Today, at the Impact Ohio conference, Jon Husted said something incredibly newsworthy that we haven’t seen reported anywhere.

Defending his performance managing Ohio’s election, Husted argued that because of the high stakes involved with being an electoral vote-rich swing state, Ohio’s elections chief is always scrutinized and criticized. (Funny, we don’t remember that happening in 2008, but that’s beside the point).

Husted’s solution to this perceived problem of Democrats and the national media picking on him? He says we should make Ohio less important in the election by dividing up our electoral votes by Congressional district.

This is huge and should raise giant red flags. Under the current winner-take-all system, Obama won all 18 of Ohio’s electoral votes. Under Husted’s plan, 12 of those 18 electoral votes would be handed to Mitt Romney, the popular vote loser.

The reason for this is Ohio’s incredibly gerrymandered Congressional districts have been drawn to pack Democrats together so they have the majority in only 4 of the state’s 16 congressional districts. In addition to winning those four — assuming Husted would have us adopt the electoral vote allocation used by Maine and Nebraska, the only states to split their EVs by Congressional district — Obama would have also gotten the two at-large electoral votes bringing the final tally to 6 for Obama and 12 for Romney.

Outrageous right? Explained as a fix for the (he says undeserved) national attention he’s received, Jon Husted just put a plan on the table that would have handed Mitt Romney the majority of Ohio’s electoral sway.

And we thought with the election behind us, Jon Husted’s bad ideas were too. We were wrong.

Updated: partial audio and transcript is now available thanks to Ohio Public Radio.

For Ohioans who are tired of hearing Republicans and Democrats argue over election rules, the state’s top elections official has a theoretical solution. Secretary of State Jon Husted says Ohio could apportion its Electoral College votes in the presidential race in a proportional way, giving even the loser a big chunk of votes. That’s the way only two other states do it, but Husted says at least it would dampen partisan conflict because Ohio would no longer be such a prize.

Husted: “It will not be a winner-take-all state, and you would not have another elections controversy about Ohio because we would not matter as much anymore.”

Video of Thursday’s event should be online by early next week.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1338224116 Maureen McEwen Kilbane

    And Mitt still would have been crushed!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TSPDYG6GHKWPIDAREHWYLMR77M Awesome B

    Not really… the district drawing made it so that the representatives are disproportionate to the population (packing all blue voters into 4 sectors).

    That’s why it’s disgusting. It’s a way to intentionally skirt population-based allotments of votes.

  • KenKodger

    Death by demagoguery and lies is what you like? That is what just happened. The Founding Fathers were given to us and the world, as a gift from God and they made the US government a “Republic” not a democracy for a very good historical reason. You are taking us right to Socialism = Greece!

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    God has some really weird gift ideas. I heard he also gives rape babies and governors like John Kasich.

    The next time you talk to him can you relay my request for something a little simpler? Maybe a nice bottle of bourbon? Or a gift card for Target?

  • KenKodger

    God also forgives, good thing in your case!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000082806099 Stephanie Eaton Agosta

    There’s the socialism word again, time to exit dude, nobody cares about your rhetoric. yawn

  • KenKodger

    Someday you may understand buy even most slaves felt comfortable.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carole-Singleton-Chase/100000159033215 Carole Singleton Chase

    WHAAAAAT?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carole-Singleton-Chase/100000159033215 Carole Singleton Chase

    Wait, i get it. you’re sitting there laughing. I get it. Har dee har har. Played a good joke on us, there, Kenny.

  • KenKodger

    Read their history!

  • http://www.facebook.com/garlin.maki Garlin Maki

    Disagree. They are packed into 4 districts, because that’s where they live. Rural Ohioans are much more conservative.

  • KenKodger

    Why is that?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000082806099 Stephanie Eaton Agosta

    Because they are conservative socialist and they like their agricultural subsidies – you know, like Greece.

  • KenKodger

    Conservative and Socialist is a non sequitor.
    Back to school for you!

  • http://www.facebook.com/brian.hester.127 Brian Hester

    So you know the concept of non sequitor… weird that you can’t see how you keep doing it yourself.

  • KenKodger

    2% is not being crushed!

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    That would be ONE way to get people to pay attention to redistricting reform!

  • http://twitter.com/daingel Domenica Iacovone

    Clean-up for 2014 needs to start now.

  • Doctor Claw

    Husted hopefully only has that job for 2 more years. He has revealed himself to be a partisan crook.

  • xx

    So under that plan, no longer would my vote count for a portion of all the electoral vote, but just a portion of smaller piece of the total electoral vote, thus making my vote less important and the rural vote more important. How is that better Mr. Husted?

    Furthermore, the fact that you are in public office means that you are going to have the spot light pointed at each and every decision you make, that is part of being in a democracy. If you don’t like that I would suggest that you move to China where most people don’t even know who rule them and the media is censored so that everything looks all shiny and perfect, because that is exactly what you are proposing, dictatorship, where the officials can do and say whatever they want without having to answer to the people for it.

  • KenKodger

    Actually a persons vote would be MORE important because it would more clearly represent the consensus in your area. Or do you like the idea of Oberlin deciding how much money Cleveland school taxes should be. As a block, Cleveland subjugates us all to their standards!

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    Um, we’re talking about federal electors for the Presidential election. Don’t get lost now, OK?

  • xx

    What does Cleveland taxes have to do with this? How does Cleveland subjugate me right here in Central Ohio? It doesn’t but Husted’s idea would subjugate me to the view of a minority of the people of this state. Obama won a majority of the vote of Ohio. That means the people in Lima who voted for him as well as the people in Cleveland all counted the same. Under Husted’s idiotic idea, the Obama voters in Lima would have there vote not count despite the fact that we are electing a person to represent everybody in the state. Same can be said if Mr. 47% would have won. Thank God he didn’t.

  • CherMoe

    Just another Republican way of cherry-picking the votes. And suppressing the others.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jim.miller.121398 Jim Miller

    Most likely such a plan would suffer the same fate as SB 5…the voters would kill it…Jim, Columbus

  • pb_dirtgirl

    true enough, but running referendum campaigns is extremely expensive. rather than dumping $8+ million into repealing every bad idea they have, let’s raise it in 2014 and take away their House majority

  • missskeptic

    This guy is hyper-sensitive and thinks everyone is picking on him with all these disruptive lawsuits (of which he lost nearly all). He has done certainly cleaned up the duplicates list, no doubt about that, but he’s also done so much crappy stuff that it hardly balances out. Husted is a jerk who thinks the Sec. of State job is his own personal fiefdom, where he insists on being -called “Mr. Secretary” – if you don’t believe that, just listen to Matt Damschroeder sometime talking about his boss.

  • CherMoe

    Right now Columbus is FULL of big egos and rich folks. None of whom care about Ohioans.

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    Nobody in this entire country cares about everybody. At most they care about people they know personally. The rest of it is lip service.

    I’ll say one thing for the Democrats: at least in their process of not really caring about anybody, at least they don’t also want to kill us.

  • KenKodger

    Well only if your frame of reference is short:

    WW I under Wilson = Democrat
    WW II under RDR = Democrat
    Dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was Truman = Democrat
    Korean War under Truman = Democrat
    Vietnam under Eisenhower = Republican
    Gulf War under G H Bush = Republican
    Iraq & Pakistan under G W Bush – Republican

    No party has a monopoly on war!

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    I think we just need a moratorium on any more Republican Secretaries of State in Ohio for the time being. The last one we had was just like this and, even worse, if I’m not mistaken, he was head of the state Republican Party. Oh, no conflict of interest THERE.

  • http://www.facebook.com/brian.hester.127 Brian Hester

    I think he meant this as a post-redistricting reform idea. But even then, it’s crazy for Ohio to do that.

    Let’s say that the districts had to be drawn to be more competitive. We’re a 50/50 state. That means in virtually every election the winner of Ohio could get no more than 75% of the EV, and more often than not maybe half to slightly more than half. And their opponent would almost be guaranteed half, too. So the winner of the State gets 2 at-large ones, fine.

    So, instead of getting potentially 18 EVs, the winner of Ohio only gets +2 EV more than Ohio in most instances than their opponent (Winner +10, loser +8). In other words the net effect could be like carrying Delaware. Because of the way our political geography works, it means that competitive districts reduces the importance of Ohio to having the net effect of competing for the EV of Delaware. In the current gerrymandering system, it results in the losing winning the majority of the EV, and thus, the presidency.

    This is precisely why PA ultimately dropped this idea. Because for a highly populous State like OH or PA, a pro rata system means the campaigns don’t have to compete hard in your State because the victor on gets a handful more EVs than the loser.

    While this would spare us enormous amounts of political ads and robocalls every year, it comes at the expense of becoming a State that the candidates for President don’t have to become beholden to to win.

    Husted’s idea either results in undemocratic results where the loser actually wins or a result that removes Ohio as a battleground state that has to be courted by presidential candidates. That’s how dumb of an idea this is.

  • KenKodger

    Or maybe the system actually repays those who have most to lose – the land owners and those who have worked to get what they have. Someday you may understand if you ever get to the position of having ownership of something some one else thinks is theirs.

  • cinesias

    Fuck off, fascist enabler.

  • KenKodger

    It is obvious that you have spoken beyond you intellectual capacity! What are you three years old? Or just one who does not understand anything about history or economics? Ignorance is bliss but it will also bring down our Republic. You are leading the charge!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000082806099 Stephanie Eaton Agosta

    OMG…the land owners? Does this ring a bell people? Is it 1810 again? I will bet Kent that I have more than you do….just a bet……

  • KenKodger

    And have you sent in you voluntary taxes to the IRS since you are so satisfied with the return you receive on your taxes?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carole-Singleton-Chase/100000159033215 Carole Singleton Chase

    If you have not KenKodger i’ll be happy to let the IRS know. By the way Sir Genius of Every Subject, a sentence does not start with the word AND.

  • KenKodger

    Not an English major, just a student of History, Economics and Human Action. You did not answer the question, do you believe you are getting a good return on your taxes?

  • http://www.facebook.com/brian.hester.127 Brian Hester

    You must be a poor student of history then. You forget the Ninth Amendment. You falsely believe that the federal government wasn’t involved in student loans before 1992. You can’t understand that everything was cheaper in the 1960s (it’s called inflation.) And your writing is the ridiculous rantings of an internet loon.

  • KenKodger

    What causes inflation?

  • KenKodger

    How about this knowledge – Did you know that in 1975 the Federal Government stopped the use of natural gas heating in all new construction in Ohio and 30 other States? The government had determined that the USA was almost out of natural gas! Yes, all homes and all buildings constructed from 1975 to 1980 in Ohio and about 30 other States were built as all-electric heating at the command of the federal government! Can you believe that happened given that today we have so much nat. gas that we are exporting? Curious?

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    Can you please provide a citation for this, Ken?

    I don’t remember this happening – but if it did, I’m certain it was the result of extensive lobbying by the coal industry.

  • KenKodger

    Addressing specifically the question of the OHIO
    moratorium on construction you can read:

    http://www.ipu.msu.edu/library/pdfs/nrri/Czamanski-Allocation-Policies-Gas-Supplies-Ohio-Nov-78.pdf

    “The major initiative of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCD) was to impose restrictions on new service,
    in order to limit the growth in demand and in order to protect supplies for old customers.”~

    “In the winter of 1972 the PUCO gave
    its consent to Columbia Gas of Ohio to stop new hook-ups of industrial and commercial customers, and by the
    summer of that year new residential hook-ups were
    stopped as well.”

    “In the early 1970’s Ohio’s gas distribution
    companies were unable to supply the demand for
    natural gas within their service areas. As a result the
    Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) gave its consent for the companies to impose restrictions on new service.”
    “At this time, many natural gas distribution companies throughout the non-producing states (those that ‘imported’ nat. gas from other States, about 30) were attempting to deal with the supply problem …..”

    There was great history even in 1778 when the Founders of America knew that there are only 4 basic items the federal government should do to provide for the general well being of its citizens:

    1) Protect us for foreign invaders

    2) Create an honest judicial system

    3) Create an honest monetary system

    4) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures

    That is it. Those are the basic directives given to the Feds Constitutionally. The Tenth Amendment states further that all prerogatives not explicitly given to the
    Federal Government are reserved to the states or to individual Americans.
    All other “benevolent” constructs by the Federal government eventually hurt its citizens.

  • http://www.facebook.com/brian.hester.127 Brian Hester

    Ken, you seem obsessived with natural gas. You keep reposting this over and over and over again, even though it has nothing to do with this post.

  • KenKodger

    It is an excellent example of government intervention into the market place which shows how insidious a government program can be. And most programs are!

    Is it not a mind-bender to say to anyone today that the federal government forbade the construction of buildings in the 1970’s because they believed we were out of natural gas. Anyone with any curiosity at all has to say “what?”

    It also demonstrates how very long (insidious) it takes for government programs take to turn on the citizens they are generally meant to help.

    I KNEW we would be awash in nat. gas back in the 1980’s as soon as the government began to deregulate the nat. gas industry.

    I know the same egregious intervention in the health care industry by Obama Care will result in terrible problems for us in the future!

  • http://www.facebook.com/brian.hester.127 Brian Hester

    I’ve started my own business, am professionally employed, and own a home, you braying jackass.

  • KenKodger

    SOME of your replies ARE professional but not all.

    Since you are in that enviable position are you satisfied that if you become rich (I think Obama has now lowered that bar to those making over $200,000.yr) the government can take 15 to 45% of your income and give it to someone who has not worked as hard as you to succeed? Of course, you may be a very charitable person and think that is ok, but would it not be better if YOU decided where your earned income should be spent? Maybe on a charitable cause YOU think would better spend the money.

    It was reported today that the DOD spent $100,000 on a study to determine if Jesus died for the Klingons! That waste of resources infuriates me, doesn’t it you?

  • JLM452

    THIS year the GOP and Right wing are all for getting rid of the electoral college (even though Obama won the popular vote). In 2000 when Bush lost the popular vote, the electoral college was fine and the law of the land. Husted probably learned at the knee of Ken Blackwell.

  • KenKodger

    Death by demagoguery and lies is more what is happening. The Founding Fathers were given to us and the world, as a gift from God and they made the US government a “Republic” not a democracy for a very good historical reason. You are taking us right to Socialism = Greece!

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    “Republic” has two definitions.

    1. Any nation not ruled by a monarch.

    2. A representative DEMOCRACY.

    We’re a republic under both definitions.

    While you’re reading right-wing claptrap, also consult a dictionary.

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    By the way? I also read the Constitution, and nowhere in the Constitution does it tell us what sort of economy to have. We could all be good little red Marxists and we would not violate it at all so long as all Congress dealt with was the interstate commerce part of it.

    Oh, and you know a President is not required to have been born on American soil, right? True story. Go read it, Whack-Boy.

  • KenKodger

    Partially correct but you miss the point!
    It says that there are only 4 basic items the
    federal government should do to provide for the general well being of its citizens:

    1) Protect us for foreign invaders

    2) Create an honest judicial system

    3) Create an honest monetary system

    4) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures

    .The Tenth Amendment states further that all prerogatives not explicitly given to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to individual Americans.

    All other “benevolent” constructs by the Federal government eventually hurt its citizens. WHICH IS WHAT THAT DOCUMENT “SAYS” ABOUT THE GOVERNMENTS INVOLVEMENT IN THE MARKET PLACE! IT IS NOT TO GET INVOLVED! Understand?

  • http://www.facebook.com/brian.hester.127 Brian Hester

    And the Ninth Amendment? Yeah, the power is reserved to the people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/brian.hester.127 Brian Hester

    Government isn’t to get involved in the marketplace, yet the constitution specifically calls on the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, coin money, and treaties, including trade. There’s actually NOTHING in the constitution that says laisse faire.

  • KenKodger

    There are a hundreds, yikes, hundreds of thousands of undertakings by the Federal government which are NOT mentioned in the Constitution. By your reasoning since those undertakings are not ACTUALLY mentioned, they should not be done. I like that interpretation.

    What is stated is that the powers not delegated to the Fed shall be left to the States.

    Treaties are like defense, must be a Federal matter. The EU is trying to act like the USA with one coinage which allows for easy trade. Supreme Court Roberts recently severely limited the use of the “interstate commerce” clause because it has been used to over-ride the 10th Amendment beyond the original intent of the Founders.The interpretation of the Constitution will never end.

    I prefer to limit thought to what works most efficiently for the betterment of all persons. Throughout my studies are found evidence that most federal programs are never truly cost-effective when compared to the laisse faire approach.

  • JLM452

    Take a pill, Ken. Better yet, take two pills.

  • KenKodger

    Just additional facts you are probably not aware:
    The natural gas shortages of the 1970’s began in 1935 with the Federal Government coming to protect consumers. Natural gas supplies were regulated
    almost out of existence until the government began to de-regulate and to solve a problem the government had created!

    This is exactly what will happen to health care services under Obama Care, it will become rationed, and then brought to a crisis, and then if we have still survived
    as a Republic, Obama Care will be repealed “for the protection of consumers”!
    All this is so clear if you just understand what is happening. It should also show how much most of you have to learn. Or not, ignorance is blissful – for awhile!

    Other similar examples of how government intervention has failed you:

    Health care was relatively inexpensive until 7/1/1966 when the government established Medicare and opened its purse (your tax dollars) to the medical industry. Health care costs have gone up over 100
    times since, $27 billion in 1960 to $2.6 trillion in 2010.

    Another example – education. Since the government opened its purse (your tax dollars) to the education industry in the form of student loans on July 23, 1992, the cost of higher education has risen faster than any other segment of our economy.

    Name the one industry that gives you better products for less money every year? Hint, it is the industry that has been least interfered with by the FEDS!

  • http://www.facebook.com/brian.hester.127 Brian Hester

    Everything was relatively inexpensive in 1966. Medicare had nothing to do with it. Talks about a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
    Student loans existed before 1992, genius.

  • KenKodger

    Sure, some back probably before 1920 but not many “takers” back then. And yes I believe there is a causal relationship in “free money” being distributed by any entity for anything and the cost of that thing will be increased beyond the price if the money was not relatively “free”! Don’t you accept the basic supply and demand rule?

    Again a statement not to be argued with – “everything was relatively inexpensive in 1966”!

    Do I not prove the point by actually knowing that college tuition and fees have increased 1,120 percent since records began in 1978 which is at least 4 (FOUR) times faster than the consumer price index?

    1966, an interesting reference point for all discussions since there were almost no grandiose Federal programs prior to 1964 which began the “war on poverty”. How is that working out?

    Did you know that when the Feds began SS they never expected the average person to ever collect? Take a look at the life expectancy charts for 1935. Doesn’t that cause you curiosity concerning why SS was begun? Why ALL government programs, not the original intent of the Founders, are begun?

  • JLM452

    Now take a breath, Ken.

  • http://www.facebook.com/brett.hoover Brett Hoover

    Went to college with him. He has always been a self-interested idiot.

  • http://twitter.com/FlinginDarts Mr. Dart

    He always speaks so highly of you, Hoov.

  • big4bluz

    Jon Husted = Katherine Harris

  • http://www.facebook.com/barbara.teti.14 Barbara Teti

    With or w/o lipstick and big hair!

  • http://www.facebook.com/gmnotyet Jeff Hall

    Big difference: Harris succeeded, Husted failed miserably.

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    THANK YOU, CEILING CAT.

  • http://twitter.com/bkatgr WBG

    Ohio vote out Husted. He is a jackass.

  • pb_dirtgirl

    tell your friends: midterms matter.

  • Bob

    I don’t know the first thing about election law, but I would hope that among Obama’s second term agenda is having the justice department take a closer look at Husted and his ilk (and backing the hell off from enforcement of federal marijuana laws).
    But as for the midterms, it seems that the Republican attempts at minority voter suppression blewback at them in the form of greater turnout. That would suggest to me the issue should be resurrected in the midterms (especially since you know damn well the Republicans will still be trying to prevent Americans from voting),

  • KenKodger

    Yes, we need Obama to investigate an honorably elected official so you guys can forget about the killing of FTA agent Brian Terry (Fast & Furious ) and the murder of Ambassador John Christopher who asked for more protection from his Commander in Chief for months. The Obama lied about the cause of his death for weeks even before the entire world at the UN. Obama and his party should be embarrassed as to how they denigrated a proven executive and multi-millionaire who actually earned his money. America is so much poorer for not having elected Romney – someday you may actually understand but I doubt you have the understanding to know the true story of how the USA got to be the power we once were (yes past tense)! You folks voted for a politician with no executive, management or economic understanding, a fool! Of course your jealousy and small minds would consider Husted to be the enemy. Look in the mirror; you will find a very poor example of the American electorate and the pity is you are the majority. ATLAS SHRUGGED!

  • JamesIam

    You young whipper-snappers! Back In The Day I used to walk uphill in the snow all the way to school, barefooted, and say the Pledge of Allegiance the whole way. Then walk back home (uphill again) and sing the Star Spangled Banner! You’ll see! Some day it will be the 50s again and “Leave It To Beaver” will be the Number One show! Mitt will be Ward and Ann will be June, women will know their place and the coloreds will too, and I’ll laugh and say “I Told You So” all the way to the soda shop! KENKODGER SHRUGGED!

  • KenKodger

    How about a throw a BS in Chemical Engineering and an MBA with a minor in economics at your idiocy. History foretells the future and the more you understand the past and human nature the more forearmed you are for the future. Only small minds do not consider all possibilities. You may be young but that is no excuse to be stupid.

  • veger7

    obviously some can sink below their education

  • KenKodger

    Talk to me after you read Niall Ferguson’s book “Civilization: The West and The Rest”. And it obviously you who are not in any position to make a judgement on education since you need so much yourself. Read the book then try to defend your vote for big government. Did you know for instance that David Callahan, outspoken Obama spokesperson said yesterday that the majority of the American people have spoken, “they want higher taxes on EVERYONE to save the current entitlement programs”. Did you know you were voting for higher taxes on EVERYONE? = Greece

  • http://www.facebook.com/rita.mulloy Rita Mulloy

    Greece got into the mess they’re in because of tax dodgers like romney. Stop whining about taxes, johnny one note….

  • KenKodger

    You are soooooooooooooooooo wrong but you will learn. Romney probably paid more tax just last year then you will probably pay your entire life. Get real. Do the numbers>

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    We can’t do the numbers. Romney wouldn’t release them.

  • KenKodger

    He did for 2 years.
    You think the the IRS is not on top of what the Obama challenger has done? If he had missed paying by $100 what he had to pay anytime in the past 7 years, Romney would have been outed by the IRS!

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    They have austerity in Greece because they have government debt. Amazingly, the austerity has not solved the debt. If you were making $30,000 a year with a wife and six kids and mysteriously did not have enough for a decent standard of living but had racked up a $100,000 credit card somehow, you could either stop buying groceries or you could get a second damn job.

    Greece and other nations in thrall to the IMF are choosing to stop buying groceries.

    It looks like “welfare” to you now but when it stops being roads and fire protection and police protection and military paychecks, you’re not gonna think it’s so damn funny.

    By the way? We have *bridges collapsing* here in the United States. Bridges. Collapsing.

    But hey. You’re a Republican. You can just trot out and buy your own bridge, right?

  • KenKodger

    Actually I am depending on my CITY to keep my roads in good repair – I can watch how they spend my local taxes. My State is a little further away from my watchful eye but from what I can observe (I drive all over Ohio) the State takes good care of the State highways. I am sure the large trucking companies are keeping an eye on the Interstates.
    Why do you think someone in Washington is smarter than you in distributing your money? By the way, the bridges that have collapsed are primarily those under the responsibility of the federal gov. and you still think they are best are making roads safe?

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    PLEASE stop comparing our economy with Greece. They are completely different.

    The Greek economy is ranked somewhere between 29 and 33 in the world depending on the measures you choose – and they share a currency with 17 other countries, including Germany – the 4th strongest economy in the world.

    The US Dollar is the world’s reserve currency.

  • KenKodger

    And Germany is about to give up on the EU! The Greek are not willing to give back what they have been promised in benefits – I do not blame them, I blame the politicians who made the promises. You will soon begin to blame Obama for his failure to meet his promises; well maybe you won’t because you have not held him accountable for all the promises he made 4 years ago. Pity!

  • KenKodger

    I am merely a small (much smaller) government advocate and if you are not for that you are heading us to become Greece. Why Greece comparison? Because they happen to be in the news. Their current national debt is 153% of their GDP. Current budget projections of the USA will put us at 187% of our GDP by 2035. Don’t you think steps should be taken to stop our trend towards becoming Greece?

  • wetsu

    A vote for Romney was nothing more than a vote for our money going the Iron Triangle and Military/Industrial Complex (aka wasted on the 1%), so take your pseudo-intellectual drivel elsewhere until you can make a compelling point. BTW, Ferguson struggles to finish thoughts, a better read is “Guns, Germs, and Steel.” They both have their biases.

  • KenKodger

    The government intervention into the computer and related industries have been minimal. As a result you get better quality, more capability and usually for less money year after year. GET THE MESSAGE YET?

    Also, how would you protect our Embassies around the world without a proper military?

  • KenKodger

    wetsu, these are my concerns as written by another but it is exactly as I have observed and very
    sobering!

    The
    “New” American Socialism

    No one knows what to call
    it…

    That’s part of the problem. It’s difficult to criticize something
    that doesn’t yet have a proper name.

    You can’t just call our economic
    system “socialism.” It’s not. There’s a profit motive and private ownership of
    nearly all assets. Socialism has neither of these. Besides, far too many people
    have become far too rich in our system to simply label it “socialism.”

    If
    you have ever traveled to an actual socialist country – with a power grid that
    never works, little public sanitation, petty graft at every turn, and endemic,
    horrifying poverty – you realize our system and real socialism aren’t the same
    at all.

    Our system isn’t truly capitalism either, though. The State
    intervenes in almost every industry, often in a big and expensive way, like in
    the natural gas industry from 1935 through 1990. With government at all levels
    making up more than 40% of GDP, it’s fair to say we live in a State-dominated
    society.

    And we share other, disturbing similarities with typical
    socialist states. Not all of them are economic. The most frightening similarity
    between the U.S. and classic totalitarian
    socialist states is the mutual investment in and appreciation of violent
    coercion. The U.S. fights
    violent domestic wars: U.S. prisons are bulging with a large
    percentage of the population. But the overwhelming majority of
    U.S. prisoners have never committed a
    violent crime.

    One hallmark of a totalitarian,
    socialist government is a large penal system. At its peak, prior to World War
    II, the Soviet Union’s “gulag” system
    incarcerated roughly 800 out of every 100,000 residents. Today, the
    U.S. incarcerates roughly 743 people
    out of every 100,000 residents – a total of 2.3 million inmates (eerily
    similar?).

    Including people currently on parole, more than 7 million
    people are in the American criminal justice system – one out of 31 adults.
    Roughly 70% of federal prisoners are violent offenders. The number of
    drug-related prisoners has increased 12-fold since 1980. The U.S. has the
    world’s largest prison population. Incarceration rates run seven times higher
    than in similar countries, like Canada, Australia, and the European Union
    nations.

    Are you familiar with this violent side of America’s
    culture? It’s the poor who suffer the most from these aspects of American life.
    It is their children who are sent to foreign wars. It is their children who get
    sent to prison.

    Likewise, as with all socialist experiments, it is the
    poor who suffer the worst economic outcomes, too. It is their cash savings that
    get wiped out by inflation. It is their jobs that disappear when regulations
    reduce capital investment or government debt crowds out private capital in the
    markets.

    If the poor knew the first thing about economics, they wouldn’t
    keep voting for “socialist” politicians and their programs. Alas, they don’t
    even know the basics.

    The poor in America, like
    the poor everywhere, still believe you can rob Peter to pay Paul. They still
    believe their “leaders” are trying to serve their best interests. It is a sad
    hoax. What has really happened is clear: Bamboozling the poor has become a way
    of life for American politicians. And the poor’s willingness – even eagerness –
    to embrace the resulting economic slavery is the linchpin of our
    system.

    But it’s not only the poor who have become addicted to the
    system. Businessmen like Warren Buffett embrace it, too – despite its
    limitations and taxes. Buffett calls it the “American System.” He says it’s the
    greatest system for creating wealth the world has ever seen.

    We’re not so
    sure.

    Yes, it certainly makes it easy for big businessmen like Buffett to
    become wealthy. But those same benefits don’t accrue to the society at large.
    For example… even though the value of America’s production has soared over
    the last 40 years and asset prices have risen considerably, our debts have grown
    even more.

    When you adjust for debt and inflation, you discover
    America hasn’t gotten richer at all.
    Yes, we have become more affluent. And yes, some individuals have gotten vastly
    richer. But taken as a whole, when you add
    back the debts we’ve racked up, the country hasn’t gotten richer at all. Since
    the end of the gold standard in 1971, real after-tax wages, per capita,
    stagnated. On average, we haven’t gotten
    any richer at all in 40 years…

    What happened over the last 40
    years?

    Why did so many people rush so eagerly into debt? Why did they
    borrow more and more to buy the same things at ever-higher prices – again, and
    again, and again? And why do people in America continue to work, day after
    day, for jobs that offer no opportunity and declining real wages? Most
    important, how did a few people end up getting so rich from this merry-go-round
    economic system that never takes us anywhere?

    To answer this question, we
    need only answer one core question: Who benefits?

    Whose
    wealth and power increases with inflation? Whose stature in society grows
    alongside the government? Who profits from increased spending on wars, prisons,
    and social programs that are doomed to fail? And most of all… who profits from
    an explosion in debt?

    A certain class of people has the power to not only
    protect itself from these policies but to profit as well. These people have used
    the last 40 years to produce massive amounts of paper wealth. And they are now
    desperately trying to convert those paper accounts into real wealth, which
    explains the exploding price of farmland and precious metals.

    This
    explosion of wealth at the top of the “food chain” is the main feature of what I
    call New
    American Socialism. It’s a system fueled by paper
    money, the constant expansion of debt, and a kind of corruption that’s hard to
    police because it occurs within the boundaries of the
    law.

    Like the European and totalitarian socialism
    of the last 100 years, New American Socialism harnesses the power of the State
    to grow and maintain production. Like in traditional socialism, the poor pay the
    costs of New American Socialism. But unlike socialist systems of the past, this
    new American version has one critical improvement…

    In the New American Socialism,
    the power of the system produces private profits.
    In this way, it provides a huge incentive to entrepreneurs and politicians to
    work together on behalf of the system. This is what keeps the system going. This
    is what keeps it from collapsing upon itself. And this, unfortunately, is why
    the imbalances in the world economy will continue to grow until the entire
    global monetary system itself implodes…

    New American Socialism began with
    the policies of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In 1933, FDR seized all the
    privately held gold in the U.S. and began creating the massive
    government programs necessary to implement socialism. To give you some idea of
    how much the federal government grew during FDR’s reign, remember federal
    spending made up 3% of GDP in 1930 – a level
    that had been fairly consistent for most of America’s
    history. Almost immediately after his election, he tripled federal
    spending to more than 10% of GDP. And by the time he died in office,
    federal
    spending reached 44% of GDP – an all-time high. Today it is
    67% and is projected to be 187% by 2035 at present levels of
    entitlements.

    As everyone should know by now, the promises of socialism
    aren’t affordable. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is inefficient and kills Peter’s
    incentives. The result is usually economic stagnation, depression, and
    eventually a crisis that frees people from the government’s confiscatory
    repression. Because America was the only large economy
    standing after World War II, it took much longer than usual for the problems of
    socialism to appear in our economy. Also, the government scaled back many of
    FDR’s policies during the post-war boom. In winning the war, we also won a
    generation of economic spoils.

    All this changed in the 1960s. Lyndon
    Johnson had delusions of government-led grandeur. His ideas of a “Great Society”
    and “Model Cities,” along with an expensive foreign war
    (Vietnam), were a recipe for massive
    new debts and an increasing role for government in all aspects of American
    life.

    These policies led to an acute funding problem in 1971 because the
    debts of socialism couldn’t be financed with gold-backed money. It was far too
    expensive. And so we began a new kind of socialism… the New American
    Socialism.

    What happened in 1971? The size of America’s
    government deficits forced us to abandon gold. After World War II, the U.S.
    dollar became the world’s reserve currency. In exchange for placing the dollar
    at the center of the world’s economy, we made a solemn promise to always
    exchange the U.S. dollar for gold at $35 an ounce. Nixon broke that promise,
    calling our creditors “global speculators” and telling them to go pound
    sand.

    This
    move away from gold severed the fundamental tie between our economy and our
    money. Without the link to gold, bank reserves could be
    created by fiat. And they were. This led to a huge expansion of our money supply
    and our debts.

    The power to use this debt and to control the creation of
    new money is the most powerful factor in our economy. The government can now
    create unlimited amounts of credit to control the U.S. economy.
    This bestows favored status on certain companies – notably banks. This lies at
    the core of our economy’s structure. It is how fiat money privatizes the
    benefits of New American Socialism.

    Most Americans simply don’t
    understand how our historic tie to gold made it impossible for the banking
    system to grow beyond clear boundaries. Gold limited the amount of currency in
    circulation, which, in turn, restricted how much money banks could lend. Under
    the gold standard, the maximum total American
    debt-to-GDP ratio was limited to around 150%. But as soon as we broke the tie to
    gold, our total debt-to-GDP ratio began to grow. It’s now close to
    400%.

    Without the tie to gold, the amount of
    economic mischief our government could engineer became practically limitless. No
    social goal was too absurd… no war too expensive… and no government insurance
    scheme too patently self-serving not to finance.

    Today, New American
    Socialism has spread like a cancer throughout our country, afflicting industry
    after industry. Like a cancer, once it infects an industry, it metastasizes from
    company to company in that sector. Suddenly,
    businesses cannot function without massive government aid. These
    corporate wards of the State weigh down the rest of our economy… making us
    weaker and less competitive and dragging us further into debt.

    Keep in
    mind, this New American Socialism I’m talking about isn’t called socialism at
    all. It goes by many names. It’s been called “compassionate conservatism.”
    It’s been called “joint public-private
    enterprise.” It’s been called “government
    insurance.”

    I’ve been studying it for many years –
    finding it in one company after another. I’ve actually preferred having it in
    many of the stocks I’ve recommended over the years because it tends to be good
    for investors. That’s the most insidious thing about New American Socialism:
    It’s a form of socialism that leaves the profit motive in place. (It is also why
    it has worked so well so long for most Americans.)

    That’s why the New
    American Socialism has grown decade after decade. That’s why it continues to be
    heavily promoted by almost every mainstream media outlet and both political
    parties. It leads to a kind of corruption I believe will be impossible to stop
    without a full-scale economic collapse…

    Socialism always destroys the
    poor (remember Obama’s definition of rich is those making over $200,000 per year
    meaning everyone under that income is poor) because it robs them of social
    mobility and makes it impossible for them to protect themselves from the
    predations of the powerful. Historically, its damage has been limited because
    eventually socialism so disrupts an economy that even the rich and the powerful
    suffer. That’s what’s so dangerous about this New American Socialism. It doesn’t
    subject the rich to any depravation at all. It does just the opposite. The New
    American Socialism retains the profit motive for the rich and the well
    connected. In this new model, only the poor suffer. The rich are always
    protected.

    The re-election of OBAMA, who has continually followed through
    on his promises to “spread the wealth around”, ensures nothing will change about
    the system as described.

    Comment?

  • Marlowe53

    Niall Ferguson is a handsome man with an appealing accent and the economic policy of a plutocrat. In his perfect world, the rich get richer on the backs of working people.
    If David Callahan said that (I couldn’t find such a quote), I disagree with him. However, I am prepared to pay higher taxes for the right reasons. As soon as the government stops giving the five largest and most successful energy companies and corporate farmers billions of dollars of breaks on their taxes, I’ll be first in line to vote to raise my taxes in order to obtain better schools for everyone and better healthcare for everyone.
    The problem is Greece is not their level of taxes. It’s that it’s considered socially acceptable for the most wealthy to NOT pay their taxes. It’s a country full of Mitt Romney’s

  • KenKodger

    Romney paid nearly $3,000,000 in income taxes in 2011 probably more in one year than you and your closest 10 buddies will ever pay in a life time. It is uninformed citizen like you who are heading us to become Greece. If everyone making over $250,000 a year were taxed at 50% it would run the government about 30 days.

    Furthermore The Tax Foundation estimated in a report in January that Romney’s rate in 2010 — which was also about 14 percent — was higher than what 97 percent of Americans pay.
    Your incorrect thinking is driving America into poverty!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000082806099 Stephanie Eaton Agosta

    Here’s a news flash – nobody cares about what your selling….and you are nasty to boot.

  • KenKodger

    Too bad because by your knowledge so shall you be judged by your peers! Some day you will know all I have said is true.

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    If you were in any way our equal. You couldn’t even be bothered to remember the Benghazi ambassador’s name. Crawl back under your rock.

  • KenKodger

    Too bad your not interested in more information!

    I am merely a small (much smaller) government advocate and if you are not for that you are heading us to become Greece. Why Greece comparison? Because they happen to be in the news. Their current national debt is 153% of their GDP. Current budget projections of the USA will put us at 187% of our GDP by 2035. Don’t you think steps should be taken to stop our trend towards becoming Greece?

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    Please stop with the Greece comparisons, Ken. They are ridiculous.

    The US is the world’s largest economy and the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency. The Greek economy is near the bottom of the other countries with which it shares a currency.

    You can’t take one variable out of context and make broad predictions from it.

    It’s like saying the US is on its way to becoming Cuba if we don’t stop all these Spanish-speaking people from having babies.

    Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

  • KenKodger

    Debt as a % of GDP is a good over-all indication of prosperity. Go to https://www.google.com/search?q=federal+spending+projections&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=i32mUPSeMrG30AGz6oHgDg&ved=0CE4QsAQ&biw=1024&bih=673 if you want to see hundreds of variables if that makes you feel better. Are you indicating that we are truly safe from becoming, if not Greece, the EU?

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    Yes. That is exactly what I am saying.

    US Debt-to-GDP is up recently because of the Bush tax cuts, two wars and a global recession. But that still doesn’t mean we are anything like Greece or ever could be.

    Greece’s Debt to GDP is nearly 140%. Ours is half that. We’ve never been as high as Greece even during the peak of WWII.

    But, again, the main reason we’ll never be like Greece: **we have our own currency and the strongest, most diverse economy in the world.**

    Since you’re such a big fan of free markets, why not look at what the markets think of Greece and the US.

    Greek 10 year bonds are trading in the double-digits meaning Greece can’t afford to borrow money to pay for necessary services let alone to help stimulate their economy. This is why they have been forced to adopt severe austerity measures.

    US treasury bonds are at all time lows, meaning the US can borrow money for nearly nothing because the markets trust the US economy.

    Bond traders aren’t going to abandon the US, but even if they did, the Fed can always buy US bonds. The Greeks don’t have that option. They have to go out to the international markets with their tails between their legs hoping someone will loan them money.

    Greece has a lot of problems, to be sure, but it’s not simply a matter of over spending on entitlements. The German economy is one of the top 5 in the world and they spend much more on social programs as a percentage of GDP than Greece does.

    As you already mentioned, you’re just using Greece because that’s the country in financial trouble that happens to be in the news right now.

    The problem is: Greece and the US are absolutely nothing alike.

  • KenKodger

    Joseph this written by a very experienced investment advisor – for your consideration, I did not write but it is exactly as I have observed over the years:

    The
    “New” American Socialism

    No one knows what to call
    it…

    That’s part of the problem. It’s difficult to criticize something
    that doesn’t yet have a proper name.

    You can’t just call our economic
    system “socialism.” It’s not. There’s a profit motive and private ownership of
    nearly all assets. Socialism has neither of these. Besides, far too many people
    have become far too rich in our system to simply label it “socialism.”

    If
    you have ever traveled to an actual socialist country – with a power grid that
    never works, little public sanitation, petty graft at every turn, and endemic,
    horrifying poverty – you realize our system and real socialism aren’t the same
    at all.

    Our system isn’t truly capitalism either, though. The State
    intervenes in almost every industry, often in a big and expensive way, like in
    the natural gas industry from 1935 through 1990. With government at all levels
    making up more than 40% of GDP, it’s fair to say we live in a State-dominated
    society.

    And we share other, disturbing similarities with typical
    socialist states. Not all of them are economic. The most frightening similarity
    between the U.S. and classic totalitarian
    socialist states is the mutual investment in and appreciation of violent
    coercion. The U.S. fights
    violent domestic wars: U.S. prisons are bulging with a large
    percentage of the population. But the overwhelming majority of
    U.S. prisoners have never committed a
    violent crime.

    One hallmark of a totalitarian,
    socialist government is a large penal system. At its peak, prior to World War
    II, the Soviet Union’s “gulag” system
    incarcerated roughly 800 out of every 100,000 residents. Today, the
    U.S. incarcerates roughly 743 people
    out of every 100,000 residents – a total of 2.3 million inmates (eerily
    similar?).

    Including people currently on parole, more than 7 million
    people are in the American criminal justice system – one out of 31 adults.
    Roughly 70% of federal prisoners are violent offenders. The number of
    drug-related prisoners has increased 12-fold since 1980. The U.S. has the
    world’s largest prison population. Incarceration rates run seven times higher
    than in similar countries, like Canada, Australia, and the European Union
    nations.

    Are you familiar with this violent side of America’s
    culture? It’s the poor who suffer the most from these aspects of American life.
    It is their children who are sent to foreign wars. It is their children who get
    sent to prison.

    Likewise, as with all socialist experiments, it is the
    poor who suffer the worst economic outcomes, too. It is their cash savings that
    get wiped out by inflation. It is their jobs that disappear when regulations
    reduce capital investment or government debt crowds out private capital in the
    markets.

    If the poor knew the first thing about economics, they wouldn’t
    keep voting for “socialist” politicians and their programs. Alas, they don’t
    even know the basics.

    The poor in America, like
    the poor everywhere, still believe you can rob Peter to pay Paul. They still
    believe their “leaders” are trying to serve their best interests. It is a sad
    hoax. What has really happened is clear: Bamboozling the poor has become a way
    of life for American politicians. And the poor’s willingness – even eagerness –
    to embrace the resulting economic slavery is the linchpin of our
    system.

    But it’s not only the poor who have become addicted to the
    system. Businessmen like Warren Buffett embrace it, too – despite its
    limitations and taxes. Buffett calls it the “American System.” He says it’s the
    greatest system for creating wealth the world has ever seen.

    We’re not so
    sure.

    Yes, it certainly makes it easy for big businessmen like Buffett to
    become wealthy. But those same benefits don’t accrue to the society at large.
    For example… even though the value of America’s production has soared over
    the last 40 years and asset prices have risen considerably, our debts have grown
    even more.

    When you adjust for debt and inflation, you discover
    America hasn’t gotten richer at all.
    Yes, we have become more affluent. And yes, some individuals have gotten vastly
    richer. But taken as a whole, when you add
    back the debts we’ve racked up, the country hasn’t gotten richer at all. Since
    the end of the gold standard in 1971, real after-tax wages, per capita,
    stagnated. On average, we haven’t gotten
    any richer at all in 40 years…

    What happened over the last 40
    years?

    Why did so many people rush so eagerly into debt? Why did they
    borrow more and more to buy the same things at ever-higher prices – again, and
    again, and again? And why do people in America continue to work, day after
    day, for jobs that offer no opportunity and declining real wages? Most
    important, how did a few people end up getting so rich from this merry-go-round
    economic system that never takes us anywhere?

    To answer this question, we
    need only answer one core question: Who benefits?

    Whose
    wealth and power increases with inflation? Whose stature in society grows
    alongside the government? Who profits from increased spending on wars, prisons,
    and social programs that are doomed to fail? And most of all… who profits from
    an explosion in debt?

    A certain class of people has the power to not only
    protect itself from these policies but to profit as well. These people have used
    the last 40 years to produce massive amounts of paper wealth. And they are now
    desperately trying to convert those paper accounts into real wealth, which
    explains the exploding price of farmland and precious metals.

    This
    explosion of wealth at the top of the “food chain” is the main feature of what I
    call New
    American Socialism. It’s a system fueled by paper
    money, the constant expansion of debt, and a kind of corruption that’s hard to
    police because it occurs within the boundaries of the
    law.

    Like the European and totalitarian socialism
    of the last 100 years, New American Socialism harnesses the power of the State
    to grow and maintain production. Like in traditional socialism, the poor pay the
    costs of New American Socialism. But unlike socialist systems of the past, this
    new American version has one critical improvement…

    In the New American Socialism,
    the power of the system produces private profits.
    In this way, it provides a huge incentive to entrepreneurs and politicians to
    work together on behalf of the system. This is what keeps the system going. This
    is what keeps it from collapsing upon itself. And this, unfortunately, is why
    the imbalances in the world economy will continue to grow until the entire
    global monetary system itself implodes…

    New American Socialism began with
    the policies of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In 1933, FDR seized all the
    privately held gold in the U.S. and began creating the massive
    government programs necessary to implement socialism. To give you some idea of
    how much the federal government grew during FDR’s reign, remember federal
    spending made up 3% of GDP in 1930 – a level
    that had been fairly consistent for most of America’s
    history. Almost immediately after his election, he tripled federal
    spending to more than 10% of GDP. And by the time he died in office,
    federal
    spending reached 44% of GDP – an all-time high. Today it is
    67% and is projected to be 187% by 2035 at present levels of
    entitlements.

    As everyone should know by now, the promises of socialism
    aren’t affordable. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is inefficient and kills Peter’s
    incentives. The result is usually economic stagnation, depression, and
    eventually a crisis that frees people from the government’s confiscatory
    repression. Because America was the only large economy
    standing after World War II, it took much longer than usual for the problems of
    socialism to appear in our economy. Also, the government scaled back many of
    FDR’s policies during the post-war boom. In winning the war, we also won a
    generation of economic spoils.

    All this changed in the 1960s. Lyndon
    Johnson had delusions of government-led grandeur. His ideas of a “Great Society”
    and “Model Cities,” along with an expensive foreign war
    (Vietnam), were a recipe for massive
    new debts and an increasing role for government in all aspects of American
    life.

    These policies led to an acute funding problem in 1971 because the
    debts of socialism couldn’t be financed with gold-backed money. It was far too
    expensive. And so we began a new kind of socialism… the New American
    Socialism.

    What happened in 1971? The size of America’s
    government deficits forced us to abandon gold. After World War II, the U.S.
    dollar became the world’s reserve currency. In exchange for placing the dollar
    at the center of the world’s economy, we made a solemn promise to always
    exchange the U.S. dollar for gold at $35 an ounce. Nixon broke that promise,
    calling our creditors “global speculators” and telling them to go pound
    sand.

    This
    move away from gold severed the fundamental tie between our economy and our
    money. Without the link to gold, bank reserves could be
    created by fiat. And they were. This led to a huge expansion of our money supply
    and our debts.

    The power to use this debt and to control the creation of
    new money is the most powerful factor in our economy. The government can now
    create unlimited amounts of credit to control the U.S. economy.
    This bestows favored status on certain companies – notably banks. This lies at
    the core of our economy’s structure. It is how fiat money privatizes the
    benefits of New American Socialism.

    Most Americans simply don’t
    understand how our historic tie to gold made it impossible for the banking
    system to grow beyond clear boundaries. Gold limited the amount of currency in
    circulation, which, in turn, restricted how much money banks could lend. Under
    the gold standard, the maximum total American
    debt-to-GDP ratio was limited to around 150%. But as soon as we broke the tie to
    gold, our total debt-to-GDP ratio began to grow. It’s now close to
    400%.

    Without the tie to gold, the amount of
    economic mischief our government could engineer became practically limitless. No
    social goal was too absurd… no war too expensive… and no government insurance
    scheme too patently self-serving not to finance.

    Today, New American
    Socialism has spread like a cancer throughout our country, afflicting industry
    after industry. Like a cancer, once it infects an industry, it metastasizes from
    company to company in that sector. Suddenly,
    businesses cannot function without massive government aid. These
    corporate wards of the State weigh down the rest of our economy… making us
    weaker and less competitive and dragging us further into debt.

    Keep in
    mind, this New American Socialism I’m talking about isn’t called socialism at
    all. It goes by many names. It’s been called “compassionate conservatism.”
    It’s been called “joint public-private
    enterprise.” It’s been called “government
    insurance.”

    I’ve been studying it for many years –
    finding it in one company after another. I’ve actually preferred having it in
    many of the stocks I’ve recommended over the years because it tends to be good
    for investors. That’s the most insidious thing about New American Socialism:
    It’s a form of socialism that leaves the profit motive in place. (It is also why
    it has worked so well so long for most Americans.)

    That’s why the New
    American Socialism has grown decade after decade. That’s why it continues to be
    heavily promoted by almost every mainstream media outlet and both political
    parties. It leads to a kind of corruption I believe will be impossible to stop
    without a full-scale economic collapse…

    Socialism always destroys the
    poor (remember Obama’s definition of rich is those making over $200,000 per year
    meaning everyone under that income is poor) because it robs them of social
    mobility and makes it impossible for them to protect themselves from the
    predations of the powerful. Historically, its damage has been limited because
    eventually socialism so disrupts an economy that even the rich and the powerful
    suffer. That’s what’s so dangerous about this New American Socialism. It doesn’t
    subject the rich to any depravation at all. It does just the opposite. The New
    American Socialism retains the profit motive for the rich and the well
    connected. In this new model, only the poor suffer. The rich are always
    protected.

    The re-election of OBAMA, who has continually followed through
    on his promises to “spread the wealth around”, ensures nothing will change about
    the system as described.

    Comment?

  • veger7

    seriously, do you read anything other than right wing claptrap?

  • KenKodger

    So you do not care about the killing of Brian Terry or Ambassador John Christopher; or based on what you read, do you even know about their deaths.

  • jana

    Er . . . Do you mean Chris Stevens? Maybe you should read more carefully.

  • Gary Miller

    Jana………don’t insult his education……unbelievable.

  • KenKodger

    Just some info you might find of interest -The
    government intervention into the computer and related industries have been minimal. As a result you get better quality, more capability and usually for less money year after year. Just the opposite has been happening in the Health and the higher Education industries.

    The example of how government intervention in the nat. gas industry caused the shortages of nat. gas in the 1970’s – it is later on in this post.

  • KenKodger

    Actually his name was John Christopher Stevens. Sorry for the confusion.

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    You’re the only one confused here.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000082806099 Stephanie Eaton Agosta

    9/11 WMD

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    Once again. John Christopher STEVENS.

  • KenKodger

    I read everything; apparently it is you who are afraid to be challenged! I have also never classified things by “wing” only by what history has proven over and over again ideas and methodology that works well given human nature! Do you have any history studies in your back ground? Economics? Systems? Management? Executive? Accounting? I have all this, where am I going wrong? In fact I am currently reading “Nudge”. How about you? What are you currently reading?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000082806099 Stephanie Eaton Agosta

    OMG…narci alert, narci alert. Why don’t you stop telling us how much background you have and go eat a sandwich or something. Election over.

  • KenKodger

    Election is over but already the Obama damage is occurring! Tell me in a year how better off you are! 4 years? Heavens, can you not remember the last 4 years?

  • KenKodger

    How about this knowledge – Did you know that in 1975 the Federal Government stopped the use of natural gas heating in all new construction in Ohio and 30 other States? The government had determined that the USA was almost out of natural gas! Yes, all homes and all buildings constructed from 1975 to 1980 in Ohio and about 30 other States were built as all-electric heating at the command of the federal government! Can you believe that happened given that today we have so much nat. gas that we are exporting? Curious as to why?

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    Your stupid comments, apparently.

  • KenKodger

    The natural gas shortages of the 1970’s began in 1935 with the Federal Government coming to protect consumers. Natural gas supplies were regulated
    almost out of existence until the government began to de-regulate and to solve a problem the government had created!

    This is exactly what will happen to health care services under Obama Care, it will become rationed, and then brought to a crisis, and then if we have still survived
    as a Republic, Obama Care will be repealed “for the protection of consumers”!
    All this is so clear if you just understand what is happening. It should also show how much most of you have to learn. Or not, ignorance is blissful – for awhile!

    Other similar examples of how government intervention has failed you:

    Health care was relatively inexpensive until 7/1/1966 when the government established Medicare and opened its purse (your tax dollars) to the medical industry. Health care costs have gone up over 100
    times since, $27 billion in 1960 to $2.6 trillion in 2010.

    Another example – education. Since the government opened its purse (your tax dollars) to the education industry in the form of student loans on July 23, 1992, the cost of higher education has risen faster than any other segment of our economy.

    Name the one industry that gives you better products for less money every year? Hint, it is the industry that has been least interfered with by the FEDS!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000082806099 Stephanie Eaton Agosta

    Weapons of Mass Destruction – 9/11

  • Gary Miller

    “America is so much poorer for not having elected Romney”…….yeah right keep on spinning.

  • KenKodger

    Not spin; more like a prophesy based on understanding of current economics and historical perspective!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carole-Singleton-Chase/100000159033215 Carole Singleton Chase

    ah, prophesies! like in the Book of Mormon, the big door of fire is going to swallow us all tomorrow. or the day after that. or whenever. prophesies SMH. you mean guesses.

  • KenKodger

    No, history and economic study! Read the most recent work of renowned historians Niall Ferguson. His book is “Civilization: The West and The Rest”. Only a fool judges a book before it is read. What are you, fool or someone still in search of truth. Are you sure enough of your ideals that you are not open to understanding the historical facts that will determine your future. It is your decision and your future – dare you not be open to all ideas?

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    Economics is a game, not a real science. I doubt most of those economists even know what *they* are talking about. Sometimes they hit it in the ballpark. Sometimes we wake up thirty years later wondering WTF Reagan was thinking.

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    That’s “prophecy.” Prophesy is a verb. Are you SURE you read?

  • http://www.facebook.com/rob.felber.5 Rob Felber

    Sore loser! Too bad we don;t have your supreme wisdom telling us what to do every day of our lives you arrogant twat!

  • KenKodger

    That is what Obama wants to do, not I. I only want you to understand what freedom is and that it is being lost every day you listen to Obama and his ideology!

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    If your idiots were in charge, we’d be right back to what we were at the beginning of this Republic: white male property owners voting, the rest of us can go to hell.

    And you’re enthusiastically cheering that along.

  • KenKodger

    Actually we are all going to be even bigger losers over Obama’s election!

  • http://www.facebook.com/steven.bollinger.14 Steven Bollinger

    For a politician with no executive, management or economic understanding he seems to be doing a damn good job under difficult circumstances. Could it be your own sense of reality that is grossly distorted??

  • KenKodger

    Difficult circumstances yes; good job = no! Have you not heard it said that this is the worse recession recovery ever? Hey, remember I am neither democrat or republican; I am for smaller federal government because I know no one is smart enough to handle to mess we find ourselves in today. By the way the current problems started in earnest in 1964. I believe you will find that there were only 2 Federal “social welfare” programs in existence before 1964; SS and Veteran’s benefits. Heavens, people must have been dying in the streets way back then! What say you?

  • http://www.danaseilhan.com Dana Seilhan

    Where were you when several other embassies were attacked under Bush? Where’s the investigation on those? Oh wait, right. Then Obama would be distracting from the ONE attack under his watch.

    By the way? The ambassador’s name was John Christopher STEVENS. John Christopher was a children’s book author.

    Husted tried to hack the voting machines. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have hated him for it. If he were a Democrat, you’d be calling for his lynching.

  • KenKodger

    Sure I remember and I also remember that Bush never lied about any of the attacks which by the way happened under Bush, Sr. and Clinton, Reagan and Carter too! None of them lied to the UN about what caused any of those attacks. Obama is the biggest liar who has ever been President and you approve – shame!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Johnson/100000200112663 Michael Johnson

    Another Ayn Rand nincompoop heard from. That book is so poorly written and weighred down with propaganda, anyone who reads it gets stupider for having done so. And in case you were unaware, Fast and Furious was a program started by Bushco and given another name. And Issa’s F&F “whistleblower” is the only FTA employee that actually “walked” guns. Try to get the basic facts correct. Me, I’m just happy I will get my Social Security and Medicare benefits that I invested in for decades.

  • KenKodger

    I am sure Atlas Shrugged was beyond your capability to understand!

    You are an uneducated taker and do not realize it. You need to understand that no matter how much money you have put into the SS system, you will out-live it if you live more than 6 years collecting.

    Take a a look at the SS program and you will understand it was a lie or a Ponzi scheme from the beginning:

    In 1935 when the system began “you” were promised to get this retirement assistance when “you” retired at 65. However, if you understand that life expectancy that year was 60 for men and 64 for woman you realize that on average the federal government would never have to pay anything.

    Now as the government began to realize the “you” were living longer they decided to raise the maximum contribution in 1956 from the 1935 level of 1% of the first $3,000 of earnings (yes, do the math – $30 maximum contribution from 1935 to 1956. The Ponzi scheme continues to build on ignorance. If you are retiring this year and have actually given the maximum
    contribution every year for the past 45 years you will get back every penny you have “invested” in SS within 6 to 7 years. After that you are living off your children!

  • KenKodger

    How about some Ohio history. In 1972 the Federal government proclaimed that the USA was out of natural gas. As a result all new construction in the State from 1972 to 1980 were required to be all-electric. Obviously the Federal government was incorrect about the amount of natural gas reserves there was (is) in the USA.

    Factor in the fact that the Federal government created (caused) the natural gas shortage (by their own admission in 1980) which has now been proven because we now have so much natural gas that the USA is trying to find was to use it all. Agreed!

    Position your mind around this concept – if the Federal government had not regulated the natural gas industry to the point of causing the shortages in the 1970’s, we would have been an almost completely oil independent nation back in the 1980’s and none of the “oil wars” (as you liberals like to call them) of the 1990 – 2008 would have taken place. Conclusion, Government regulations begun in 1935 caused the “oil wars”!

    Government intrusions in the market always result in poorer citizens. In this case, the actual death of our soldiers!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1341942513 Jeremy L. Truscello

    you’re seriously in need of some professional help! Husted is worthless for even trying this crap! He needs to do his real job and not this but leave it to you righties to throw Faux talking points with the Benghazi crap and try to play “deflection” tactics away from what this article is about. Nobody disenfranchised Mitt Romney and you know that! You have no point about the Benghazi thing and were you a general over there or work at the White House or are you just repeated talking points given by the fascist draft dodging stooges on there?!?!?!

  • KenKodger

    You care more about what Husted proposed than the death of our Ambassador? Obama then compounded the death by lying about the situation totally disenfranchising Obama as a respectable leader!

  • http://twitter.com/thebasslady P.T.

    There’s really something wrong with you, and I hope you attempt to get some therapy. You sound like a deluded fool, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I’ll leave it at just deluded. I won’t address any of your points because you didn’t make any. I will say that Mitt Romney started out with a $400,000 cushion from his old man; that’s not exactly “earning”. You obviously need a dictionary too.

  • KenKodger

    Romney gave every penny he inherited to charity. So ALL your knowledge and information is probably just as wrong! I know you will learn over time that Obama’s socialistic path is wrong but actually you should already have that understanding with even the most casual study of a failing Europe as the latest example! Your myopic look at history is your undoing!

  • Caepan

    A similar “idea” was floated amongst the GOP hoi polloi in PA last year. (PA has a 13 R – 5 D split amongst it US Reps.) The GOP Congressmen flat out told them not to do it, because the Dems would put electoral targets on their backs – on them, AND the State Reps and Senators who are responsible for this decade’s awful gerrymandering.

  • John W.

    Can somebody say “unconstitutional?”

  • Clecinosu

    We can say it. It doesn’t mean much to jerks like Husted, though.

  • KenKodger

    Some of you are historical and do understand the value of our Constitution.

  • http://www.bluebexley.com bonobo

    IF we had redistricting reform, not just in OH, but in pretty much every state with more than 4 EV, we could debate this idea. I think it has pluses and minuses. The truth is, however, that getting redistricting reform in one state is extremely difficult (look at Issue 2), let alone in 30.

  • Red Rover

    Let’s just get rid of the Electoral College…

  • toto

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in
    presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps.

    When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral
    votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

    The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and
    enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have
    come about by state legislative action.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has
    supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral
    votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as
    every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH –69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI –71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%,ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK –81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC –
    74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
    Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The
    bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

    NationalPopularVote

    Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  • http://www.facebook.com/ed.liphart Ed Liphart

    Lets just get rid of KenKodger

  • KenKodger

    I knew that would be the Socialist final answer! Or are you like Obama’s side kick Van Jones, a card carrying Communist?

  • JanetArcaro

    Stop, Jon.

    You tried to change the provisional ballot system, at 7 p.m. on the Friday before the election, with absolutely no statutory basis.

    When Judge Marbley–the Federal Court judge reviewing this last-minute change that you had made–asked your attorney, Arnold Epstein, to provide *any* statutory basis for this change that *you* made–he could not.

    Instead, Judge Marbley stated that your completely unfounded, last-minute order to place a new burden upon voters to fill out the information — a burden the statute places squarely on poll workers–to show that “democracy dies in the dark”:

    THE COURT is Judge Marbley, reviewing Husted’s last minute order.

    Epstein is the lawyer representing Husted and his action:

    THE COURT: Mr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein, would you agree that voting is the linchpin of our democracy?

    MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: I do too. What concerned me about the 2012-54 directive (Husted’s last minute order) is that it was filed on a Friday night at 7 p.m. The first thought that came to mind was democracy dies in the dark. So, when you do things like that that seeks to avoid transparency, it appears, then that gives me great pause but even greater concern.

    THE COURT: It only became the voter’s burden after the secretary declared it was the voter’s burden and sent you in here to defend it. You haven’t been able to show me any law that would justify that, nor have you shown me any facts that would require him to change it.

    The judge then asks Epstein–and as your representive, Jon, you–to show anywhere–in the language of the statute, in the “penumbra”–(the rights guaranteed by implication, as shown for example, in the legislative history of the statute)–*anywhere* where this obligation that Husted has placed on voters exists:

    THE COURT: Show me the language.

    MR. EPSTEIN: I cannot find the word “shall” for you. I believe it’s contemplated in the way they designed the form where they said this is the information for the affirmation, and then the voter can provide at his or her discretion this other information.

    THE COURT: Mr. Epstein, I have said on the record that Mr. Coglianese is probably one of the best election lawyers who’s been in my courtroom; maybe one of the best lawyers, period. I believe the same thing of you because of the nature of the work that you’ve done. Do you honestly believe what you just told me?

    MR. EPSTEIN: I do, Your Honor.

    THE COURT: If you honestly believe that, show it to me, because you were — in another context, and in this case, you have argued that it’s literally not there. You have argued that the absence of the language means the absence of the law. Now you’re telling me to look at this and find an obligation, a burden, if you will, within the penumbras of this statute. Show it to me. All I’m asking is to see it. If I can see it, I can believe it. But if you can’t show it to me, then make your penumbras argument.

    We’re going to be transparent, and you’re going to tell me — if you expect to prevail, somebody is going to answer my question because no one is answering it from your side as to where it is. So tell me if it’s in the penumbras because you can’t point to the language. So show me where it is. Show me where it’s meant. Show me the legislative history. Show me the facts that the secretary used to make the decision to change this directive at seven o’clock on a Friday night on the eve of an election. I want to see it, and I want to see it now. Show it to me.

    MR. EPSTEIN: Your Honor, I have no legislative history to present to the Court.

    So:

    The Secretary of State of Ohio, at 7 p.m. the night before the election, with the widespread belief that Ohio could hold the election of the President of United States in the balance, *changed* the way that provisional ballots would be evaluated, so that the burder would be on the voters to, in the evaluation of Husted, fill them out “correctly”.

    As Ohio had 262,000 provisional ballots in 2008, this was an amount that could swing the balance. By making this change, Husted was creating a massive “slush fund” of provisional ballots, that, in Bush v. Gore fashion, he could evaluate as “acceptable” or “mistaken”, and thereby retain or discard, without any legal basis whatsoever.

    Had the election come down to Ohio–as we saw Karl Rove frantically grasping to maintain that it had, in the face of reality, Husted’s actions would have been a “death of democracy in the dark.”

    He has shown himself, on the facts, beyond doubt, to be entirely unsuited for public office.

    He has acted without legal basis to drastically, savagely, and opportunistically subvert the voting process.

  • KenKodger

    Death by demagoguery and lies is more what is happening. The Founding Fathers were given to us and the world, as a gift from God and they made the US government a “Republic” not a democracy for a very good historical reason. You are taking us right to Socialism = Greece!

  • cinesias

    Clean the spittle from your chin.

  • JanetArcaro

    Clean the fog from your mind.

    I know that facts are difficult, but work…strain…to use your brain.

  • JanetArcaro

    The Founding Fathers founded a government based on law.

    Husted was, according to the Federal Court judge established by those Founding Fathers, acting against the law, in a way that affected the national vote.

    If you actually can comprehend facts, this should concern you.

  • KenKodger

    I am in no way trying to defend anything Husted did; I am only saying that the one man, one vote rule will lead to our destruction. Just how many examples throughout history must you have before you believe that the Founding Fathers gave us a Republic for Democracies have never worked. When the masses can vote themselves “free” money that just can not end well!

  • http://www.facebook.com/brian.hester.127 Brian Hester

    One of the earliest legislative achievements for President George Washington was a bill that required a lot in each township in the Northwest Terrority be set aside for the construction and opertion of a public school. He also require land grants for the construction of public universities. In Ohio, that’s how the Ohio State University, Miami University, and Ohio University, to name just a few got their founding. The first Congress provided for benefits for veterans of the Revolutionary War, and even provided a system of mandatory health insurance for non-military sailors. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

  • KenKodger

    Actually my friends at Judicial Watch on August 31, 2012 filed a lawsuit against Husted and other election officials. You might wish to refer to their web site for more info.

  • John

    If the deficiencies of the Electorial College are to be eliminated, the only fair way to do so is to eliminate the College and go to nationwide popular vote to elect the president. That certainly will decrease the importance of Ohio and our Secretary of State.

  • toto

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in
    presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

    When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral
    votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

    The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and
    enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have
    come about by state legislative action.

    A survey of Ohio voters showed 70% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

    By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 81%
    for a national popular vote among Democrats, 65% among Republicans, and
    61% among Others.
    By age, support for a national popular vote was
    73% among 18-29 year olds, 60% among 30-45 year olds, 67% among 46-65
    year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
    By gender, support for a national popular vote was 84% among women and 54% among men.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as
    every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –
    75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%,
    SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
    Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

    NationalPopularVote

    Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  • Nottheusual1

    Waking the sleeping giant. Husted for Dogcatcher!

  • KenKodger

    Good luck since the takers now out number the makers!

  • cinesias

    You’re an idiot.

  • KenKodger

    Prove that statement by proving that anything I have said is false!

  • http://www.facebook.com/brian.hester.127 Brian Hester

    Um, the federal government was involved in student loans before 1992, for one.

  • KenKodger

    You are correct. The most recent history of student loans by the Federal Government actually began in the 1950’s called the GI Bill and in 1965 for everyone else. There were probably some instances of Federal and State student loans before that time.
    My point, if you missed it, is that since the government has opened the treasury (your tax dollars) to pay for higher education, the costs have escalated to a much greater percentage BECAUSE of that money being available.
    College tuition and fees have increased 1,120 percent since records began in 1978. The rate of increase in college costs has been four times faster than the increase in the consumer price index.

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    Too much Ann Coulter, Ken.

    At least the Right’s “Takers/Makers” backlash shows clearly that Romney’s 47% comments hit the target with the base.

  • KenKodger

    And because of Romney admitting he probably would get very few of that 47% to vote for him, it is ok to agree that Ryan’s plan was the equivalent of “pushing grandma off a cliff” (a complete lie)? or of accusing Romney of causing the death of a caner victim (a complete falsehood)? Just how many lies are you willing to make to win the vote, a game? Is that how your team wins sports? Life?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000082806099 Stephanie Eaton Agosta

    you never played a sport, I can tell. you are too wimpy.

  • KenKodger

    I do believe i honesty, don’t you? Sure lots of things happen in sports that are illegal but does that make them correct? Are you proud of winning as a liar?

  • http://www.facebook.com/brian.hester.127 Brian Hester

    You believe in honesty and you support Mitt Romney? Jeep ad. False. Welfare work requirement? False. Romney’s campaign has been one lie after another.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000082806099 Stephanie Eaton Agosta

    the myth of the taker-make…a tale of two cities.

  • KenKodger

    I absolutely agree that electoral votes SHOULD be allocated based on Congressional District – this would be much closer to the intent of the Constitution.

  • toto

    Republican legislators seem quite “confused” about the merits of the congressional district method. The leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their congressional district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.

    Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

    If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.

    The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48
    state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either
    districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. Nationwide, there have been only 55 “battleground” districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

    Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of
    electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

    Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

    Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

    A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

  • KenKodger

    I do not want all votes to be of equal value especially since the takers now out number the makers! How do you think that will end? Do you want to live in Greece or worse Rome? If you do not think that can happen, you do not understand history. Suggest with your mind you might actually gain some proper perspective if you read Niall Ferguson’s “Civilization: The West and the Rest”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/p0haku Drew Humberd

    You heard it here first: “I do not want all votes to be of equal value.” Sounds about right for your demographic.

  • KenKodger

    I am only saying that the one man, one vote rule will lead to our destruction. Just how many examples throughout history must you have before you believe that the Founding Fathers gave us a Republic for Democracies have never worked. When the masses can vote themselves “free” money that just can not end well!

  • http://www.facebook.com/brian.hester.127 Brian Hester

    You can’t say that you care about the Founders’ intent and say you oppose the idea of one man, one votcally designed to be based on population so that the congressional districts would be equal to population throughout.

  • http://www.facebook.com/brian.hester.127 Brian Hester

    Really, Ken, the original intent of the constitution was that Senators be elected by state legislators, women couldn’t vote, and African-Americans were counted as 3/5ths of a person. But you know what the other intent of the constitution was? That it could be amended by future generations.

    What there is absolutely no historical record of, however, is that the founders intended for the electoral college votes be awarded on a congresional district basis, as evidenced by the fact that no State did that at the time and gerrymandering was something the Founders were concerned about.

  • KenKodger

    Article II states that each State shall appoint in a manner as the Legislature directs, a number of ELECTORS. Sounds pretty close to what we have considering how our country has grown over the years. If you wish to argue over the 10,257,000+ pages written concerning this – not me. My intention is to understand how things should be operating to give persons the most value for our energy expended AND the bigger and more complicated is government, the more inefficient is the systems under which we live.
    How can anyone defend spending money we have to borrow from China? It all starts with accepting bad economic ideology from all parties!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jd-Overton/1358258612 Jd Overton

    Obama must use his machine to mow down the rest of Republicans in 2014.

  • KenKodger

    Yes, and advance our rode to becoming Greece! Good luck young man, you will regret your vote for Obama soon if you pay your own health insurance; later when you are 65 and are told you are too old for a “free” knee replacement.

  • Clecinosu

    Husted: “Forget the people. Let their land vote!”

  • KenKodger

    That is a great idea!

  • toto

    Maine and Nebraska voters prefer a national popular vote method.

    A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
    In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
    * 71% favored a national popular vote;.
    * 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and.

    * 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all
    of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes
    statewide).
    ***
    A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
    In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
    * 60% favored a national popular vote;.
    * 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and.

    * 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all
    of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most
    votes statewide).

    NationalPopularVote

  • toto

    Republican legislators seem quite “confused” about the merits of the
    congressional district method. The leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their congressional district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.

    Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

    If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and
    less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system.
    In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts.
    Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.

    The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. Nationwide, there have been only 55 “battleground” districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

    Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

    Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

    Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

    A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal
    and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate
    who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

  • KenKodger

    The Constitution has given us our freedoms and our economic prowess – stand by it or perish as a country as all have done before us throughout history!

    Still recommending you read Niall Ferguson’s book “Civilization: The West and The Rest”.

  • toto

    A survey of Ohio voters showed 70% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
    By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 81%
    for a national popular vote among Democrats, 65% among Republicans, and 61% among Others.
    By age, support for a national popular vote was 73% among 18-29 year olds, 60% among 30-45 year olds, 67% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
    By gender, support for a national popular vote was 84% among women and 54% among men.

    Most Americans don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or
    loses in their state or district… they care whether he/she wins the
    White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing
    side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered
    to their candidate. Most Americans think it’s wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the
    presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate
    state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and
    Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually
    every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

    NationalPopularVote

  • toto

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the
    candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in
    presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue
    state maps.

    When the bill is enacted by states with a majority
    of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President
    (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be
    awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular
    votes in all 50 states and DC.

    The presidential election system
    that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the
    Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary
    change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment
    by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in
    the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for
    President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the
    method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that
    only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current
    state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state
    legislative action.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The
    bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes – 49%
    of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

    NationalPopularVote
    Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  • KenKodger

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the
    candidate who out promises the most handout for “free”! That has never worked well for very long. If you do not have grandchildren maybe you do not care, but I do and Obama and his followers are going to destroy this country. We must all go back to ethical conduct for freedom is not a license to behave like spoiled children but will only exist if we all “do unto others as we would have them do unto us”! Do you want someone to take from you to give to someone who THEY think is more deserving?

  • CherMoe

    How soon can we vote out this criminal? And Kasich too? I don’t know if we can survive 2 more years. Look how much damage they’ve done in just 2 years. Their redistricting is a TOTAL JOKE!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1625591297 Mark Tackett

    You Sir, Are a Idiot.

  • KenKodger

    Read Niall Ferguson’s work “Civilization; The West and the Rest” and then judge! I am only saying that the one man, one vote rule will lead to our destruction. Just how many examples throughout history must you have before you believe that the Founding Fathers gave us a Republic for Democracies have never worked. When the masses can vote themselves “free” money that just can not end well!

    Of course if you do not read “Civilization” it is you who are the uninformed person!

  • http://twitter.com/Jamespgarner James Garner

    Yes, speaking as an Ohioan, I would certainly like my vote to mean LESS. Douche.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ed.liphart Ed Liphart

    Wow ken you sound like a bootlicker

  • KenKodger

    And by that you mean what?

  • Guy

    I think it’s a great idea and should be done by EVERY state!

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    So essentially you just want to have a parliamentary system like Canada and Great Britain?

  • http://www.facebook.com/shiner Steve Hiner

    I live in Ohio. What self-respecting politician would want to make his state LESS important???

  • http://www.facebook.com/BreniaBee S Sebrenia Brooks

    I am going to make sure I campaign for whoever is running against Husted…and I am going on a one woman crusade if need be…HE HAS TO GO..AND BOEHNER IS NEXT

  • Ohio_Bred

    Anything to protect the white vote as they quickly become a shrinking majority.

  • Gary Miller

    We need to vote this guy out as soon as we can.

  • http://www.facebook.com/randall.mccollum.3 Randall Mccollum

    Look at the Ohio map and the vote breakdown and you see that the majority of areas in Ohio voted Romney with almost exclusively the urban areas going for Obama. As one of the people who doesn’t live in Columbus, or Cleveland I think that breaking down the Electorial college votes is a great idea. Doing by congressional districts may not be the right answer, but allowing the metropolitan areas decide for everyone is the same thing that the electorial college was formed to combat on the national level.

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    So you’re saying we should divide up electoral votes by physical space instead of population?
    By that logic Alaska should be getting 15 times as many electoral votes as Ohio because it’s 15 time larger.
    Instead, Ohio gets 18 and they get 3 because we have 15 times more people.
    That’s how the system works – and should work. Except in Ken’s imaginary world where only rich landowners get to vote.

    Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

  • http://www.facebook.com/randall.mccollum.3 Randall Mccollum

    That is not what I said at all but nice try to make someone wrong by trying to say they said something they didn’t. I personally thing by vote percentage., if you get a cetain percentage of the vote in a state you get that percentage of the electoral votes.

  • Darte Asbell

    all congressional districts should be redrawn by non political means – squares sized to hold equal portions of population comes to mind

  • http://www.facebook.com/rob.felber.5 Rob Felber

    ASSHOLE!!!!!

  • KenKodger

    I take it you are an Obama supporter!

  • Dana Carpender

    Why does Jon Hustead hate America?

  • http://www.facebook.com/gruenhagen Malachi Gruenhagen

    So Jon Husted’s big plan would have given Romney the majority of Ohio’s electoral votes, even though Obama won the majority of Ohio’s popular vote? If we split the electoral college vote then it should be a proportional split, not one based on gerrymandering. Perhaps the Republican Party could have won Ohio if their leadership had focused more on being inclusive, compassionate and honest than on committing libel against the President. It is an outrage that my republican friends are represented at the national and state level by such poor leadership from their party.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Johnson/100000200112663 Michael Johnson

    If they had never let Ken Blackwell steal ’04 after appearing with the CEO of Diebold to announce their plans ahead of time, maybe the scrutiny wouldn’t have been so great. And had Husted not attempted to completely screw over the system for early voting, in a flagrant attempt to suppress Democratic votes, he might not have been criticized and made to lookk like an idiot by the courts. What a fracking tool.

  • dsantoshama

    I’m puzzled…can someone explain to me why Husted would want to adopt a change in elections law that would make our state irrelevant? Seriously.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!