PearlMississippiCPA

1976 Redux

2008-05-31T17:38:00.002-05:00

It feels like 1976 all over again. I remember that year as if it was yesterday. That was the year of the gigantic battle of Ronald Reagan versus President Gerald Ford for the Republican Presidential nomination. And in November, that was the year Jimmy Carter was elected President.

Fast forward to 2008 and there are sharp similarities between the two years. Obviously, they are not exactly alike. For example, the GOP Presidential nomination was decided in February when Sen. John McCain came out on top in the primaries.

But the similarities are eerie. First, the incumbent Republican President was very unpopular. Ford was unpopular because of the deep recession and pardoning ex-President Richard Nixon. President Bush is unpopular because of the economy and the war in Iraq.

Second, the United States faced implacable foreign foes. In 1976, the U.S. faced Communism as its foe. In 2008, it is Islamic terrorism.

Third, the U.S. economy is in poor shape. In 1976, the U.S. was coming out of a deep recession and high unemployment. In 2008, the U.S. is going through a mortgage crisis, high gas prices and a sharp increase in food prices.

Fourth, movement conservative ennui. After Reagan lost in 1976, movement conservatives sat on their hands and refused to help Ford. Many of us just took a political vacation. I voted in the general election, but that was it. There were only fourteen of us working in the Reagan Presidential campaign in the Alachua County (Gainesville), Florida Reagan headquarters. The fourteen of us made over 40000 telephone calls in six weeks and heavily canvassed the area. Reagan took a surprisingly high 41% of the vote in the guts of liberal territory. But the primary was very bitter. Young Republican meetings turned into brawls. Indeed, the police had to watch over our meetings because of the bitter fighting. Friendships were destroyed. I know of one Reaganite who broke off his engagement because his girlfriend was actively working for Ford. Many of us felt Carter would be a failure and then in 1980 Reagan would be elected. So we decided to sit out the race and let the Democrats win.

Republican establishment critters like the glory and glitz of politics, but they do not like the nitty gritty of campaigning. Doing the "boiler room" work is not fun. You make calls (I wonder how that works with the proliferation of cell phones in today's society.), stuff envelopes, drive workers to the polls, canvass door-to-door, put literature on cars in shopping parking lots, etc. You won't see establishment types do that. But movement conservatives have done all that and then some (I personally made thousands of calls for Reagan in that very bitter Florida primary.).
John McCain inspires no movement conservatives. Our attitude is let him lose and wait until 2012.

Fifth, the GOP is very unpopular. In 1976, only 25% of the voters identified with the GOP. In 2008, it's not as low. But it has declined since 2004. Just like the Republicans were dejected in 1976 (You could smell defeat in the air after Reagan lost to Ford.), so are they in 2008. I have met very few Republicans who are enthusiastic this year. The church I attend is very conservative and Republican. I have yet to find one person who is enthusiastic about McCain. Most of them will give them a very reluctant vote. But unlike 2004, some will sit out the election or vote third-party.

Sixth, conservatism is at a hiatus. After Reagan was defeated in 1976, the conservative movement was in limbo for a few years. Ford was a moderate squish who had no political philosophy at all. In 1980, conservatives came up with a winning platform. In 2008, conservatism has no message. The message, "we can do better than the Democrats", does not resonate with the average voter. If the GOP is going to be Democrat-lite, then why not vote for the real thing? If the Democrats win the White House, conservatives will have to come up with a coherent strategy to meet economic and foreign policy challenges.

Seventh, an outsider was elected. Nobody ever heard of Jimmy Carter when he began running except for Georgians (the state, not the country) and political junkies. But he ran on a platform of bringing back trust to the White House. He was inexperienced, serving four years as a state senator and four years as governor. Barack Obama will probably be elected. His experience is serving eight years as a state senator and four years as U.S. Senator. Like Carter, he has very little experience.

Eighth, the Democrats won the Presidency by a very narrow margin. Carter was elected with just over 50% of the vote. Obama will probably win by a narrow margin. Carter started with a huge 34-point lead over Ford and was poised to win all fifty states when the campaign began. As it turned out, he won the Electoral College 297-241. Obama will probably start with a big lead against McCain, but will probably win by a narrow margin.

Politics is strange and history often repeats itself. 2008 seems like 1976 redux.

The Teenage Itch

2008-05-26T16:55:00.002-05:00

Every sixteen years (hence, the "teenage" term) since 1944 the American electorate has gone through the mantra of "change." The strong desire for change came in the 1960, 1976, and the 1992 elections. And the desire for change is very strong in 2008. There are similarities in all
these four elections and I will point them out in a very long post. Here goes.

1. All those elected in 1960, 1976 and 1992 were Democrats. I don't think 2008 will be any different. John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were elected.

2. All those elected set a precedent. John Kennedy was the first Roman Catholic to be elected President. Jimmy Carter was the first Deep Southerner to be elected and Bill Clinton was the first out-of-the-Deep-South Southerner to be elected. And it looks like Barack Obama will be the first black elected President.

3. All of them were elected in a time of economic malaise. The 1960 recession helped elect John Kennedy by a very narrow margin. The 1973-1975 recession was quite deep and helped elect Jimmy Carter. The 1990-1991 recession helped elect Bill Clinton. In 2008, there is a lot of economic uncertainty because of high gas prices and rising inflation on food items.

4. The Republican nominees alienated the conservative base and many conservatives did little or sat out the election. When Vice-President Richard Nixon made the agreement with Gov. Nelson Rockefeller on the 1960 Republican Party platform, many conservatives accused Nixon of "selling out" to the liberal Rockefeller. Conservatives called it "The Betrayal of Fifth Avenue." Many conservatives felt betrayed and sat on their hands in the general election.

In 1976, there was a very bitter GOP nomination battle between President Ford and Ronald Reagan (I was there. I can tell you thirty-two years later the bitterness is STILL there. It was the nastiest campaign I've ever been in. I put in mounds of hours for Reagan. Indeed, I kept a diary of that campaign.). Ford won, but conservatives refused to help him.

In 1992, conservatives were fed up with President George H.W. Bush. When he betrayed his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge in 1990, conservatives abandoned Bush. Commentator Pat Buchanan ran against him and hurt Bush in the primaries. In the general election, many of us conservatives sat out the race or voted for Perot.

Fast forward to 2008. Sen. John McCain is an embarrassment to all conservatives. For twenty years he has spat in our faces and rubbed the spittle on our cheeks. He wants open borders, tight environmental controls, tax increases and moderate judges. Many of us voted for Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul. When they all faltered, many conservatives switched to Mitt Romney. McCain's "divide and conquer" strategy to split the conservative support and votes worked like a charm. I'll vote for Bob Barr or Charles Baldwin before I vote for McCain.

5. The Democratic victories were narrow victories. John Kennedy won the popular vote by 112803 votes out of 68.8 million. Jimmy Carter won with 50.9% of the vote. Bill Clinton won with 43% of the vote. Obama will win, but it will be with 51% to 52% of the vote.

6. The Democrats made major gains in the prior off-year elections. In 1958, the Democrats gained 13 Senate seats and 48 House seats. In 1974, the Democrats gained five Senate seats and 47 House seats. In 1990, the GOP was expected to pick up some Senate seats. Instead, they lost a Senate seat and nine House seats. But they got creamed in the governors' races. In 2006, the Democrats gained six Senate seats and 35 House seats.

7. The cry for change was overwhelming. In 1960, the mantra was "Time for a Change." John Kennedy campaigned against the GOP's three recessions in eight years (with the 1957-1958 being a crushing recession). In 1976, the cry was for honesty in government because of Watergate. Jimmy Carter preened he would never lie to the American people and would have a government as "good as the American people." He would be an outsider that would change Washington, D.C. In 1992, Clinton railed against "the worst economy in sixty years." He would change that by giving a big middle-class tax cut (instead, he raised taxes). In 2008, Obama's mantra is "Change we can believe in."

8. The Republicans had governed for at least eight years. Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower was President from 1953 to 1961, Republicans Nixon and Ford were Presidents from 1969 to 1977 and Republicans Ronald W. Reagan and Bush 41 were Presidents from 1981 to 1993. President Bush has been President from 2001 and it'll be eight years when he leaves next year.

9. Voter approval of the GOP hit bottoms. In 1960, people were disgusted with the GOP because of the recession and Russian gains in foreign policy. While Eisenhower was personally popular, his party had low approval ratings. In 1976, Ford had low approval ratings because of his wanting to raise taxes in 1974 to fight a recession (Remember, the WIN buttons the White House put out in 1974?) and pardoning Nixon. In 1992, Bush had low approval ratings because of his indifference towards the economy during the recession (He had never seen a checkout scanner before.). In 2008, Bush's approval ratings are in the low 30s or upper 20s. People have soured on the War in Iraq and the high gas prices.

History is a very stern teacher. It looks like the GOP will learn its lesson for abandoning conservative principles and acting like Democrats-lite. Mark my words: The Democrats will win the White House in 2008 by a narrow margin.

Do NOT Vote for John McCain

2008-05-17T16:41:00.002-05:00

I get tired of the old cliche' that you must vote "for the lesser of two evils." If you vote for a lesser evil, you are still voting for evil. I've been told many a time if you vote for a third-party candidate, you are throwing away your vote. Maybe so, but at least it's a vote based on principle and not on expediency.

Senator John McCain would be the biggest disaster to befall the Republican Party and the conservative movement should he be elected President. If you think the 2008 election is going to be a nightmare for the GOP, the 2010 off-year elections would be a total disaster. The conservative movement would be in exile for at least twenty years if he is President.

McCain would be a disaster as President. Let's look on how liberal he is on the issues even though he preens himself as a conservative.

1. Taxes. He voted AGAINST both of President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. He has never been a supporter of tax cuts. Indeed, look for him to "reach across the aisle" and find ways to increase taxes.

2. Iraq. He's gung-ho for the stupid, idiotic war which has cost this nation 4077 lives and 30004 wounded. We'll be there for at least four more years and more dead and wounded. He has no plans of getting us out of that ridiculous war.

3. The Environment. His speech in Portland, Oregon was something out of the liberal Sierra Club playbook. He's bought into the global warming nuttiness and is all set to lower our standard of living to appease the environmental wackos. In fact, there has been a global COOLING in the last ten years. And wasn't it just thirty years ago we were talking about a global ice age?

4. Abortion. John McCain has no use for the pro-life movement and would sell the movement out in a heartbeat. In private, he has complained about the prolifers and has no use for them. He will not be a prolife President and would betray the prolife cause.

5. Judicial Appointments. Do you think he's going to appoint conservative judges? Not a snowball's chance. He said Judge Alito is "too conservative" for him. He said that Roe v. Wade should remain law. And do you think he'd appoint judges who would overturn the McCain-Feingold Campaign Law, a stupid law which limits free speech and caused the proliferation of 527 organizations?

6. The North American Union. He has said some very positive things about a North American Union, which would put Canada, the US and Mexico as one entity. This would undermine American sovereignty and reduce the rights of all American citizens.

7. Iran. He sang a ditty to the tune of "Barbara Ann" as "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." That's just what we need: Another war with a Middle East nation. He strikes me as a hothead who would not be afraid to go to war at the slightest incident.

8. Immigration. He would be gung-ho for giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. He has no plan to stop illegal immigration and will continue the heavy influx of illegal immigrants coming to this country. I have nothing against legal immigrants. Let them come. But why should those who break the law be rewarded with amnesty?

9. The Economy. He will have a lot more government intervention in the economy. Whenever the government gets involved, the economy suffers. His "economic reforms" may put this country in a deep recession.

10. The Patriot Act. Look for him to add more provisions to the Patriot Act which would diminish our civil liberties.

I'd rather have Obama than McCain. At least I KNOW Obama is a liberal. His voting record and his pronouncements show that. Well, I don't like it but at least I know he's forthright about it. We conservatives will have to hunker down for two years and come up with an alternative program. McCain says he's a conservative but he's lying through his teeth. The problem is the voters will believe him and punish the conservative movement when his administration fails (which it will).

Let Obama win. Let the American people have a real solid dose of unadulterated liberalism. Let the GOP go in the political wilderness for two to four years. It would serve them right. The GOP does not have any conservative principles. In fact, the GOP doesn't know what it stands for. Let them get a whipping this year. Let the voters kick them solidly in the teeth. One of the GOP Party leaders said the GOP must "accessorize." What does THAT mean? Dress up in drag? Men carrying a purse? The GOP is a gutless party that stands for nothing. The GOP is crying about losing that Congressional seat in north Mississippi. Tough toenails. This is a gutless, cowardly, scum-sucking, yellow-bellied party that doesn't stand for anything. Maybe a shellacking will give them some backbone and the guts to come up with ideas to reduce government. Maybe they'll stand for something.

As for Obama, he is Jimmy Carter redux. His administration will be one of the most disastrous administrations since Jimmah's. You can count on a deep recession and stagflation. You think Bill Clinton was liberal on social issues? Clinton will look like Lou Sheldon compared to Obama. On foreign policy, he will be a weakling. The Russians (Yes, Putin is becoming a lot more aggressive in foreign policy.) and Muslims will take advantage of his weak policies. And if you think gas is expensive now, it'll be worse under Obama.

As for me, I'm debating voting for Libertarian Bob Barr (although he hasn't received the nomination, he is the favorite) or Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. I know I'm wasting my vote. But Barr and Baldwin have principles and have the courage to stand up for them. They are conservatives and will not back down on their principles. And if the GOP loses because these two candidates drain enough votes to give Obama the victory, then that's just tough.

Screw McCain and the Republican Party.

Why Charlie Ross Lost His Race for Congress

2008-05-10T17:40:00.003-05:00

It has been over a month since Charlie Ross lost his race for Congress. I was so busy with tax season that I had no chance to write as to the reasons for his loss. After tax season, I did some extensive work in asking people why they didn't vote for Ross. After putting all the data together, here are the reasons he lost:

1. His cold, aloof personality. It was bitterly ironic, but the more people got to know Charlie Ross, the more likely they were to vote for Gregg Harper. Those who never met the candidate voted for him without any question. They liked his service in the Legislature. But those who did know him could not stand him. Some people got downright nasty with me when I told them I was voting for Ross. The ones who knew him described him as "aloof, a snob, know-it-all, cold, imperious, insensitive" and other terms not worthy of mention.

2. The David Landrum voters. Landrum's voters were bitter against Ross for the hit campaign on Landrum's not voting in prior primaries and elections. Actually, it was John Rounsaville who brought that out. But many Landrum supporters think Ross was behind it all. They broke heavily for Harper after the first primary.

3. The Religious Right. They were thirsting for their own and they got it in the person of Gregg Harper. He played the religious card for all he could milk it. Much to Ross' credit, he refused to play the church game to get votes. He said he was not going to use church to further his political campaign. You could see Harper schmoozing to those pastors so he could get Religious Right votes. I was nauseated by Harper's bringing up what a wonderful Christian he was and how he would have a "servant attitude" if he were in Congress. But this district is rife with the Religious Right and they swallowed Harper's religiosity hook, line and sinker.

4. Phil Bryant. Now Charlie Ross may claim Phil Bryant is his friend (With friends like that, who needs enemies?), but that is wishful thinking. I found out Bryant was going all-out to defeat Ross. Bryant is a lowlife who holds grudges until the end of time. I was told Bryant was very bitter against Ross for Ross' "mudslinging" (i.e., that's a Bryant code term for telling the truth) during the raucous GOP primary for Lt. Governor last year. He vowed revenge. His financial backer, Billy Powell, was working hard and raising money for Harper. (Politics makes very strange bedfellows. Billy Powell worked hard to defeat a pro-life plank in the Rankin County GOP platform back in 1990, but that didn't stop him from backing a very strong pro-lifer such as Harper.) Phil Bryant made it known he was after Ross and encouraged his supporters to vote for Harper. If Satan had been in the runoff against Ross, Bryant would be holding Satanic ceremonies. That's how bitter Bryant was against Ross. (And believe me, Bryant can be a very vindictive scumbag.)

5. Ross fatigue. When Ross decided to run for Congress, I had a lot of my friends tell me, "You mean to tell me he's running again? He just lost his race for Lt. Governor." They got tired of his puss on the tube again. They wanted a fresh face. If Landrum hadn't blown that voting controversy, he would have made it to the runoff and defeated Ross. Instead, they voted for the vacuous Harper.

I had a friend call me up on Election Day inviting me to the victory party. I asked him how the race looked since he was hot and heavy working for Ross. Much to my shock, he told me it didn't look good and Ross was going to lose. He was right, with Ross getting an anemic 41% of the vote. He should have easily been elected. He was clearly the most qualified person to run for Congress in the district since Sonny Montgomery.

Ross may try another run for political office in 2011 or even later. But don't count on his winning. With Phil Bryant and his toadies bitterly fighting him every inch of the way, Ross will have an uphill climb. It's a shame, because Ross was perhaps one of the smartest and most productive members in the State Senate.

The Thrill Is Gone

2008-04-26T17:35:00.002-05:00

Today in Rankin County and throughout the rest of the state the Republican Party caucuses were held. At 10AM, you'd meet at your precincts to elect delegates to the county convention. The county convention, which would meet at 3PM, would elect delegates and alternates to the state convention plus elect members to the party executive committee.

I showed up at my precinct at 9:55AM. I waited twenty minutes and nobody else showed up. I elected myself as a delegate to the county convention. I later met a friend and he was the only one to show up at his precinct. He also elected himself as a delegate. But neither one of us decided to go to the county convention.

I just didn't have the ambition to go to the convention. The reason? I no longer care. The thrill is gone. I don't even plan to help the Republican Party one iota this year. So why should I show up for the convention? Why should I work my tush off for John McCain when he has betrayed every conservative belief known to the conservative movement? Why should I even VOTE for him when there is not much difference between him and the two Democrats running?

The GOP used to stand for something. During Reagan, it stood for rock-solid conservatism and it had no problems on taking on liberalism. Now, you'd be hard-pressed to tell me the difference between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration when it comes to fiscal and tax policy. Sure, there were differences on the social issues, but that was it. My friends at www.cottonmouth.blogspot.com think Bush is some wild-eyed conservative. Bush is perhaps one of the most liberal Presidents when it comes to spending and foreign adventures. His idiotic war in Iraq is counter to the Old Right Conservative philosophy of foreign entanglements.

My friends at www.cottonmouth.blogspot.com probably think the GOP and conservatism are one and the same. NOT TRUE!!! I was a Republican because I felt the GOP was the only vehicle for conservatism. But after eight years of Bush and six years of a Republican Congress, I found out how untrue that was. It was under Bush and a GOP Congress that we got another drug entitlement. And pork spending reached unprecedented levels.

I get sick and tired of the GOP telling me, "If you don't vote for McCain, you'll have a liberal Democrat in there for four years with a Democratic Congress to run havoc over the nation." Well, so be it. In fact, I'd rather have Obama in the White House than McCain. At least Obama is a flaming liberal and the US will find out what unvarnished liberalism is all about. If they want flaming liberalism, let's give it to the American people. Like Jimmy Carter, there will be such a backlash conservatives will make gains in the off-year elections and the 2012 elections. McCain would be a disaster, but the American people will identify conservatism with the GOP. It would set the conservative movement back a generation if McCain was President.

I have talked to scores of my conservative friends and not one of them is going to lift a finger to help McCain. And most of them will NOT vote for him. So let me tell the GOP this and they better get it through their very thick hides: You may not win with us movement conservatives. 1964 showed that. BUT YOU CANNOT WIN WITHOUT US. 1976, 1992, and 1996 showed that. Indeed, the GOP lost Congress in 2006 because conservatives switched to the Democrats or stayed home. You can count on us not to do a thing for McCain.

Do you think we are bluffing? We are not in politics for profit or to get patronage. We are in politics because of our political ideals. In 1976, GOP poobahs thought we'd get over Reagan's losing the GOP nomination to Gerald Ford and we'd all work our tushes off for Ford just like we did for Reagan. Well, we told them what to do with themselves and we didn't give a rat's Pattie if Ford lost to the peanut warehouser. We just sat back and did other things. The GOP was very hard pressed to get volunteers to man phone banks and walk the precincts. Ford lost because we conservatives didn't lift a finger for him. Expect a repeat in 2008.

Republican Party hacks and party poobahs who are in it for power and political gain, get this through your very thick skulls on how we movement conservatives feel: The GOP stands for nothing, believes in nothing, honors nothing, justifies nothing, exhorts nothing, cherishes nothing, and essentially does nothing.

Exactly what you will get from us movement conservatives.

A Party Switcher

2008-01-31T17:41:00.000-06:00

Yesterday State Senator Nolan Mettetal switched parties from the Democratic to the Republican Party. He stated he was a conservative and the Democratic Party no longer welcomed conservatives. He said, "I'm the same person with the same values that I've always had, but I've found a new home."

Okay, fine. Since I'm nominally a Republican (Actually, I'm an Old Right conservative.), I like to see people switch from the Democratic to the GOP. Notice how he switched less than a month into the Legislative session and just three months after the election. How convenient. He used the Democratic Party to win the primary and to be elected as a Democrat. He was first elected as a Democrat back in 1995. He aligned himself with the Democrats in the State Senate, always identifying with that party. Now he's a Republican.

Here's my question: Why didn't he run as a Republican last year? That way, he could have stated how the Democratic Party betrayed conservatism and he was now running as a Republican. The voters could evaluate his decision to switch. Two State Senators last year did switch parties (from Democratic to Republican) and were thrown out by the voters.

Chances are very good Mettetal would have been thrown out by a strong Democrat. The area he represents is strong Democratic territory. But now he has four years to repair his political fences and get reelected (should he decide to run for reelection). The Democratic Party activists who worked for him feel betrayed. Can you blame them?

I like what Phil Gramm, the former U.S. Senator from Texas, did. He was reelected as a Democrat as a Congressman from Texas in 1982. He became disgusted with the Democratic Party and resigned his seat, saying he would swith parties and run as a Republican in a special election. He easily won and later ran for--and was elected--to the U.S. Senate.

However, Mississippi has no party affiliation in special elections. This is why I'm in favor of party registration. There should also be a provision in the party registration bill if an officeholder switches parties, his seat automatically becomes vacant and he must run in a special election for that seat under his new party label.

What Senator Mettatal should do is resign his seat and run in a special election under his new party label (even though it wouldn't be on the ballot). Let the voters decide if they agree on his party switch.

The Great Polarizer

2008-01-28T17:40:00.000-06:00

There is no person who can polarize the country running for President as Hillary Clinton. Even though I'm a fire-breathing conservative who thinks President Bush is a liberal weenie, I could stomach Barak Obama. At least I'd give him a chance. And even though I would more than likely disagree with his policies if he were elected, I wouldn't dislike him. When Bill Clinton was President, I didn't like his policies. But I liked him as a person. In fact, he'd probably make a good fishing or hunting buddy.

Not Hillary Clinton. I do not dislike Hillary Clinton. I UTTERLY DESPISE HER. I don't call her "Hitlery" because I dislike her. I call her that because she is--and has in the past--determined to destroy those who disagree with her. We talked about the Presidential race in our Sunday School class yesterday. None of the Democrats or Republicans elicited much emotion. But all you had to do was mention Hillary and people started going ballistic. You have no idea how deeply hated she is.

If she is elected, she will have 40% of the people hating her guts (I'll be one of them.) the second she takes the oath of office as President. If she makes mistakes--which she will--that could easily rise to 60% or more. She is hated not because she is a woman. She could be my twin sister and I would passionately hate her. She is extremely ruthless who will have no limits in destroying her political opponents. She will come up with despicable lies to discredit her opponents. This is a person who has no iota of decency or honor. She is a crook and a pathological liar. I honestly believe she would steal milk from a dying baby if it would score her some political points.

She may very well be elected. But count on a polarized, deeply split country for four years if she is elected. If you think this country was polarized during Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's administrations, you haven't seen polarization until she is elected.

The GOP Malaise

2008-01-26T18:00:00.001-06:00

I have heard a lot from my friends on how they feel about the candidates running for the Republican Presidential nomination. I have never heard such a dislike for the field. In all my years of politics I have never seen such a lack of enthusiasm for the GOP candidates (the exception is the Ron Paul supporters) as I have seen this year. The biggest complaint I've heard is "none of them are like Reagan."

Reagan never got elected to office and then developed a political philosophy. I followed Reagan's political career from his famous speech "A Time for Choosing (delivered October 27, 1964)" until he retired from politics in 1994. If you look over his political career before he was elected to office as governor of California in 1966, he already had a well-developed political philosophy. He was not a cipher when it came to political philosophy. He actually read philosophers who developed the conservative philosophy he believed in--Locke, Hayek, von Mises, Kirk, etc. This is not just sheer talk. Reporters who visited him looked in his library. He actually had those books by those philosophers and underlined key passages. Believe it or not, Reagan was a conservative intellectual. When he decided to run for office, his political philosophy was already developed and backed by an intellectual knowledge of reading.

This is in very strong contrast to the candidates running for the GOP nomination. With the exception of Rep. Ron Paul, none of them have any defined conservative philosophy. If you were to ask them why they were conservatives, they could not give you an intelligent answer. (Paul could. Indeed, he is very well-read on conservative philosophy. His political philosophy was already developed when he was first elected to Congress in a special election back in 1976. Alas, he stands no chance of getting the nomination.). Of all the major candidates, Fred Thompson came the closest. But he has dropped out.

I have read the transcripts of the GOP debates and I can tell you the four major candidates--Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee--know nothing about conservatism and its intellectual underpinnings. They just flow with the times. They just differentiate themselves a little from the Democrats. Their big arguments are they are not Hitlery or Obama. Now that's a sure-fire political philosophy.

When all four of those candidates initially ran for office, none of them had a defined political philosophy. Giuliani was a GEORGE MCGOVERN supporter in 1972. Mitt Romney ran to the LEFT against Ted Kennedy(!) in his race for the U.S. Senate in 1994! Huckabee was a big taxer as governor of Arkansas. And McCain is certainly no conservative. Just look at that McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.

Now all these four claim to be conservative. They are no more conservative than my cat Bueller is a space alien. I just may vote third party this year. If this is the best the GOP can do, they richly deserve to lose. In all my years of being involved in the GOP Presidential primaries, I have never been so disenchanted as I have this year.

Let Hitlery govern for four years and mess up this county beyond recognition. The GOP will regain control of Congress and maybe the GOP will put up a REAL conservative in 2012.

Billy McCoy versus the GOP

2008-01-26T17:37:00.000-06:00

State Rep. Billy McCoy was reelected House Speaker by the narrowest of margins, 62-60. In doing so, he did not get ONE Republican to vote for him. All 47 Republicans voted for Rep. Jeff Smith for Speaker. Smith also picked up thirteen Democratic State Representatives, two of them coming from the Legislative Black Caucus. The Democrats voted 62-13 for McCoy and the GOP voted 47-0 for Smith.

In retaliation, McCoy appointed all Democrats to House committee chairmanships. The only GOPers who got anything were freshmen appointed to vice chairmanships. But what did the GOP expect? They can scream and holler all they want, but they got what they deserved. Billy McCoy doesn't have to give them squat. To the victors belong the spoils. And you get your just desserts for raw partisanship.

Don't get me wrong. I'm FOR brass knuckles, blood gushing, groin kicking raw partisanship. I want both sides to present their arguments and to fight vigorously for them. I want screaming and nastiness on the legislative floors. Let the legislators passionately fight for their beliefs and ideals. I utterly despise State Rep. Steve Holland (D-Plantersville). He's a total jerk and other raw adjectives which I will not print. I think he barely passes for human. But I admire his raw partisanship. I admire his willingness to fight for what he believes in.

The GOP should learn a lesson here. Winning statewide races is great. But that means little if you can't win the legislative races. In a supposed Republican year, the GOP did not gain one seat in the House (It remained the same.) and lost three in the State Senate. If the GOP had used its resources for the legislative races they may have turned around a few seats in the House. But they were obsessed with winning those state races.

The GOP is going to learn the hard way that it's the small races that matter. The GOP should have a "Republican Legislature Victory Fund" or something like that. I would concentrate on winning more seats after redistricting in the 2011 elections. I would pour in tens of thousands of dollars in winning the marginal districts. Indeed, I would start recruiting candidates after the 2008 general election.

The GOP deserves no sympathy from anybody. They played raw partisanship in the House and lost. Live with it. And do something to win more legislative seats in 2011.

Utilities, Light Bulbs and Ron Paul

2008-01-17T17:22:00.000-06:00

You are probably looking at the title and wondering, "Huh?" But they are all interconnected and explains the reason why I am gung-ho for Ron Paul to become the Republican nominee for President.

In California (where else?) the utility companies are coming up with a method to remotely control YOUR thermostat in a time of emergency. This will be done to new homes that are being built or are being remodeled. You will have NO control over your thermostat. There is no clear-cut definition as to what an "emergency" is. This could be the start of "Big Brother" as far as utility companies go. Talk about big government.

On a prior post, I wrote about the switch from incandescent to CFL (compact fluorescent) bulbs. By 2012, all 100-watt bulbs must be CFL bulbs. But here is the problem: The CFL bulbs have six times the mercury that is considered unsafe. In Maine, a CFL bulb broke in a residence. The homeowner called the Maine EPA and asked what was to be done, since it was considered a hazardous material. The Maine EPA said they could clean up the broken bulb---FOR $2000. Can you believe it? How are you dispose of the bulb when it burns out? When you get the answer, you can rest assured it will be more government hassles rammed down your throat.

So what does this have to do with Ron Paul? Government is becoming so intrusive and expansive that it is raiding our very private lives. What business is it of the government if we use incandescent light bulbs rather than CFLs? What gives a utility company the right to control my thermostat because of government fiat? Ron Paul thinks such stuff is an outrage. And where are the other Republican candidates to comment on these questions? I hear crickets chirping.

I have never seen such stupidity as this. We have the government telling us how many gallons a toilet must flush in our homes. We have the government telling us what temperature to set our thermostats. We have the government telling us what light bulbs to use. When will this nuttiness end?

This is why I am for Ron Paul. He is in favor of limiting government as to what the U.S. Constitution says it should do. Less government, more responsibility---and with God's help---a better nation.

Charlie Ross for Congress

2008-01-14T17:18:00.000-06:00

In my opinion, there are four main candidates for the GOP nomination (and hence, election) for the Third Congressional District: They are John Rounsaville, David Landrum, Gregg Harper and Charlie Ross.

Let's look over those four candidates and their qualifications.

John Rounsaville worked for the USDA, so he's very knowledgeable about agricultural issues. That means a lot in this state. Also, he knows his way around the Third District. But other than that, he has no outstanding qualifications for Congress.

Gregg Harper has no political experience other than being the chairman of the Rankin County GOP. Now Rankin County is one of the most Republican counties in the state. He has raised a lot of money for the county and the state GOP. But other than that, what qualifies him to be a Congressman? I think he's running so he can get his name out to the public so he'll have a lot of name recognition when he runs for Dean Kirby's State Senate seat when he decides to retire.

David Landrum is a nice guy and a shrewd businessman. He's also spending the big bucks on TV advertising (If you haven't seen any of his TV commercials, you've been in hibernation.). But what qualifications does he bring to the race? He can make big bucks. Wow. Do you want a Congressman who bought the race?

Charlie Ross was once a State Representative and a State Senator. He accomplished a lot when he was a State Senator. He helped push through tort reform and the Castle Doctrine. He had a perfect pro-life record in the State Legislature. He had the HIGHEST pro-business BIPEC rating in the State Senate. He is exceptionally intelligent and a very hard worker. He's not a show horse but a workhorse.

Charlie Ross also knows his way through the Third District. He ran for Lt. Governor last year and received 43% of the vote. He was considered one of the most conservative candidates to run for office. The other candidates talk about how conservative they are. Well, all that is great. But Ross has the record to show for it.

On March 11th, please vote for Charlie Ross for Congress. We don't need any pretty boys or show horses. We need a workhorse like Charlie Ross.

Ron Paul Is Not An Antiwar Leftist

2008-01-07T17:35:00.000-06:00

Many conservatives think Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul is an antiwar activist who is no different from Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who are both running for the Presidency. In fact, conservative organizations such as the American Conservative Union give Paul a low conservative rating because of his antiwar stance.

There is a vast difference between Ron Paul and the antiwar left. Ron Paul is for a very strong national defense and was in favor of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Indeed, Paul was a very strong Cold Warrior when the Soviet Union was trolling over Eastern Europe. The antiwar left is for cutting defensive weapons defending the US and blames American first for everything. If there was an attack on the US, I believe Ron Paul would go all-out militarily to defeat the aggressor. The antiwar left would blame American and "want to negotiate."

Where Ron Paul differs from neoconservatism (which is considered "mainstream conservatism" in politics today) is Paul is against using force in every nation of the world that is not a threat to national security. He is not one for trying to change a foreign nation's political system like we are doing in Iraq. Since when is it our business to tell another nation what political system to use? If a nation is a dictatorship and it does not affect our national security, that is that nation's business. Woodrow Wilson entered World War I to make the world "safe for democracy." Yeah, that worked real well. He planted the seeds for the rise of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. We fought a bloody World War II and a long Cold War because Wilson wanted to ram America's political system down the throats of Europe.

Bush reminds me of Wilson. But suppose Wilson had never got the US in World War I. There eventually would have been a negotiated settlement with Germany grabbing some of western France. But that would have been it. So let's say we would have been stuck with the Kaiser of Germany and the Emperor of Austria-Hungary with no free elections. Would that have been so bad compared to what really did happen--planting the seeds for the rise of Nazi Germany and Communism? And now Bush wants democracy in the Middle East. If there were free elections in Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia Muslim extremists would win. Is that what we want--more Islamic extremism?

Ron Paul is correct when he says Bush's crusade for democracy offends the targeted nations. How would you like it if you were a citizen of, say, Bulgaria, and an American President says you must have a democratic government? What if the US said it would invade your nation if you didn't change your government? Would you like being dictated by a foreign power as to what kind of government you should have? Bulgarians are a proud people don't like being pushed around. They are proud of their history. (For the record, Bulgaria is a free republic. I'm just using that nation as an example.) How do you think the citizens in Muslim countries feel?

Ron Paul's foreign policy is very simple: Unless that nation is a direct threat to our national security, the United States has NO BUSINESS getting involved in the domestic and foreign policy affairs of that nation. If that nation is such a threat, then the United States should do all it can to repel that threat, even if it means military action.

Ron Paul is in favor of withdrawing from Iraq because it was never a direct threat to our national security. Let's say Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He would have used them on Iran, a nation he fought an eight-year (1980-1988) war against, or Israel (who probably would have smoked him). He certainly wouldn't have used them against the US. With 3910 American dead and 28822 wounded, has the war really been worth it? Has the $610 billion been worth it as far as our national security is concerned?

Ron Paul's foreign policy was considered mainstream Republican thinking until 1947. Today he is considered a pariah in his own party.

Ron Paul is not antiwar because he hates America. He's antiwar because he loves American and wants to return her to the ideals she once knew.

Ron Paul Is the True Conservative

2008-01-05T17:37:00.000-06:00

Many conservatives consider Texas Congressman to be a crank, fascist, antiwar fanatic, neoNazi, a kook, crazy, and other opprobrious adjectives. But if this were the 1920s, Ron Paul would be the prototype conservative. So what has happened?

For years the Old Right Conservatives ruled the GOP. Indeed, from 1919 to 1947 they controlled the GOP and ran the government from 1919 to 1931. So what do the Old Right Conservatives believe in?

First of all, we (since I consider myself to be in the ORC camp) believe in the rule of natural law. That means all people are equal and have equality of opportunity. We believe in the sanctity of life and being governed by the Judeo-Christian principles as outlined in the Bible.

Secondly, we believe the role of the Federal government is to adjudicate disputes between states and provide for the national defense. That's it.

Thirdly, we believe the states should be the preeminent ruling polity in the United States. The states should rule and set their own rules for welfare, taxation and social issues without the interference of the Federal government.

Fourth, we believe the United States should not get involved in ANY foreign disputes or send troops on foreign soil unless it affects the national security and safety of the United States. We are opposed to all foreign aid. We believe the US should have the strongest national defense in the world. We are not anti-military and support the military. We are just against getting involved in foreign disputes if it does not affect our national security.

Fifth, we believe in the nationhood of the United States. We are opposed to all illegal immigration. We welcome all legal immigrants and hope they become citizens. We believe our language should be only the English language for political and business transactions.

Sixth, the United States Constitution should rule in all matters. If it is not specified in the Constitution, then no political entity or elected official has the right to create new powers in the Constitution.

We are NOT libertarians. Libertarians believe in open borders and unlimited immigration. They also believe in abortion on demand and the national legalization of all drugs.

We ORCs believe the states should rule. For example, if Vermont wants to legalize homosexual marriage and legalize all drugs, that is Vermont's business. If that state wishes to create a socialist economy and have state control, that is their right. On the other hand, if Mississippi wishes to ban ALL abortions and make it a crime punishable by death for performing an abortion, Mississippi should be allowed to do that. If Mississippi wishes to make homosexuality a crime punishable by a jail sentence and drug usage punishable by imprisonment, it should have that right. And if Mississippi wishes to have a capitalist, free-market economy, it should have that right to do so.

From the founding of our Republic until 1931, state government spending was TWICE the amount of Federal government spending (except for war). The Feds were rarely involved in controlling the economy and sending troops overseas. Until 1917, all of our wars were fought on the North American continent. And with the exception of the War of Northern Aggression ("Civil War" to you Yanks.), there was no military draft. Indeed, Old Right Conservatism was the ruling belief. It is hard to believe that until 1901 all drugs were legal and until 1934 marijuana was legal (I'm not advocating drug legalization. I'm opposed to the use of drugs and never tried drugs--or tobacco or hard liquor.).

That changed with the Federal income tax in 1913, the Federal Reserve banking system and America's entry into a stupid war in Europe in 1917. But the main invasion of Federal power came during the Great Depression and World War II. Today the Federal government wants to reign supreme in our lives. In fact, they are now telling us what light bulbs to buy (honest!).

The ORCs faded away with the Cold War. But they made a comeback after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. For 150 days, there were no enemies to the US. Then came the first Bush's foolish invasion of Iraq. And thirteen years later his son decided to invade Iraq again. The neoconservatives took over in the first Bush's administration and run the GOP.

The neoconservatives believe in big government conservatism and the foolish notion of spreading democracy to lands that are under a different government structure. They are in favor of big government--just not as big as the liberals would have. They have taken a page out of liberal President Woodrow Wilson's foolish playbook and are trying to make the world "safe for democracy." We are now involved in the tar pits of the Middle East with no exit strategy in sight.

Read the Republican Party platform of 1964 and compare it to the one in 2004. You would not recognize that it is the same party. The GOP has morphed into a liberal party but just not as liberal as the Democrats. The Old Right was prevalent in the 1964 platform as far as domestic policy was concerned. The neoconservatives wrote the GOP 2004 platform.

Ron Paul is an Old Right Conservative. He is campaigning as such. If you read Joseph Scotchey's book Revolt in the Heartland, you would know exactly where Ron Paul stands (It is an excellent book with great sources.). He is a radical only because he wants to go back to the roots of limited government in the domestic and foreign spheres. He is condemned as a nut and a kook. But that was the common sense of our nation from 1789 to 1913.

The Old Right Conservatives' credo has been the same from the founding of our Republic to the present: Less government, more responsibility---and with God's help, a better nation.

In the 2008 Presidential race, there is no question as to whom the REAL conservative is. It is Ron Paul.

Why I'm for Ron Paul

2008-01-01T17:38:00.000-06:00

I know Texas Congressman Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Key West, Fla. of winning the Republican Presidential nomination. My friends tell me I'm wasting my vote. And others say Paul is a political "kook."

Nevertheless, I will do all I can to help Paul and I'll vote for him in the GOP primary on March 11th. The reason is the bankruptcy of ideas in the Republican Presidential race. ALL the candidates are for growing the government. The questions are which one will do it the least and the efficiency of that growth. Day by day some candidate has some scheme on how to attack global warming or combat Iran. And ALL of them support the war in Iraq.

I am not a neoconservative or a libertarian. I am like Ron Paul--an Old Right Conservative (hereafter abbreviated as ORC). I'm for giving the states more rights to chart their own destinies, stay out of foreign affairs and limit the powers of the Federal government. Unlike the New Left who wants us to pull out of Iraq because we are an evil and rotten people, I'm for pulling out because Iraq was never a direct threat to the safety and well-being of the US. If Saddam Hussein had those weapons of mass destruction, he would have gone after Israel or Iran--not the United States. Ron Paul is the only one who is in favor of pulling out of Iraq.

Most of all, I'm tired of big government running my life. Now the government is going to tell us what kind of light bulb we should use. No, I am NOT kidding. By 2012, the 100-watt incandescent light bulb will no longer be sold. You will have to use a CFL bulbs, or compact fluorescent. Indeed, the government may make it illegal for an individual to use an incandescent light bulb in his home. That is the goal of the environmental wackos. Other than Paul, I have YET to hear a word of protest about this dim bulb bill Congress passed just a couple of weeks ago. Right now, I'm stocking up on incandescent light bulbs. Let the Feds come after me.

When does all this nuttiness end? Why is Paul the only one protesting this idiocy? Where are Romney, Huckabee (He'll preach the bulbs to come on.), Giuliani, Thompson and McCain on the growth of idiocy on the part of government? When does government get out of our lives? In the People's Socialist Republic of Massachusetts, you can be fined $912 by the state for not having health insurance. This is freedom? Thank Mitt Romney for that. And this guy wants to be our President?

Where do we draw the line? Mike Huckabee wants a national ban on smoking. I don't smoke and I don't allow it in our office. I don't go to restaurants that have smoking. But that's MY business. I don't want government telling places you can't have smoking. Smoking bothers you? Boycott the place. But the last thing we need is government dictating to businesses they must ban smoking. For God's sake--is this the United States or a dictatorship?

Now there's a war on trans fats. Okay, we all know fatty foods are not good for you. But now New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg (who may run for President as an independent) demands all restaurants and fast-food places ban trans fats. You don't like foods with trans fats? Don't eat them. Can't you read the stinking ingredients? Or are you too stupid or lazy?

Government loves to run our lives so we can fit the images the elite wants us to be. We must not smoke (What about booze? Why isn't there a war on booze?), eat fatty foods, not have guns, not drive big cars (I drive a Beetle. But that's MY business--not the government's.), not use incandescent light bulbs, not be uninsured for health insurance, be socially tolerant of every perversion that hits and let the government dictate to us their diktats. And yet there is not ONE candidate other than Ron Paul who is complaining about omnipotent government snuffing out our liberties.

I'm tired of getting involved in every foreign dispute because we don't like the government. I was a cold warrior because I was totally opposed to communism. And yes, the Soviet Union and Red China were direct threats to our liberty. But the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union fell starting in 1989. Now we have the Islamofascists. It's strange we didn't mess with them until the first Bush had to wage war against Iraq in 1990-1991. That was a totally useless war that dragged us into the Middle East mosh pit. Now we are stuck in a permanent war in Iraq with very little chance of getting out in the next ten years. Iran could be our next war. The Middle East wars will cost us TRILLIONS of dollars with no end in sight. When do these foreign entanglements end? We are knee-deep in NATO. Do you know if Russia attacks Estonia, a member of NATO, we are obligated to come to Estonia's aid? We are talking armed conflict, folks.

I'll write in another post as to what the Old Right Conservative (ORC) philosophy is. But Ron Paul is a firm spear carrier for the Old Right. I'm tired of big government conservatism. In fact, I'm tired of big government period--both in the domestic and foreign spheres.

It's time for a change in direction in the GOP and the nation. It's time to elect Ron Paul as President.

Mike Huckabee: The GOP Liberal

2007-12-24T15:45:00.000-06:00

Much has been made of the meteoric rise of Ex-Governor of Arkansas Michael Dale Huckabee in the political polls in the past couple of months. He is wowing the social conservative voters of Iowa with his views on abortion and the social issues. He comes across as a good-ole-boy who can charm the socks off the average voter.

Nevertheless, he is the most liberal candidate on fiscal issues. And while a lot of Southern Baptists are supporting him because he is a former Southern Baptist preacher, he is actually a liberal in the Southern Baptist wars.

In 1979, the conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention (Hereafter abbreviated as "SBC.") wrested control from the moderate wing. They elected Adrian Rogers as President, who was a well-known conservative from Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tenn. When Huckabee became president of the Arkansas Baptist Convention in 1989, he appointed liberals to head major committees in that state convention. NOT ONCE DID HE APPOINT A CONSERVATIVE TO A MAJOR POST. Paul Pressler, one of the architects of the 1979 takeover of the SBC, considered Huckabee a liberal in the Baptist wars. He is not supporting Huckabee for President. Oh, yes. Huckabee will not allow the churches he formerly pastored to release any of his sermons he preached. How come?

I agree with him on abortion and gun rights. I have mixed feelings about his stand on the homosexual marriage issue. As an Old Right Conservative, I think the homosexual marriage issue should be settled on the state issue. If a state wishes to legalized homosexual marriage, that is that state's business. But under no circumstances should another state be forced to recognize that marriage. Huckabee would have a Constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.

His record as Arkansas' governor is one of fiscal liberalism. Under Bill Clinton, the per capita tax burden rate was 9.8%. When Huckabee left office, it was 11.1%. He was for raising taxes to pay for his pet programs. He wanted to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants to go to college paying the same tuition rate as in-state students. He was all for illegal immigration in his state.

When it came to crime he made Mike Dukakis look like a flaming conservative. In his 10 1/2 years as governor (July 15, 1996-January 9, 2007) he gave 1033 commutations. In the 17 1/2 years of his three predecessors, only 507 commutations were given out. One of his parolees, Wayne Dumond, went out and raped and murdered a woman.

I'll admit a Presidential candidate has a faith that influences his stands on politics. But there is a difference between the other Republican candidates and Huckabee. He is a Shining Path believer. He's personally against smoking. Fine. But he wants a NATIONWIDE ban on smoking. Period. Would we have a Federal Agency to Rid Tobacco (F.A.R.T.) to implement this? He lost a hundred pounds because he was diagnosed as a diabetic. He's to be commended for that. But he wants to spend Federal funds to make people lose weight. He has always been in favor of illegal immigration and giving them benefits because "That's what Jesus would do." His foreign policy would be "Christ-like" and initiate a lot of talks with hostile powers. Well, I have no objections to that. But what happens when they don't want to talk? He wants to abolish the income tax and have the "Fair Tax"of a 23% sales tax? He said that is the kind of tax a "true Christian" would support. A 23% sales tax on groceries and prescription drugs would be a horrendous burden to the poor.

In the past twenty-eight years, Arkansas had three out of four governors that had morals or ethic problems. Bill Clinton (1979-1981, 1983-1993) had problems with the fairer sex. Jim Guy Tucker (1993-1996) had financial scandals and was forced to resign. Frank White (1981-1983) was honest and had a scandal-free administration. And then there was Huckabee.

Huckabee didn't mess around with the babes. You won't find any scandal remotely connecting him to any of that. Give him credit for that. But he sure liked the gifts. He tried to run off with $70000 in furniture that was donated to the Governor's Mansion when he was governor. He was cited on five occasions by the state's ethics commission for his accepting gifts. He made appointments to various boards and commissions to some of those donors. He demanded the state GOP pay for some of his personal expenses.

Huckabee as a person is not as nice as he seems. On the outside, he is very charming, witty and kind. But when conservative Republican state legislators in Arkansas challenged him on his policies and programs, he would get nasty and vindictive with them. He would tell them they "didn't drink the same Jesus juice he did." He made it seem like you were challenging God Himself if you disagreed with him. Is this the guy you want for President?

Do not take Huckabee lightly in Mississippi. I have talked to a lot of people in the Southern Baptist church I attend and they like him a lot. Even though our Presidential primary isn't until March 11th, the primary may still be very important because the Republican Presidential nomination may still be undecided and in a state of flux. Huckabee comes from a state that borders Mississippi and the Southern Baptist connection may just be the right combination for victory in this state.

But if Huckabee is the nominee, the Clinton machine (assuming Hitlery is the nominee) will make toast out of him. He'll be beaten like a bongo drum. The Clinton machine will make him look like a religious kook and ethically challenged (They should talk. But the mainstream media will pick up the Clinton attacks and skewer Huckabee.).

Under no circumstances will I vote for Huckabee for the Republican Presidential nomination.

Conspiracy, anyone?

2007-12-01T17:16:00.000-06:00

There is an old cliche' I use when I go to political gatherings or observe politics on television and radio: Just when you are as cynical as you can get and you have reached the maximum in cynicism, you go to a political rally and find out there's room for more (cynicism).

As we all know, Sen. Chester Trent Lott has resigned his Senate seat. And we all know Congressman Chip Pickering announced he was not running for another House term. And, good ole Dickey Scruggs has been indicted for trying to bribe a Federal judge. For those of you in Mississippi who have been hiding under a rock for forty years, Dickey is Lott's brother-in-law.

Now I've been in politics since I was ten years old. I have seen things that seem so surreal it blows one's mind. In fact, a science fiction writer couldn't make some of this up. For example, when President Richard M. Nixon was reelected by eighteen million votes on November 7, 1972, nobody in his right mind would have thought Congressman Gerald Ford would be President in less than two years and Jimmy Carter would be President a little more than two years after that.

Now this is sheer speculation and maybe nut job thinking. But remember, this is politics where you can trust very few people. Sen. Lott knew all this stuff on Dickey was coming down months ago. He knows he will be implicated in some of Dickey's machinations (along with Mike Moore and Jim Hood) and he would be forced to resign. He told Chip Pickering he would resign by the end of the year. (For the politically uninitiated, Pickering is Lott's protege'.) Therefore, Pickering would be appointed as his successor to the U.S. Senate. So it would be best if Pickering were to announce he was not running for reelection.

Nutty? Think about it. Pickering is NOT going to run for a state office in 2011 or 2015. His cousin Stacey Pickering is now the Auditor-elect. Now Stacey is going to be running for something in 2011--either for reelection or for Lt. Governor. It all depends what Dewey Bryant does in 2011. If Dewey runs for Governor, Stacey will probably run for Lt. Governor. Chip would not run for Governor for two reasons: 1. Voters would be very reluctant to vote for members of a family (They are cousins.) for the two top state positions. 2. Chip would be engaged in a nasty primary against Dewey. Chip may win, but it would split the GOP.

It was Lott and the late Governor Kirk Fordice who got Chip his start in politics. Back in 1996, the top GOP areas were Rankin County, Lauderdale County and Forrest County. Cong. Sonny Montgomery stated he was retiring that year. Lott and Fordice encouraged Republicans in Rankin County to run for the Congressional seat. They were State Senators Mike Gunn and Dean Kirby and the 1994 Congressional GOP nominee James Dabbs. All three were led to believe they would get the support of the GOP poo bahs. Instead, in the first primary, those three candidates split the populous Rankin County GOP vote and Meridian's Bill Crawford and Hattiesburg's Chip Pickering slipped into the runoff. As we all know, Pickering won the runoff.

So who will Gov. Haley Barbour appoint? My gut feeling Chip Pickering will get the appointment. This may be his only opportunity to be Senator. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts Sen. Thad Cochran will run for reelection in 2014. If a Republican other than Pickering succeeds Lott, then the earliest Pickering can run would be 2020. If Cochran were to retire after his next term, than it could be 2014. And there would be others besides Pickering to run for that seat. He may fade into political obscurity for six years and lose to someone who has a "name". Does he want to risk not getting the appointment? And if he wants Barbour to appoint him, he'll get the appointment. The GOP poo bahs will see to that.

We'll see. The Chinese have an ancient curse for this: May you live in interesting times.

The Presidential Primary

2007-11-20T17:33:00.000-06:00

On March 11, 2008, Mississippi will have its Presidential and Congressional Primaries. While the list of 3rd Congressional District contenders hasn't finalized, those running for President has. So I'll comment on the Presidential candidates. Of course, the GOP and Democratic nominees might be already known by that date. But in the GOP race, it still might be up for grabs (I think Hitlery Clinton will be the presumptive Democratic nominee by March 11th.).

Right now, I have no firm idea who I will vote for in the GOP primary. I like Congressman Ron Paul's libertarian and Old Right stands, but I wonder about the kook base he is attracting. A lot of conspiracy and white supremacist groups are gung-ho for him. I think he is far more intelligent and knowledgeable than any of the candidates running, but I don't think he stands a chance of winning.

Ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee is an excellent social conservative candidate. He is a former Baptist preacher and his stands on the social issues are excellent. But he is a big government advocate. He wants a national sales tax but won't endorse a Constitutional amendment repealing the Federal income tax. He said the national sales tax would replace the income tax. That may be true for a few years. But you can bet your sweet bippy the income tax will be reinstituted. He also wants a national ban on smoking. Plus, he wants government instituted programs on how to teach people to lose weight (Have they ever heard of weighing yourself on a scale?). He's got a list of government programs he'd love to see promulgated. As governor of Arkansas, he was not tight with a buck. I guess he can preach to us when he gives us the nanny state.

Senator John McCain hasn't voted for a tax cut in years. Plus, he gave us that monstrosity called the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act. He's also another big government conservative. He would like to institute national service for all of the nation's youth. Just what we need--another big government program.

Ex-Gov. Willard Mitt Romney gave Massachusetts its socialized health care program. Watch it to become a disaster for the state. He's also one of the biggest flipfloppers you'd ever want to meet. At one time, he was a big abortion advocate. Now he's against abortion. At one time, he was all for gay rights. Now, he takes a hard stand on gay rights. I don't trust him on any of the issues. He reminds me of a fish out of water; flipflop, flipflop, flipflop. And I hate to say it, I have a problem voting for a temple Mormon.

Ex-Mayor Rudy Giuliani did a good job as mayor of New York City. But he's a flaming liberal on the social issues. Sure, he said he would appoint strict constructionists to the U.S. Supreme Court. But his court appointments in New York City were flaming liberals. He worked hard for George McGovern in 1972 and has backed Democrats for higher office. Plus, this guy dressed in drag for a party. Is this guy all there?

Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson was fairly conservative as a Senator from Tennessee. But he was once pro-abortion. He seems to be better than most of the other candidates. He did get the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee. I'll wait and see on him.

Congressman Duncan Hunter is an excellent candidate and would probably be one of my top choices. But he has no name recognition and stands little chance of traction in the race. He's right on all the domestic issues. Ditto for Congressman Tom Tancredo. But he won't go anywhere.

Except for Ron Paul, all of them support the war in Iraq. As an Old Right conservative, I believe we have no business being involved in the Middle East. It is none of our business. I believe in having the strongest national defense in the world. I also believe we should mind our own business unless it directly affects the national security of the United States. Saddam Hussein was no choirboy. But he did not threaten the national security of the U.S. If he did have weapons of mass destruction, he would have used them on Israel or Iran.

In Mississippi, I would say Fred Thompson has the lead. But Rudy Giuliani has surprising strength here--especially in the urban areas. Many people in my church support Giuliani because they see him as a leader and can get things done--despite his stands on the social issues. John McCain has some support from the military veterans, but the feedback I get is he is too old to be President. And Mitt Romney has little support here. He is perceived as a flipflopper on the social issues and his religion is hurting him among fundamentalist Christians (Our church had a seminar for two Sundays on how cultic the Mormon "church" is. Rest assured: Not one of those people will vote for Romney, especially when they found out he was a temple Mormon. The fact he can baptize dead people and he and his wife can have a spiritual kingdom and rule on another planet blew a lot of people's minds.).

I just may vote for Ron Paul just to express my frustration with the direction the country is going in. But let's face it. None of these candidates inspire me enough to go out and work for them if he is the GOP nominee. (There's no way in the world I could vote for Hitlery.) If this is the best the GOP can do for Presidential candidates, the party is a lot weaker than it appears.

The Lack of Candidate Organizations

2007-11-19T16:45:00.000-06:00

Yesterday in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger's editorial page, David Hampton had an excellent article on candidate laziness. He wrote about the lack of organization of candidates and candidates mainly rely on big bucks for advertising. He is absolutely right.

The Democratic and Republican county executive committees should be the impetus for an organization for candidates. They should provide the foot soldiers for getting out the vote. Walking door-to-door is a pain in the neck (and feet), but that is the way to get out the vote. Telephone banks are becoming more and more ineffective. Many people are dropping their land line phones and using strictly cell phones, where the numbers are unlisted (so far). And a lot of people don't like being called because the calls are canned or scripted.

Whether the candidate is running for a Legislative House seat or a statewide campaign, he should have foot soldiers in every precinct and a strong organization that can coordinate the campaign. Most candidate organizations do not have that. Instead, the candidate thinks spending the big bucks will give you the victory. In many cases, that is so. But in a close race, the candidate with the best organization wins.

I served on Republican county committees in two states. In the state where I went to college, the requirement was if you were on the Party committee, you HAD to walk your precinct. Each precinct had a committeeman and a committeewoman. The two of them would walk the precinct together and report to the district chairman. And the district chairman would report to the state chairman. I remember giving up ten to fifteen Saturdays every two years walking precincts for the Republican slate. Two of us would walk the street. We'd walk from 9AM to 12PM, from 1PM to 6PM, and then from 7PM to 8:30PM. Sometimes, we'd get the door slammed in our faces. Other times, the voter would treat us to lunch. We would write on our note cards about the houses we visited, the reactions and whether or not there was a need for follow-up. By the way, this state had party registration. On Election Day, we had a caravan of cars to transport voters to the polls. Plus, we'd have precinct walkers to make sure people voted. Usually, the GOP candidate won. Money was not the big thing in the campaign. It was the campaign organization.

Mississippi has Party organizations, but they are not known for walking their precincts. Plus, the Party structure in the counties is poor. Each precinct should have a committeeman and a committeewoman. Now I know that would mean the Party Committees would be huge. In Rankin County, that would be 104 members. But these would be 104 hard-working members willing to work their precincts. The committeeman and committeewoman can monitor their precinct and note changes. This is the nitty-gritty of grass roots politics.

In the 2007, our neighborhood did not receive ONE visit from any candidate or his (her) representative during the general election campaign. In fact, there were ONLY two candidates who had people walking my precinct--- Charlie Ross's representatives and Mitch Childre himself. And that was during the primary campaign.

Money in a campaign is fine. Speaking engagements are fine. But a candidate and his workers should walk door to door on some days. You may think that's a candidate's waste of time. But that is where he connects with the voters and finds out what they are thinking. I know Gov. Barbour did that for State Sen. Richard White (who lost). But very few candidates do that.

A candidate considering a run for office should get his organization together a year or more before he runs. He should have organizations in every county and in due time, in every precinct. That is time consuming, but that is one of the big keys to a successful campaign. County chairmen should have frequent meetings with the precinct workers. I found out walking precincts can be very effective if you have two people working a street. You may have a neighbor you are not crazy about and the other worker could visit him. Besides, the fellowship and exchange of information is much better with two people. These precinct people would report to the county chairman and let him know what is going on. With almost everybody having cell phones, that shouldn't be a problem.

Do you remember Mike Parker's unsuccessful run for Governor in 1999? The biggest complaint was not the money. The biggest complaint the GOP had very few grass roots workers to get out the vote. There was no enthusiasm for the candidate and getting workers was a pain in the rear. I read many an article about the GOP having very few volunteers to walk the precincts or phone to get out the vote. A lot of the GOP poo bahs were willing to give the big bucks to the candidate but would not walk the precincts or get friends to walk the precincts for Parker. He was heavily favored to defeat Lt. Governor Ronnie Musgrove. Instead, he lost by a very narrow margin.

Party organization is a new political animal in Mississippi. Until 1972, there was hardly anything called a Republican Party. County Party executive committees exist mainly to certify candidates running under their banner and raise bucks. The Rankin County GOP brags they raise $30000 to $40000 a year for candidates. That is very impressive. But how many of them are willing to walk the precincts to get out the vote? I have found out voters like that one-on-one contact. They are much more likely to vote for the candidate you walk for.

For a very effective Party Committee, there should be a committeeman and committeewoman from every precinct. In many Party Committees, many small areas are shut out and have no representation on the Committee. Not only does that create resentment in the area that has been shut out, it could mean that precinct may not be worked during the election campaign (Admittedly, it may be nearly impossible to find a person from that area.). Party caucuses in that precinct would elect the committeeman and committeewoman. The next week the newly elected precinct people would elect officers for the Party executive committee and delegates to the state Party convention.

Yes, there are 1899 precincts in the state. That would mean a potential 3798 Party workers throughout the state. That is one strong grass-roots organization. Having Party people give bucks to the Party is great. But isn't it time we brought back the people who walk the precincts and knock on the doors? Both parties would benefit by doing that. And maybe politics can get back to the grass roots as it used to be.

My Take on the Nov. 6th Election Results

2007-11-17T17:42:00.000-06:00

It's been a while before I posted. I was at a tax seminar last week and I've been playing catch up with the work in the office. Payroll tax deposits are due on the 15th of the month and sales tax reports are due on the 20th.

I was correct in seven of the eight statewide races. The only one where I was wrong was the MDAC Commissioner's race. I thought Rickey Cole would pull it out. I was wrong. I was surprised at the amount of votes Les Riley got in that race--about 7.55% of the total. In Rankin County, he got 11%. I figured a lot of conservative Republicans would vote for Riley and I was right. This is one race where Barbour's coattails pulled a Republican through to victory (Dr. Moo's 50.8% ain't a landslide.). Dr. Moo (Lester Spell) didn't deserve reelection, but the voters thought otherwise.

I was right in the PSC race and MDOT race. I wrote that the MDOT district was leaning Republican and the PSC district was leaning Democratic. A political maven (now deceased) told me the contradiction. People will vote Republican when it comes to management issues, which is what MDOT is. But people will vote populist, i.e. Democratic, when it comes to setting utility rates. I was right in my calls. (For the boob who commented on my last post, municipal election commissioners know NOTHING on the design of a state district. Municipal election commissioners deal with MUNICIPAL boundaries.)

Rudy Warnock blew the race for MDOT Commissioner with his negative ads in the last week of the campaign. He stated Dick Hall raised his salary and his pension (Untrue. The State Legislature does that.), spent millions to renovate the office building (Untrue. Again, the State Legislature appropriated the money.), and the helicopter (Hall gave an excellent rebuttal to that charge.). It was pretty bad mudslinging on Warnock's part and it cost him a lot of votes.

I have read many blogs giving the base vote for each party. Most of them have said the GOP has a rock-solid base of 40% and the Democrats 39%. These numbers come from the losing race of Shawn O'Hara (Democrat) and Al Hopkins (Republican). The numbers may be true on the Democratic side. But they are not true on the Republican side.

Let's take a statistic to lunch. Almost all of O'Hara's vote came from black voters. Tate Reeves, the incumbent Republican State Treasurer, received 15% to 18% of the black vote. The white vote went about 90% for Reeves. O'Hara spent just $1300 yet he received 39% of the vote! All he had to do was have a (D) after his name. He was considered a "kook" candidate with a reputation of advocating snow cone stands at rest stops. He was a joke. I predicted Reeves would get 73% to 77% of the vote. O'Hara's 39% shows how strong the base vote of the Democratic Party really is.

On the other hand, Al Hopkins was a credible candidate. He spent a lot of bucks and his advertising campaign was very good. He made a lot of strong valid points against Attorney General Jim Hood's trial attorney contributions. He was gaining strength as the election campaign went on. He got 40% of the vote.

But that is not the base Republican vote. To get that, we must go back to the 2003 Secretary of State's race. The Republican nominee, Julio Del Castillo, got 201765 votes or 23.47% of the total vote. Del Castillo was a total unknown who spent very little money (Believe it or not, he took DeSoto County by a landslide.). The winner, incumbent Eric Clark received 610461 votes or 71.02% (There was a Reform Party candidate.). Allocating the third party vote to both parties, the GOP base vote is about 25%. That is it. The reason is there is no guarantee white voters will vote Republican, but there is a very strong guarantee black voters will vote at least 82% Democratic (I'm talking about state office races. I know Sen. Thad Cochran gets a near-majority black vote when he runs.).

In the Governor's race, Haley Barbour hoped to get 20% of the black vote. From the numbers I can see, he got about 9% to 10% of the black vote. That is an improvement over the 6% he received in 2003. But that is nowhere near what he was hoping to get. What helped Barbour was a lower than expected black voter turnout. Barbour's vote was down 55301 from what it was in 2003. But the Democratic vote was down 110024. If the downturn was equal for both parties, Barbour would have received about 54% of the vote. None of the Republican candidates did well among black voters. The best was Tate Reeves' 15% to 18%. The GOP has a long way to go before blacks start pushing the (R) button.

So for 2011, we can conclude the base vote for the Democratic Party is 39% and the base vote for the GOP is 25%. Perhaps all of you out there in the blogosphere can give me a better analysis to what the base vote for each party is. I've spent some time analyzing the vote trying to come up with the base vote. But all of this may change when party registration comes to Mississippi. We'll see.

The Goodman Fearless Forecast

2007-11-05T17:04:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow is Election Day. I have followed the state races closer than I ever have before, thanks to the Internet and blogs such as www.cottonmouth.blogspot.com and www.majorityinmississippi.blogspot.com. And unlike other races, I was heavily involved in some of the races. So, here is the Goodman Fearless Forecast.

Governor: Republican Haley Barbour will easily be reelected. Democrat John Arthur Eaves' campaign had much better advertising, but he never explained how he was going to pay for some of his programs. Barbour became a shoo-in because of his leadership prowess in dealing with Hurricane Katrina. Barbour will get 55%-58% of the vote.

Lt. Governor: Regrettably, Republican Dewey Bryant will be elected. It'll be closer than the Governor's race. Democrat Jamie Franks was a far better candidate, but he couldn't shake the "liberal" label. Plus, he never did hit hard on Bryant's liberal stands on the social issues. www.flipfloppingphil.blogspot.com gave Franks plenty of ammunition. Bryant will get 54%-56% of the vote.

Secretary of State: Republican Delbert Hosemann will be elected. Democrat Robert Smith is against voter ID and cleaning up the corruption in many elections in this state while Hosemann is for voter ID. Also, Smith is very arrogant. Hosemann will get 53%-56% of the vote.

Treasurer: Republican Tate Reeves will easily defeat Democratic politikook Shawn O'Hara. This race will show the rock bottom Democratic base of the vote in a state race. Reeves will get 73%-77% of the vote.

Attorney General: Democratic incumbent Jim Hood will be reelected. Republican Al Hopkins is gaining strength but will fall short. He has made traction on hitting Hood's buddies getting juicy contracts and then contributing bucks to Hood's campaign. If Charlie Ross had run against Hood, Ross would have had a much better chance. Look for a Hood-Bryant contest for Governor in 2011. Hood will get 54%-58% of the vote.

State Auditor: Republican Stacey Pickering will be elected. Democrat Mike Sumrall is far more qualified for the post, but he does not have the money or name recognition Pickering has. But this race will be fairly close. Pickering, an ordained minister and a PR flack (Those are two fantastic qualifications for the post which deals with auditing and accounting.), will get 52%-54% of the vote.

MDAC Commissioner: Democrat Rickey Cole will be elected by the Democratic State House in January, but he will get a plurality of the vote. Constitution Party Candidate Leslie Riley is draining a lot of Republican incumbent Lester Spell's vote. In the past five days, I've had a lot of staunch Republicans tell me they'll never vote for Cole but the Beef Plant fiasco is preventing them for voting for Spell (In my office, the staunch Republicans are voting for Riley.). At first, I thought Riley would get about 1% of the vote. But I think he could get about ten percent of the vote. Cole will get 47%-48%, Spell 45%-47%, and Riley 5%-8% of the vote. I know of very few, if any Democrats voting for Riley. But believe me, I know a lot of Republicans who are voting for Riley.

Insurance Commissioner: Republican Mike Chaney will be elected. Democrat Gary Anderson will not win not because of the issues, but because he is black. There are still a lot of lame-brained idiots who won't vote for a black no matter what the circumstances, but they exist. And they are a lot more numerous than just a small fringe group. Chaney will get 51%-53% of the vote.

PSC Commissioner--Central: Democrat Lynn Posey will be elected. This is basically a Democratic district and Cochran held it only because of his name. Plus, Cochran was a excellent Commissioner. He was quick to return phone calls and was always friendly. Republican Charles Barbour has baggage because of his wife's financial shenanigans with FEMA contracts. And the Hinds County Board of Supervisors, which he is one of the members, is the biggest joke in the metro area. Posey will get 55%-58% of the vote.

MDOT Commissioner--Central: Republican Dick Hall will be reelected. He's a poor excuse of an MDOT Commissioner, but he is running in a Republican district. Democrat Rudy Warnock is a very attractive and well qualified candidate, but he will fall short. His negative ads on Hall have hurt him. Hall will get 52%-55% of the vote.

State Rep. Dist. 61: Republican incumbent Ray Rogers will be reelected. Democrat Ponto Downing is almost non-existent in this race. His campaign biography in the Voter's Guide talked more what he would do for Hinds County and Jackson than Pearl, which is 98% of the district. He forgets he lives in Pearl. Rogers will get 70%-75% of the vote.

As for the State Legislature, I talked to a Republican legislator (unopposed) and gave me some surprising predictions. This legislator is very conservative and was a Republican when Republicans could fit in a phone booth. He predicts the Republicans will lose seven Senate seats and will gain three to six House seats. He and I agreed on who would win the state races.

We'll see tomorrow night.

Lester Spell's Attack on Rickey Cole

2007-11-03T18:14:00.000-05:00

I don't know if you received the colorful enlarged postcard from Lester Spell on Friday, but I did. It was a doozy. It pointed out Rickey Cole is a liberal Democrat who is not fit to be the MDAC Commissioner. According to the postcard, "Rickey Cole, too Slick for Agriculture," was emblazoned on it. It went on and on how Rickey Cole was some kind of flaming commie liberal while Lester Spell was more conservative than Ronald Reagan.

Let's look at the facts. It is true Cole was a Democratic Party delegate for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. As I recall, Cole was the Democratic Party chairman of the state in 2004. Wouldn't it make sense for him to be a delegate? The postcard also stated as a delegate to those conventions he supported "Democratic ideas" like abortion, gun control and higher taxes. Now unless you are a space alien who just landed in this state, Cole has ALWAYS been opposed to abortion and gun control. I have followed Cole's campaigns and I also never have known him to advocate higher taxes. Perhaps someone can show me contrary evidence. Indeed, I've listened to him on talk radio and he sounds quite conservative to me. And I am very conservative (Sometimes that puts me at odds with the GOP and President Bush's nutty spending programs.).

Now he has advocated raising taxes when he was the Democratic Party chair. But he was a spokesman for the party, not his own man. When I was on the RCREC for twelve years, I supported candidates I could not stand. Such are the vagaries of serving on a political party committee. Did Spell expect Cole to tell the state Democratic Party he was going to speak differently than what they wanted? I'll be the first to admit there are too many turkeys in the Democratic Party who advocate raising taxes, such as Rep. John Mayo in the Delta (This gobbler wants a 6% income tax bracket. Jerk.).

I'm confused by the postcard's statement "Rickey Cole led the charge to kick conservatives out of 'his' Democratic Party." Huh? As I recall, he wanted more conservatives in the Democratic Party. He was afraid the state Democratic Party would become so liberal it would be a constant loser. Actually, the purge started AFTER he stepped down as party chair. I'd like to see evidence Cole led the charge to expel conservatives out of the Democratic Party.

I will agree with the over sized postcard on one thing: It is correct when it states labor unions, the National Education Association and trial lawyers are the three best friends of the Democratic Party. And Cole has affirmed that. But he was stating fact. They ARE the three best friends of the Democratic Party.

But on no space on that postcard did it state Spell was once a Democrat. In fact, he was a staunch Democrat until the mess on the beef plant came out. Then--voila--he switched parties and now was a tub-thumping Republican. He had no qualms about running under the Democratic Party banner in 1995, 1999, and 2003. He sure thought highly of Rickey Cole in the 2003 campaign.

In fact, he cared as much for the GOP back in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s as my cats care about being near rocking chairs. He had no use for the GOP and he let that be known in county races when Rankin County was still Democratic (That changed with the 1991 elections.). He was a good ole boy Democrat and he thought Republicans were a little bit lower than a bullfrog's belly. In his city races for mayor of Richland, he ran as a Democrat. BUT TO SAVE HIS POLITICAL TUSH HE IS NOW A FIRE-BREATHING REPUBLICAN! What principle. What political courage.

In our office, all but one of us are Republicans (One bookkeeper is a Democrat.). ALL of us are voting for Rickey Cole and so are our acquaintances. In fact, my barber is a die-hard Republican. He said he was voting for only two Democrats--Mike Sumrall for State Auditor and Rickey Cole. He is well-known in the area and is politically astute. All of us think Spell is arrogant for not taking ANY responsibility for the failure of the beef plant.

As for the beef plant failure, wasn't there a goat farm failure too? Now maybe Cole is no flaming conservative like Spell. But since when is it "conservative" to waste taxpayer dollars on frivolous and idiotic projects? At least Cole knows SOMETHING about farming. Spell has been a veterinarian until he got into politics. What does HE KNOW about farming?

Let's do the state a great service on November 6th. Let's vote in an honorable man and a knowledgeable farmer for MDAC Commissioner. Let's all vote for Rickey Cole.

Barbour Versus Posey: What a Choice

2007-11-02T17:40:00.000-05:00

Republican Charles Barbour is running against Democrat Lynn Posey for the PSC--Central District. I have never seen two sorrier candidates. It is not which one is the best, but which one is the least worse. Neither one of them is fit to walk in present Commissioner Nielsen Cochran's shoes. Nevertheless, you have to vote for one of them (or leave the ballot blank).

I'm voting for Posey for the following reasons:

1. Since I live in Pearl, I have followed the Hinds County Board of Supervisors meetings. I can tell you Barbour has been a poor supervisor. While it is true he has voted against tax increase twenty-three times, the financial management of Hinds County has been very poor. The only person who has any sense on that Board is Peggy Calhoun.
2. One Barbour is enough. I cannot stand family dynasties, no matter who it is (Barbour is Haley's nephew.). I'm voting for Haley Barbour. I just can't vote for another Barbour. (It's also a reason, but not THE reason, I'm not voting for Stacey Pickering for State Auditor.)
3. Barbour's wife Rosemary has gotten some sweetheart deals from FEMA and has gotten in hot water for financial improprieties. Maybe Charles Barbour had nothing to do with it, but he did benefit financially.
4. Lynn Posey is a populist. I'll bet you he'll give the utilities grief if they try to raise rates. Maybe Barbour will do likewise. But somehow I just don't trust him as much as I trust Posey.

I would have preferred Pearl Mayor Jimmy Foster, who was a far better candidate than Barbour. Also, he has managerial experience in running a city and getting along with the Board of Aldermen. But Foster did not have the money to run an effective campaign or the name recognition (A kitty cat with the name of "Barbour" could get a passel of votes.). So the GOP got stuck with Barbour.

Lynn Posey has been hit hard for voting to raise taxes 110 times. That is the main reason I'm reluctant to vote for him. But because of the above reasons, I think he'll do a much better job than Charles Barbour.

Hold your nose in the voting booth and vote for Lynn Posey.

We Desperately Need Mike Sumrall for State Auditor

2007-10-31T17:29:00.000-05:00

I watched Stacey Pickering's commercial for State Auditor. I am SO glad he has a loving wife and two children. And I was impressed by his narrative on what a great guy he is and how great he looked in that sofa. I am certain that qualifies him for the job as State Auditor.

I received a large postcard from the Mississippi GOP talking about the "Liberal Team Bus." On the bus was a picture of Mike Sumrall. Now the seventh reason why your vote should be counted (to vote GOP, obviously) is Mike Sumrall "admits he couldn't even pass the test to become a certified public accountant." Now that is ONE big reason.

First of all, I don't see where Stacey Pickering has ever taken the CPA exam. Secondly, Sumrall has vowed to take the exam if he is elected. In due time, I believe he will pass it.

Since I did pass the CPA exam (the November 1983 exam), I can tell you it is a very hard exam. Few people pass it the first time. You have to put in a lot of study and study a lot of material. When I took it, you were not even allowed to use a calculator. The exam proctors would give you two sheets of legal paper and that is where you could do your calculations. Just have some pencils and some erasers. One calculation error and you could lose a lot of points on a section of the exam.

But Sumrall DOES have the experience to do a good job as State Auditor. He knows what a good audit is. He will not have to have on-the-job training to figure out what constitutes a good audit. He has had more than twenty years working in the OSA's office and other areas of financial management.

What experience does Pickering have in accounting? Indeed, does he even KNOW the difference between a debit and credit? Has he ever taken an accounting course? What makes you think he's going to stay on as State Auditor once he's elected? You can rest assured he'll be looking for another elective post after four years. Debits and credits are not a turn on for someone trying to have a political career and move up the political ladder. Pickering, like the individual who currently holds the post, will make it a political kingdom for his own political ambitions. Thanks to the current State Auditor, the OSA actually got a failing grade by a peer group of nationwide auditors. Turnover is high and the PEER Committee gave the OSA a very poor grade. Do you want to continue that? If so, Pickering is your man. Pickering can talk about what he's going to do to improve the OSA, but don't swallow it. He won't know what to do in that job from Day One.

Mike Sumrall has vowed not to seek higher office if he is elected State Auditor. I believe him. He has great ideas on how to improve the office and make it the top-notch office it was under the days of W. Hamp King. He will not make it a political satrap for him, but a top-notch professional agency which all Mississippians can be proud of.

Take it from this CPA: Mike Sumrall is the ONLY choice for State Auditor.

Jamie Franks' Last Chance--One Week Left

2007-10-30T17:28:00.000-05:00

If I were to call the race today for Lt. Governor, I would predict Dewey Bryant would defeat Jamie Franks for the post. I have talked to people and the "liberal" label is beginning to take hold on Franks. Franks can deny the label all he wants, but it's perception--and not reality--that decides the election.

However, there is a week left in the campaign. And in politics, a week is an eternity. I have seen leads dissipate into deficits in just one week. You can look at state elections and Federal elections for such swings. So Franks still has time to turn it around and win.

Here is what Franks has to do:

1. Paint Bryant as a liberal. Remember, he ran as the liberal candidate for Rankin County Supervisor back in the 1988 special election.
2. For the interim vacancy on the Rankin County Board of Supervisors, he wrote a letter to then-Gov. Ray Mabus' office and stated he had always been a Democrat and he wanted the appointment. I found that out from one of Larry Swales' (The eventual winner of that race) top campaign aides.
3. Dewey Bryant started out as pro-abortion. I wrote on a previous post on how vehemently he was for a woman's "right to choose." But don't take my word for it. It was also reported he was pro-abortion in the Rankin County News of April 17, 1991. (No, I did not write a letter to the News or contact any of the reporters.)
4. He is AGAINST cutting taxes. After all, he is bitterly opposed to cutting the grocery tax on working people. Conservatives are always favoring tax cuts. Why not Dewey?

Franks has GOT to point all of this out to have a chance. If there is one issue that Mississippians feel strongly about, it is abortion. Now Dewey can talk about his pro-life credentials all he wants. But he became pro-life ONLY because he knew he would never get elected as a pro-abortion advocate. Franks has been pro-life from the start. If Franks pointed that out, Dewey's support would melt like a snowball on pavement in Key West, Fla. on a summer day.

Now Franks and his campaign staff may not think abortion is not that big of a deal. So I'll remind him about the 1991 Governor's race. Incumbent Governor Mabus was heavily favored to defeat Republican nominee Kirk Fordice. But I remember the bumper stickers that were on many a car that showed a fetus saying "Savus from Mabus." Everybody in politics knew Mabus was strongly pro-abortion. But he and his staff thought that wasn't a big deal.

The Sunday before the election there were flyers in many Baptist churches contrasting Mabus' pro-abortion stance versus Fordice's pro-life stance. On Election Day, Fordice stunned Mabus with a narrow victory. The margin was only by fifteen thousand votes. You can bet your sweet bippy the abortion issue was THE issue that defeated Mabus.

I analyzed the 1991 results versus the 1987 election results. In 1987, Mabus faced Democrat-turned-Republican Jack Reed. Mabus got 53% of the vote. In 1991, he got 49% of the vote. Mabus actually picked up black support in those four years and stayed the same in the white urban areas. It was the rural and the blue collar areas where Mabus lost heavily--in some cases losing more than 10% of the vote from his 1987 run. What was the reason? Mabus was perceived as liberal on abortion and that cost him reelection.

So Franks has a choice--go nuclear in the last week of the campaign or go down in flames. Right now, he is perceived as the liberal (His support of Kerry-Edwards in 2004 is hurting him.). But if he hits Dewey hard on the social issues and paint him as a flip-flopper who is pro-life to further his political career, he has a good chance of winning.

But the hour is getting late. What will Franks do?

Why We Need Jamie Franks for Lt. Governor

2007-10-29T17:40:00.000-05:00

I have written many a blog ripping Dewey Bryant to shreds. But there is a positive reason for choosing Jamie Franks as Lt. Governor. And that is we need an independent voice in the Lt. Governor's position.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, Gov. Haley Reeves Barbour will be reelected by a good margin--anywhere from ten to sixteen percentage points. I don't see an upset for Governor on November 6th. All the Republican candidates--except Delbert Hosemann--is running on being a workhorse for Haley. But I wonder if that's what Mississippi wants---or needs.

It is very rare when a Lt. Governor is a parrot for the Governor. I can't recall whenever a Lt. Governor has run for office saying he (or she) will be a "wing man" or parrot for the Governor. This is the first time I can recall a Lt. Governor candidate stating he'll be a parrot for the Governor. But Dewey has made it a priority he'll be a parrot for Haley.

Jamie Franks will tell Barbour when he is right and when he is wrong. He won't be a parrot for the Governor but an independent voice. He won't deliberately block Barbour's programs just because he is a Democrat. If it is good for the state, he will support Barbour. But on an issue such as the sales tax swap, he'll oppose Barbour. And I believe the voters want someone who will stand up for them and not just a political leader.

Dewey is boxed in. Don't believe him one bit when he says he'll oppose Barbour when he feels the Governor is wrong. Amy Tuck could oppose Barbour because she wasn't going anywhere politically. Her term expires in January 2008 and she couldn't run for reelection. What did she have to lose by opposing Barbour on the tax swap?

But Dewey has a lot to lose by opposing the Governor. Even though Barbour can't run for reelection in 2011, you can bet your sweet tushie he'll have a big say in who will be the GOP nominee. Dewey wants to be Governor so badly it's like watching a big coon dog looking at a juicy steak. If the GOP nominee in 2011 is elected, he'll run for reelection in 2015. Say Dewey is reelected in 2011, he'll be term-limited in 2015. He'll lose in a Republican primary against an incumbent GOP governor and if the governor is defeated for reelection because of the party split, Dewey will be hated for splitting the party. But what is Dewey to run for? After all, he's the Republican Bill Clinton (sans babes) who lives for politics and has no life other than politics and satisfying his big ego (and combing his coiffed hair).

Now Haley may be a good ole boy with that thick Southern drawl, but he is not a jerk. He is a political wizard. You piss off Haley and he'll give you the screws. He has the intelligence, the contacts, and the political genius. He can politically turn you into cow manure. If Dewey is to go anywhere in the GOP, he'll have to royally kiss Haley's tush or he's dead meat in 2011 if he should run for governor (He'll be one of the stupidest men ever to serve as governor if he is elected.). Haley holds grudges and he has a strong party machinery. Call Haley the Mayor Richard Daley of the Mississippi GOP. And Haley won't be fading away after he steps down as Governor. He'll still be a mover and shaker in GOP politics. So don't believe any of Dewey's horse manure he'll oppose Barbour if he needs to. If you believe he will, I have a gold mine in the back of my yard planted there by Martians I'd love to sell you.

If I wanted stupidity and a thoroughly gutless Lt. Governor who is vain, hot-headed, a liar and vindictive, I'd vote for Dewey Bryant.

I want a Lt. Governor who has brains, is honest, and has a political backbone. That is why I'm voting for Jamie Franks.

Dewey Bryant's Interwiew with the Clarion-Ledger: An Analysis

2007-10-27T17:36:00.000-05:00

Based on his interview with the Clarion-Ledger, Dewey Bryant has shown the citizens of Mississippi he is not fit to be Lt. Governor. He is also either one of the stupidest people in politics or a pathological, habitual liar.

Jamie Franks stated back in 2002, Dewey knew the Mississippi Beef Plant's owner had forged invoices, yet he NEVER told lawmakers. Bryant also gave "glowing" reports about the beef plant project. How Jamie Franks found out Bryant knew about the forged invoices is not known. But Franks is an exceptionally intelligent man and digs deep for information when he needs it. Knowing Franks, I think he speaks with authority.

Lawmakers gave Bryant money in 2003 to assist the Land, Water and Timber Board in monitoring the plant. Now read Bryant's brilliant response: He wasn't sure the legislation gave him much legal authority.

Huh? Is this guy an absolute mental dullard? Does he believe space aliens exist on the planet Quandax? Why didn't he try to find out what legal authority he had? Why didn't he consult the state Attorney General (Mike Moore had been Attorney General for fifteen years. He knew the office and the legislation.) to find out what legal authority he had? If he needed more legal authority, why didn't he get with Republicans in the State Legislature, such as legal eagle State Senator Charlie Ross (who is very intelligent), and ask for more legal authority? I think it would have been a slam dunk for him to get more legal authority.

As we all know, the Beef Plant went big burp in 2004. The Office of State Auditor, which became a political satrap for Bryant, first discovered criminal activity in November 2004. Did you read that? NOVEMBER 2004!! Now my math tells me there was at least a two-year gap between Franks' accusation Bryant knew about the plant's owner forged invoices in 2002 and discovering criminal activity in November 2004. What was going on in that two-year gap? Stocking up on Dippedy-doo for his hair?

Bryant stated it was not his job to advise lawmakers on projects. Why not? True, State Reps. Billy McCoy, Tommy Reynolds and that buffoon Steve Holland might have told him to blow away. But as I recall, there are Republicans in the State Legislature. My State Representative and State Senator are Republicans. He couldn't have talked to them? There was his own State Senator and good friend Charlie Ross. He couldn't have told him? Even back in 2003 a good solid one-third of the State Legislature was Republican. He couldn't have met with the GOP caucuses and informed them?

Bryant also said a private firm wrote a tax swap tobacco-grocery sales tax was not feasible. He didn't cite the study or give any data. But the Stennis Institute of Government at MSU said it would work. I have given you the raw data on the swap and I'm convinced it would work. Maybe the private firm Bryant cites is imaginary. If not, don't we voters have a right to know so we can make an informed decision?

He also suggested hiring a private accounting firm to study the state's tax code. Is this a payoff to a CPA firm that has been the main recipient of audits from Dewey's office and perhaps some of his biggest campaign donors? Why just one firm? There are thousands of CPAs out there who could do an excellent job in analyzing the state tax code. (No, I'm not angling to serve on such a panel.) Why not appoint a smorgasbord of CPAs, such CPAs working in public accounting and some on the Mississippi State Tax Commission?

Finally, he says he will not be a "yes-man" to Gov. Barbour. Hahahahahahahahahaha!! If he gives Barbour the shaft, he's toast. If Dewey runs for another office, Barbour just might give him the royal screws. Unlike Dewey, Barbour is very intelligent and is a political mastermind. You can rest assured when Barbour tells Dewey to jump (so long as it doesn't mess with his coiffed hair), Dewey will ask "How high?" Anybody who thinks Dewey will be independent of the Governor has been smoking the wacky weed.

This November 6th, vote for a man who is intelligent, independent and hard-working. Please vote for Jamie Franks. The State of Mississippi can't afford someone as stupid as Dewey Bryant to be Lt. Governor.

Rudy Warnock: Now More Than Ever

2007-10-23T17:48:00.000-05:00

Have you driven over Highway 80 in Pearl during a rainy night? You are in for a real treat. You can't even see what lane you are in. Plus, the highway is as slick as glass. Just make certain you have excellent tires.

Last night, I had to work the church kitchen for a special dinner we had for some church members. When I drove to church I got in the turn lane to make a right-hand turn. I thought my car was going to roll over because of the uneven highway versus the turn lane. When I left about 9PM, you couldn't even see what lane you were in when you were headed west. Plus, the road was real slick.

You can thank MDOT Central Commissioner Richard "Tricky Dicky" Hall for this royal mess. There was nothing wrong with the highway. It needed a little patching but not much else. As I recall, it was just a couple of years ago the highway was repaved. I'll be the first to tell you it is a frequently driven highway. It is the main artery in Pearl. The highway is vitally important to the city's economic health. But if it's so vitally important for the highway to be repaved, why wasn't it done in the summer or late spring when the days were a lot longer? Plus, there was a dry spell where we weren't getting much rain. The highway would be repaved by now and we wouldn't be risking our lives on a real slick highway.

But why does it need to be repaved? In case you can't figure it out: IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR!!! All Trick Dicky cares about is getting re-elected. He may waste money and have poor timing of projects, but it doesn't matters. All that matters to Tricky Dicky is getting back in office by showing folks he cares about us and he's doing something about our roads. I always stand amazed how there's so much highway construction during an election year.

Rudy Warnock is an engineer and knows what he is doing. He has been responsible for building hundreds of miles of roads and bridges in the Central District. He can discuss transportation issues with any engineer at MDOT and know what they are talking about. He would look into why our jobs are sent out of state to other construction companies and not stay in our state. He'll be tight with a dollar and will spend our money wisely.

Warnock is also not interested in being a political potentate. Tricky Dicky has spent thousands of dollars of using a helicopter and office renovations (Why can't he drive over our roads like the rest of us?). Warnock also knows how to get along with people in all walks of life as a professional engineer. Hall has had major and fiery disagreements with other members of the MDOT Commission. Warnock will be a unifier rather than being a divider.

I know Rudy is a Democrat and that is poison to a lot of people. But we are electing an individual for a very important position that involves our safety and even our lives. Shouldn't we elect someone who knows what he is doing and can do a far better job than what is being done right now?

This November 6th, the decision is very simple. Vote for a man who has the knowledge and temperament to be an excellent MDOT Central Commissioner. That man is Rudy Warnock.

John Eaves' Campaign Has Lost Momentum

2007-10-23T17:18:00.000-05:00

John Arthur Eaves' campaign was gaining some traction. He came up with some good proposals and he came across as sincere. He criticized some of Gov. Haley Barbour's programs and his handling of Hurricane Katrina's recovery efforts. He also criticized Barbour's relatives getting "sweetheart" contracts for recovery work. Eaves was behind, but his economic populism and conservative social stances was getting him some momentum.

Then came "The Bible" commercial. If there was any turning point in the campaign, it was that commercial. In the TV ad, Eaves is holding up a Bible and talking about the differences between Barbour and him. He went on how Barbour serves the powerful and the "moneychangers" while Eaves served the little people. He said he and Barbour were lawyers, but they used their legal expertise for totally different reasons. All that time, Eaves was clutching and prominently showing his Bible. To say the least, I thought the commercial was fit for the trash can. I'm a very fundamentalist Baptist, but I resent it when a shown Bible is used for political purposes. Mr. Eaves, have you no decency?

I was turned off by that commercial. However, I am not alone. I talked to folks in my Sunday School class plus some of my friends I saw at Wal-Mart where I shop. One person who was leaning towards Eaves switched to Barbour because of Eaves' using the Bible for political purposes. What turned him off was using the Bible to bash Barbour. This person has about six people in his family and they were all turned off by Eaves.

Eaves' criticism of Mike Espy was in poor taste. Admittedly, it was a body blow to the Eaves campaign, since the Espy name is big in black political circles and Eaves needs a near-unanimous black vote to have a chance to defeat Barbour. Now an endorsement is not going to swing a large amount of votes, but Espy's endorsement will give Barbour a little traction in the black community. Calling those Democrats who endorsed Barbour "moneychangers" and wondering what they would get in return was a cheap remark. (In all fairness, Barbour will not get 20% of the black vote. If he did, he would cream Eaves on Election Day. However, I do think he'll get more than the 5-6% he received in 2003. He could get as much as 12% of the vote. My guess is he'll get 8-10% of the vote.)

Maybe it's just me, but Eaves' TV commercials are getting more shrill and are basically Barbour-bashing narratives. Eaves should debate Barbour's health care proposals in his ads. He should state he would do all he could to pass the tobacco--grocery tax swap. Barbour's basically been running a positive campaign (I know he's knocked Eaves' suing the military, but he could really tear him apart for being a high-falutin' ambulance chaser.) stressing more jobs and his leadership during Hurricane Katrina.

In an earlier post, I predicted Eaves would get between 44-47% of the vote. Today, I think he would get between 41-44% of the vote. There are two weeks left and two weeks in politics is a political eternity. But Eaves has done one thing for me: He's solidified my vote for Barbour.

Delbert Hosemann for Secretary of State

2007-10-20T17:29:00.000-05:00

It is rare when a race for lower state offices has such a great contrast. Usually, it is Tweedledee versus Tweedledum. But that is not the case for the Secretary of State's race. While I have been a very strong supporter of Secretary of State Eric Clark, perhaps one of the most honorable and decent men ever in Mississippi politics, he is not running for re-election. So the choice is between Republican Delbert Hosemann or Democrat Robert Smith.

I'm voting for Delbert Hosemann. I know him and I can tell you he is a fine person and is well-qualified for the post. He's been active in local affairs and has been active in a lot of charitable organizations. I have listened to him on talk radio (WJNT 1180 rocks!) and he is very well-informed on election matters.

The main issue this race has is a very sharp contrast on the matter of voter ID. Hosemann is for voter ID; Smith is against it. This may shock Smith, but there is voter fraud in this state. Has he ever heard of Noxubee's Democratic primary races? In Smith's home county of Rankin, there were MORE votes for the liquor referendum in 1980 than there was in the Presidential race. There was a lot of talk of voter fraud, but nothing was ever done.

In the Laurel Leader Call of October 7, 2007, Smith said voter ID would stop people from voting. He said he was most concerned about elderly people voting in 2008 due to possible re-registration due to party affiliation. In the Hattiesburg American of September 19, 2007, Smith also stated many older black Mississippians say providing voter identification is a reminder of the Civil Rights Era when the state used poll taxes to keep blacks from voting.

Delbert Hosemann has responded that he has encountered very little opposition to voter ID. In the Biloxi Sun Herald he has stated he would make certain nobody would be left out from voting. He said 97% of the people in the state have a driver's license. As for the other three percent, he would find some other form of identification for them. In the Laurel Leader Call of September 29, 2007, Hosemann said he would lead the fight to pass a state constitutional amendment voter ID program, which would ensure only citizens would vote.

Smith has also come up with a plan to bring all the circuit clerks and county election commissioners together and come up with a better plans and various plans to conduct elections. Newsflash Smith: HAVA (Help America Vote Act) throws cold water on such plans to conduct different modes of voting in various counties. You can't use lever machines and punch card machines. 492 people CANNOT be in charge of elections (82 circuit clerks and 410 election commissioners). You can't have different counties have different voting systems and performance levels. There is only one boss: The Secretary of State. If different counties have different voting systems, the Secretary of State can be hauled into Federal court for violating the equal protection clause. Has Smith even READ HAVA? When the county clerk messes up (and that has been known to happen), the citizens will be calling the Secretary of State's office--not the circuit clerk.

(I'm a municipal election commissioner and I can tell you that office has radically changed since HAVA took effect. Other than conducting elections (not primaries--only general elections), the municipal election commissioners don't do a thing. Before HAVA, we used to meet at least three times a year to clean up the voter rolls. Under HAVA, we can no longer do that.)

Smith has no plans for bringing Mississippi up to code with the Americans with Disabilities Act. He has gone on record saying we should have BOTH electronic and paper ballots for the voter to choose between. Is this guy NUTS? As an election commissioner, that would be total chaos. It is a recipe for disaster and total confusion. Does Rob Smith know ANYTHING about how an election is run? Is he ignorant or just plain stupid?

Smith is also not a friendly person. I have had people tell me he is cold and caustic when they dealt with him when he was in the State Senate. I've talked to him in the past and found him to be a cold, aloof individual. What happens when he has to deal with angry voters if he puts some of his nutty ideas into effect (If the Feds don't stop him.)? Is he going to flip them off?

Hosemann is intelligent, friendly, well-informed, witty and a very hard worker. I know he will do an excellent job and continue the great work Secretary of State Eric Clark has done.

The choice is so easy even a caveman can do it: Please vote for Republican Delbert Hoseman for Secretary of State on November 6th.

The Three Stooges at WJTV---Channel 12

2007-10-18T17:19:00.000-05:00

For a change, I am not writing on politics. Instead, I'm going to vent on the sheer stupidity of WJTV in Jackson, Miss. I have never seen a more callous station that treats the viewer like ignorant, dumb trash.

Last night(Wednesday, October 17) I was watching "Criminal Minds." It was a gripping episode of serial killers and the climax was coming to a head. The child had gone back to the foster home and shot somebody. At this time, Shemar Moore heard a shot and came out of the car to inspect. At that second, the show was interrupted by a weather bulletin. There was some tornadoes out of the metro area and they were reporting on it.

For fifty-five minutes Tony Mastro and Ken South went on and on about the stinking weather. They constantly repeated themselves. Unless you are the stupidest, most ignorant human being that ever walked the face of the earth, you understood what they were saying the first time they reported. They kept on and on with the same information. My opinion of Tony Mastro is unprintable. He talks to us on TV like we are a bunch of dumb, ignorant rednecks. He's from Rhode Island and he probably thinks the average Mississippian has the IQ of an iguana.

Then that Californian Linda Allen came on. She started running her mouth on what we should do during a tornado. I thought we heard the same malarkey from Ken South (at least he's a native Southerner). She was very patronizing when she talked about the interruption of the two best Wednesday night programs on network TV (I don't have cable or satellite.)--"Criminal Minds" and "CSI:New York." I found her tone insulting and she would have been better off not even coming on TV.

The regular programming came on to show the conclusion on "CSI:New York." But before that, we had to put up with five minutes of idiotic commercials. That added insult to injury. On the news, all we heard was the stinking weather. There was no sports at all. It was weather, weather, weather. It was like listening to a broken record.

In our office, the complaints about the rude interruption was loud and long. A lot of us felt cheated for they're butting in just as the climax was coming to a peak on "Criminal Minds." If they had to interrupt, couldn't they have waited for five minutes? Would that have been too much to ask?

I called WJTV twice. The lady was surprised I was fairly polite. She said the answering machine was piled with complaints. The language that was used was totally unprintable except in porn magazines. The phone was ringing off the hook in the morning with people complaining about the rude interruption. They were white-hot with anger. The lady said she had never heard of such loud complaining and had never had as many complaints.

I called near noon to see when they would show the programs. I told her it would be stupid to show them at 1AM. I suggested they show the programs at 7PM and 8PM on Saturday, since the station has latitude in showing repeats of crime programs. She said they had no intentions of showing the programs again. I was miffed. She did tell me the management had a meeting and they plan to do things differently.

I suggested they interrupt commercials and report the weather on the half hour and for the rest of the time just show a trailer at the bottom of the screen. I told her people in this state can read. I curtly informed her she should inform Linda Allen and Tony Mastro that Mississippians are educated and can read the English language. She chuckled but didn't comment.

These rude interruptions have got to come to an end. They have done this in the past and taken up as much as three hours running their mouths about some storm in Buttsville, Miss. They constantly repeat themselves like magpies in heat. I honestly believe the management at WJTV thinks we Mississippians are dumber than dog turds and they have to constantly repeat themselves. It is nauseating, disgusting and insulting. Whenever they have rescheduled the interrupted programs, it has been at 1AM or some other kook time. This is insulting and insensitive to the average viewer. Who is going to watch TV that hour or record it on a VCR? The management must think we don't have jobs and all we do is watch TV 24/7.

Linda Allen, Tony Mastro and Ken South are the Three Stooges of WJTV. All three of them sorely lack common sense and don't have the brains to come out of the rain. All three of them are insulting and very patronizing. I believe they honestly think we are dumber than dog turds and if it weren't for their enlightened reporting and knowledge we would never know anything about bad weather. If they are that stupid and insensitive, they should be immediately fired.

What happened from 8:53PM to 9:48PM was an insult to the average viewer. They should apologize. And if management had any brains (which they don't), they would fire the Three Stooges (Fat chance of that happening.).

Why I Will Vote For Haley Barbour

2007-10-16T17:32:00.000-05:00

I'm no big fan of Haley Barbour and I think he represents the "Country Club" faction of the Mississippi GOP. Nevertheless, I plan to vote for him. I strongly believe he deserves another term as Governor. I disagree with his stand on the tobacco-grocery tax swap, but I respect his stand of not raising taxes.

I know there are still problems with the Hurricane Katrina Recovery. But he showed extraordinary leadership on August 29, 2005, when the hurricane hit. He was on top of the tragedy and he did a yeoman job in getting relief to the Gulf Coast. I don't like the slow recovery, but that's government for you---slow as molasses. His leadership was in strong contrast to Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blank-o and the New Orleans Mayor EmptyRay Noggin.

John Arthur Eaves, Jr. slams Barbour for his blind trust and getting money from his lobbying firm. That's a fair criticism. But what about Eaves? He's a trial lawyer who has made millions from the agony and tragedy of others. He gets fat contingency fees and sues at the drop of a hat if he thinks he can make a buck. I'm not crazy about lobbyists, but I have raw contempt for trial lawyers. I still remember years ago about some trial lawyer in another state suing McDonald's because some lady spilled hot coffee on herself while driving her auto.

Another strong criticism is his lack of knowledge of basic economics and accounting. In one of his ads (and they are very good ads), he accuses "Big Oil" (Why not "Big Law"?) of gouging consumers and the government does not do a thing. Perhaps he needs to understand a little accounting. Most oil companies use FIFO--First In First Out--inventory pricing. Let's say Exxon sells a barrel of oil for $100. Under FIFO, the cost of the oil would be the oldest inventory. So let's say the barrel cost $50. So, Exxon had made a profit of $50. But that is a fictitious profit because the replacement cost is $88 a barrel. In reality, oil profits are only 4.6% of revenue. The normal profit margin for all industries is 5.4%. And I'll bet it's a lot lower than the profit at Eaves' firm. Eaves strikes me as ignorant about economics and the free market. Barbour does know business and the marketplace. And his lobbying connections just might bring more industries and jobs to the state.

While I admire Eaves' fundamentalist Christian values and exhortations, I was turned off when he held up that big Bible and ripped into Barbour, talking about Eaves' serving the little people and Barbour serving the powerful. Yeah, lobbying firms are powerful. But what about those trial lawyer firms like Dicky Scruggs? They aren't powerful?

I also have doubts about Eaves' statement his proposal that every child be covered by health insurance. He said it won't raise the cost of medical care in this state. Where have I heard that before? Back in 1965 when Medicare was being debated, the liberals said Medicare would cost only $10 billion in 1990. In 1990. Medicare cost over $100 billion--ten times the projection! Do you honestly believe Eaves' plan won't raise medical costs? If you believe that, I strongly suggest you look at other plans in other states--especially Illinois. In EVERY case, health costs were much larger than originally projected.

Eaves also slammed Barbour for investing in Toyota and not investing in Mississippi companies. First of all, I don't have a problem with Toyota coming to Tupelo any more than Musgrove's bringing Nissan to Canton four years ago. After all, these are Mississippians working in those plants. I do tax returns for some of those employees and they get great benefits and wages. And the money is spent in Mississippi. Secondly, what Mississippi businesses would Eaves have the state "invest" in? What criteria will be used? We had a real turkey with that beef plant. Will we have more turkeys?

While Eaves has never said it, I get the gut feeling Eaves would have no qualms about a 6% personal income tax bracket. That idiot State Rep. John Mayo introduced that in the State House a session or two ago. I am bitterly opposed to raising the personal income tax. I have a gut feeling he'd raise the income tax to pay for his health programs.

There's only one candidate for Governor who can lead Mississippi forward and continue the progress we have made in the last four years--especially after the horrific effects of Hurricane Katrina. And that man is Republican Governor Haley R. Barbour.

Highway 80 Follies

2007-10-05T17:30:00.000-05:00

Have you driven over Highway 80 in Pearl going from Kroger to Park Place Baptist Church? It looks nice, doesn't it? But why is Commissioner Tricky Dicky Hall spending all these bucks for a highway that does not need asphalting or even major repairs? Answer: IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR!!

My friends and I were travelling over the Interstate to get to the Rankin County Courthouse and we were talking about the major traffic tie ups on Highway 80 because of one lane being closed. Now I don't mind the highway being asphalted. I like nice highways. But what was wrong with it? It was still a very smooth drive. There were probably some minor repairs that needed to be done, but there was nothing major. In fact, from Airport Road for a mile east the road had just been paved just a couple of years ago. Head west on Highway 80 and get in the turn lane to enter Pemberton. Does your car dip a little? That's because the two westbound lanes are paved, but the turn lane isn't. I'll bet your shocks love the wear and tear. Thank Dicky Hall for that.

And yet, we Pearlites look at our streets and shake our heads. You'd have to see the potholes and major repairs that need to be done. Now I'll admit MDOT can't do anything about the city streets. But it would be great if MDOT could have transferred those funds to the city so we could get repairs to our streets rather than repaving Highway 80.

This is why we need to get rid of Tricky Dicky and replace him with Rudy Warnock. As a professional engineer, Warnock would know how to judiciously spend the money. He wouldn't waste money on election year projects to make himself look good. Perhaps he will endorse a plan to give cities more discretion on using funds to repair city streets. Dicky Hall is a politician. He just wants to get reelected so he can get a juicy pension. Warnock is an engineer and he doesn't need the bucks as MDOT Commissioner. He wants to better our roads and make driving a lot safer and smoother.

Just drive down Highway 80 in Pearl and you will see it is time for a change. It's time to elect Rudy Warnock.

Lt. Governor and the State Senate

2007-09-29T18:32:00.000-05:00

Let us take the scenario that Dewey Bryant is elected (God forbid!!) Lt. Governor. He will have the power to appoint all the State Senate chairmen. Now he has made it perfectly clear he will appoint ONLY REPUBLICANS as committee chairmen. (Of course, he has flip-flopped on that issue. Please see www.flipfloppingphil.blogspot.com for more info.)

Right as of this moment, the GOP controls the State Senate 27-25. If that holds up in the general election, Dewey can make all Republican appointments. He's a very partisan Republican and if the State Senate is GOP-controlled, making those appointments makes political sense. To the Republican victors belong the spoils.

But what if the Democrats take over the State Senate. I have a good friend who is a Republican State Senator (He is unopposed for re-election). He was a Republican when all the Republicans in the state could fit in a telephone booth. He knows his politics. He told me the GOP will lose four to six seats in the upper chamber. He even ticked off the Republican seats the Democrats could win. He would be absolutely stunned if the GOP maintained its majority. Now remember: This State Senator is a very strong conservative Republican.

Looking at a gain of six seats, the GOP would have 21 seats to the Democrats' 31. So now let's get this straight. There are 31 Democratic State Senators yet Dewey baby is going to appoint all Republicans to chairmanships? Huh? Are Martians going to dig up all that gold in my back yard?

Here is what could happen (and my Republican friend doesn't think it'll happen, but he doesn't discount the possibility). The Democrats are so pissed off they tell Dewey to kiss their grits and refuse to accept his appointments. (It would be interesting to see how blacks would like being shut out of the legislative process. Remember: State politics in Mississippi has gotten a lot more polarized in the past few years. And there is bitterness in both parties.) So they decide to caucus and say they are rejecting his appointments and vote on a straight-party line vote to reject Dewey's choices. The Democrats may throw a bone or two to some Republicans, but essentially they'll control the legislative process. Dewey will just preside over the State Senate, but the Democrats will just flip Dewey the well-deserved bird.

There is a possibility of the reverse: Jamie Franks being elected and a Republican State Senate. But Franks is wise enough he can't be a die-hard partisan. He said he would make appointments that would "reflect Mississippi." He would appoint Democrats, Republicans, whites and blacks to committee chairs even if the Democrats took control of the State Senate. And he would defuse some of the partisan bickering that has affected the State Legislature.

Dewey has painted himself in a real corner (I keep telling you this guy is an empty suit and is dumb as a brick. I know the guy.). If he keeps his word and appoint only Republicans to committee chairs, he will piss off the probable Democratic Senate and there could be a partisan revolt against him (Just what Haley needs to get his programs through. Dewey won't be Haley's "wing man". He'll be Haley's dodo.). On the other hand, if he flip flops (Surprise!) and appoints chairmen that "reflect Mississippi" (i.e., appoint blacks and white Democrats), he'll piss off the red-meat Republicans whom he will need when he runs for governor in 2011 or re-election as Lt. Governor.

Believe me, Jamie Franks would do a much better job than Dewey. He would keep the waters of the State Senate smoothly flowing. With Bryant, there would be constant turbulence. But if Dewey were elected, it would be a raucous four years. There would be no dull moments with that empty suit and pretty boy being Lt. Governor (Just make sure he has plenty of Dippedy Doo for his gorgeous hair that is coiffed at Monique's.).

1995 Redux?

2007-09-29T17:48:00.000-05:00

In 1995, there was no doubt Republican Governor Kirk Fordice was going to win by a landslide. The big question is how many Republicans he would sweep into office with him. Then-Republican Chairman Billy Powell predicted good-sized Republican gains. Indeed, there was even talk of the GOP taking over the State Senate. The Republicans already had the Lt. Governor's post and there was talk of the GOP winning the Secretary of State's, Treasurer's and MDAC Commissioner's posts. Democrats were depressed and were bracing for the worst.

Election Day turned out to be a lot different. Kirk Fordice was re-elected with 55.9% of the voted. He was the ONLY Republican to win a statewide post. Republican incumbent Lt. Governor Eddie Briggs went down to defeat to Ronnie Musgrove. Republican candidates for Secretary of State, Treasurer and MDAC Commissioner got no better than 39% (You read right.) of the vote. As for those big GOP legislative gains, Republicans actually lost seats in the State Senate but gained some in the House. Billy Powell hurt GOP hopes by calling Democratic conservatives "liberals", a charge that badly backfired.

So now it's 2007 and we are getting the same rhetoric again. I do believe incumbent Republican Gov. Haley Barbour will be re-elected. But unless he diverts some of his money to Republicans running for the State Legislature, he won't have any coattail effects. A lot of Republicans (and Democrats as well) think a governor has coattail effects. He doesn't. Fordice had none. Musgrove sure didn't have any.

Let's look at the math. Barbour will get 54%-58% of the vote. Usually, a candidate has to win with at least 60% to have coattails. As of today, I can't see Barbour getting 60% of the vote. If Eaves gets below 40%, that means his support among white voters is very weak. I think he'll get at least 20% of the white vote. If he can't get that, he ought to drop out of running for statewide office in the future or come up with a new campaign theme if he does run.

But Mississippians are very independent in their voting. Party labels don't excite the average voters. Unless you are a party activist, party labels don't turn you on in statewide or Legislative races. With the exception of the Treasurer's race (where politikook Shawn O'Hara is running his umpteenth race), the Democrats have a strong ticket. On the social issues, not one of them can be painted with the liberal paintbrush.

It is very conceivable on Election Day the GOP could win only two statewide offices, Governor Barbour and State Treasurer Tate Reeves. Jamie Franks should get the same base vote as Eaves (44%, as I wrote in a previous blog) plus more. Franks is bleeding Dewey Bryant with the cigarette tax-grocery tax swap. (And don't believe Dewey's polls showing him more than twenty points ahead of Franks. That means Franks is getting about 9%-12% of the white vote. I believe my cat Bueller is a Martian if Franks is that bad with white voters.). Attorney General Jim Hood will win with about 62% of the vote (I plan to vote for Hopkins because I think Hood is a lapdog for trial lawyers.). MDAC Commissioner candidate Rickey Cole has an excellent chance of winning (Les Riley of the Constitution Party will get a couple of thousand of votes.) against Dr. Moo (Lester Spell). State Auditor candidate Mike Sumrall is a very strong candidate and may win if he can convince the majority of voters the state needs an auditor and not a politician for the post. I do not think Rob Smith will defeat Delbert (Eggbert?) Hosemann for Secretary of State. Hosemann will win with 55%-59% of the vote (I plan to vote for Hosemann. I cannot stand Rob Smith and his aloof arrogance.). And I believe Gary Anderson will run a good race for Insurance Commissioner but will lose to Mike Chaney (Unfortunately, Anderson will lose because race is still an issue with the dumber parts of the voting electorate. Those turkeys will never vote for a black. I'm voting for Chaney because Anderson is too closely tied to Dicky Scruggs, a notorious trial lawyer who has given Anderson big bucks. Yeah, I know Chaney has gotten insurance money. But I just can't stand trial lawyers.).

But none of the Democrats other than O'Hara are poor candidates. I don't see how Barbour can help them. As for the Legislative races, the GOP will lose control of the State Senate. I talked to a Republican State Senator who is a political animal and a Republican when Republicans caucused in a phone booth. He thinks the GOP will lose four to six seats in the upper body. As for the State House, he thinks the GOP will gain five or so seats. Again, just like 1995.

I could be wrong. Maybe the GOP will sweep everything in sight and they not only keep control of the State Senate but take control of the State House. And maybe my cat Bueller will become a CPA and help me during tax season.

My Favorite Blogs

2007-09-24T17:07:00.000-05:00

I do have some favorite blogs for the 2007 Mississippi elections and I heartily recommend them to you. I have reviewed a lot of blogs and there are some that are outstanding. So here I go.

The best by far is www.cottonmouth.blogspot.com. I really do believe it is the number one political blog in Mississippi. While I do not agree with John Leek on many issues, I bow down to his excellent reporting. He broke two stories that the mainstream media (MSM) did not report until much later--Dewey Bryant's hitting Jamie Franks' truck and Les Riley being re-placed on the ballot for MDAC Commissioner. John also has the courage to put his name on the blog instead of being anonymous. I predict this blog will be the leading political blog in Mississippi in due time. If you want hard-hitting reporting and editorials, this is the blog to bookmark. It is a populist Democratic blog, but at least you know where John stands. I check it at least four times a day.

Another blog that is fantastic is www.flipfloppingphil.blogspot.com. I have laughed my tush off reading this blog. It is written by Hammer of Logic. Hammer not only is a great reporter, but he has a rollicking sense of humor. His poem on Dewey's billboards is a classic. I wish he would write every day. Believe me, this is one of the funniest and yet most incisive blogs I have ever read on Dewey Bryant. If Franks is elected Lt. Governor, you can give some of the credit to Hammer of Logic.

If you want die-hard Democratic partisanship, read www.yallerdog.blogspot.com. The blog is very good, but it is Democratic all the way. I read it for a different point of view, since most of the candidates I'm supporting are Republican. But I respect good reporting when I see it. Yallerdog is very good at reporting the Democratic side.

www.majorityinms.com is a very good blog and staunchly Republican. Britt Kittredge is excellent and does a very good job of reporting. I wish he would blog a lot more. He does an excellent job in reporting the Republican and conservative points of view. Like me, he does not blog on Sundays because of church. I respect that a lot.

www.rightofmississippi.wordpress.com is another Republican blog. He does a good job of reporting and even quotes those whom he disagrees with. My only complaint is that he doesn't blog enough. But when he does, it is worth a good read.

www.headreactivated.blogspot.com is a good left-libertarian blog. Tom Head is excellent in analyzing the candidates and their platforms. I strongly disagree with his blog on the social issues, but he adeptly defends his stands. I can disagree with a person and still strongly respect the individual. I recommend this blog just because of Head's excellent analyses of the candidates.

www.thanksfranks.blogspot.com is an anti-Franks blog. But he also writes on other candidates and issues. He is conservative. I strongly disagree with him about Franks. If he met Dewey Bryant, he'd be gung-ho for Franks. But this blog is excellent in reporting and it has a great sense of humor.

There are only two excellent websites on Mississippi politics. www.magnoliareport.com is perhaps the best of them all. They give the links to all the major political news reports of the day. For sheer excellent reporting, it is tops. The only thing I regret is there hasn't been a political report issued since February 26th. I check in to the website at least twice a day.

www.yallpolitics.com reports the same news as Magnoliareport. But it also allows for commentary. It makes the website unwieldy and hard to navigate. Alan Lange writes good editorials but he is a partisan Republican. I'd like to see a tad more objectivity. A lot of the commentary by other commentarians leaves much to be desired.

These are the blogs I will look at throughout the campaign. While I may disagree or agree with them on the candidates and issues, they are all very informative. They are all worth a good read.

A Commercial Franks Should Run on TV

2007-09-22T17:56:00.000-05:00

There is no doubt Franks can win on the issues, especially the sales-tax-on-groceries issue. Here is a TV commercial I would love to see.

On the TV are the large cedar doors of a fashionable country club. The narrator intones:

"These are the doors of a very fashionable country club. After a tough morning of playing polo, eating filet mignon and lobster for lunch and drinking Chivas Regal, Phil Bryant is meeting with his country club buddies and rich campaign donors. They are discussing the big income tax cuts Phil is going to propose for them and opposing the sales tax cut on groceries for us little people. Phil doesn't care about us. Elimination of the grocery sales tax would give us more money so we could buy school supplies and clothes for our children.
"We working people can't get in a country club. We're too busy working for a living. That's why we're backing Jamie Franks. Our kind of man. Our kind of Lt. Governor."

Please vote for Jamie Franks. One of the working people for all of us working people.

Just a thought. But I think it would be a very effective ad. I've been in campaigns before and even managed (winning) one.

Questions Jamie Franks Should Ask Dewey

2007-09-22T17:14:00.000-05:00

Jamie Franks can't defeat Dewey Bryant on looks or rhetoric. Dewey (I'm going to call him that rather than Phil, since Dewey seems more appropriate for him--real prissy.) is a very good stump speaker and he is a dandy in the looks department. It's hard to compete against a blow-dried candidate.

However, Franks can defeat Dewey on the issues. If I were Jamie Franks (and he hasn't asked me for any advice), here are the questions I would ask Dewey:

1. Most Mississippians want elected officials who will support the Governor when he is right, but object when he is wrong. You stated you would be Gov. Haley Barbour's "wing man" and be a slavish follower of Barbour. Is there anything you disagree on issues with Barbour?

2. Polls show 80% of Mississippians are in favor of raising the tobacco tax and lowering or eliminating the sales tax on groceries. Why are you opposed to it, even though studies have shown it would not cost municipalities any funding?

3. You stated you wanted to lower income taxes. Just what are your specifics on lowering income taxes?

4. In your race for State Auditor in 1999, you stated you wanted to eliminate some of the smaller counties in Mississippi and "consolidate" them. Could you please be more specific?

5. You stated just before the Republican primary you would appoint ONLY Republicans to head all the committees in the State Senate. Now just a few days ago you may not appoint all Republicans as chairman. I have always said I would appoint chairman that would reflect Mississippi. Just what is it, Dewey? Have you flip-flopped again?

6. The State Auditor's office could have put a stop to the wild spending for the failed Beef Plant, but it didn't. The fiasco cost the state $55 million. Why didn't you put a stop to this boondoggle?

7. You want to be second in command to run the state, but your office has been highly criticized by PEER for poor and incomplete audits. Turnover has been over 85% during your administration. The NSAA audit on your office has for the first time ever given the OSA failing marks. The NSAA wrote the quality of state audits is terrible. Can we really trust you to effectively run the office of Lt. Governor?

8. You state you are a conservative. But when you ran for Rankin County supervisor in 1988 you were considered the most liberal candidate. You were once in FAVOR of abortion. The Miss. Right to Life and National Rifle Association organizations endorsed your opponent in the primary. Why are you NOW conservative?

9. You state to religious leaders you are bitterly opposed to gambling. But on the Gulf Coast you stated you are a strong supporter of gambling. Indeed, you have taken contributions from the Band of Choctaw Indians. Dewey, just where do you stand on the issue? Or are you flip-flopping again?

10. As you know, Hurricane Katrina was one of the biggest natural disasters to hit this state in its history. Yet your office failed to properly audit the dollars that were spent on recovery efforts. Instead, much of the money was spent on pet boardings, limousines, gym passes, first class air transportation and other amenities for Reznik (a group hired by Dewey to oversee Katrina money). Why did you allow a company to steal from Katrina victims on your watch?

11. For years, you never said a word about illegal immigration. Not a peep. Now you are gung-ho in bashing illegal immigration. Why the sudden change?

If I were Jamie, don't expect any answers. Dewey is an empty suit and is one of the stupidest men ever to run for Lt. Governor. But if Dewey ever has the guts to debate Jamie, those are the questions I would ask Pretty Boy.

Good luck, Jamie.

The Math of Barbour versus Eaves

2007-09-18T17:33:00.000-05:00

Right now, many people think Republican Gov. Haley Barbour will win by a towering landslide over Democratic challenger John Arthur Eaves, Jr. On the www.cottonmouth.blogspot.com, I read one comment stating Eaves would "be lucky to break 40%."

As we say in the accounting profession: Take a statistic to lunch. So I did some number-crunching. I do believe Barbour is ahead and will likely win. But if I were the Barbour enthusiasts, I would not be too overconfident. It may be a lot closer than you think.

I have reviewed the voting statistics in Mississippi elections from 1975 through 2003 in state elections. The voting breakdown is 68% white and 32% black. True, these statistics are not always the same in every election, but that is about the average.

So let's see how this breaks down in the Governor's race. Eaves will get 95% of the black vote. I hear every election (except for Fordice) where the GOP nominee will get 10-15% of the black vote. Barbour thinks he'll get that percentage of the black vote. I believe, at the maximum, Barbour will get 8% of the black vote. So, Eaves will have a 30.4% base (32% times 95%) to work with.

Now we get to the white vote. Eaves will get at least 20% of the white vote. NO Democratic white candidate for state office has ever gotten below 20% of the white vote. Dick Molpus in 1995 got about 20% of the white vote, the lowest percentage of the white vote for a Democratic gubernatorial nominee. So, Eaves has another 13.6% added to the base (68% times 20%). That gives him 44% of the vote. (For Eaves to get below 40% of the state vote he'd have to get 14% of the white vote. My cat Bueller could do better than that.)

If Eaves is going to win, he must get 28.9% of the white vote. That is not as easy as you think. The suburban and urban white vote will go 85% to 95% for Barbour. Eaves will do poorly in the Reservoir, Crossgates and Castlewoods areas of Rankin County. And he will get creamed in DeSoto County.

But the crucial vote will be what I call the "blurals". This is a combination of the white rural and/or blue-collar workers. They are very conservative on social issues but liberal to populist on economic issues. Eaves must do well with these voters to even have a chance to win. It is hard to determine the percentage of the vote this group makes (For example: Bankers, lawyers, CPAs and engineers could live in the rural areas.).

Can he do it? His ads are heavily laced with fundamentalist Christian overtones. One ad has him saying, "Jesus healed the sick" in reference to universal health insurance for children. Another one has him talking about the "moneychangers." Another ad talks about his opposition to abortion, homosexual marriage and supporting prayer and Bible study in the schools. While this may turn off some economic conservatives, it is strongly appealing to the blurals. I've talked to a lot of the blurals. While most of them are voting for Barbour, the Eaves ads are very appealing to them and it is possible for them to change their minds. I plan to vote for Barbour. But as a very fundamentalist Baptist, I like Eaves' ads a lot better than Barbour's. Indeed, if I were voting just on my religious beliefs alone, I would definitely vote for Eaves. (I can't help but notice the bitter irony. It is a Democrat that is running a Christian Right campaign and a Republican running a secular, economic-based issues campaign. This is like having a Baptist preacher having Wild Turkey with his Sunday dinner.)

It is early in the campaign and it is hard to tell what will happen between now and November 6th. But if I were the Barbour people, I wouldn't get too cocky or overconfident. Eaves will not be a pushover. As of today, my prediction is Eaves would get 44% to 47% of the vote.

As I always say: Take a statistic to lunch.

The Upcoming Retirement Crisis

2007-09-08T17:27:00.000-05:00

This blog will depart from state politics (although it could affect state policy in years to come) and discuss an issue no Federal or State politician wishes to even talk about--the upcoming retirement crisis. But it is coming. I do over six hundred tax returns a year and see very few employees putting into their retirement plans. In fact, I see quite a few of them take their money out of retirement plans and spend it. Take it from this CPA, it is coming.

Years ago, back in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, the only pension plans were defined benefit plans. The company would set aside monies to fund future retirement benefits for their employees. Since the vesting period for a pension was ten years, there was little turnover. The employee didn't have to put in a penny of his own money for retirement. When he hit retirement age, he would get his benefit based on his years of service. For example, for every year you served with a company, you would get a 1 1/2% pension accrual. If you served forty years with a company, you would get 60% of the average of your last five years of salaries. Add that pension to Social Security, throw in some investments and you could have a comfortable retirement. Major industries and almost all government entities had defined benefit plans.

But in 1978, IRC 401(k) was passed by Congress. It was a little bitty sentence, but it would have major implications. A financial person wrote a letter to the IRS seeing if he could form a deferred compensation plan where you could put away for retirement, but payroll taxes would still have to be paid. The idea was to use this as a supplement to the defined pension plans. This would even assure workers of having a better retirement.

But things went awry. The defined contribution plan was born. True, they were always there through the Keogh (a self-employed retirement plan, which I use), but not for the average Jane and Joe in the workplace. For the next thirty years, employers except for government and the biggest employers covered by union contracts did away with the defined benefit plan.

The dynamics of retirement planning changed. Employers no longer had to offer ANY retirement plan. If you wanted retirement income, you could put in $1500 (the amount in 1975)in an IRA a year (It is now $5000.). But if you didn't, you were just out of luck. The burden for retirement planning switched from the employer to the employee. So how much retirement income would you have if you didn't put into an IRA or your employer didn't have a retirement plan, you were out of luck. You would have bupkis (nothing). And if you didn't have any money saved up, you'd be subsisting only on Social Security. Great future.

But most places do have a 401(k) plan. You can put up to 25% of your earned income on your job into a 401(k) up to $15500 (for 2007). (Yes, I know about the top-heavy rules, but let's keep this simple.) Plus, you can still contribute to a Roth or a non-deductible IRA of $4000 a year (which I do).

So based on the above, let's take the situation of two workers. John Smith starts out earning $48000 at a CPA firm in the metro area (By the way, that is about the starting salary for an accountant fresh out of college.). He decides to put in the maximum of $12000 a year. His company is required to contribute 4%, or $1920 (Some of you pension experts can correct me on this.) to John's 401(k). Just for argument's sake, let's say John works there for 42 years and NEVER gets a raise (Obviously, that isn't realistic.). Let us also assume the rate of return is 5.5% a year (which is not unrealistic). By the time he retires, he will have $2,145,078.46 in his 401(k). Assuming he takes out only 6% a year, he'll be yanking out $128704.71 a year. That's not bad bucks. And remember, this is the lowest amount he'll be putting in.

But now let's look at Susan Jones. She works in a clerical job earning $20000 a year. There is no way she can put any money into her 401(k). Rent, car note, food, utilities and taxes leave her with very little. To rent a decent apartment in Rankin County costs $600-$800 a month. Her employer does offer a 401(k) plan, so her employer is required to contribute 3%, or $600. Let's say she works there for 45 years. Lets also use the same amount of 5.5% a year. When she retires, she will have $110,471.50 in her 401(k). Assuming she takes out 6% a year, she'll be yanking out $6628.29 a year. She'll be eating a lot of red beans and rice.

Look at the disparity: $2,145,078.46 versus $110,471.50. That is 19.4175 times the disparity between the least and the greatest amounts. Unfortunately, I see more of the latter than the former. I see a very large number of people taking out premature distributions and spending it on cars and even boats. When they retire, they only have Social Security. If you think Social Security is going to get you through your final years, think again. Indeed, MOST of the retirees today state Social Security is their main source of retirement income.

I agree with the pension bill passed this year that allows employers to mandatory yanking out 3% out of an employee's check to put in a 401(k) plan. In Susan Jones' instance, she would put in $600 a year of her own money and her employer would be forced to match it with 4%, or $800. That would be $1400 a year. When she retires, she would have $257766.83 in her retirement account and she could take out $15466.01 a year. (However, the employee does have the right to forbid the employer to take the 3% out of her check.)

The overwhelming number of small businesses do not have any kind of retirement plans. Bupkis, baby. That is where you are going to have the retirement crisis. How are they going to live? Social Security won't suffice. The employees don't have much choice other than to contribute to an IRA. Most employees don't.

President Bush had the right idea to set up Personal Savings Accounts to replace the retirement portion of Social Security(which is 5.3% for the employee and 5.3% for the employer, a total of 10.6%) (I calculated I would get three times the benefit under Bush's plan than under Social Security. In fact, I'm not even counting on Social Security for my retirement and don't even factor it in my retirement calculations.). Except for the very poor, www.cato.org has shown PSAs would benefit almost all workers.

I know the argument. If there was a severe downturn in the financial markets, the PSAs would diminish in value. What the government could do is pay the retiree the difference in what his PSA pays out versus what he would get under normal Social Security calculations. This would protect retirees from the vagaries of the downturns (like the ones in 1969-1970, 1973-1974, 1981-1982, October 1987, 2000-2002.).

But this is only theory. Right now, the Baby Boomers are starting to retire. In 2008, the first of the Baby Boomers will start drawing Social Security. The retirement crisis will soon be coming upon us during the next ten years and accelerating. In the past, the defined benefit plans would give us a strong retiree middle class. But the future may show a small wealthy retiree class, a weak retiree middle class and a large impoverished retiree class.

Government will not be able to solve the problem unless it decides to jack up taxes. And that will cause a massive taxpayers' revolt. The free market can solve the problem, but I've seen very few good ideas out there other than Bush's PSA accounts. But his plan was--and is--dead in the water.

Maybe some politician out there has a good solution. If he (or she) does, I'd like to know about it. The retirement crisis is going to hit us soon and we need some solutions.

Cell Telephones and Polls

2007-09-07T17:28:00.000-05:00

The primary season is over and the general election campaigns began in earnest after Labor Day. Now we are going to be bombarded with polls touting how all the candidates are doing. Indeed, www.cottonmouth.blogspot.com has put up the first general election poll I have seen on any general election race, the race between Jamie Franks and Dewey Bryant.

Back in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, pollsters actually used to go to the person's residence and interview him (or her). (Indeed, Gallup Poll interviewers had to lug with them briefcases and wear a big button on the left side of their shirt or dress saying "Gallup Poll."). Except for 1948, when pollsters stopped polling weeks before the Presidential election, the polls were very close to the actual result. In the 1970s and beyond, the pollsters stopped the personal interviews and started using telephone interviews. After all, almost everybody had a listed telephone number and mobile phones were rare. But it was until the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s that poll results were far different among different pollsters.

One reason is the rise of cell telephones. As you know, cell phones are NOT listed in any telephone directory (Well, at least not yet.). You don't get the telephone solicitors or any advertisements when you have a cell phone. I have a Cingular cell phone under the family plan and an Alltel cell phone under the zone plan. I have a land phone but I very rarely use it. I thought of getting rid of it. However, I live right near the airport. If there is bad weather and the cell phones don't work (Alltel doesn't work even in the best of circumstances. Cingular works very good.), I need the land phone.

So let's say you are a pollster and you want to contact me. You can't. The phone calls on my land line are all telemarketers. I have an answering machine that screens the calls. If it's somebody I know, I'll call him on my cell phone (I'm under the measured dialing plan under Ma Bell for my land phone. Why waste the minutes?). I give my clients and political friends my cell phone numbers. I receive no important calls on the land phone.

The bookkeeper/accountant in our firm has only a land phone. Ditto for her husband. Almost all of her friends have cell phones and no land phones. When I worked contract at a large CPA firm doing very complex personal tax returns, ALL the twenty somethings have cell phones and no land lines. How does a pollster contact them?

The demographics are very simple. The young have cell phones and don't have land lines. The thirty somethings have cell phones but may have land lines, but mainly cell phones. The forty somethings and fifty somethings have cell phones and most have land lines. The retired may have cell phones but most of them have land lines. Another problem is people may have land lines only for emergency purposes but use their cell phones as their main telephone. And what if you have an answering machine that screens the calls? They may not want to talk to a pollster. So any telephone poll is going to be skewed towards oversampling the elderly.

Oh, sure, I hear the pollsters adjust the samples because of the cell phone usage. But in the next ten years, estimates show five to fifteen million users will dump their land lines and use only cell phones. How do you adjust the polls for them? It won't be the young people in that batch, but the forty somethings on up that will be dumping their land lines. Just like the pay phone, the land phone might be a relic in the Smithsonian in about twenty years.

I read in www.yallpolitics.com about a pollster that called Dewey's victory over Charlie Ross by a two point variation. I wrote in my diary what I THOUGHT it would be and I was off by one point. That same pollster said he called it for Fordice's first run in 1991. There were a couple of polls that showed Fordice within the margin of error.

Review the national polls from 1996 on for Presidential, gubernatorial and Congressional races. This is about the time cell phones started hitting the market. You will see how radically divergent the polls are. I'm not going into the details because I don't have the time to research the polls. But I remember reading in many newspapers and political publications how wildly divergent the polls were.

I very strongly suggest you take polls with a grain of salt and put very little stock in them. For pollsters to be taken seriously in their data, two things will have to occur: All cell phone numbers will have to be listed in a telephone directory (That's not going to happen in the near future. One reason for having cell phones is keeping the phone number away from solicitors and "junk" calls. There'd be a lot of protest from cell phone users if their numbers were listed.) or the pollsters would have to revert to polling techniques they used in the 1950s--actually going to the person's home and interviewing him.

Rudy Warnock for MDOT Central Commissioner

2007-09-04T17:32:00.001-05:00

This November 6th we will choose an MDOT Central Commissioner between Republican incumbent Dick Hall and Democrat Rudy Warnock.

Dick Hall is a fine person and a gentleman. He is very polite in his dealings with constituents and is respected for his honesty and integrity on the job.

Nevertheless, I cannot vote for him. Indeed, I have NEVER voted for him in the two races he has run for his present post. When he was State Senator, he was THE most pro-abortion Republican you could find. In fact, he was the ONLY Republican legislator you could find that was pro-abortion in the thirty years I have observed Republican legislators. Appointed by then-Lt. Governor Eddie Briggs in 1992 to head up the committee that dealt with abortion legislation, Hall did all he could to stall or kill any pro-life legislation. Pro-lifers such as myself couldn't stand dealing with him because of his vehement pro-abortion stance.

Rudy Warnock is a professional civil engineer. He has his own firm, Warnock and Associates, which works with cities and counties to build roads and bridges. Today, Warnock is the county engineer for Madison County and city engineer for the City of Canton. He also works with other counties and cities across the district. Madison County and other local governments hire Warnock to design their roads and bridges. They go to him because his firm does the work timely and cost-effectively.

We send hundreds of millions of dollars worth of work to companies outside of Mississippi. Why is this happening? Why are we sending Mississippi dollars out of state? Warnock will do his best to keep the money in the state so Mississippians will be paid to do work in Mississippi. Why hasn't Hall addressed this?

What I would like to see is MDOT give cities a choice about how the money is spent. Why not give the city the money MDOT would spend for projects and let the city decide what roads and streets need to be fixed? Right now in Pearl, there is a lot of work being done on Highway 80. I drive over that highway every day and I can tell you it needs only minor, if any, repair. But I can show you some streets in Pearl that desperately need fixing. It seems like the only time MDOT is busily fixing roads that really don't need it is during election years.

Rudy Warnock also knows about traffic control. It's obvious Hall doesn't. Drive east on Highway 80 from Bierdeman Road to Mary Ann Drive and you'll know exactly what I am talking about. If you hit the red light on Bierdeman, you will have to wait and wait while the westbound traffic is moving along. Then you hit the red light at Kroger and you wait and wait. You keep going and then you hit the Red Light from Hades--the red light on Pemberton. You sit and wait and wait. Then you go and hit the red light on Mary Ann Drive and wait. None of the lights are coordinated. It is a waste of gas and time to sit there and wait and wait. The traffic engineers should do the best they can to make certain there is an efficient flow of traffic. That has not happened under Dick Hall's watch.

Dick Hall has NO training as an engineer. None. Nada. Null set. Bupkis. He is a politician through and through. He was first elected as a Democrat to the State House, then switched parties ("The fiscal issues." You know, just like Lester Spell), reelected as a Republican to the State House, elected to the State Senate and then appointed by the late Gov. Kirk Fordice to the MDOT to fill the vacancy left by then-Commissioner Wayne Burkes.

Rudy Warnock is an engineer who'll do his best to take politics out of MDOT and do what is best for the state. It's time for a change---a big change.

Mississippi needs Rudy Warnock as MDOT-Central Commissioner.

Rickey Cole for MDAC Commissioner

2007-09-03T17:45:00.000-05:00

This race promises to be a really interesting race. Democratic candidate Rickey Cole is running against Republican incumbent Lester Spell (hereafter referred to as "Dr. Moo") for State Commissioner of Agriculture.

Dr. Moo is a great veterinarian. If you have a sick animal he is the man to see (I wonder if he takes care of cats? I have five of them, one being stone deaf.). I've had people tell me he is kind to animals and treats them with loving care.

But Dr. Moo was never a farmer. He's a veterinarian and grew berries. He spent quite a few years being mayor of Richland. He's a nice guy and a really pleasant person. He never knew what it was like to spend your life growing cattle or grains.

Dr. Moo, however, suffers from arrogance. He absolutely refuses to apologize for the Beef Plant fiasco. Not once. $55 million down the drain and he can't even utter a simple apology. He can't even say he was wrong. At most, he calls it a "mistake". How noble of him. That money thrown away on that Beef Plant could have built FIVE burn centers in this state. As of today, this state does not have ONE burn center in the state. If you have severe burns, you'll have to go to Louisiana.

I also didn't care for his party-switching. For years in Rankin County, he was a leading Democrat. Oh, I know the mantra he gave: I'm a Democrat but vote Republican in Federal elections. But not once did he ever do anything for the GOP. But once the Beef Plant fiasco came to light and the fallout hurt him, he suddenly switched to the GOP. Yup, he used all that Democratic money to get reelected in 2003 but now he was a real rootin' tootin' Republican. He knew he was dead meat (no pun intended) in the Democratic Party and decided to switch to the GOP. Explaining his switch, he stated he agreed with the GOP on fiscal issues. If that's so, what was the big issue that made him switch? (Crickets chirping.)

Rickey Cole is a REAL farmer. Plus, he is one great speaker. The Beef Plant fiasco is well-known. But he hit Dr. Moo's claim the MDAC conducted 4500 supermarket inspections in 2006. That sounds great, but there are only ten inspectors in the MDAC. There's no way that can happen. And with all the food and pet food imports from Red China being tainted, don't we deserve better than that?

Unlike Dr. Moo, Rickey Cole doesn't pretend to know everything about agriculture. But he plans to appoint people who can do their jobs and give him excellent advice. If Rickey Cole had been MDAC Commissioner this Beef Plant fiasco would never have happened. The MSU study showed the cull cattle beef plant would be a disaster. Do you think Spell listened? NO!!!! He approved it because it was politics through and through. He wanted to curry favor with House Speaker Billy McCoy, State Rep. Tommy Reynolds and the biggest buffoon the Mississippi State Legislature has seen in my lifetime, State Rep. Steve Holland.

Rickey Cole is one of the "little people" who knows what it is like to WORK for a living. He actually farms and puts in a lot of time farming. This is not some hobby for him. He knows what it is like to be a farmer and hence, small business. He'll promote small business and help them grow and prosper. Having Nissan and Toyota plants are great, but we have to eat. He'll help the small farmer and the small businessman.

I met Rickey Cole years ago and tell you he is a humble and kind person. He also has a lot of common sense. This is why Mississippi must elect Rickey Cole as MDAC Commissioner.

And that's no bull.

Will Sumrall and Cole Be Bonellied?

2007-09-03T17:02:00.000-05:00

I know you are confused by the title. I expect you to be. The term "Bonellied" means the party whose candidate is running will get very little, if any, financial support in his race for office.

John M. Bonelli ran on the Republican ticket for mayor of Jackson in 1989. He had no money and no name recognition. Plus, he didn't stand a snowball's chance in Key West, Florida in August of winning. No Republican had ever been elected as mayor of Jackson. No matter who won the Democratic runoff primary between State Rep. Kane Ditto and incumbent Dale Danks, Bonelli was doomed to lose. The demographics showed the city was becoming majority black and Ditto, who eventually won, would be the last white mayor of Jackson. No Republican stood a chance of winning.

I followed Bonelli's campaign in the newspapers. He actually had a good, solid platform and some really good ideas on how to arrest the economic decline of Jackson. In fact, I thought his ideas were far better than any of the Democratic candidates. If I had lived in Jackson, I definitely would have voted for him.

Right after the runoff primary, there was a newspaper article in the CLARION-LEDGER as to how much support Bonelli would get from the state GOP. The answer the state GOP gave was very simple: Very little to none. The state GOP was not interested in giving financial support for a candidate running under its banner for the top post of the biggest city in Mississippi. The GOP thought he stood absolutely no chance, so why waste the bucks. So they let Bonelli twist slowly, slowly in the wind. What a noble and brave party.

I remember driving up Ridgewood Road going to work a week or so before the election. I saw a lot of Ditto signs in an area that would normally be strongly Republican. Right at the intersection of Ridgewood Road and Old Canton Road as you are headed north, I saw a crudely constructed "Bonelli for Mayor" sign. It was written on a big sheet of white paper stuck with a black magic marker nailed to a stick of wood. That was the only sign for Bonelli that I saw. Imagine: One crudely constructed Bonelli sign in a large sea of Ditto signs in a strongly Republican neighborhood.

Needless to say, Bonelli was routed. He received about ten percent of the vote against Ditto. He even got creamed in the strongly Republican areas. But I admired Bonelli for having the guts to run for mayor when nobody else was willing to run under the Republican banner. Bonelli was not a "kook" candidate. He was a very good candidate with well-thought out ideas on how to improve Jackson. Didn't he deserve better?

What bothered me is the GOP did not even have the decency to put up much, if any, money to help Bonelli. He deserved a lot more support. And what does that say to other Republican candidates in strongly Democratic races? They may lose, but giving them money will plant the seeds for future campaigns that will pay off in the years to come. So why run under the GOP banner if you know the state party will let you twist slowly, slowly in the wind in a race they consider hopeless.

So now it is eighteen years later. Democrats Ricky Cole and Mike Sumrall are not wealthy candidates who can independently finance their campaigns. They are excellent candidates running for State Agriculture Commissioner and State Auditor, respectively. They are going to need help from the state Democratic Party. And it can't be just a few thousand dollars. They are running against well-financed candidates, one of them being Dr. Moo (Lester Spell). Perhaps State Democratic Party Chairman Wayne Dowdy can ask his trial lawyer friends put up some huge bucks for Cole and Sumrall. They are going to need it.

Will the state Democratic Party come through for Cole and Sumrall, or will they be Bonellied?

Mike Sumrall Versus Stacey Pickering

2007-09-01T17:38:00.000-05:00

Mike Sumrall is to be congratulated for his decisive victory over Todd Brand (with 98.92% of the vote in, Sumrall had 154880 votes and Brand 139269). With just about $11000 in campaign funds for both primaries, Sumrall won an astonishing race for the Democratic nomination for State Auditor.

Now comes the tough part. He faces Republican State Senator Stacey Pickering in the general election. Not only does Pickering have the name (His cousin is Republican Congressman Charles W. Pickering.), but he'll also have the money.

There is no doubt Pickering is a fine person. Everybody who knows him say he is an exemplary Christian man and a very friendly man. He is well-liked in the State Senate. He is also an attractive candidate and a very charming person.

But Stacey Pickering is totally unqualified to be State Auditor. He is a media consultant and a part-time public relations person (Wonderful. That is really one bippy of a great qualification--making people look good and saying groovy sound bites.). He knows as much about accounting and auditing as my cat Bueller does. If he is elected, he'll be bored stiff as State Auditor. And you can rest assured he'll play politics with the job just as his predecessors after Hamp King have. In four years, he'll be looking to move up the political totem pole. (That should be interesting, since his cousin Charles plans to run for governor in 2011. You can get two of them for the price of one. Goody goody.)

Mike Sumrall recognizes the need for drastic changes in the Office of State Auditor. The number of staff is at an all-time low. He wants to have cross-training of auditors so that they can do school audits, agency audits or county audits. The investigative division has more staff than any time in the history of the agency yet it takes more than three years to complete investigations. (You can thank Phil the Pill Bryant for the surplus of investigators. Bryant used to be a fire investigator but knows as much about accounting and auditing as my cat.)

Mike Sumrall will never beat Pickering in the looks or charm department. But voters aren't looking for a good-looking hunk and nice teeth. They are looking for someone who can take politics out of the job and make the Office of State Auditor (OSA) a strong auditing and investigative agency. They are looking for someone who can do the job and knows what that job entails. Mike Sumrall worked for the OSA since January 1979 until 2002. Fairness, integrity and non-partisan practices have always been his method of operation. He is NOT seeking the office so he can move up the political totem pole four or eight years later. I also like his stance on who should be State Auditor. He believes the post should be restricted to CPAs or have a bachelor's degree in accounting (Great idea!!). Sumrall does have a degree in accounting. Pickering sure doesn't have such a degree.

Twenty years ago, I remember a poster I saw a big photo of a Democratic candidate for State Representative in Alaska. He had a big beard and he looked like the Creature out of the Black Lagoon. I laughed when I saw the caption, "Not just a Pretty Face." He was running against a handsome opponent. On that poster he listed his accomplishments as a businessman and what he could do in the State Legislature. Oh, yes. The candidate won.

On November 6th, don't vote for a candidate because of party labels, looks or charisma. Vote for a guy who can do an excellent job as State Auditor. For the first time in nearly a quarter century, politics can finally be taken out of the OSA and the office can turn into the best auditing and investigative agency in the South. But only one man can do that.

That man is Mike Sumrall.

Statistics On the Tobacco--Grocery Sales Tax Swap

2007-08-28T16:32:00.000-05:00

We in the accounting profession have an old cliche': Take a statistic to lunch. So being the CPA that I am and a political buff, I decided to pull some statistics on the tobacco--grocery sales tax swap. I went through the Mississippi State Tax Commission report (www.mstc.state.us) for fiscal year 2005 (Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2006. The fiscal year 2006 report hasn't been issued yet.) for my statistics.

Right now, we have the lowest tobacco tax in the nation. It is true Missouri has a penny less than Mississippi, but municipalities and counties are allowed to assess an extra four to seven cents extra a pack in Missouri (which all the counties and municipalities in that state do assess). We tax cigarettes at an anemic 18 cents a pack. The U.S. median is 80 cents a pack.

While we have the lowest tobacco tax in the nation, we have the highest sales tax on groceries. The state of Arkansas just recently cut its sales tax on food from 6% to 3%. Why can't we do that?

For FY 2005, the state took in $58,118,106 in tobacco taxes. Let us make the assumption the tax is raised an extra dollar a pack. That would make the tax $1.18 a pack. Doing the math, that would bring in $380,996,473 a year, or an additional $322,878,367 a year from the current amount.

There are 6536 food stores in the state (specialty and general). The total sales for these stores was $3,615,576,826. The sales tax collected on those sales was $253,090,629. YOU COULD ELIMINATE THE ENTIRE TAX ON GROCERIES AND STILL HAVE EXTRA REVENUE! Do the math. $322,878,367 minus $253,090,629 gives you a surplus of $69,787,738. For FY 2005, municipalities received $383,170,773 in sales tax revenues from the state. Just giving the surplus to municipalities would increase sales tax revenues to the cities by 18.213%, or up to $452,958,511. That would pave a lot of city streets. Where is the so-called "loss" due to the swap?

I know the argument others would make. More people would give up smoking. OK, fine. For the break even point to hit in the increase in the tobacco tax versus eliminating the grocery tax, smoking would have to go down by 21.614% ($69,787,738 divided by $322,878,367). Smoking is inelastic when it comes to price increases. There would be a small decline, but not much. And certainly not 21.614%.

Another way to ensure municipalities and counties would get more money would be to raise the gambling tax from 8% to 12%, with the increase going solely for municipalities and counties. That would bring in an extra $137,411,636 a year. Since the municipalities receive sales tax revenues and counties don't, I would give 80% to the counties. That would help lower the steep ad valorem taxes on car tags. The municipalities could use those funds for infrastructure.

I do not understand what the fuss is on the tax swap. It would give the poor and the working class a really good tax break. I read on one blog some people would go out of state and spend their tax savings money there. Perhaps so. However, that would be a small number. But unless they are on the border of a state it would be a waste of money (gas ain't cheap) to spend their money there. Also, if we did eliminate the sales tax on groceries, more people would come from Arkansas, Tennessee and Alabama because they still tax groceries. They would spend their money here.

Look over the statistics. If they are wrong, let me know and I'll correct them. But I think the Mississippi State Tax Commission is the best source on sales tax and tobacco revenues. If you have better sources, let me know. Statistics are juicy. Take a statistic to lunch.

As for the Lt. Governor's race, Jamie Franks is absolutely correct on this issue and Phil Bryant is wrong. Why is it so hard to cut such a regressive tax on the necessities of life?

Todd Brand's Dirty Politics

2007-08-27T17:22:00.000-05:00

I enjoy rough-and-tumble politics. I don't mind negative or even nasty politics. But if it is, I expect it to be honest and forthright. If you call your opponent an embezzler or a womanizer, have facts and documentation to back up the accusation. Otherwise, don't do it and pollute the political process.

In the 2007 elections, I have seen a fair share of negative advertising. Some of it was in the GOP race for Lt. Governor. Other negative advertising is the Democratic runoff for Hinds County District Attorney. I had--and have--no objections to that negative campaigning. They base it on facts and even give sources for their facts.

But Todd Brand's advertisement against Mike Sumrall hit a real low. The two candidates are in a runoff for the Democratic nomination for State Auditor. It has an unflattering photo of Mike Sumrall stating he (or some other organization) had a phone bank stating he was black and a member of the NAACP. ( It came on ABC Channel 16 on Saturday night around 11PM.) Also, it hinted some secret contributor(s) was(were) financing these phone banks for Sumrall.

That is a hoot! Sumrall is not black and he is not a member of the NAACP. Also, he has no secret contributors or someone financing his campaign. Brand is not qualified to be State Auditor so he is using personal attacks on Sumrall rather than attacking Sumrall's qualifications. Brand may be a good college administrator but that does not give him the ability to run the OSA. Does Brand know anything about what it takes to perform a successful audit? Mike Sumrall sure does. Also, Sumrall has been timely in filing his campaign financial reports. Brand was late. Who do you think would do a better job in a timely fashion?

What stunned me was Brand's praising Phil Bryant's management of the OSA. He has not read the PEER report and other reports strongly criticizing Bryant's management of the office. If Brand is that ignorant of what is going on in the OSA (Hey Brand. What about the 88% turnover in the OSA office? Would you call that good management?), he does not need to be State Auditor.

If Mike Sumrall is the Democratic nominee, I'll do all I can to help him. If Brand wins the nomination, I'll vote for Republican Stacy Pickering. Neither Pickering or Brand is qualified to be State Auditor. But at least Pickering isn't a fool or a vicious campaigner.

Tomorrow, let's do the State of Mississippi a service and take politics out of the State Auditor's office. Please vote for Mike Sumrall for State Auditor in the runoff Democratic primary.

The Math of the Grocery Sales Tax Cut

2007-08-25T17:26:00.000-05:00

There is a big debate on the grocery sales tax cut proposal linked to raising the taxes on tobacco. As a CPA, I decided to do some research and math on the matter. Unless you are new to the state, Democratic Jamie Franks is for the above proposal and Republican Phil ("Flip Flop Phil") Bryant is against it because of Gov. Haley Barbour (who is vehemently opposed to it). Bryant wants an income tax cut. While Franks has outlined his proposal, which constitutes immediately cutting the grocery sales tax in half and eventually eliminating the tax, Bryant has NOT spelled out his income tax cut proposals.

The median household income in Mississippi is $31330 and for a single person $15853 (This is based on a WASHINGTON POST article covering the Mississippi elections for 2006.). The average family of four spends $150 a week on groceries. A single person spends approximately $40 a week on groceries. Note this does not include head of households, which could range to two individuals in the family to four or five.

By cutting the sales tax in half on groceries, the average household will save $273 a year. If it is eliminated, the savings goes to $546 a year. A single person will save $72.80 and $145.60 respectively.

Since Bryant hasn't spelled out his income tax proposals, let us assume we raise the standard deduction from $2300 to $3500 for singles, $4600 to $7000 for marrieds and the brackets remain the same. Let us also assume the married couple has two children and the parents work. Let us also assume the single and the married couple take only the standard deduction. With the new increase in deductions, the single person will save $48 a year and the average married household will save $89.30 a year. For the break even point to occur on income tax savings to match half the tax cut on groceries, the single standard deduction would have to go from $2300 to $4120. To match the entire tax cut on groceries, the single standard deduction would have to go from $2300 to $6302. For the break even point to occur on income tax savings to match half the tax cut on groceries, the married standard deduction would have to go from $4600 to $13123. Of course, the entire tax cut on groceries would be greater than eliminating their entire tax liability.

I'll admit the math is complicated, but get out the 2006 income tax forms and do the math (Go to http://www.mstc.state.ms.us/ and download the individual income tax forms.). The sales tax elimination on groceries would save a lot of money for the poor and the working class. Our sales tax on groceries is one of the highest in the nation.

Before you think it's a losing proposition in state revenue if more people give up smoking and the sales tax on groceries is eliminated, it will actually make money for the state. What do you think the people will do with that tax savings? They'll spend it on other goods! Surprise! This is the good-old-supply-side-economics that worked during the Reagan years and to a small degree under current President Bush (His gutless father raised taxes which threw the economy into a mild recession.). I thought Bryant would love this. But no, he doesn't. Plus, more people will be inclined to give up tobacco. This will not only save us in Medicaid costs, but that money former smokers don't spend on tobacco will be spent on other goods.

Also, the grocery tax cut would help mitigate the increase in food prices. Maybe it doesn't hurt the rich, but the poor and the working class are feeling it. Milk has climbed to four dollars a gallon! Bread and cereal have shot up. Beef prices have gone up (Thanks to that idiotic ethanol boondoggle, which has greatly increased the price of corn.). This tax cut would give a little relief to the hard-working people of Mississippi.

Don't get me wrong. I would love to see an income tax cut. And an income tax cut would benefit me a lot more than the grocery sales tax cut. So I've got a solution: Eliminate the grocery sales tax and cut income taxes. But if you have to choose, eliminate the grocery sales tax first. The tax is just too much of a burden on the hard-working people of Mississippi (for how crushing the burden is on the poor and working class, check out the data on http://www.cbpp.org/.).

I can't understand why Bryant is supporting the Governor on this. Is he that desperate to be Haley's robot?

Mississippi Needs Mike Sumrall As State Auditor

2007-08-21T17:26:00.000-05:00

It is very rare when Mississippi has a candidate for State Auditor who wants to take politics out of the State Auditor's office. But Mike Sumrall is that very rare candidate.

Let's look at the record since 1984, when long-serving State Auditor W. Hamp King stepped down. He was the last State Auditor who kept politics out of the Office of State Audit (hereafter abbreviated as OSA). His successor, Ray Mabus (1984-1988), used it as a successful launching pad for Governor. After him came Pete Johnson (1988-1992). He was elected as a Democrat, became a Republican in late 1988, and unsuccessfully ran for the GOP gubernatorial nomination in 1991. After him came Steve Patterson (1992-Nov. 1996), who was going to use it for an eventual run for Governor or Lt. Governor. And finally, Phil Bryant (Nov. 1996 to present) used the OSA as a launching pad for his run for Lt. Governor. All of those four auditors used the OSA as a political fiefdom.

Mike Sumrall knows the inner workings of the OSA. It is true he is NOT a CPA. But he is the ONLY candidate with an accounting degree. He has twenty-three years auditing experience with the OSA, three years as County Administrator and CFO of Forrest County and two years as business manager of Pike County Schools. As you can see, he has experience in state, county and school audits and financial accounting. Add it up: That's twenty-eight years of accounting and auditing experience of government.

Sumrall wants to take politics out of the OSA. He has vowed not to seek higher office. He plans to serve as State Auditor and stay in that post. By taking politics out of the office, audits will be thorough and fair. They will not be designed to advance the political ambitions of anyone--especially the State Auditor. He knows what improvements are needed in that office. Since he has experience in that office, he knows what needs to be done. He will be ready the day he takes the oath of office. He is also well-liked and respected. I know former employees who worked in the OSA and they think very highly of Sumrall.

I was delighted to see him garner 46% of the vote yet spending only $11000 in the first primary for the Democratic nomination. I have nothing against his runoff opponent. But he does not seem to know anything about auditing and he'll probably seek higher office should he be elected. Also, he would be a decided underdog against the GOP nominee. Sumrall's anti-politics stand will resonate with a lot of Mississippians in the general election.

If you are a Democrat, please vote for Mike Sumrall on August 28th. As a CPA, I can tell you he is the most qualified man to run for State Auditor in decades. At long last, the man and the office have met. Mississippi desperately needs Mike Sumrall as our State Auditor.

Why Charlie Ross Lost

2007-08-18T18:12:00.000-05:00

Charlie Ross ran a good campaign. But from the very day he announced, he had a steep uphill fight. He received a little over 43% of the vote in a hard-hitting contest. After reading all the newspaper articles and blogs on the race, here are the reasons as to why he lost:

1. Phil Bryant was running for the Lt. Governor's post from the day he was reelected as State Auditor in 2003. He had contacts in all eighty-two counties and it paid off. He was able to get commitments of support early in the race. When he announced his candidacy, his machine was ready to roll. Charlie Ross did not have that early start.

2. Bryant is a smooth and polished stump speaker. As much as I despise Bryant, he is a very good stump speaker. He may have nothing to say, but he says it with force. This is in sharp contrast to Charlie Ross' professorial speeches. Ross was very intelligent and made some very good speeches with good substance. But listening to Charlie Ross was like listening to a seminar on the Alternative Minimum Tax at the Mississippi Tax Institute.

3. Bryant is a charmer. Let's face it: Bryant has a dynamic personality. He can charm birds out of the trees (like Bill Clinton). Ross is not a charmer but he is a very sincere and honorable person. Unless you knew him, he would come off as shy and retiring.

4. Billy Mounger's TV ad endorsing Bryant was a big help. Mounger is a big name in conservative and GOP circles. His endorsement blunted Ross' charge that Bryant was not conservative enough for GOPers.

5. The TV ad on Bryant's support for the Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi was meant to show what a liberal Bryant was (and in my opinion, still is). Unfortunately, it backfired among Republican suburban women, who were bitterly against "Big Tobacco" and thought the PHM was a great idea. Bryant had very strong support among the Republican "Soccer Moms." Ross did better among men than women.

6. Ross never ripped Bryant on his abysmal record as State Auditor. I heard rumors Ross was going to use the findings of the PEER report to rip Bryant. Believe me, he even could have tied Bryant to the failed (moooo) beef plant. But nothing ever came out of it.

7. Before he ran for Lt. Governor, Ross had very little name recognition. Unless you were a Rankin County resident or a political junkie, chances are you never hear of Ross. It is tough to win a campaign when you have little name recognition.

8. Ross was way behind as early as April. www.cottonmouthblog.blogspot had an MAE poll showing Ross way behind in April. If you allocate the undecideds, Bryant was leading by more than a 2-1 margin. It is very difficult to make up such a deficit in just four months.

9. The GOP believes in rewarding one of their own for winning the big offices. Bryant was the only GOPer to win a statewide office in 1999 (Although I believe Rod Nixon could have defeated him if Nixon had started campaigning right after Bryant became State Auditor in late 1996.). A lot of GOP activists believe Bryant has "paid his dues" and it was time for the GOP to pay him back. (Look, the GOP nominated Dr. Moo for MDAC Commissioner. Many GOPers felt he was courageous for switching parties after the beef plant scandal and thus renominated him.)

Many people feel Ross' negative ads hurt him. I very strongly disagree. Indeed, I think the ads immensely helped him. When you are the underdog and your opponent has few visible negatives, you have no choice to go negative. The only way you are going to defeat the favorite is by showing the glaring negatives of that candidate. Ross did have some positive ads, but that was not going to get him elected. He had to go for the jugular. What did he have to lose? I thought Ross wasn't negative enough. I would have gone mau-mau against Bryant. Yeah, it would have turned some people off. But it would have made the favorite look like Satan. I've seen candidates go mau-mau and the underdog gets the tar beaten out of him. On the other hand, I have seen some very shocking upsets. The object is to win, not hold hands with your opponent and sing "Kuumbaya."

Ross was an excellent candidate and would have made one of the best Lt. Governors the state has had in a long time. He knew the workings of the State Senate much better than his opponent and accomplished much in his eight years as State Senator. Hopefully, he will seek office again. We need his caliber in government.

Observations from Charlie Ross' Party Last Night

2007-08-08T10:23:00.000-05:00

I got to Corky's in Flowood at 6:56PM and left at 10:36PM. I left just after Charlie Ross conceded defeat to the Republican nominee for Lt. Governor.

When I got there, it was a fairly lively get-together. They were all talking on how it was a close race but Ross would pull it off. Because there would be no results coming in for an hour, I was able to mingle with the crowd. They said it was a tough campaign and Ross had been trailing throughout the entire campaign. But now the momentum was swinging Ross' way and he would be nominated. They told me their polls had it neck-and-neck and the momentum would lead them to victory. Despite their optimism, I had a gut feeling it didn't look good. I saw independent polls showing Ross trailing 50%-40% with 10% undecided. With the undecideds allocated, Ross would get 44% of the vote.

Around 8PM, the first precinct came in and Ross was trailing, 58-50. I knew this was one lousy precinct, but I had a gut feeling Ross was going to lose (I wrote in my diary Monday night Ross would get 44% of the vote.). I did an analysis of prior GOP primaries and general elections. In 96.8% of the time, whoever was leading when the first report came that candidate would win.

A while later, a second report with 3% of the statewide vote showed Ross trailing 1355-1286. It was still close and a lot of folks were hoping Ross would win. The next four reports showed it close, but Ross was still trailing in every one of them.

Then came the body blow. With 27% of the vote, Ross was trailing 27021-20989. I knew right then it was all over. I had a staffer come up to me and ask how the vote totals were going and the trend. I told her Ross lost. She told me the Coast and DeSoto County hadn't come in. I told her it was all over. Around 10PM, with 43% of the vote, Ross was trailing 48162-37372. I overheard a staffer say on his cell phone he was still waiting for the Coast. But having been through many a campaign, I knew it was all over.

There were about a hundred or so people there. While most of them are going to vote for the GOP nominee, many of them are going to either sit it out and not vote for Bryant or do like me and vote for Jamie Franks. I would say 80% to 85% will vote for Bryant. But Franks is going to get quite a few of the remainder. These were not your run-of-the-mill GOPers who like to go to parties and schmooze with people and the candidate. These are die-hard Republicans who are foot soldiers and spear carriers for the conservative movement and the GOP. These are the types who give the small bucks and the sweat equity in the campaign. I noticed there were some very well-heeled GOPers in the crowd. But I saw a lot of average Joes and Janes who are dedicated to the conservative movement. They do not look at Bryant as a spear carrier for the movement. They look at him as a pretty boy who cares only for his own political ambitions. I had one very strong conservative say, "If this were San Francisco, Phil Bryant would be the Grand Marshall of the Gay Pride Parade. He'd do or say anything to get elected." Having a good minority of die-hard, spear-carrying conservatives sit out the race or cast a ballot for Franks does not sit well for Bryant. I know the Philbots will strongly disagree, but I was there. Many of the people there look upon Bryant as a "country club conservative" and not a "Main Street conservative." Anybody who knows the GOP knows there is a deep distrust and animus between the two groups. My opinion of country club Republicans would never be printed in the BAPTIST RECORD.

Why isn't Bryant going to get a higher percentage? Many of them have a bitter dislike for him. I heard one man Bryant had nothing but a big ego. A couple told me Bryant was an empty suit. Some of them knew him on a personal level and didn't like him one bit. One lady said all he could do was talk about "Me, me, me. He didn't give a flying flip about me or what I thought." Others told me they think Bryant is too slick. I will not print some of the profanity (not from me, despite my deep dislike for Bryant) that was used to describe Bryant.

Gov. Haley Barbour proclaimed neutrality throughout the campaign, but unless you were a space alien from the planet Qantarius you could tell whom he was backing. He arrived at the party at 8PM and was still there when I left. Indeed, he was on the podium when Ross gave his concession speech. Also, his brother Jeppy was Ross' campaign manager.

Charlie Ross gave a good concession speech. He asked everybody to get behind Bryant in the general election. I carefully observed the crowd (I was at a great vantage point. I was right near the door facing the crowd.) and their reaction. I saw some of them sigh and quite a few of them were rolling their eyes. Most of them gave polite applause when he said we had to get behind Bryant so Barbour would have someone to help shepherd his goals through the State Legislature. Ross said he would always be a "wing man" for Barbour.

After that, I headed to the parking lot. I had to get up early in the morning and go to work. Later on, I'll write on my observations as to why Ross lost and what Jamie Franks should do to win in November.

Please Vote for Charlie Ross for Lt. Governor

2007-08-06T13:47:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow is Election Day. The vote for Lt. Governor is the most important statewide vote in the GOP primary. There are two candidates running: State Senator Charlie Ross and State Auditor Phil Bryant.

Charlie Ross is a man of uncompromising honor and integrity. You will always know where he stands. He may be a boring speaker and has a shy, retiring personality. However, what he says makes sense and he knows what he is talking about. He is also a very intelligent man. Plus, he gave up some good years of his life to serve his nation in the Armed Forces. He has the ability to get along with ordinary people and with his fellow State Senators.

And then we have Phil Bryant. Bryant is a good stump speaker and is pretty (He probably gets his hair coiffed at Monique's.). But that's about it. I had the experience of serving with him on the Rankin County Republican Executive Committee and I had first-hand experience in dealing with him. He is vain, egotistical, vindictive, thin-skinned, petty, hot-tempered and a liar. He has no political principles except those that will advance his political career. If this were Vermont, Charlie Ross would still be a conservative and probably suffer the political consequences. But Bryant would make Howard Dean look like a flaming right-winger. Bryant's sole goal is himself and his name in lights. As Worf would say on "Star Trek--the Next Generation": He is without honor.

Tomorrow, vote for a man of honor and a candidate who has ALWAYS been a conservative. Please vote for Charlie Ross.

Phil Bryant--Is He Emotionally Mature to Be Elected Lt. Governor?

2007-08-04T17:14:00.000-05:00

This coming Tuesday, GOP voters will have to decide whom they wish to nominate as Lt. Governor. Will they nominate a mature, honorable man such as Charlie Ross or an immature person such as Phil Bryant? There are many reasons, in my opinion, why Phil Bryant is not emotionally mature to be Lt. Governor. And here they are:

1. He has a red-hot, violent temper. Read my article on the way he ran the State Department of Audit. He trashed employees' coffee mugs, screamed at staffers and reduced many a clerk to tears from his outrages. He has had an 88% turnover in his office because of his violent temper.
2. He has an overly inflated ego. If you are going to run for office, you have to have an ego. That is expected. But Bryant has a gigantic ego. Back on October 13, 1989, I had lunch with Bryant. He told me "Destiny has called him" to run for office in 1991. He was undecided as to running for State Senator, State Representative or Sheriff. But he was going to run for something. After all, he must fulfill his "destiny."
3. He is vindictive. It is no secret Bryant and I don't care for one another. But in politics, you never mess with a private citizen's profession. Right after he became State Auditor, his office called one of my clients and asked her a lot of questions about my morals and character. She was shocked she was called and was surprised at the rude manner of the caller. I have no reason why his office called. I do know in the accounting profession you can lose your CPA license if "you commit acts discreditable to the profession." If he was looking for any scandal he didn't find any.
4. He is petty. Back on June 14, 1999, I told one of his Republican buddies I would vote for Democrat Rod Nixon over Bryant because Nixon was pro-life from the start and Bryant was pro-life only to get elected. His good buddy must have blabbed, because on June 16th I received a very nasty letter from Phil the Pill. In the fourth paragraph of the letter he wrote, "As a CPA, I am certain you realize the importance of gathering all the facts before issuing an opinion. To do less would be unprofessional and could result in material misrepresentation." The idiot didn't understand his friend. I did NOT SAY he was pro-abortion now. I said he STARTED his political career as pro-abortion. I knew he voted pro-life in the State House not because of conviction, but because he would never be elected in Mississippi as a pro-abort.
5. He is very thin-skinned. But here is my question. Why waste your time and effort to write a venomous letter to a private citizen because you were criticized? There is something grossly immature about such a person. If you are in politics, you'd better have a very thick political skin. As Harry Truman once said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
6. He has no firm political convictions, but is a political chameleon. When he wanted to be the interim Rankin County Supervisor in District 2 back in 1988, he wrote Gov. Ray Mabus stating "I have always been a Democrat." But he decided to run as a Republican for the post. He started out as being pro-abortion, but became pro-life only to save his political hide. He says to north Mississippi he's opposed to gambling, but goes to the Gulf Coast and says he supports it. He was gung-ho for the liberal Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi, but now says he was opposed to it. He's for strong local government, but proposed the ridiculous idea in his 1999 campaign to "abolish some counties." (Maybe he wants to combine Hinds County with Rankin County.) Believe me, if he was running for Lt. Governor of Vermont, he'd make Howard Dean look like ex-Sen. Jesse Helms.
7. He is a liar. He told me the day after he was elected to the State House in 1991 he would go all out to make certain I would get another term on the Rankin County Republican Executive Committee. He gave me his solemn word. He expressed his gratitude for the contributions the RCREC gave him in his close race to unseat an incumbent. In April 1992, he worked very hard to defeat me. I didn't mind being defeated; I mind being lied to.
8. Because he lives only for politics and nothing else, he is a poor manager. I have written extensively on how poorly the OAS has been run under his ten years. The office would be used as a political fiefdom rather than being an effective audit function of government. Don't take my word for it. Read more details on it on http://www.cottonmouthblog.blogspot.com/.

If Bryant is elected, he will have to preside over 52 State Senators who have pretty good egos of their own. Do you think they are going to put up with his antics? What if he doesn't get his way? Is he going to blow his stack and yell at a State Senator or two? If he's as conservative as he alleges and will be a poodle to Haley, will he blow his stack at Senators who don't vote his way? What happens if a State Senator responds and gives Bryant a piece of his mind? Will Bryant go ballistic on him (or her)?

Charlie Ross has been a State Senator for ten years and has worked well with his colleagues. He has accomplished a lot for the conservative cause. He has the maturity and the intelligence to be an excellent Lt. Governor.

Phil Bryant Is No Conservative

2007-08-02T17:18:00.000-05:00

Phil Bryant has been stating how great a conservative he has been. Has he? Let's take a GOOD LOOK at him. Here are my reasons he is no conservative:

1. He has served on the liberal Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi. For years he was on the Board of Directors of this group that spent money on some liberal causes. This PHM was former State Attorney General Mike Moore's brainchild.
2. He started out his political activity as a pro-abortion advocate. When he ran against Frances Savage in 1991, he suddenly became pro-life. The Mississippi Right to Life spotted a phony when they saw one and gave their endorsement to Charlie Ross.
3. Charlie Ross got the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. What a shock. Bryant was not a person 2nd Amendment folks could look for on leadership. It was Ross who helped legislate the Castle Doctrine. When the MERIDIAN STAR interviewed Bryant, he didn't even so much as mention guns (Check out www.cottonmouthblog.blogspot.com for the details.).
4. Phil Bryant is no fiscal conservative. True, he voted against tax hikes when he was in the State House. But once he was State Auditor, he wasted money by not thoroughly watching over the $55 million Beef Plant (mooooo) fiasco. There were other instances of wasting the taxpayer's money I have written on my blog about Bryant.
5. When all five Rankin County Supervisors resigned in 1988 because of financial improprieties, Gov. Ray Mabus was forced to appoint five new Supervisors. Phil Bryant applied for the vacancy in District 2. A source told me back then Bryant wrote a letter to Mabus stating "that I have always been a Democrat" in the attempt to get the appointment. Indeed, in the runoff between Larry Swales (the winner) and Bryant for that Supervisor's seat, Bryant was considered the more liberal of the two candidates.
6. Bryant said it was a mistake for Republicans to not fully fund public education. While we conservatives believe in a strong public education, there is also a lot of fat in the budget (too many administrators). Would he cut the fat? Or would he raise taxes? I think he would do the latter.
7. Bryant believes in strong county government. But in his 1999 race for State Auditor, his Democratic opponent Rod Nixon attacked him for proposing some counties be abolished so government could be more efficient. Ross might want to ask Bryant what counties he would like to see abolished. If that were to happen, where would there be strong local control over their government if their county was abolished?

Phil Bryant is no conservative although he portrays himself as one in this race. Charlie Ross has been conservative from Day One in his political career. Ross has principles; Bryant is a political chameleon. Bryant would do or say anything to get elected.

Phil Bryant--Where Are the Audits?

2007-07-28T17:33:00.000-05:00

Phil Bryant has bragged what a great job he has done as State Auditor. He even boasts as to how much he has brought in to the state treasury from all the funds he has recovered. www.cottonmouthblog.blogspot.com has carefully reviewed Bryant's record as State Auditor. I strongly suggest you go to that blog and read it. But as a CPA who carefully has observed reports on the State Auditor's office, I'd like to point out a few things:

1. Why was there no audit in any year for the Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi? The PHM spent over one hundred million dollars in five years and not once was there an audit.
2. Why was there no audit of the failed Mississippi Beef (mooooo) Plant fiasco? His office allowed the appropriation for this white elephant. Did he ever think of having a thorough review of where the money was going and scream when it looked like the Plant would be a turkey?
3. He claims he has recovered twelve million dollars from misappropriation of funds during his ten years as State Auditor. But that has been over a TEN-YEAR PERIOD. Wow. A lot of the recovery has not been due to corruption, but a misapplication of funds.
4. There has been a decrease in the amount of quality audits during his ten years. Cottonmouth has extensively written on this and gave a link to the PEER report.
5. Before June 30th, turnover in the State Auditor's office was an eye-popping 82%. But on June 3oth, four more experienced employees in the OAS quit. They "had their fill with Phil".
6. The NSAA audit of the OAS (peer audit of the audits completed) shows the quality of audits is terrible. Before Bryant, the OAS has always had good audit reports. This is the FIRST TIME FOR A BAD AUDIT REPORT!!

My sources tell me morale is so low in the OAS they are literally counting the days when Bryant steps down. He has politicized the office and has made it a fiefdom for his own selfish political ambitions. Quality audits and professionalism have taken a back seat to one man's ego and political aspirations.

Do you seriously want this man to be YOUR Lt. Governor?

Phil Bryant--Wasting Taxpayers' Money

2007-07-21T16:49:00.000-05:00

Much has been said about the Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi. Phil Bryant, the so-called exemplar of conservatism, was on the board of Mike Moore's brain child. Bryant was coming up with all sorts of liberal ideas to waste the taxpayers' money.

Bryant had no qualms about twenty million dollars a year being diverted to an unaccountable private organization. Mike Moore created the PHM, appointed himself chairman and cut an illegal deal with a local Chancery Court Judge to fund it with the taxpayers' money. Bryant had no objections to that.

Consider what the PHM spent the money on:

1. Lobbyists to pressure State Legislators.
2. Highly questionable contributions to the Legislative Black Caucus.
3. Paid political ads.

NO AUDITS WERE BEING PERFORMED BY THE STATE AUDITOR!! The PHM had no accountability. One hundred million dollars of taxpayer money was illegally diverted to this non-profit. Bryant was on the Board and never once did he think of auditing the PHM.

The late Gov. Kirk Fordice, Bryant's hero and the one who appointed Bryant to the State Auditor's post, started the battle against the questionable funding mechanism for the PHM. It was Gov. Barbour and State Treasurer Tate Reeves who finished the fight. Whether or not you like Fordice and Barbour, at least they were fiscal conservatives. Bryant is a fiscal liberal and will waste the taxpayers' money if he can.

Mississippi can't afford to have Phil Bryant as Lt. Governor.

Phil Bryant--An Incompetent Agency Head and Bully

2007-06-16T16:22:00.000-05:00

www.cottonmouthblog.blogspot.com did an excellent job in summarizing the PEER report on the handling of the State Auditor's office, which Phil Bryant has headed since November 1996 (see www.peer.state.ms.us/495.html if you want more details. The report is over one hundred pages, but makes for good reading.)

cottonmouthblog commented on the high turnover in the office (writer's note: cottonmouthblog is liberal but an excellent source for state politics. It is unabashedly Democratic, but I recommend it just for its excellent research and reporting. Plus, the writers are witty.), but did not go into detail about the very high turnover in the State Auditor's office.

An 82% turnover in a state agency in four years shows gross mismanagement on the head of the agency. And for CPAs to leave the premier agency for accounting is shocking in itself. One reason is the low salaries the OSA (Office of State Auditor) offers. A starting salary of $30661 for a college accounting graduate is much lower than the starting salary for the same graduate in a small CPA firm. Three years ago, I had a friend who has a sole proprietorship that hired an accounting graduate at a starting salary of $38000. A good-sized regional firm hired accounting graduates at a starting salary of $45000. And those graduates can move up the accounting ladder, especially if they pass the CPA exam. Also, these graduates are not subjected to salary increases based on the whims of the State Legislature. Every year at these CPA firms they get a COLA (even if they don't get promoted).

Usually, even in a state agency, the CPAs stay. It is rare when they look for other jobs. We CPAs hate change. We like to work for the same people, the same agency or CPA firm and essentially do the same work (although we do like challenging work, even if it means change). High staff turnover is not the nature of the profession. We are a wildly loyal lot. So long as we are treated right, get raises and get some juicy work to do, we are very easy to please. In the little firm I'm at, we have had no turnover in six years. CPAs in state agencies know they will not make the real big bucks, but they have excellent fringe benefits, good retirement and no bone-crushing hours that CPAs in CPA firms have (I work 80-90 hours a week during tax season. One year I put in 110 hours a week for three weeks.).

Before Bryant was appointed to his job (I think there should be a constitution amendment that states only a CPA with at least five years of public accounting experience should head the OSA.), there was not much of a turnover. The reason is the other State Auditors let the staff do the job and they stayed out of it. As I wrote before, after Hamp King left in 1984 the agency became more political. But until Bryant, the State Auditors let the top CPAs do the job while they went politicking. Not so with Bryant.

I have talked to individuals who worked in the OSA under Phil Bryant. It was like being locked in a closet with a two-hundred pound water rat. Stuff they told me curled my hair. Indeed, such behavior would not be tolerated in a CPA firm. Bryant has systematically reduced auditor positions over his career and moved slots to non-audit positions such as investigations or leadership positions within Jackson. Some have gone to the performance audit division, which has in past years been used merely as a political hammer. There are no real standards for a performance audit and no real peer review of the results.

Audit positions are billable audit hours. You reduce the number of auditors you have and you reduce the dollars coming in to the agency. Salaries of people that leave are used to pay those that stay. Therefore, you get into a cannibal situation in that positions that are not filled in order to keep one good auditor or that one more key management person in Jackson (How would you like to be in that situation? Wouldn't you be sending out your resume'?).

Audits are at an all time low in numbers. Only one in four of the county audits are done by the OSA. From what I am told, the OSA will do no University or Junior College audits next year and just a fraction of the County School audits. The state billing rate for audits to other agencies is just one-quarter of the Federal billing rate. The golden goose is in the audit billing rate but there are several cutbacks in agency audits at the present time.

Another person told me there is no way to turn back the hands of time and do all audits in house in the near future. It works fine for counties, schools and some other agencies to hire outside firms and have the OSA review the financial audits. It's okay to a point but a bad example is the audit on the Jefferson Davis Schools. From what has been mentioned, $1.5 million was not caught by the firm doing the audit but was for the first year the OSA picked the audit back up.

Phil Bryant cares for his own ego and not the welfare of the employees in his agency. In December, the OSA has a yearly staff meeting and training classes. The staff meeting with Bryant is scheduled five to six months in advance so he knows its on his calendar. In December 2006, a week before the meeting Bryant reschedules the meeting. The training could not be rescheduled due to outside people coming in to train and places scheduled to hold the training. So, Bryant made everyone come back to Jackson the following week for the staff meeting. All out of town staff had to travel back to Jackson causing the state to pay for double travel. The cost was estimated to be $6500. Then you have to add hotels for some and the loss of income from everyone having to come back (e.g., no billing for audit hours), which cost about $17000. That's a total of $23500. Why did this paragon of a watchdog of the taxpayer's money cancel the staff meeting? Bryant had to hold a press conference about opening offices in Hattiesburg for Katrina investigations. Couldn't this "fiscal conservative" announce that before or after the staff meeting? Or during the meeting? Or was Bryant more interested in a photo-op?

The NSAA audit of the Mississippi State Auditor's office (a peer audit of the audits completed) shows that the quality of audits are terrible. Previously, the OSA has always had good audit reports. But a high turnover rate of auditors takes its toll in any state agency. This is the first time for a bad audit report issued by the NSAA.

Even after an article in the CLARION-LEDGER showing a high turnover in the OSA and poor salaries, Bryant wouldn't push for pay raises until the PEER review came out. Voila', it's election year! Finally, they are getting decent raises. But if this had not been an election year and the sharp criticism of the PEER review, the workers in his agency wouldn't get any raises.

Bryant's red-hot temper and bullying are legendary in that agency. The OSA has a little room where you can put your coffee mug there. One morning, he went into that little coffee room and there were a couple of mugs in the sink soaking. Those mugs had been sitting there for a few minutes, not a few days. He took the mugs and threw them in a trash. Some of those mugs had sentimental value to the employees. They were the personal property of the employees. Then he sent out a memo on the matter. Other times he has screamed at audit processors about getting an audit out. At times, he has made the women working in those hapless positions cry. He didn't care about their feelings. You just can't send out an audit based on a political whim. You have to make sure all the "i"s are dotted and all the "t"s are crossed. Otherwise, the audit could blow up in your face. If Bryant had been a CPA, he would have understood that. Instead, he goes into wild tirades and screams at those employees, reducing them to tears. I have been told this happens a lot. He is very, very hot-tempered, screaming and yelling at employees before asking questions to clear up an inquiry. And you wonder why they leave? Would YOU work for him? Gee, are you surprised there's an 82% turnover in his office?

Remember, this is the jerk who wants to be YOUR Lt. Governor. How do you think he'll get along with the State Senate? Will the state have to hire a new Legislative Director every month?

Yeah, he'd make a great Lt. Governor. Just look at the wonderful job he's done as State Auditor.

Phil Bryant--Liar Extraordinaire

2007-06-09T17:12:00.000-05:00

Perhaps you watched "Star Trek--The Next Generation" constantly as I did. In one episode, Lt. Worf was asked by Picard to help a Klingon. Worf protested. When Picard asked him why, Worf replied, "He is without honor."

That could easily apply to Phil Bryant. In 1991, he was running a tough race for State Representative against incumbent Democrat Frances Savage. As treasurer of the Rankin County Republican Executive Committee, I made sure he got a good contribution for his campaign. As we all know, he defeated Savage by a good margin.

On November 6th, the day after the election, I called the victors who had contested races. I congratulated all of them and told them I'd be glad to help them so long I was on the RCREC. I talked to Phil Bryant around 2:20PM CST. I asked him for his support for another term on the RCREC. I didn't know the exact day of the county convention, but I knew it was right after tax season. Phil Bryant said almost word-for-word, "You have my promise you have my support. I want all the officers on the RCREC re-elected." (By the way, I do NOT record telephone calls. But I do take copious notes.)

In politics, a man's (I use that term in the generic sense.) word is his bond. When a politician gives me his word, I expect him to keep it. If he can't, then he should come right out and tell me. There are times when I've had to tell a candidate I cannot support him and give him the reason(s) why. But I will not lie to him and tell him I will support him when I won't.

Phil Bryant lied to me. On April 18, 1992, the Rankin County Republican Party had it's quadrennial convention at the Rankin County Courthouse. He was working hard and telling people from the Reservoir and Castlewoods to get rid of the present RCREC. He was doing all he could to make certain I was defeated. Indeed, he walked near where I was sitting and telling one of his friends how to vote. I overheard what he was saying and I was hot. What a two-faced low-life. Obviously, I was defeated. Pearl and the rural areas could not defeat the Reservoir, Castlewoods and Crossgates axis.

Nobody likes to lose. But that's life in politics. Charlie Ross was elected permanent chairman of the convention over acting chairman David Jefcoat by a 95-66 vote. So why am I not at all bitter towards Charlie Ross? Indeed, we are still friends. Simple. He never lied to me. He worked against me and that's politics. He never promised to support me. He won and that's that.

I know Charlie Ross is not charismatic or as handsome as Phil Bryant. But there is something called honor and integrity. You have to look a person in the eye and when you give him your word, you go all out to keep it. Charlie Ross is an honorable man. Perhaps Lt. Worf knew Phil Bryant when he said, "He is without honor."

This is not the last post on Phil Bryant. I'll go into details what a bully he is. I also downloaded the PEER Report on the performance of the State Auditor's office. I'll be commenting on that. It's bad enough he's a two-faced liar. It's also bad when he's a bully and an incompetent in running a state agency.

Phil Bryant Started Out As PRO-ABORTION

2007-05-28T15:03:00.001-05:00

A lot of people think Phil Bryant is pro-life. Indeed, he has voted pro-life while he was in the State House for nearly five years. But he started out as a vehement supporter of abortion. I did not read this or get second-hand information. I KNOW this to be a fact.

As I have stated on previous posts, I served on the Rankin County Republican Executive Committee for twelve years (1980-1992). Phil Bryant served on the committee for about eighteen or so months (1988-1990).

In politics, it is very difficult to remember details day-to-day. All you have is your memory, which can become faulty as the years pass. This is why I keep a very detailed diary. I have kept one from January 1, 1981 to this very day. And I write the dates, times, people and details of events. I write in my diary just before I go to bed. Whenever I go to any political gathering, I bring a note pad and take detailed notes. But remember this: I do NOT betray confidences. Phil Bryant never told me anything in confidence.

First, a little background. Our beloved chairman Peggy Sheppard died on April 8, 1990. She was diagnosed with lung cancer on August 18, 1989. David Jefcoat, elected vice-chairman just nine months before, took over as temporary chairman because Sheppard was fighting lung cancer. He felt it would be in the best interest of the Rankin County Republican Executive Committee (hereafter abbreviated as RCREC) if we had a statement of principles and a platform. On August 7, 1989 he appointed a committee of three to write a platform. I was one of those members. On October 2nd, a draft was read at our RCREC meeting. Since it was choppy, it was decided we would meet to iron out all the details. On December 18th, one of the members, David Jefcoat and I met at David's place of work to iron out the details. I added the plank, "We respect all life--both born and unborn." It passed and we decided to present the platform at our next RCREC meeting.

On January 8, 1990, we had our meeting to approve the platform. A future GOP state chairman and Phil Bryant were there to fight the platform. THEY WERE OPPOSED TO ANY PLANK THAT OPPOSED ABORTION. They brought in their supporters on the RCREC and the pro-life plank was stripped out by a 13-7 vote. I saw Phil Bryant walk up and down encouraging his supporters to strip the pro-life plank. He yammered about a woman's "right to choose." I remember Tom Hamby, one of the RCREC members who supported the pro-life plank, getting up and saying, "For God's sake, don't do this. This is the buckle of the Bible Belt." Phil Bryant went all-out to ensure no pro-life plank would ever be in the RCREC party platform. I voted against the platform after the pro-life plank was stripped. It didn't stand for much of anything except it was against raising taxes.

So why did Bryant become pro-life? Simple. He knew he could not defeat Democratic incumbent State Rep. Frances Savage in 1991 by being pro-abortion. Her last two GOP opponents were not pro-life and she handily defeated them. Savage was no rabid pro-abortion supporter, but she was far from being pro-life. Phil Bryant was pro-abortion because the GOP at the Reservoir was (and still is) much more concerned about economic rather than social issues (Don't forget. Bryant ran for County Supervisor in 1988 and lost in the GOP primary runoff.). Crossgates has a very strong pro-life church, Crossgates Baptist Church. Crossgates was (and still is) a lot more conservative on social issues than the Reservoir.

Bryant was told if he wanted to get elected, he would have to run as a pro-lifer. Otherwise, Savage was going to defeat him. The Christian Right didn't care much for her, but they weren't going to vote for Bryant if he was pro-abortion (The thinking was: Why have a Republican pro-aborter in the State House?). So he became a gung-ho pro-lifer. He knew if he were defeated for this race his political career would be dead in the water. Did it work? Just before Election Day, I drove through Crossgates. A lot of people who had Savage signs in their yards in 1987 now had Bryant signs. I knew some of the people. They said it was the abortion issue that made them switch. Bryant was pro-life. I kept my mouth shut because I was on the RCREC and I didn't want to speak ill of a Republican running for office. Did it work? In 1987, Savage won nearly 2-1. This time Bryant won 5760 (54.86%) to Savage's 4740 (45.14%). Savage would have faced a tough race in 1991 because it was a Republican year in Mississippi. But you can bet your sweet bippy the abortion issue gave Bryant the victory.

Charlie Ross served also on the RCREC for about a year when I was on it. He was pro-life from the very start. He told me there was no compromising or fudging with him on the issue--he was pro-life because of his religious convictions.

So there you have it. Two candidates are running for the GOP nomination for Lt. Governor of Mississippi. Whom do you want? Phil Bryant, a political whore who was gung-ho for abortion until he switched so he could get elected to office? Or Charlie Ross, who has the courage of his convictions?

Mike Sumrall for State Auditor

2007-05-07T17:15:00.000-05:00

There is one statewide race that directly affects all the CPAs in the state and that is the race for State Auditor. I have carefully examined all of the candidates running and I have come to the conclusion only Mike Sumrall is qualified to fill that all-important position.

There has not been a State Auditor since W. Hamp King (1956-1984) with a degree in accounting (He also was a CPA.). Mike Sumrall is the only candidate running that has a degree in accounting (However, he is not a CPA.).

Sumrall worked in the State Auditor's office for 23 years, so he understand what goes on in an audit. He served as a senior auditor and headed the computer and information technology divisions. Until recently, he served as the Forrest County administrator and chief financial officer. He is not a lightweight when it comes to knowledge of government accounting rules and regulations. He also knows what it takes to do a thorough financial audit and come up with clean, accurate financial reports for the state, its agencies and the counties. Because he worked for a couple of CPA firms, he knows what CPAs are looking for in an audit and can "speak their language."

Because I'm a CPA, I did some investigating as to what kind of person he would be as State Auditor. The people who work in the State Auditor's office have a high regard for him. Terms they used were "knowledgable," "knows his stuff," "very friendly," "easy to work for," and "very hard-working." Right now, turnover in the State Auditor's office is an eye-popping 82%! It is hard to run an effective office when you have such high turnover. Since 1984, all the State Auditors have been politicians using the position as a step for higher office. Folks, that is twenty-four years of using an office for political agendas. It's not a partisan issue, since the State Auditors have been Democratic or Republican. The present State Auditor knows absolutely nothing about government accounting and auditing. Isn't it time there was someone who knew what he was doing?

For twenty-four years I have seen the State Auditor's office being used to launch the officeholder's political career. The office could go down the drain but what was important is building up that officeholder's political ambitions. Mike Sumrall is going to be a State Auditor and not a self-seeking politician. He will run the office in the tradition of Hamp King, whom most people consider to be the most qualified individual to serve as State Auditor. Sumrall will NOT be running for office other than re-election as State Auditor.

I know his running as a Democrat turn a lot of people off. Many Republicans think he is probably some liberal. Actually, he is very conservative. He is strongly pro-life. I have talked with him on the telephone and found him to be very friendly. He is staunchly conservative on the social and fiscal issues. Before you wonder why he didn't run as a Republican, it's because many of us believe we need staunch conservatives in the Democratic Party as well.

There have been a lot of scandals in private industry such as Enron and WorldCom because of lax accounting standards. Those two scandals alone cost shareholders billions of dollars. We need a watchdog when it comes to spending state, county and local monies. Mike Sumrall is the only candidate who can effectively run the State Auditor's office.

Races I Will Follow

2007-04-30T17:22:00.000-05:00

This was a very busy tax season so I did not do much blogging. During the next three months of the primary season, I will cover the following races:

1. Lt. Governor. I'll make no bones about it: I am supporting State Senator Charlie Ross for the post. I think Phil Bryant is dumber than my box turtle Pokey Jo. I also think Ross is a lot more conservative than Bryant. At least Ross stands by his principles. If this were Nazi Germany, Bryant would be singing the "Horst Wessel". Ross would be fighting the Nazis.

2. Chancery Clerk. This race is mainly between Mitch Childre and Larry Swales. I will be doing all I can for Mitch. (There is a third candidate, Kirk McDaniel, but I don't think he'll be a major player.) I have known Mitch for twenty years and I can tell you he will do a good job and serve the people. Swales will serve his ego and his Reservoir buddies.

3. State Auditor. Because I'm a CPA, this is one race I'm interested in. I am hoping Mike Sumrall will be the Democratic nominee. He has the experience and will do a good job running the agency. He will have a tough race. If he should win the primary, he'll have a very tough race in the general election.

Obviously, there are other races and I will comment on them. I'm hoping Cliff Brown will be elected State Senator, but I'm not all that familiar with his race. I don't live in that district. (I do find it strange that no Democrat qualified for the race.). My commentary will be limited on that race. I would like to see Lee Yancey get elected as State Senator in District 20 (Again, no Democrat qualified for that race.). Lee is an individual of impeccable integrity and has been a lobbyist for the Christian Action Commission of the Mississippi Baptist Convention Board. He would be ideal as a State Senator for people who want a fighter and is one of the "little guys." And in the PSC--Central race, I hope Pearl Mayor Jimmy Foster is the GOP nominee and is elected in November. He's done a good job as mayor. His opponent, Charles Barbour, has been a county supervisor in Hinds County and has done a poor job. Talk radio has had fun blasting four of the five supervisors, Barbour being one of them.

May is just a day away. I better get out my old diaries and inform you what a louse Phil Bryant really is. It'll be a fun three months.

Still Busy, Busy, Busy

2007-03-31T19:50:00.000-05:00

I'm sorry I haven't written a thing in the past month. I've been extremely busy. After April 17th, I plan to write a lot more than once a month.

In due time, we will have party registration. This has been caused by the Mississippi Democratic Party's refusal to certify Insurance Commissioner George Dale and State Rep. Mary Ann Stevens as candidates. Dale is being punished for supporting President Bush in 2004 and Stevens votes "contrary to Democratic positions (whatever that means)".

I was on the Rankin County Republican Executive Committee for twelve years (1980-1992), eleven of them as treasurer (1981-1992). We certified a lot of candidates who were once Democrats. In fact, we certified Larry Swales in 1988 for the special elections for county supervisor despite his support for Ray Mabus just the prior year. We had no litmus test. We just went by the legal requirements. If they met them, we certified them.

If the state Democratic Party can give a litmus test, then what about the county Democratic Party committees? If I ran as a Democrat, would I be certified in Rankin County by the Democrats despite my prior GOP activities? It makes you wonder. And what about rural whites who vote Republican but wish to run as Democrats for office? Would they be denied certification by their Democratic Party county committees?

Gov. Haley Barbour has always had an "open tent" for those who wish to run as Republicans. It is only a matter of time before the county governments which are primarily governed by whites become GOP bastions (It is unfortunate there is such a polarization of race and political party affiliation.). You will be able to thank the Mississippi Democratic Party for that.

Honestly, sometimes I think the state Democratic Party is made up of kamikaze pilots.

Busy, Busy, Busy, Busy

2007-02-28T15:20:00.000-06:00

I've been busier than a one-armed paperhanger at the Sistine Chapel. Therefore, there is nothing to post this month.

After tax season, I plan to write about Phil Bryant. From January 1, 1981 to the present, I keep a detailed diary. I served with Bryant for seventeen months on the Rankin County Republican Executive Committee (from Dec. 1988 to April 1990). One reader of my blog wondered why I passionately dislike him so much. You will soon know why.

I'll blog one more time in March. But after tax season, be prepared for some juicy stuff.

I'm For Cliff Brown

2007-01-31T08:46:00.000-06:00

I got blasted by comments from my last post. For the record, I would support Cliff Brown if I lived in that district. Brown is a solid conservative and an honorable person. I would be proud to have him as my state senator (Dean Kirby is my state senator and he has done a great job.).

I will be the first to tell you I am not familiar with the politics of other counties--including Simpson County. This is why I welcome comments from readers in other counties. I know Perry Lee's district extends outside of Rankin County and Rankin County is just a small portion of that district.

I was not aware of Lee's background and his voting record on all the issues. If he is from the county club wing of the GOP then we don't need him. From what I have read from the comments, he's out of touch with the little guy.

I apologize to all those I offended. I guess I'm not familiar with local politics outside of Rankin County and it showed. I had no idea there was so much disenchantment with Sen. Lee.

For the record, I definitely do NOT want Cliff Brown to lose and the article was not written to convey I wanted him to lose. I was pointing out the difficulty of throwing out an incumbent. I also pointed out the issues where the incumbents are vulnerable. I hope on August 7Th (providing there is no Democratic opponent) I can call Cliff Brown "Senator Brown."

The Test on How Incumbents Will Do

2007-01-30T17:50:00.000-06:00

In District 35 for the State Senate, incumbent Perry Lee is opposed by Cliff Brown of Florence. As of today, I would say Lee would win by a landslide. But because this is the only race (so far) where an incumbent legislator has primary opposition in Rankin County, it will be interesting to see how much anti-incumbent feeling there is out there. Here are the following storm clouds that should worry incumbents:

1. The beef plant fiasco. If you want to really anger the average voter, just talk about that $55 million dollar boondoggle. I have talked to a lot of voters and they are red-hot angry about it. Will it translate to anti-incumbent voting?

2. Hurricane Katrina. There are a lot of people who are complaining how slow the government is in aiding the victims. Brown lives in south Rankin County and is running in a district that had a lot of hurricane damage. Will that hurt Lee?

3. The grocery tax. Let's face it: The average voter is for raising cigarette taxes to fund a sales tax cut on groceries. While that will not help the rich, it will help the little guy. But Lee's district is not a wealthy district. The tax cut would help them. Would Brown vote for raising the cigarette tax to cut the sales tax on groceries? That is a sleeper issue.

4. Accountability. Does the average taxpayer feel they are getting his money's worth out of state government? A lot of people say "no." Can Brown capitalize on that?

If I were a betting man (and I'm not), I would say Lee will get 75% of the vote. He'll have the pac funding and the name recognition. But if he gets less than 60% of the vote, there is a deep disgust with incumbents and you could find a lot of political corpses come Election Day. And if Brown should win, you could see the makeup of the state legislature heavily change. Brown is the canary in the political coal mine. It'll be interesting to see how that bird will chirp come August 7th.

Blacks and the Mississippi Democratic Party

2007-01-26T17:43:00.000-06:00

Back in January 2005, the blacks in the Georgia State House of Representatives screamed how they were being shut out of the legislative process and removed from all the committee chairmanships they held. They called it "racist" and wanted something done.

So what happened? Why the outcry? What was going on in the state of Georgia? It's very simple. For the first time since Reconstruction, the Republicans won the State House. All of the black legislators were Democrats. The Republicans decided that party members would get the committee chairmanships. Hence, no blacks were committee chairmen. The GOP again retained control in the 2006 elections. It will be a while before the Democrats take control of either legislative body in Georgia.

Fast forward to Mississippi. Obviously, committee chairmanships are decided by the Lt. Governor and House Speaker. But that could change. Mississippi has never been known for its party divisions in the State Legislature. But a year or so ago, the GOP decided to elect a minority leader and whip. That does not bode well for bipartisanship in the Legislature. Should the Democrats retain control of the House, the Speaker just might appoint all Democrats to committee chairmanships. And blacks will control a lot of those posts.

Odds are the Democrats will control the House next year. But it is only a matter of time before the GOP takes control. It will be a lot more partisan Legislature than it was under Gov. Musgrove and previous governors. If all the black legislators are Democrats, they just might not get any committee chairmanships. They might object, but why should the GOP appoint them to any committee chairmanships? Most of the GOP legislators are conservative. Most of the black legislators are liberal.

Blacks should re-examine their love affair with the Democratic Party. I can understand why the blacks want to stay in the Democratic Party. After all, a solid majority of Democratic primary voters are black. Blacks wield a lot of power in the Democratic Party. And when the Democratic Party is in control, blacks will have a good chunk of power. But what happens when the Democratic Party loses its power. Blacks are shut out of the power process. There is a lot of truth to the old political cliche': Always dance with the ones who brung you. And most blacks do not want to dance with the GOP.

Take Rankin County, which is solidly GOP. How many blacks have any position of power? How much influence does the black community have on the GOP? The answer is "none." You may get a few blacks appointed to some boards and commissions, but that's about it. There is very little power on those boards and commissions.

The GOP has changed quite a bit in the past thirty years. It certainly isn't as conservative as it was thirty years ago--or even twenty. Admittedly, the late Gov. Kirk Fordice was no friend of the black population. One could make a very strong case that he was racist (I personally think he was.). But his breed is the old time 1960s and 1970s Republicans, which did have a racist tinge with some of those Republicans. The new breed can't stand racism. This is especially true among the Christian Right. The CR is reaching out to blacks in volunteer efforts and on the social issues. One very strong reason the CR is not racist because of its very strong religious beliefs--especially that the Lord Jesus Christ died for ALL people.

And just what has the average black got out of the Democratic Party other than power? Billions have been spent on welfare but there is a strong black (and to some degree, white) underclass. The Democrats promote dependency; The GOP promotes opportunity and hope. Maybe the GOP isn't perfect, but shouldn't blacks give an ear to what the GOP has to offer? Shouldn't the black voter be more discriminating in its vote rather than just voting for an individual just because he has a (D) after his name? And to maintain its power status, shouldn't blacks get involved in the Republican Party and vote Republican so they can get the fruits of power should the GOP be in the driver's seat? Black voters shouldn't put their eggs all in the Democratic Party basket.

Hopefully, blacks will wake up and carefully choose both sides. The last thing this state needs is a lily-white Republican Party and a solidly black Democratic Party.

The Coming Republican Party Split

2007-01-25T17:56:00.000-06:00

It is highly unlikely Gov. Haley Barbour will have any Republican primary opposition in the governor's race. The Lt. Governor's Republican primary will be more over style than socioeconomic issues that would normally split the GOP. But like the Florida GOP Presidential primary between Ford and Reagan in 1976, a barn burning split will occur. It's part of the growing pains of an upcoming political party (By the way, I was in Florida at that time. I worked for Reagan and it was a VERY bitter primary. I may write on that some other time.).

There are two factions in the GOP: The middle and working class Christian Right versus the country club economic elite. I would identify with the first group. A precursor was the bitter convention the Rankin County Republican Executive Committee had in 1992 when the Fordice economic elite defeated the incumbent Christian Right group. To this very day, there are scars from that fight.

The two groups despise each other. The country clubbers don't give a rat's tush about social issues. The abortion issue doesn't even matter to them. Homosexual marriage to them is a yawner. Their main interest is economic--lower taxes and less government regulation.

On the other hand, the Christian Right (CR) is not that concerned about economic issues. That group would be in favor of raising the minimum wage, increased taxes on the rich and more economic populism. However, the CR is interested in the social issues, such as restricting abortion.

The CR has cold contempt for the country clubbers (CC). They think the CCs don't care about the moral state of the nation and are just money grubbers. The CCs think the CR consists of nothing but a bunch of unwashed yahoos.

In due time, those two groups will clash. A precursor was the Ford-Reagan 1976 clash in this state. Of course, the GOP was very weak. At that time, they had never won a statewide race (other than President). But this is thirty years later. And the GOP is now a powerhouse and except for the State House, is now a majority party.

What candidates will represent the two factions? Right now, it is too early to tell. It'll be interesting to see if the Lt. Governor's race will bring out the latent hostility of those two factions. If not, we'll have to wait and see.

But mark my words: There will be a very bitter Republican primary on the level of the Ford-Reagan clash. It is only a matter of time.

Count on it.

A Republican Party-Splitting Primary

2007-01-22T17:10:00.000-06:00

The true test of the strength of a political party is if it wins after a divisive party primary. The Republicans in Mississippi had a nasty gubernatorial primary in 1979, when Gil Carmichael defeated Leon Bramlett by a 17161 to 15153 margin. It was an ideological primary, with Carmichael the moderate (He was STILL in favor of gun control.) and Bramlett the conservative. The primary was so nasty Carmichael couldn't recover. He was badly defeated by William F. Winter in the general election by a 61.5%-38.5% margin. But back then, the GOP was quite weak.

Fast-forward to 2007. Now there is a primary for Lt. Governor--State Senator Charles Ross versus State Auditor Phil Bryant. It is not going to be kuumbaya. Charles Ross is much more conservative than Phil Bryant. Remember: Bryant was an ally of former state attorney general Mike Moore on that Tobacco-Free Partnership. And despite the fact he had a pro-life voting record in his 4 3/4 years in the State House, on the Rankin County Republican Executive Committee he was pro-abortion. Only when he knew a pro-abort could not be elected did he change his views. Ross has been pro-life from the very start.

Ross may be aloof, but he is the genuine article. Bryant would be pro-abortion if he were in Vermont. He changes his views to conform with his constituency. Ross would be just as conservative even if he was in Vermont. I can tolerate Ross and I do respect him. I despise Phil Bryant and I would not vote for him even if he ran against that Commie-lib U.S. Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.

If Ross is smart, he'll paint Bryant as a liberal and a blow-dried candidate. That will not be that difficult to do. Ross has some bucks in his treasury and he's very intelligent. He is cerebral and has a lot of good ideas for the state. In a debate, Ross may not look as pretty as Bryant but Ross would cut him to ribbons. Bryant would look like a deer blinded by headlights.

But what would happen after the primary? If Bryant wins, he'll be portrayed as a dilettante
and an empty suit (duh). Plus, he'll have the "liberal" tag posted on him. If the nominee is Ronnie Shows or Ronnie Musgrove, Bryant will have an uphill fight. Shows would probably win. I can just imagine Shows saying to rural whites (who will be the deciding factor in the election)
"Look, my opponent is pretty and is a liberal. He lives in a nice home in a rich community. I live in a small town and I have always WORKED for a living. What you see is what you get. I don't get my hair coiffed at Monique's." Would it work? You better believe it would.

If Ross wins, his cold personality would hurt him. A folksy Shows or Musgrove could beat him. Plus, a lot of the Bryant supporters would vote Democratic because of the bitter primary. Also, these voters will be more moderate and would be more inclined to support a Democrat.

Another thing to consider: After a very nasty primary, would there be enough money to run a general election campaign? The Democratic nominee may have an easy primary and have enough cash for the general election.

There are a few other candidates in the mix. State Rep. Jamie Franks is the only declared Democrat running. If Ronnie Shows runs, Franks will lose. Musgrove will probably not run because of the toe-sucking incident a while ago. Once that is brought out, he'll look like a whackjob. A wild card is Barbara Blackmon, who was the Democratic nominee for Lt. Governor in 2003. If she runs, she may win. But she will lose no matter who the GOP nominee is.

Finally, there's another potential candidate who could win: Secretary of State Eric Clark. He has a very strong following among the Christian Right. He is a gung-ho pro-lifer and active pro-lifers consider him a hero. I have supported him in all three of his statewide races and I will work hard for him again no matter what post he runs for. Of all the politicians I have ever known, he is one of the most squeaky-clean individuals I have ever known. I once asked a friend who was a private detective if he knew any scandal on Eric Clark. He said Clark was a paragon of virtue. He'd run as a Democrat and would probably win. Clark is low-keyed but he is charming on a one-on-one basis. Plus, he is extremely intelligent. He has a PhD. in history. I don't agree with him on voter ID, but that's about it. Clark hasn't announced his intentions for 2007. He may run for re-election, run for Lt. Governor, or just plain retire.

If I were Phil Bryant, I'd stay on as State Auditor (Knox Ross is not running for the post. It's too bad, since he would do a good job.). If Ross loses, he can go back to his law firm. He won't starve. If Bryant loses, he can go back to being a fire inspector. If Bryant ran for reelection, he would win (I don't care if the Demos put up a child molester against Bryant. I'd vote for him before I'd vote for Bryant.). However, if former state senator Rob Smith ran against him as a Democrat, it would be a horserace. I'd vote for Smith, but I'm not wild about him.

It's still early. We won't know the entire picture until March 1st. But if it's Ross versus Bryant, it'll be a very interesting race. Let the fur fly!

The Noxubee County Mess

2007-01-20T17:35:00.000-06:00

The Noxubee County voting mess is now on trial. It is the first time under the 1965 Civil Rights Act where whites were the objects of voting discrimination where they were intimidated from voting in the Democratic primaries. While I think Ike Brown is a flaming racist, I do agree with him on letting Republicans voting in Democratic Party primaries. I think they should vote in GOP primaries and stay out of the Democratic primaries.

However, there is just one flaw with that: There is no party registration in Mississippi. I asked an attorney from the Secretary of State's office if a Republican can be barred from voting in the Democratic primary. He said the only way that can happen is if the Republican goes in there and screams he's a Republican and thinks Democrats basically suck. I have voted in Democratic primaries and have had no objections from the Democratic poll workers. I voted in the U.S. Senate Democratic primaries of 2002 and 2006 and the Presidential primary in 2004 (Obviously, the GOP had no corresponding primaries.). I had no problems voting. Unless you raise a partisan stink, a Republican can vote in a Democratic primary.

Ike Brown's lawsuit forbidding open primaries may bear fruit. Do you remember the 2000 Presidential primaries in California? The state legislature said it was okay for independents to vote in the party primaries (pick one party). The results would be reported in two formats: One primary counting just the registered party voters and another showing the registered party voters and the independent voters. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down that format.

I talked to a couple of state senators and they told me the chances of a bill mandating party registration has as good a chance of passing as a snowball lasting ten minutes on a sidewalk in Key West, Fla. But Ike Brown has a point: Republicans ARE voting in Democratic primaries (and vice versa in Rankin County) and may just vote for the weakest Democrat. Why should the Republicans have the right to vote in a Democratic primary. And why can't the Democratic Party disallow Republicans from voting in their primaries (Remember: The reverse question is valid for Rankin County. And I do know of die-hard Democrats voting in the Republican primaries in Rankin County.)?

If party registration does pass, it will not cripple the blacks or the Republicans. It will cripple the white Democrats--especially in the State Legislature. You can bet your sweet bippy if party registration comes to pass, many white Democrats who tend to vote in Democratic primaries will actually register as Republicans. With the exception of a very small minority of blacks, blacks will register Democratic. White Democratic legislators will either be forced to run in a primary where there is a majority black registration---and probably lose---or switch parties. If you look at past voting in statewide Democratic primaries, the MAJORITY of voters in those primaries are black.

The big gainers in all this will be blacks and Republicans (Talk about an unholy alliance.). Blacks will win the vast majority of primaries and will probably see their legislative and local numbers vastly grow. But so will the GOP. Conservative white Democrats will more than likely vote for the Republican than the Democrat. The only area of Mississippi where white Democrats would outnumber black Democrats would be in the northeast corner of the state (That's where House Speaker Billy McCoy is from.). It may be that a white conservative Democrat may be an endangered species in this state.

Watch this Noxubee County case very carefully. If Ike Brown comes out a winner in this case and his lawsuit on party primaries prevail, it will vastly change Mississippi politics. Even if Brown loses his lawsuit, he may press Democratic Party state chairman Wayne Dowdy to start excluding Republicans from the Democratic state and local primaries. And it may bring pressure among black legislators to press for party registration. The funny thing it would probably pass the State Legislature---thanks to Republican support! And Haley Barbour---a Republican partisan if there ever is one---would gladly sign the bill!

Don't you just love politics in this state? There is rarely a dull moment. And shoot, the year has just started.

Party Switchers

2007-01-19T14:25:00.000-06:00

It's qualifying time again! It will be interesting to see how many Democratic officeholders switch to the Republican Party. There have been two so far: A State Senator with the last name of Walley and MDAC Commissioner Lester Spell. I'm sure there will be more popping up before March 1st.

Personally, I'd rather have them stay in the Democratic Party for two reasons. First of all, I'd rather see a Republican beat them because it'll show the true strength of the GOP. Secondly, the switcher makes the Democratic Party and the GOP more liberal. Most of the switchers are too conservative for the Democrats and not conservative enough for the GOP grassroots.

Take my state representative (please), Ray Rogers R-61. He was elected in 1983 as a Democrat. He defeated Ron Morgan in the runoff by a narrow margin of 200 votes. No Republican ran against him. In 1987, he again ran as a Democrat. Billy Brunt (his 1983 opponent in the first Democratic primary) switched parties and ran against Rogers in the general election. Brunt was the first Republican ever to run for state representative in that district. Even though he lost, he got 36% of the vote and was going to run against him in 1991. And 1987 was a Democratic year.

In October 1989, he switched parties. Rogers came before our Rankin County Republican Executive Committee (RCREC) and stated he would run as a Republican in 1991. He said he was basically a conservative and you already know the spiel. He was unopposed in 1991.

Was he now a strong conservative? Nope. Back in 1992, the late Gov. Kirk Fordice vetoed a bill raising the sales tax and doing away with deducting the state income tax on your state tax return. I called Rogers and asked him to sustain the veto. He went on and on telling me how important it was for him to vote to override. I told him it would cost me at least ten to twenty dollars a month. I'll never forget his reply, "John, you're a CPA. You can afford to pay it." I was royally pissed off. Some conservative. I never voted for him again.

In 2003, he signed a pledge stating he would not vote for a tax increase. Well, he voted to increase some fees, stating that fees were not taxes. Why don't we call an increase in taxes a "government investment in the people"? I'll bet you dollars to donuts he'd vote for the tax increase.

Let's look at a real loser who is no more a conservative than my kitty cat is: Lester Spell. He's one of the bright lights who gave us that beef plant fiasco (along with that blowhard Rep. Steve Holland and House Speaker Billy McCoy). He can spend those dollars. Right after that beef plant mess he switched to the GOP. His reason was that he was more in tune with the GOP than the Democrats when it came to spending issues. I'll bet the GOP was real happy.

There are rumors State Sen. Perry Lee may run against Spell in the GOP primary. I don't care who runs against Spell. I'll vote for that candidate. And if Spell should win the primary, I'll vote for the Democrat.

State Democratic Party chairman Wayne Dowdy despises party switchers. I agree with him. A candidate runs as a Democrat and gets elected thanks to state party money and volunteers. Right after he's elected he decides to switch to the GOP. Would I be pissed off if I were Dowdy? You bet your sweet bippy I would.

There should be a state law that if you switch parties before the qualifying period, you must resign your political post and run for election under the new party label. That is not going to happen, but it would be fair. No political party should be forced to spend their hard-earned dollars only to have them blown away because of a party switcher.

I wish a lot of die-hard conservatives would stay in the Democratic Party and not switch. The conservative movement needs Democrats as well as Republicans. I have found out most of the party switchers have made the GOP a lot more "moderate." Believe me, if they were die-hard conservatives they would have run as Republicans in the first place. There are some who switched because they really did have philosophical problems with the Democrats and switched to the GOP. But most of them are those who are political whores who would sell out just for their political ambitions.

As for me, I am very conservative. But if I ran for office, I would seriously consider running as a Democrat. The reason is the Democratic Party needs conservatives. I would probably lose in Rankin County, but at least the Democratic Party and the conservative movement would have a voice. One party (the GOP) must not have a monopoly on the conservative movement. Perhaps if we had more conservatives in the Democratic Party, it wouldn't be so liberal. But because of a very bitter enemy who is a die-hard Democrat and was once chairman of the Rankin County Democratic Executive Committee, I'll probably remain a Republican.

Gov. Haley Barbour's Precedent

2007-01-18T17:49:00.000-06:00

I will comment on local politics as the qualifying candidates for the posts near its end. I'll give you my blunt opinion of the local candidates after that.

I would like to comment on Barbour. As of today, he is a shoo-in for reelection. I believe he'll get between 56%-59% of the vote. I can't see any Democrat defeating him. If the Democrat is weak, Barbour may defer some of his campaign funds to help legislative candidates running under the GOP banner.

In 2003, he did something that has never been done in Mississippi's history: He defeated a conservative Democrat, incumbent Gov. Ronnie Musgrove. Musgrove was very much pro-life and very conservative on other social issues. He was a tightwad on fiscal issues and was the only governor to bring a major manufacturing plant (Nissan) to his (or her) state. My only criticism is that he expanded the Medicaid program to nearly bankrupting the state. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the program expanded from $1.88 billion to $3.476 billion in his four years of office.

Musgrove was criticized for not being aggressive enough. He did have a high-pitched voice and he struck many a person as being a wussy. I met the guy and I can tell you he was a very humble, likeable guy. This was--and is--a sharp contrast to Barbour's cold, aloof manner. I remember when Barbour addressed the Mississippi Tax Institute back on October 27, 2005. He was as aloof as you can get. He didn't talk to you, he talked DOWN to you.

The late Kirk Fordice defeated two liberals when he ran for election and reelection as governor. He defeated incumbent Democrat Ray Mabus in 1991 on the basis of the social issues. The Sunday before Election Day our church had fliers showing how liberal Mabus was on the social issues compared to the conservative stands of Fordice. The pro-life vote sunk Mabus since the pro-lifers were mobilized against Mabus. Remember the bumper stickers that showed a fetus hanging by a thread with the slogan "Save us from Mabus"? Fordice won by a very slim margin against Mabus.

As for 1995, Secretary of State Dick Molpus was perceived to be a liberal. Actually, he was pro-life and was quite conservative on the social issues (I personally asked him where he stood on the abortion issue. He said he was opposed to it other than to save the life of the mother, rape and incest.). But was he arrogant. He even made Fordice look humble (which is no small feat. Fordice was one of the biggest jerks I have ever met. He really WAS mean.). Fordice handily defeated Molpus with 55.9% of the vote.

I was shell-shocked when Barbour was elected. I knew the race was going to be close, but I thought Musgrove would win with 51%-52% of the vote. I thought Barbour was too arrogant and ignorant of Mississippi's problems. After all, he was a high-powered lobbyist in Washington, D.C. He struck me as a fat cat who just wanted to add to his resume' the governorship. Yet he defeated Musgrove by a small but decisive margin. It was not a liberal but a conservative he defeated.

I'll hand it to Barbour. He showed strong leadership and was very decisive during Hurricane Katrina. His connections helped quite a bit. He set a precedent which will hur Democrats in years to come. It's simply this: Even if the Democrat is a staunch conservative, a conservative Republican will probably win.

A little irony here: Fordice and Barbour never switched from the Democratic Party to the GOP. They were Republicans from the start. Every conservative Democrat who switched to the GOP and ran for governor on the GOP ticket lost. Gil Carmichael was always a Republican, but he was moderate to liberal (Remember when he came out for the Equal Rights Amendment and gun control back in 1975 when he ran for governor against Cliff Finch?). Jack Reed was a squishy moderate, but he was a Democrat-turned-Republican.

Changing The Tax System

2007-01-09T17:47:00.000-06:00

As you know, there will be big debates as to tax reform. The Democrats want to tax the rich and the Republicans want to help business. You can count on one thing: A real messy tax code. You will hear a lot about tax reform--and that includes tax reform on the state level. Take this CPA's word for it: Ain't gonna happen (with apologies to my English teachers).

I graduated with a degree in accounting from the University of Florida in 1975. Back then, we heard about plans to reform the tax code. The study issued by the Feds was just one volume. Just ten years later, the same study which was a guide for tax reform and simplification was three volumes (I still have them. It's great reading if you have insomnia, but they had some really cool graphs for us number addicts.) . Today, the same study would take six volumes. Believe me, it's the biggest mess you'd ever want to see.

When I was in college, there were no income phase-ins and phase-outs on deductions and credits. Today, there are a lot of those. The reason? The GOP wanted to give away some tax goodies and reductions, but the Democrats wanted to do that only for the poor and middle class. Thirty years ago, the average person could do his own tax return. Today, that same person would be a fool to do it.

I have a CPA friend who told me when he went into public practice in 1961, the Code was a small volume and you could actually memorize it. Now it's three volumes and you have a basic knowledge if that. Do you know there are lawyers that actually spend their entire careers studying just one or two sections of the tax code? I am not joking.

Here's another little thing people don't know. The IRS tax forms issued for this year are missing a lot of things that were changed late in 2006. Congress passed a tax law just two weeks before the end of the year. The new forms DO NOT reflect those changes. If you are doing your tax return, you are going to have fun. Is it complicated? Does the sun rise in the east and set in the west?

So for the next two years, there'll be a lot of blather about tax reform and simplification. The Democrats and Republicans will be debating it until the cows come home. You can rest assured there will be some changes. But simplified? You can forget it. There will be tax cuts for the middle class and the poor, but there will be those income phase-ins and phase-outs.

For the 2008 tax season, there will be a Schedule O to fill out. All the adjustments to income and all the tax credits will be on that form. What fun. That's to make pages 1 and 2 of the 1040 easier. But it won't be for the average taxpayer.

If the tax code was to be simplified, what would you be willing to have eliminated? Mortgage interest? Forget it. State income taxes? The high tax states such as California and New York would screech. Charity? The non-profits and churches would yell. The child tax credit? Young families would whine. Retirement plans? The investment industries would raise cain. College tuition? Parents who send their child(ren) to college would pitch a fit. Whose ox are you going to gore? What goodie are YOU willing to give up?

Remember: If doing tax returns was easy the homeless would be doing them. I predict to you it will be a lot more complicated in the years to come. But if you hear any of this talk about tax simplification, it's all talk and nothing else. No party has the guts to really simplify and reform the code. They can't afford to anger the special interests. The GOP lost Congress in 1954 and the Senate in 1986 when they reformed and simplified the tax code (Yeah, they simplified it beyond all comprehension.).

Besides, we CPAs thrive on this mess. Simplify it. We can use the mass confusion it'll bring.

How the Democrats Can Win in Rankin County

2006-12-05T11:48:00.000-06:00

The Democratic Party is essentially weak as my kitten, but it needn't be that way. Indeed, with the right platform, they may be able to make inroads to the Republican monopoly. In fact, an article in today's Jackson CLARION-LEDGER, page 2B, could help galvanize Democratic support.

I'm not a Democrat, but my opinion of the Rankin County GOP is unprintable. In fact, I seriously considered becoming a Democrat back in 2000. I went to the state Democratic Party convention in Jackson that year. I just wanted to observe what was going on. While there were your flaming liberals, I met a lot of conservatives who hated the country club wing of the GOP. If it had not been for a former Rankin County Democratic official who cursed and yelled at me when I was at the convention, humiliating me in front of a lot of folks, I just might have switched. Thanks to this jackass of a sea hag "lady", I decided I wouldn't switch. I would have hated to see her at Rankin County Democratic Executive Committee meetings and having her cursing me in the crudest terms.

Nevertheless, the Democrats are not hopeless in Rankin County despite the demographics. Let us assume the Democrats would nominate social conservatives (i.e., pro-life), otherwise they wouldn't stand a chance. Here is what they should propose and I believe they would be winning issues:

1. The article I referenced in the first paragraph referred to development in Castlewoods. There are a lot of people who are tired of all the development in Rankin County---including me. If I were a Democrat, I would say this: "From Florence to Flowood, from Pearl to Pelahatchie, we are becoming a concrete jungle." I would point out that all of this development has raised our taxes and destroyed the environment. Look at Airport Road. It used to be tree-rich. Now all the trees are being chopped down in the name of "development." Do we want a concrete jungle and traffic gridlock? Do we want to destroy the natural habitat in the name of "development?"

2. Taxes have gone up under GOP rule. I thought the GOP was the party of lower taxes and less government. That hasn't been the case in Rankin County. This unrestrained development is raising taxes and causing traffic congestion. Follow the scenario: We need a good tax base, so we allow more development. Development comes and there is more traffic congestion. So we raise taxes for infrastructure. Plus because more people move in, so more schools have to be built. So we raise taxes to build the schools. To pay for the taxes, we need more development. Notice the vicious cycle? Has the GOP done anything to stop the cycle? Do you believe in Martians?

3. Emergency bidding has cost the county money. Why can't we accept the lowest bids at ALL times, including the purchase of vehicles? I thought the GOP was conservative when it came to spending those coins.

4. Does the Rankin County Board of Supervisors give money to non-government organizations? If so, why? Does it give money to the Rankin County Chamber of Commerce? If so, why? If business is so great in Rankin County, why can't the Chamber of Commerce support itself and not get a dime from the government?

5. Why not zero-based budgeting? That has always been a Republican mantra, but they sure as blue blazes don't follow it. The Democrats would be wise to implement zero-based budgeting. They should turn the tables on the GOP and make them look like big spenders.

6. Have impact fees. If we are going to have unrestrained "cowboy" development in Rankin County, shouldn't some of these developers pay some impact fees to finance the infrastructure where their developments are located? If there are impact fees, shouldn't they be raised?

The Democrats in this county may be surprised at the disenchantment over all this development. The "concrete jungle" is a real possibility in Rankin County and this present bunch of supervisors doesn't even care. If the Democrats have any sense, they would address these issues and nominate candidates. Even in Castlewoods, Crossgates and the Reservoir, there is a lot more disenchantment with all this development than you think.

If I were the Democrats, I would come up with a thorough platform on how they would deal with county matters. People are tired of just the "Development Voice" as propagated by the Republican Party. They are looking for an alternative. Will the Democrats step up to the plate and provide the alternative? If they do, I'd be more than willing to help the Democratic nominee in the election (so long as that individual is conservative on social issues). My disgust with the county GOP is overwhelming. And believe me, I am not alone.

Why Richard Redfern Lost

2006-11-27T15:06:00.000-06:00

I was very much surprised Richard Redfern lost. When the candidates qualified, I would have given Redfern the edge in being elected Chancery Judge. He is well-known and is a very likeable guy. I've talked to him before and found him to be a very gracious person. So why did he lose?

Here are the reasons I believe he lost. I've talked to a lot of people and here is what I found:

1. The fact he misrepresented Dan Fairly's record. He was cited by some State Supreme Court committee for that when he stated Fairly was never a judge (He was judge pro-tem for the city of Flowood). Earlier, he was admonished for using "Judge" preceding his name, letting voters think he was the incumbent.

2. A few long-time Rankin Countians remembered he ran as a REPUBLICAN for Justice Court in 2003. He was appointed as Justice Court Judge and later narrowly defeated Charles Tillman for the post. That special election was nonpartisan. So it was going to be interesting if he was going to run as a Democrat in 2003. After all, he was once chairman of the Rankin County Democratic Party in 1996 (He graciously invited me to the state Democratic convention as his guest.). He ran for DA in 1991 as a Democrat, losing by over a hundred votes to John Kitchens. Imagine the shock of a lot of Democrats when he ran as a Republican in 2003. In my opinion, I think he would have been elected if he had run as a Democrat. A lot of Democrats are angry over party-switchers and may have taken it out on Redfern at the polls.

3. It was "time for a change." Richard Redfern has been in politics in Rankin County for years. Dan Fairly was the "new kid on the block." People were willing to give Fairly the benefit of the doubt.

4. Dan Fairly wisely appeared on talk radio. In a low-profile race such as Chancery Judge, that was one way to get the message out. On at least three occaisions, Fairly appeared on WJNT's "Kim Wade Show", which airs Monday through Friday 5-6PM. Conservatives listen to that show and is the leading drive-by talk show in the area. Fairly came off as a staunch conservative whom conservatives could easily vote for. Redfern did advertise on WJNT, but did not appear on the show (at least when I listened to it, which is every day except Wednesday).

5. Fairly was a formidable opponent. He was well-funded and had plenty of advertising. I have at least four mailouts he sent out.

6. One of Redfern's fliers it stated the churches Fairly and Redfern went to--Redfern is a Baptist and Fairly a Presbyterian. This is not as innocuous as it seems. A few people felt it was to get fellow Baptists to vote for Redfern. What was the purpose of bringing out the denominations of the two candidates?

This is not to knock Richard Redfern. I believe he would have been a good judge. He is fair and honest. And as a person, I happen to like him. But this was not his year.

Why I'm Voting for Harold Taylor

2006-10-31T17:11:00.000-06:00

I will be the first to tell you I don't agree with the Libertarian Party (LP) on a lot of things. Unfortunately, I cannot vote for the Republican or Democratic candidates. Senator Trent Lott and State Rep. Erik Fleming leave a lot to be desired.

Sen. Lott is no conservative. He can spend those Federal dollars like it's going out of style. That $700 million railroad crossing near a gambling casino is just too much. He may be conservative on the social issues, but not on economic issues. He'll bankrupt the government for Katrina relief efforts.

Erik Fleming, like Lott, is pro-life and pro-gun. He's also in favor of pulling out of Iraq ASAP, which I agree. But he wants to spend money for universal socialized medicine and other big government schemes. I can't vote for him.

Harold Taylor wants to reduce government and get out of Iraq. I'm not in favor of legalizing hard drugs and I'm vehemently opposed to abortion. But his positives far outweigh his negatives. He's far better than Lott or Fleming.

Taylor doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Key West in July. But at least he's got principles and is willing to stand up for them. Lott will sell out his beliefs for Federal dollars. Plus his dive during the Clinton impeachment hearings was despicable. Fleming would give voting rights to convicted criminals. If you are a principled conservative, you're only vote is for Taylor.

As for Congress in the Third District, I'm not voting for Pickering or Giles. My box turtle Pokey Jo has more brains than the two of them put together. I'll just leave it blank.

How sad this is the best we can do. I think Jim Hightower said it for me thirteen years ago when he said, "A third party? It would be great if we had a second party." I guess when God created politicians, He created many of them to be lamebrained idiots.

Knox Ross for Mississippi State Auditor?

2006-09-30T16:43:00.000-05:00

I have talked to my political contacts in Rankin County and I have been informed Knox Ross is thinking of running for State Auditor on the Republican ticket next year. As a CPA and a mayor of a small town (Pelahatchie), he has the credentials to be an excellent State Auditor.

Here are the things working in his favor:

1. He is a CPA. The last time a CPA was State Auditor was when Hamp King held the post. He left in 1984. Since then, ambitious politicians have served in the post. Ross knows what constitutes a good audit and would be very effective as a State Auditor.

2. He has electoral experience. He is in his second term as mayor. Being a mayor of a small town (1100 people ain't big.), he would have hands-on experience on city financial matters. He would already understand a lot of the municipal financial and other governmental sector financial audits.

3. Being a CPA in Pearl, I know people who know him. They think very highly of him. Unlike the extremely arrogant pretty-boy Phil Bryant, Ross would be down to earth and easy to talk with. People tell me he is very polite and humble. They also tell me he knows his taxes and accounting.

4. If he is elected State Auditor, I think he will stay in that position and not use it as a
stepping stone for higher office. Hamp King never ran for higher office and he was one of the most respected public officials the state has ever had.

Nevertheless, he faces hurdles. First of all, he has no name recognition. Even in Rankin County, not many know him. Pelahatchie is on the far eastern tip of the county, far away from the urban areas. I know who he is, but I'm a political and accounting junkie.

Secondly, he will be running against a "name" candidate in the GOP primary: State Sen. Stacy Pickering. He is related to Congressman Chip Pickering and the Congressman's father, Charles Pickering. The Pickerings have money and contacts. Look for them to use them to help Stacy. And don't think Stacy is going to stay on for more than a term or two as State Auditor. He'll have other political ambitions.

Third, Ross is going to need money. Ross, like me, is a small-town CPA. He doesn't have the coins to finance his own campaign. He's going to need some big donors to help him. At least Ross is from GOP-rich in votes Rankin County. Rankin County casts between 15% to 25% of the GOP vote in a state Republican primary.

When I vote in the primary, I'll definitely vote for Ross (if Ross runs). If the State Attorney General's office requires an attorney to serve in that post, shouldn't the State Auditor's position require a CPA to serve in that post? Ross would not only know what is going on as a State Auditor when it comes to audits, he also wouldn't use it as a political post.

Ross is not a pretty-boy blow-dried politician. But he is intelligent, hard-working, honorable and has the qualifications to be an excellent State Auditor. He would be great for the state if he was elected to that post.

Bush Hatred

2006-08-31T17:26:00.000-05:00

I'm no big supporter of President George Walker Bush. I did not vote for him in 2000 (I voted for Pat Buchanan). I did vote for Bush in 2004, but there wasn't any choice. He was pro-life and promised to appoint conservatives to the Federal courts (A promise he has kept.). I bitterly disagree with his big spending policies and his big government programs (especially Medicare Part D). Plus, I do not think we should be fighting in Iraq. As an old rightist (philsophy, not age) , I think we should not be involved in any foreign affairs other than to protect the national security of the United States.

Nevertheless, I do NOT hate Bush. I have been in politics since I was ten years old--the 1960 Presidential campaign. With the exception of Nixon in his last year of office due to Watergate, I have never seen such hatred against a President than I have seen against Bush. Not even Reagan (My hero) faced such vile hatred. Yet Bush is more of a liberal than Reagan ever dreamed of. Bush can spend those Federal dollars. In fact, Bill Clinton was a tightwad compared to Bush. Yet the left goes bonkers in hatred over Bush.

Right now, a movie is being produced on the assassination of President Bush. The left-wing moonbats passionately hate the man. I know liberals who literally foam at the mouth if you say ANYTHING good about Bush. For laughs, I read some liberal publications. Believe me, they hate Bush with a vile passion. These moonbats would literally rejoice if Bush were killed.

I know there were conservatives who hated ex-President Bill Clinton. But there were none in the conservative movement who advocated his assassination. Conservatives hated his policies, but couldn't hate the guy. Look, I didn't like his policies and I thought he was a shameless womanizer and liar. But I actually LIKED the guy. He seemed like a fun fellow. He would have made a good fishing buddy.

I'm really sick and tired of the Bush hatred and the Bush-bashing. To have a movie on Bush's assassination is a sick low blow. These people shouldn't be in politics. They should be in a nuthouse and fed underneath the door. They are sick.

A Rankin County Dilemma: Ross or Bryant

2006-07-22T17:42:00.000-05:00

Next year, two leading politicians in Rankin County will be running for the most powerful job in the state of Mississippi: Lieutenant Governor. They will face off in the Republican primary. And believe me, it will be a heated primary.

On paper, Phil Bryant has the most political experience. He was a state representative from Jan. 1992 to Nov. 1996 and State Auditor from Nov. 1996 to the present. Charles Ross has been a state representative and later a state senator from Jan. 1997 to the present. Phil Bryant has more name recognition and probably more money.

I know both of them. Phil Bryant is friendlier, but he has lied to me and I have no use for him. As his race develops, I will post more information. I had the misfortune to serve with him on the Rankin County Republican Executive Committee for a couple of years (1988-1990). I could not stand him. I did not consider him to be very smart. I know former employees in the State Auditor's office who think he is a dim bulb. One former employee told me he is nothing but a pretty boy who probably gets his hair coiffed at Monique's.

Charlie Ross is arrogant and aloof, but he is very intelligent and honest. I've dealt with him before and found him to be straightforward, even though I was no friend of his. Charles Ross has served as State Senator for a couple of terms and he knows the legislative process quite well.
I believe he would be honest and fair in his dealings with the State Senate if he became Lt. Governor.

As far as looks and charm go, Bryant has Ross beat by a country mile. If you want brains and knowledge, Ross beats Bryant by miles. If I were to bet, Bryant would beat Ross in Rankin County and the state in the primary. But in the general election, I think Ross would be a lot tougher to beat. In a debate with the Democrat, Ross would club the Democrat but the Democrat would cream Bryant.

In Rankin County, Bryant would win. Chances are excellent Bryant would carry every major section of the county. He would easily win Pearl. But that is today's forecast. As I wrote before, this will not be a pretty primary. In a debate, Bryant would look handsomer and more debonaire but would be exposed as an empty suit. Ross would slaughter Bryant in a debate. It wouldn't even be close. You'd have to pick Bryant off the floor because he would be so badly beaten.

I'll make no bones as to whom I will vote for: Charlie Ross. At least he is honest and forthright. That is a lot more than what I can say for Bryant.

As for the general election, I'll wait and see who's the Democratic nominee. There's no way I would vote for Barbara Blackmon or State Rep. Jamie Franks, two flaming liberals. But if the Democrats can nominate a conservative, I could vote for him (her). If Ross is the nominee, I could vote for him no matter who the Democrats nominate. But there is no way on God's green earth I would ever vote for a phony like Bryant. I would either vote for the Democrat or leave it blank.

As time goes on, I will place more postings on my blog about this race. It promises to be a doozy.

Romney's Religion Problem

2006-07-08T16:42:00.000-05:00

There is no doubt Mitt Romney is running for the Rpublican nomination for President. He seems like a fine person, an excellent husband and father and a good governor of Massachusetts. He is the only current governor running for President (although he has not announced). I followed his career as governor and I can tell you he was a good governor--considering he had a 6-1 Democratic margin in the state legislature. And most of those Democrats would make Lenin look like a flaming John Bircher.

Nevertheless, Romney is wasting his time running. My box turtle Pokey Jo would stand a better chance of getting on the Republican ticket in 2008 than Romney. Why? His religion.

Romney is a Mormon and a fairly devout one. Romney can call himself a devout Christian and tell people he believes in Jesus. It may play with liberal Protestants and some Catholics. But it will not play with fundamentalist Christians (which I am one). The great majority of fundamentalist Christians live in the South, which is the cockpit of Republican Presidential primaries.

In the Deep South, the Southern Baptist church is the main church of fundamentalist Christians. In the Baptist church, there is a thing called "Discipleship Training" (It used to be called "Training Union.") This training is usually held on Sunday night, an hour before the evening service (For more time, some of them are held on Wednesday nights.). During this training, one of the classes deals with cults. The Mormon church is considered a cult.

In one very large (5500 members) fundamentalist Baptist church, I remember going to a class years ago on the Mormons. We all freaked out when we read their beliefs and theology. The Mormons believe Jesus is a lesser prophet or god than Moroni. They believe you can baptize your dead ancestors. They believe if you follow the book of the Mormon, lead an exemplary life and have a large family, you can become a god on another planet. It is a secretive religion, which definitely conflicts with the openness of the Baptist faith. And Mormons wear some sacred clothing, which spooks a lot of us Baptists. The polygamy thing didn't use to bother us. But with the Supreme Court overturning sodomy laws and Massachusetts allowing homosexual marriage, will polygamous marriages become legal?

There is no doubt Romney is very charming and intelligent. At first blush, he'll appeal to Southern audiences. But once his religious beliefs become common knowledge, he'll be toast. He will have a horrible time explaining his beliefs to fundamentalist Baptists.

His religion will not be openly discussed. But in most Baptist churches, there is an organization called the "Men's Brotherhood." It's a bunch of men meeting very early (6AM) on a Sunday for breakfast. We discuss church mission projects and what to do, church events and secular politics. There are tens of thousands of meetings like this throughout the South. You can rest assured Romney's religion will be discussed. And you can also rest assured Romney will get no votes from Baptists who are aware of Romney's religious beliefs. If you think fundamentalist Baptists will vote for a Mormon, you are new in the South or you have been living in a swamp free from civilization.

Romney can have ten thousand people trying to mute Romney's Mormon beliefs and do all they can to convince us he's a Christian. Under NO circumstances will I vote for Romney if he's on the ticket. And take my word for it, there are hundreds of thousands of people like me throughout the entire South who feel that way.

If you want more information on Romney's religion problem, go to www.RealClearPolitics.com. and check the link on Romney. I wrote a little commentary on Romney. The website is excellent and very informative.

U.S. Senate Democratic Primary Runoff

2006-06-27T18:10:00.000-05:00

I voted in the runoff today at 7:03AM CDT. I lingered on for an hour at the Crest Park polling place, since I knew some of the ladies working the polls. I serve as a city election commissioner and all the ladies lived in Pearl. We talked city politics and what was going on in the city. When I left an hour later, I was still the only voter. Because he was pro-life, I voted for Erik Fleming. I called and e-mail Bill Bowlin as to where he stood on abortion and I never got an answer.

In the last primary, only fourteen people voted in the Crest Park box. I was the second one to have voted and two more voted when I left. In Rankin county, only 814 people voted. There were some boxes where nobody even came to vote, such as the Antioch box. In the North Pearson box, only one person voted--at 5:30PM (The polls close at 7PM.)! In the Crossgates box, which is a very strong Republican precinct, only six people voted. In the two Castlewoods boxes, another solidly GOP area, only twenty-six voted. And in the two Reservoir boxes, which are solidly Republican, only eighteen voted. It was only in the black boxes where there was an appreciable voter turnout, such as Cato (38 voted), Dry Creek (29), Johns (23), Mullins (28), Monterey (49), Northeast Brandon (37), West Brandon (47) and South Pearson (53).

Erik Fleming, the only black in the race, won the county with 53.808% of the vote. I expect him to easily carry it in the runoff. He's a state representative from Clinton, which is in Hinds County and borders Rankin. In the general election, he'll get about 25% of the vote against the incumbent Senator Trent Lott.

In the first primary, the statewide vote was 104846. Erik Fleming took 44.05% of the vote. I think he'll get about 70% in the runoff. I expect only about 40000-50000 votes in the runoff. What could throw a monkey wrench in my prediction is there is a runoff in CD1, which is in Bowlin's stomping grounds. In the first primary, the big contest was in CD2, where 83.6% of the vote was cast and that was Fleming's stomping grounds. If there is a big turnout in CD1 and a very low turnout in the rest of the state, Bowlin could pull out a narrow win. But black voters are the majority of the Democratic primary voters and they may vote for Fleming because he is black.

Bowlin would be a stronger candidate against Lott. The reason is not racial, but political. Fleming has been connected to political cookoo Lyndon LaRouche in LaRouche's past campaigns. That will hurt him against Lott. Bowlin has no political baggage other than running two losing races for Congress (CD1) as a Republican. He switched parties some time go because he was angry at the GOP for wanting total control of the state and Federal government (Well, so do the Democrats. Isn't that what the party system is all about?).

We'll know more tonight around 9PM.

Jason Reed Was Laid to Rest Today

2006-06-19T17:54:00.000-05:00

I went to the visitation yesterday at Wright and Ferguson Funeral Home in Jackson. It was heart-wrenching. I saw photos of Jason with his parents (His father died late last year.) and his siblings. They seemed so happy together.

Yet when I viewed his body, he looked totally different. Cancer had taken a toll on him. He had a knot on his head, which is where the chemo went thorough. He was nearly bald with blond tufts of hair on his head. I was in tears over his death. He had so much to live for. He was only 32 years old. I know he would have made an excellent husband and father. And as a CPA, he would have been a credit to the profession. He had a thirst for learning and always strove for excellence. Indeed, the very last time I would ever see him alive was at the Butler Snow O'Mara tax seminar on October 26, 2004. During one of the afternoon breaks, he and I talked. He told me he felt run down and he could not get out of bed in the morning. He was always sleepy and had no energy. A month later, I found out he had a very rare form of leukemia. He and I talked in early 2005. He said he had no plans to "check out" and was going to fight it. He did to the bitter end. To my bitter regret, I never spoke to him again.

His mother, brother, sister and fiancee' were there. His sister Jennifer held up quite well. But his mother and fiancee' were really shaken up. All I could do was express my regrets.

Today was his funeral at Southside Assembly of God. He was very active in his church and loved the people there. As I wrote before and I'll write this again: He not only talked the talk about living the Christian life, he walked the walk. Of all the words of tongue and pen, the saddest are "what might have been."

Farewell Jason. I'll miss you. Enter the joy of the Lord and rest in the Bosom of Jesus.

Two Great Speeches Started Two Powerful Movements

2006-06-19T17:33:00.000-05:00

In my lifetime, there have been only two great speeches that started two very powerful movements. One was Martin Luther King, Jr.'s August 28, 1963 "I Have a Dream" and the other was Ronald Reagan's October 27, 1964 "A Time for Choosing." Both speeches started movements which last to this very day.

It is bitterly ironic that the two greatest speeches in my lifetime--just within fourteen months of one another--started movements that are often at odds with each other. Indeed, the two movements are still with us.

The movements are the Civil Rights movement and The Conservative movement. Obviously, both movements were there before King and Reagan made their speeches. But the speeches galvanized the movements. I still remember liberals in tears over King's speech (I was just entering my teen years when King made his speech.) and conservatives mesmerized by Reagan's speech.

I have listened and read the transcripts of both speeches. Whether or not you agree, the rhetoric is flowing and musical. It rings in your heart and head. King, being a Baptist minister, used religious rhetoric to galvanize his followers. Reagan, being a former actor and a political activist, used facts and figures laced with emotion to galvanize his followers. Even though I am very conservative but a strong supporter of the struggle for civil rights, I was deeply moved by King's speech. But what got me involved in politics was Reagan's speech. There are people who joined the civil rights movement because of King's speech who are still involved in the movement. Yet there are people who joined the conservative movement because of Reagan's speech and are still involved in the conservative movement.

Both movements have had monumental success. The Civil Rights movement accomplished the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Conservative movement eventually galvanized Reagan to the White House for eight years. Both movements have had their share of successes and failures. But they are still with us.

It is so rare when a political speech starts a movement. There have been other excellent speeches in my lifetime, such as Ted Kennedy's address to the Democratic National Convention in 1980, Reagan's speech to the Republican National Convention in 1976 and other speeches to the Democratic or Republican National Conventions. They may have moved their followers, but they never started a movement.

Indeed, their followers said about them, "How well they spoke. Let us applaud them." But when King and Reagan gave their speeches, the people said, "Let us march."

To this very day, they are still marching.

Jason Reed Has Entered the Portals of Heaven

2006-06-17T17:40:00.000-05:00

On June 15, 2006 at 7:15PM CDT, Jason Donovan Reed breathed his last after a 20-month battle with a rare form of cancer. He died at the young age of 32 at UMC Hospital. Visitation will be tomorrow at Wright and Ferguson Funeral Home on High Street in Jackson from 4 to 7PM. Visitation will also be on Monday at 11:30AM at Southside Assembly of God in Jackson and the funeral service at 1PM in that church that he so passionately loved.

There are very few fine Christians I have known. Most of them give you talk and talk but never walk the walk. Jason was one of those who did walk the walk. I worked with him for four years. I got to know him. He lived the Christ-filled life to the best he could. He nearly died on May 13th--the day he was supposed to get married. His fiancee' had already bought her wedding dress before the cancer took a toll on Jason. He survived for another thirty-three days.

Jason was a big, burly guy with an infectious smile and a big laugh. We used to think of ways to joke around during tax season. He loved to make real strong coffee in the late evening. I always thought he was part Cajun because he made it so strong. We would greet each other with the upended "Peace sign" of both hands. It was a big laugh.

One time, back in February 2002 on a Saturday, Jason told me in the middle of the afternoon that "Girls Gone Wild" would be performing that night at The Dock (a popular watering hole). I asked him what that was all about. He said sex-crazed women performed for the cameras wearing skimpy outfits and doing provocative things. He said some of them are drunker than a skunk and throw their tops at guys. The girls could be anyone from anywhere--even in the audience. I asked him what time this Bacchanalian Bash began. He said it started at 10PM, but we had to be there around 7PM if we were to get in. After that time, it would be impossible to get in.

So I said, "Now let me get this straight. We could play hooky from work (We were to stay until 8 or 8:30PM.) and work on really complicated, boring tax returns OR we can go to The Dock and watch sex-crazed women dance on the counter and fling their tops at us. Is that our choice?" Jason replied, "Yeah, it really is tough to decide." We stroked our chins and thought. Then Jason asked, "Do you know a lot about the Alternative Minimum Tax?" I replied, "I know quite a bit about it. But the return will take us quite a while." Jason replied, "Whoops. There goes 'Girls Gone Wild.' They lost to the AMT."

There were really very few outstanding Christians I have ever worked with. I can literally count them on my right hand. Jason was one of those very few. I bitterly regret I never had a chance to talk to him in his last days. I would've loved to joke with him and talk about those days that we worked together. Someday, when we are in Heaven together, I will talk with him and relive those days. But for now, I will mourn his passing. He was a true giant among Christians.

U.S. Senate Democratic Primary

2006-06-06T15:19:00.000-05:00

This is the third Democratic primary in which I've voted. In 2002, there was no Republican primary for the U.S. Senate or Congress, so I voted im the Democratic Primary. I voted for the late James "Bootie" Hunt. He lost. In the 2004 Presidential Democratic Primary, I voted for Howard Dean. And today I voted for Erik Fleming.

I voted for Fleming because he is a staunch pro-lifer. He even attended the Mississippi Right-to-Life banquet. I was going to vote for Bill Bowlin. I sent him an e-mail asking him where he stood on abortion. I never got a reply. The other two candidates did not comment on abortion. Also, Fleming has been a state representative for six years. I don't agree with him on a lot of the issues, but at least he's opposed to abortion. I've listened to him on the "Kim Wade Show" on WJNT 1180 (which airs from 5-6PM on weekdays). He's got some good ideas. Kim Wade does not flinch from his conservative views and he has some very good guests. Fleming has been on his shows a few times. Wade is one of the most listened to drive-by talk show hosts. He is one of the funniest and the most intelligent talk show hosts I have ever listened to.

Fleming will probably win, but there may be a runoff. No matter who the nominee is, the candidate will have no chance against the incumbent Sen. Trent Lott.

Whenever there is a Republican primary I vote in it. But if there is no GOP primary and there is a Democratic primary, I'll vote in that. That is the tragedy of not having party registration in Mississippi. I have known Democratic municipal officials vote in the GOP primary--even if there is a Democratic primary. There should be party registration in the state and a closed primary. But that will never happen here.

What a Deal

2006-06-05T18:08:00.000-05:00

The U.S. Senate bill is a fantastic way for American taxpayers to make some bucks. Indeed, I can make quite a few bucks thanks to the tax provisions for illegal aliens. You see, under the Senate bill an illegal alien does not have to pay taxes on two of the five years he has an income tax liability.

So here is what I plan to do if the Senate version becomes law. I plan to go to Canada and renounce my American citizenship because the Department of Interior has not made the cockroach an endangered species. Then I'll enter North Dakota and work for a CPA firm (The Canadian border is really very pourous.). There is an extreme shortage of professionals in that state, especially in Fargo (with a low eye-popping unemployment rate of 1.1%). I'll make a deal with a CPA firm. For three years, pay me the minimum wage at 2200 annual billing hours for three years (That comes to $11330 a year, or $33990 for three years.). They can withhold Social Security and state income tax (Yes, North Dakota has an income tax.). My tax liability for those three years would be $313 (based on 2005 tax rates), or $939 for three years. Plus, I'd get a little earned income tax credit as well. What a deal!

For the other two years, which would be the last two years I work, the firm would pay me based on a 1099, or self-employment contract income. They would pay me based on what a CPA tax manager would make. Up North, that would come to $90000 a year (maybe more). For those two years, the firm would pay me $416010 ($90000 x 5 years less $33990.) That would be $208005 per year for those two years. And under the Senate bill, I wouldn't have to pay a penny tax on that $416010!! I'd get my American citizenship, move back to Mississippi and get with another CPA firm. (North Dakota may be a great state, but -60 degrees in the winter ain't toasty.) And I'd have $416010 to stash away in some mutual funds.

As Yakov Smirnoff would say, "America, what a country!"

Time for a Third Party

2006-06-02T17:03:00.000-05:00

Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago on why it may be time for a third party. As vice-chairman of the America First Party in Mississippi, I wholeheartedly agree. The AFP is a conservative party without any scintilla of racism, which we vehemently condemn and do not tolerate. We are a reformist, records-open party with a conservative bent. If we were to choose a legislator that most closely reflects our beliefs, it would be U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) or Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas). If you want to know what the AFP's political philosophy is, we are the Old Right. To find out what the Old Right is all about, read Joseph Scotchey's book Revolt in the Heartland.

I used to be a Republican Party activist. For twelve years (1980-1992), I served on the Rankin County Republican Executive Committee and was treasurer for eleven (1981-1992) of those years. I worked in many a campaign for a Republican candidate in Rankin County. It was the Reagan Revolution that got me involved, although I had been active in politics since I was 14 years old (The Goldwater campaign). It was Reagan's seminal speech, "A Time for Choosing," that galvanized me. And from 1964 to 1996, the GOP could count on me to work like a dog for them.

But when Bush 41 broke his "No New Taxes" promise in 1990, my support for the GOP diminished. I worked for Pat Buchanan in 1992 in the Republican primary. I stayed in the GOP (nominally, I'm still in the GOP for two-party purposes in the state) because of the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994, hoping things would change. I worked for Buchanan again in the GOP primaries. But I left to support Buchanan of the Reform Party in 2000 (a total disaster).

Bush 43 is no conservative. Other than the social issues, his judicial appointments and cutting taxes, he is no conservative. Indeed, he is one of the biggest spending liberals we have had since FDR. The old-line Republicans would never have gotten us into this unneccesary war in Iraq. But both Bushes have done so.

This Republican Congress is tone-deaf to the voices of the people. Illegal immigration is sweeping the nation and the GOP has done nothing. Manufacturing jobs are being shipped overseas and the GOP gives us NAFTA, CAFTA, ad nauseum. The grassroots GOP wants spending limits and Congress spends money like drunken sailors. The GOP screeched against Bill Clinton's healthcare plan but gives us drug coverage for Medicare, which will cost over a trillion dollars in due time.

The Democrats are even worse. They are ultraliberal on the social issues (abortion on demand and homosexual marriage), will vote to raise taxes and will spend money worse than the GOP. If the GOP is horrible, the Democrats are even worse. So where is a conservative to go?

While the AFP is in its infancy stages, it concentrates mainly on two issues: Illegal immigration and the shipping of manufacturing jobs overseas. But unlike a lot of third parties, it has a lot of sensible ideas on state issues as well.

The Republican Party has abandoned its conservative base. Isn't it time for a change?

Illegal Immigration

2006-06-01T18:05:00.000-05:00

The four Congressmen and two U.S. Senators are clueless about illegal immigration in our state. Let me tell you what is going on in the big city of Pearl (pop. 22360). Illegal immigration is flooding our city. When I drive to work around 7:10AM, there are Hispanics walking or riding their bikes. Even just a year ago, that was a very rare scene. Now it is a common one. Five years ago, there were only about twenty-five Hispanics in the Pearl School District. Today there are about 175. And the number is growing. Since they are not taxpayers because they do not own property, we taxpayers have to shoulder the burden.

Let me tell you of an incident that happened last April 29th. I was going to work on a cloudy humid Saturday around 12:40PM. I passed a Hispanic carrying a backpack on his shoulders. He was walking slowly and seemed to have a problem steadying himself. I got to the office, parked my car and went to work. About twenty minutes later, a police car and an ambulance came to my office. The illegal immigrant passed out right to the north of my bookkeeper's office. The policeman told me he had walked from Madison to Pearl and passed out from the exhaustion. Inside the backpack were drugs! This was unheard of even a year ago.

When I drive up Old Brandon Road going to the airport, I see a lot of rental homes. Most of them are occupied by immigrants. They keep their yards clean and are law-abiding. But I doubt if they are legal immigrants. The reason the immigrants come to Pearl is because it is the cheapest urban area to live in Rankin County. I talked to a client and he told me there are no Hispanics in Brandon. He hasn't seen any in Crossgates or any of the other well-to-do areas. But they are in the apartments and rental homes in Pearl. And it seems the number is increasing.

When I was working at H & R Block in 1983, I saw my first Hispanic. He asked us in Spanish if anyone could speak the language. We said "no" and he went on his way. But that was a very rare occurrence. Now they are a very common sight throughout the downtown area. I have no objections to legal immigrants. My grandparents--maternal and paternal--were immigrants. But they were legal immigrants.

It is time Congress put a stop to the illegal immigration in this country. We may have as many as 49000 illegal immigrants in this state. The State Auditor's office issued a report which stated illegal immigration is costing the state $25,030,051. Our Congressional delegation better wake up and get off their ivory towers and see what is going on here--especially in the city of Pearl.

Bancorpsouth Bank----Be Careful

2006-05-26T16:09:00.000-05:00

I've been getting a lot of e-mails from Bancorpsouth asking for personal information related to my accounts with them. There is just one little item: I don't bank with Bancorpsouth. I use another bank. In that bank, I have only a checking account. All my investments are in brokerage accounts.

If you are getting these e-mails from Bancorpsouth--do not give them any information. This is a scam and the crooks could steal your personal information. Identity theft is increasing and one way this is accomplished is through e-mail. Be careful.

MEMORIAL DAY

2006-05-26T15:28:00.000-05:00

This coming Tuesday is the official Memorial Day holiday (despite it being celebrated next Monday). Let us never forget this day of remembrance and give thanks to those who fought and those who died for our freedom.

I have surfed the Internet and read chilling books on the Croatian Holocaust during World War II and the Holocaust of the Jews during that hapless period. The horror of those two Holocausts will make your skin crawl. The Orthodox Serbs and the Jews were killed solely because of their religion. What possesses a person to slaughter innocent human beings because of their religion is beyond me. Truly a person must be evil.

As a person of Jewish ancestry, I am grateful I was born in the United States. I remember my maternal grandfather telling me what it was like to live in Poland. After Poland got its independence in 1918-1919, the Jews were promised they would live in a society where everybody would be equal. A year later, my grandparents found that to be a lie. Their town of Zarem was the focus of virulent anti-Semitic prejudice (Don't bother looking for the town on a map. The Germans literally wiped it off the face of the earth during WWII.). My grandparents got angry at the persecution and fled with their two sons (They had three sons. One of them died a few days after birth and was buried there. My mother was born in the United States.) to Hungary. The next thing they encountered was a one-hundred day Communist takeover by Bela Kun. So they fled and took a boat to the United States.

When my grandparents told me all this, I said "I sure am lucky to have been born in the United States." My grandfather yelled, "YOU'RE LUCKY? YOU'RE LUCKY???? At least I had a country to escape to!!"

We must never forget this nation, the United States of America, is the last best hope for freedom and liberty on this earth. Let us remember those who fought and died for us on Memorial Day and pray for those who are fighting for us today.

LAW ENFORCEMENT IS WATCHING YOU

2006-05-25T14:24:00.000-05:00

The Pearl Police were out at the nexus on Airport Road and other areas on Highway 80. They were checking to see if you were wearing your seat belt and to give you a warning. Beginning on Friday, you can be ticketed if you are not wearing your seat belt.

I'll be the first to tell you that wearing a seat belt saves lives. I'm living proof of that. In July 1992, I had an auto accident at the intersection of North Ridgewood and Northside Drive in Jackson, Miss. A car tire blew out and I hit a telephone pole head-on. If I had not worn a seat belt, I would've gone right through the window and had been instantly killed. As it turned out, I had a simple fracture on my left leg, some bruises and a chipped back tooth.

But I am totally opposed to the government FORCING me to wear one. I am above the age of 21 and I can decide for myself if I want to be a jerk and risk my life. In Pearl, there is enough for the police to do without checking on drivers wearing a seat belt. The police might want to police the illegal immigrant areas a lot better instead of worrying if Granny is wearing a seat belt.

Another thing that concerns me is the slow but sure loss of freedom we have. Unless it directly affects another person's life or liberty, government has no right to force us to do things we do not want to do. You can rest assured there will be an effort to ban drivers from talking on cell phones. Sure, it's dangerous and stupid to talk on a cell phone while driving. (I have a cell phone but NEVER talk on it while driving.) But unless you hit me, I have no problem with you being a fool. If you DO hit me, I'll sue you for every penny you have. Should government monitor this, too? What about eating while driving? Or fixing your hair? Look, I know of a CPA who had a fax machine in his car and yakked on the cell phone while driving and faxing!

Be careful while driving this weekend. And buckle up!!

Pray for Jason Reed

2006-05-24T15:09:00.000-05:00

Please pray for Jason Reed. I've known him for five years and I can tell you he is one of the finest Christian individuals I have ever known. He is a fellow CPA and he is only 32 years old. He has a very rare form of cancer and is in ICU at University Hospital in Jackson, Miss.

I met him back in 2001 when I was working for Smith, Tew and Phillips. We did work for the firm as a second job. He was great to work with. I never heard him cuss or even get nasty. When you work with someone for four years, surely you will have a cross word or two. That never happened between the two of us. I genuinely liked him and he was a very friendly, bear of a guy. He worked hard and knew quite a bit about taxes.

I'm hoping and praying for a miracle. He went into ICU in the early part of the month and nearly died. He's on life support. He was supposed to get married on May 20th. He'd make an excellent husband and father. There are very few Christians who talk and live the Christian life. He was one of them.

Don't Forget to Vote

2006-05-24T14:49:00.000-05:00

Don't forget to vote on June 6th in the Democratic primary. There is only one race--that for the US Senate. Since there is no Republican primary (Sen. Lott is unopposed.), I can vote in the Democratic primary. I plan to vote for Bill Bowlin. I'm not crazy about the other candidates. It's all a moot point, since the Democratic nominee will lose to Lott.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if there was a runoff? While the first primary would have a good turnout because of the heated primary in Congressional District 2, the second primary would not have that race and voter turnout would dive in a second primary.

Welcome

2006-05-24T14:42:00.000-05:00

I am a CPA in Pearl, Mississippi. My goal is to keep others in the area what is going on in Pearl and the county it is located in--Rankin County. I will comment on politics, businesses, and what is going on in the area.

I am very conservative and I will comment on politics, taxes, the economy, religion and the culture. I will not pull any punches and I will tell it as I see it. I basically vote Republican, but I have been known to vote Democratic in some races.

I invite comments from all readers and keep me abreast as to what is going on.