When I’m looking at candidates, trying to decide who should get my vote in any election, there are two things I examine that are more important to me than any others.
The first is taxes. History has proven that big government means big problems, and the only way government can get big is by taking money from its constituents.
Certain candidates claim to want to stick up for the little man while sticking it to the rich guys. This has a certain populist appeal, but it’s insanely counter-productive.
I’ve never been a rich guy, but I’ve worked for a few in my day. Rich guys get rich by putting capital and sweat equity at risk, and watching it pay dividends. Then they’re able to hire guys like me.
When these rich guys see their lines of capital shrink through extreme corporate taxes or punitive income taxes, guess who makes less money. Certainly the rich guy, but also me. If the company has to pay out more in corporate taxes, am I going to get a raise? Not likely.
So these candidates who want to soak the rich end up doing nothing but soaking the little man. It’s basic economics, and it’s common sense, which means Washington wants to have nothing to do with either of them.
The second issue that I always examine is one many Americans tend to ignore, and that’s the Second Amendment.
As has been scribed by historians far smarter than me, the Second Amendment was not designed by our founding fathers to give us a means to hunt or another recreational diversion. Quite simply, the Second Amendment was crafted to ensure the people would be always equipped to protect themselves from the government.
Which means, of course, that many in government hate it. It’s no coincidence that those politicians who favor bigger government (and the higher taxes that go along with it) also extol the imagined virtues of gun control.
But many politicians, on both sides of the aisle, find religion on the gun issue — surprise, surprise — on the day their campaigns are announced. They don’t necessarily have deep convictions about the Second Amendment, but they know they can’t win national elections without fooling some of the bitter people who cling to their guns. So they magically shift their positions to pro-gun from pro-gun control.
I’m not particularly enamored with either of the candidates currently dooking it out to be our next commander-in-chief, but one in particular concerns me. Why? Because he has a voting history of favoring bigger government, higher taxes and, of course, gun control.
Some voters believe whatever they hear, but I prefer to ponder voting records.
Barack Obama loved to take the middle road and vote “present” on an astounding number of issues, but not gun control. His voting record makes it quite clear where he stands on that issue. He simply hates guns. Obviously, we’re not hearing that in his rhetoric. Listen to a campaign speech, and you’d swear the guy is Roy Rogers.
But his voting record screams something entirely different. For a complete list of Obama’s voting record as well as his expressed beliefs before he decided to run for president, visit www.gunbanobama.com.
“I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer’s lobby.” That’s from p. 215 of his book, The Audacity of Hope.
Is there any place in America where a law-abiding citizen should be encouraged to carry a gun more so than an inner city?
