer-paid insurance gain? Yep.

For my Wonder Woman and I, the $5,000 tax credit would mean almost total portability with no loss of benefits in our health insurance. Now, even though I do NOT believe that it’s the place of the fedgov to provide that, and we’ll have no reason to avail ourselves of that particular aspect that I can foresee, it is nice that IF the benefit becomes taxable, the credit will offset the taxes by more than enough to make it a wash.

As it will for most folks.

A single person–even at a 30% tax rate on $4,000 per year of employer-provided health care premiums–would see NO LOSS TO THEMSELVES. ($1,200 in taxes at 30% of $4,000 wouldn’t even touch the $2,500 tax credit.)

So, where’re the higher taxes resulting from McWhatsisname’s health care proposals?

Nowhere, mon frere. Accusations otherwise are all smoke and mirros and outright lies. The McCain health plan is a stealth tax cut, though, which is anathema to statist control freaks.

BTW, Factcheck.org is an arm of the Annenburg Foundation. Guess who has deep ties and a long alliance with the Annenburg Foundation. Hmmm?