There oughta be a law | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    When someone decides to run for office under the banner of a political party, they should be a bona fide member (or at least) a supporter of that party. They should not be allowed to wrap themselves in the party banner and run just because they believe they have a better chance of being elected as a member of whatever party it is. Running under the banner of a party (any party) should indicate that the candidate is a member of the party and supports the party's philosophy (or most of it). That way we would not have folks like Rep Jones who half way inherited his position from his father and then switched to the Rep. party simply to improve his chances of getting elected. We would not have folks like Arthur Williams and Jerry Evans switching parties because they are fearful they could not be elected as a Dem., and we would not have folks like Jay McRoy and Al Klemm calling themselves Reps. - presumably to get themselves elected. They vote as Dems, they should run as Dems. All of 'em!!!

    In the lexicon of politicians, there does not seem to be such a thing as "temporary." Just take a look at the so called "Bush Tax Cuts". Temporary at the start, but now "renewed each time the last temporary extension is about to expire. (Temporary: lasting, existing, serving, or effective for a time only; not permanent: - Dictionary.com) The FICA "tax holiday" will likely become the longest "holiday" in recorded history. Renewal of the "Doc Fix"seems to have become an annual (or biannual) exercise as Congress walks back their annual (or is it biannual??) reduction to reimbursement of MDs who are still willing to serve Medicare patients. Likewise the Alternate Minimum Tax. Every year we are reminded that the AMT must be adjusted because in the original legislation (that was intended to catch a fairly small number of taxpayers who were escaping the payment of income tax due their large deductions) was not indexed for inflation. Every time this issue comes up - and is resolved for another year, a lot of folks end up wondering why they don't simply index the AMT for inflation. It's a real "head scratcher". We should outlaw "temporary" anything..

    Is it fair that the anointed one and his surrogates keep demanding fairness in taxation and everything else the government does but don't bother to apply the standard to anything "their" supporters do?? Do you suppose that the fact that they don't bother worrying about fairness when one of their friends (read big contributors or bundlers) is involved could be described as hypocritical - or perhaps even outright dishonest??. Case in point: Jeffery Immelt, CEO of GE which paid no income taxes last year even as they were shifting a lot of positions "off shore". So much for fairness for all. And yet, where is he (Immelt) most frequently seen?? Short answer: At the right hand of the anointed one. Fairness is apparently a standard that is to be applied only to what the other party wants to do. Why is it that we hear nothing about fairness when the anointed one decrees that insurance cover contraception etc for "free" (as if anything was really "free"). We are left to wonder why he doesn't simply decree that health insurance cover all routine and emergency care at no cost. (At no cost to whom??) That would save a whole lot of folks a whole lot of money and ensure a lot of votes for of the anointed one this coming November. He is so good at reading Tele-prompters that a whole lot of folks believe what he reads. If you believe that all of health care - or even just - contraception etc. - can be provided for free, I've got a bridge I'll sell you. We need to insist on uniform application of all those "apple pie and motherhood" pronouncements we get from the anointed one. Crony capitalism needs to be outlawed. Some hope...as long as we are governed by the Chicago crowd (and their rules).

    Likewise, "misdirection" should not be allowed. The contraception argument is a good case in point. The Dems have succeeded in switching the conversation from a discussion of whether folks should use contraception, or the "morning after pill", or have abortions to "How should all those things be paid for"?? That certainly tends to institutionalize the notion that folks have a right to those things. We even hear so called "women's groups" arguing that not agreeing with the anointed one on this matter, constitutes discrimination against women. Do you suppose that charge is at the beginning of a very slippery slope?? Clearly it's too bad about those who don't believe in those things as a matter of personal preference. I rather suspect that there are a lot of good folks who would argue against all those things but would not presume to dictate what individuals should or should not do about them. It is going to take a lot of convincing to convince me that someone whose education began in Indonesia, somehow found it's way to the ivied halls of Harvard and from there into the smoke filled back rooms in the Chicago Wards is entitled to impose his moral judgments on the rest of us. No thanks, not for me. I would suggest that people should be allowed to pretty much do whatever their conscience allows with regard to contraception etc. - just don't ask me to pay for it.

    Although it could perhaps be considered "misdirection", telling us that Warren Buffett pays less in taxes than his secretary is really more far-fetched than simple misdirection. Unless the anointed one doesn't know any better (in which case he should be quiet about Mr. Buffett's taxes), he should be called out on what is obviously a misleading and totally false statement. Of course, for that to be effective, it would have to involve "calling out" someone who had some sense of shame... Mr. Buffett does not pay less tax than his secretary. Period!!

    D'ya think??