Rebates are a real con job. Think of it. They are used in commerce to generate sales by enticing consumers to buy the product with the promise of getting a cash return. If you buy a can of soup or a bar of soap for a buck and a half, but send in the coupon and proof of purchase, the manufacturer will send you a dollar rebate. Big deal!

By the time you send the required coupon and documentation, you have invested more than forty cents in postage and the envelope. So, your actual return is less than sixty cents. If the purchase is for a large item like a computer printer and the rebate is $10, you have already spent an extra eighty-seven cents in sales tax, plus the cost of the postage. OK. That is still a significant savings on the item.

However, when auto manufacturers offer a three thousand dollar rebate, the cost of the sales tax on the original purchase price will exceed $250. This could be avoided if the cost of the car (or the other rebated items) were reduced at the time of sale. Except for the windfall for the tax collector, we have difficulty understanding why the purchaser can’t get the savings immediately and save on the tax. We prefer discounts to rebates.

Now, the government wants to “jump start” the economy by giving income tax rebates. As Conservatives, many believe that the money should not have been taken from us in the first place.

The same holds true for the state property tax rebates. Coincidently, those rebates come just before elections so the politicians can brag about how much money they “gave” us. It also gives us cause to ponder why, if money is available for this generous gesture by our elected officials, the state is so deeply in debt and there is a huge gap in the budget. Do you think it could have anything to do with protection for the incumbents as they run for re-election?

We also have a problem with the concept of paying for the cost of health insurance. Our presidential candidates are touting their solutions for the problem of paying for medical bills. They claim the poor do not have access to medical care, but what then is the purpose of Medicare and Medicaid?

This was supposed to provide for the welfare of the poor and uninsured and, especially in New York, gives very generous coverage to those without insurance. In fact, a recent study shows that New York spends more on Medicaid recipients than it would cost to buy them a health insurance policy from a private company.

Now, add to the cost of the medical care the cost of administration salaries, benefits, and pension costs and you can get a grasp on why the Medicaid and Medicare programs are bankrupting our state and federal governments and, at the present rate, will cause a financial implosion for our descendents.

Government was supposed to solve problems and they are doing a very poor job. In fact, if we examine the total picture, we find they are causing more problems as they lay the burden of paying for them on the taxpayer. The people in power pass laws and initiate expensive programs with the objective of keeping themselves in power. In this endeavor, they are very successful.

Until the voting public gets smart enough to see through the deceit and massive con jobs, this practice will continue. We get the government we deserve.

We saw this movie before.

Carter ran in ‘76 saying that he would be a domestic president. He was consumed, and eventually destroyed, by foreign affairs.

Clinton was going to be a domestic president, too.

Remember? Clinton blasted the first Bush for spending too much time on foreign affairs!

Like Carter, Clinton spent much of his two terms on Iraq, Bosnia, China, etc.

During Clinton’s presidency, terrorists tried to blow up the WTC towers in ‘93, successfully blew up two embassies in ‘98 and attacked the USS Cole in ‘00.

Want a domestic president? Move to Costa Rica. The US is a superpower. From Truman to the current Bush, our presidencies are defined by foreign affairs.

Again, do you want a domestic president? Move to Costa Rica.

The Dems’ Austin debate was so silly. Our next president is not going to spend his/her time working on health care, education or building bridges.

Don’t get me wrong. I want a public/private sector approach to health care along the lines of what Gov. Romney did in Massachusetts.

On education, we need to break the monopoly of public education.

On developing infrastructure, I am in favor of that too. Let’s fix our bridges and streets. Isn’t that done by cities and states, too?

However, this is not what will consume our next president.

He/she will spend most of his/her time reading intelligence briefings and fighting Al Qaeda. Add Russia, North Korea, Iran, the potential changes in Cuba, and China’s Navy.

So far, the Dems’ debates do not reflect any of that. Obama and Clinton are not living in the real world. It’s time for the media to get over Obama-mania and start asking them about national security.

Again, this is real world not the kind of “liberal feel good” stuff that we hear at the debates.

My point is that Obama or Clinton will spend much of his/her time on foreign affairs.

The US is a superpower. Our presidents are usually consumed by world events rather domestic issues.

Let me suggest this to the media. They should start the next debate by referring to Two Winnable Wars by Anthony H. Cordesman:

“No one can return from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, as I recently did, without believing that these are wars that can still be won.

“They are also clearly wars that can still be lost, but visits to the battlefield show that these conflicts are very different from the wars being described in American political campaigns and most of the debates outside the United States.”

Mr. Cordesman holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He recently returned from the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It’s time for Dems to get over their silly class warfare, attacks on NAFTA and get real about the world that they may be inheriting in less than a year:

“Any American political leader who cannot face these realities, now or in the future, will ensure defeat in both Iraq and Afghanistan.”

So let’s get real. The Dems have avoided national security because their supporters are living in a fantasy land that everything is Bush’s fault.

It’s time for these Dem debates to get real!

The shooting in another college has naturally called for more gun control, and as usual, the focus is absolutely incorrect and illogical. Nobody can control the person who does the damage, because most of them don’t have any outward signs that they are dangerous until the shooting starts.

It makes no difference if they got the gun legally or illegally. You can bet if they can’t get one through legal means, they will find one by another. Bans don’t work. If they did, Prohibition would have been the success of the Twentieth Century and stopped all alcohol abuse. If bans worked, we would not have the severe illegal drug problem we have today.

If someone wants to buy a commodity, legal or illegal, they will find a seller. Government can’t legislate morality, attitude or common sense. They can only react, and then it is usually too late to save victims. In one recent shooting the criminal first shot the attending police officers to give him free rein to continue his rampage.

The recent shootings had a telling constant in the places that the murders occurred. They were gun free zones. That means that nobody in the area could legally carry a firearm for self-defense.

From a logical point of view, if a person is crazy enough to intend to kill as many people as possible, he will search out areas where he can do the most damage without the fear of being stopped. These people are cowards and many of them have ended the slaughter by killing themselves. It is impossible to stop or reason with a person who intends to die by his own hand.

That is why logical people are calling for laws that would allow qualified people to carry a handgun legally in those places. Even if police officers were shot first, there would be people who would not have to duck for cover, but could stop the assassin from continuing his carnage instead of being a helpless victim.

We will still have ignorant politicians saying we need more gun control in spite of logic and experience that counters that concept. In fact, it isn’t really gun control, but rather, people control. We should know by now that people who will obey the laws are not the problem. Do they think someone bent on murder and suicide will obey a gun free zone?

Gun control laws don’t work. Compare Vermont with Washington, D.C. About the same population, but Vermont doesn’t have any strict gun control laws and anyone of legal age without a criminal or mental problem history can buy a gun legally and carry it concealed.

In D.C., for all practical purposes, nobody except police and military may have a gun and no civilian may carry one for self-defense. In fact, if they have a long gun at home, it must be disabled to a point that it is virtually useless for home defense. Compare the violent crime rates in each jurisdiction. D.C. is usually at the top of the country’s list for violent crime and homicides and Vermont is at or near the bottom.

While the phrase “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” has no meaning to many politicians, they have to come to grips with a greater right than is provided in the Constitution. That is the right of survival, and to survive, a person should have a viable means of self-defense.

This columnist strongly believes that a person of good character has the right to carry a firearm, but must also carry the responsibility of knowing how to use one competently and under what circumstances the use is justified.

If the next dozen attempts by a criminal committing a violent crime ended with the intended victim shooting the perpetrator, we believe it would do more to reduce violent crime in the United States than doubling the size of the local police forces. A gun is necessary when seconds count and police are minutes away.

Obama-mania has now reached Mexico. Today, some in the Mexican left put their cards on the table:

“….If Barack wins thereafter the presidency of the United States, he will be the first leftist politician in that country and another signal of the present and future times in this continent.”  (Barack Obama, Leftist?)

Once again, the Mexican left demonstrates its total stupidity and ignorance of making Mexico a more prosperous country. How in the world is Obama’s anti-free trade platform good for Mexico?

I guess that we can say this: Obama will be endorsed by Lopez-Obrador, The NY Times and leftists everywhere. What a wonderful trio!

I can’t wait for McCain to tell general election voters that the Mexican left is behind Obama! (”Si se puede”)

Pres. Reagan is the Babe Ruth of modern US political history. (By the way, the Babe and the Gipper share the same birthday of Feb 6th!)

Reagan set quite a few records, such as winning two landslides of historic proportions in 1980 and 1984.

His most amazing record was passing the presidency to his vice president in 1988. It had not been done in 100 years.

It has not been done since.

Eisenhower couldn’t do it. Clinton couldn’t do it.

Frankly, it’s hard to win 3 consecutive presidential elections. It’s even more difficult to win 8 of 11! We have already won 7 of the last 10. Can we make it 8 of 11?

2008 should be a good year for the Dems. The Republicans are trying to win 3 in a row and that’s hard to do! The Senate’s election cycle favors the Dems. The House may be vulnerable but that’s not clear today.

So why am I feeling so good about 2008?

The first answer is that the Dems have a unique ability to mess things up. (Do you remember that Gore did not win his home state?)

As I write this, we may be witnessing the beginning of a massive train wreck at the Dems’ convention. Have you heard about the super-delegates? (Democrats Warn of Coming ‘Train Wreck’ as GOP Moves Closer to a Nominee) Furthermore, the very liberal Frank Rich of The NY Times is very worried! (Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War )

The second answer (Good News for Conservatives) comes from Bill Kristol:

” Here’s the good news–and it’s really quite good.

A reasonably conservative presidential candidate, leading a reasonably conservative party, has a good chance to win the general election. With a difficult task ahead of it–holding on to the White House for a third term, and in this case for the sixth out of the last eight–the GOP has lucked into having as its nominee John McCain, one of the most popular politicians in America.”

How lucky can we get?

It gets better. The RCP poll average shows that McCain leads Clinton!

Cheer up. 2008 looks great. We always have a chance because we are running against Democrats!