More Opinion by The Springboard

THE UPRISING OF THE AMERICAN PARTY "Clearly the voters are engaged right now, at least for sure on the republican side, and what they have concluded is that the republican party has not done their job. Thus, Donald Trump gets their vote."

Friday, January 20, 2012

Newt Was Brilliant in the CNN Debate

Whatever your opinion of former speaker Newt Gingrich, his response to John King in the recent CNN debate wherein John King chose to open the republican debate with a question about the accusation by Newt Gingrich's former wife that he wanted an open marriage was nothing short of brilliant. The standing ovation he received from the audience was more than well deserved. Even Mitt Romney deserved some kudos for his very poignant response, "John, let's get on to the real issues."

My sentiments exactly.

The sad fact is that so many of these debates led by the largely liberal media have been grossly out of touch with the many real issues we are currently facing as a nation, focusing on things that frankly aren't all that important. Just one example would of course be the "condom" question posed to Mitt Romney in a debate not so long ago. Newt made an obvious point when he said, "I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking republicans." Because that's exactly what the media has been doing by posing really silly questions in debates that should not only shed light on the proposed policies of the candidates vying for the presidency, but that should also shed light on the very real failures of the Obama administration, and the very real dangers we face nationally if Barack Obama is elected to a second term in office.

The media is supposed to be reporting the news objectively. In the world of journalism there should be no democrats, and no republicans. There should only be unbiased reporting of the facts. Something that is, without question, seriously lacking in the reporting of the news as it relates to our politicians.

No real news, of course. This has been going on for years. But I absolutely applaud Newt Gingrich for attacking back. Isn't about time someone finally takes the media to task?

Another thought comes to mind when I think of Newt Gingrich, because he's really been doing this since the very start of his campaign. He takes no prisoners. He tells it like it is. He does not parse his words. I find this interesting in the sense that one of the guys we all would have enjoyed seeing enter the presidential race was Governor Chris Christie. Without a doubt Christie would have responded in much the same way that Newt Gingrich had if he had found himself in a similar light.

Which leads me to another thought that perhaps there is still some steam in the Gingrich campaign to actually win the nomination after all is said and done. The fact is that what conservatives are looking for is someone who can go toe to toe with Barack Obama in a debate. Newt can do that. What conservatives are looking for is someone who can articulate his ideas and plans. Newt can do that. And conservatives are looking for a strong voice who can lead the party, and right the path we're currently on. I think Newt can do that too.

There's still time to make that determination. But in the meantime if we get one thing out of the CNN debate, my hope is that we get a return to a focus on the issues. It's time to get down to the brass tacks. It's time to stop wasting time talking about things that don't matter. We need to be talking about tax policy, economic policy, getting Americans back to work and how we accomplish that, how we restore faith in our president and our system of government, and how we regain respect from our allies as well as our enemies. And most importantly, we need to get on to talking more indepth about exactly why Barack Obama's policies not only do not work, but why they will harm our country if we continue with them.

Let's hope that happens.

Vapor is the New Smoke. Get the environmentally safe alternative to regular cigarettes at

Sunday, January 1, 2012

A 9-9-9 Plan At Home

In 2011 Herman Cain made the term "9-9-9" famous. It was a simple plan, even if in reality, the actual probability that he could have ever made it the reality was not very likely. I tend to think that even if he would have somehow found himself in the White House, the "9-9-9" plan probably would not have amounted to much aside from an interesting idea that would have needed quite a lot of scrutiny and ultimately, a morphing.

We'd have gotten something. But it wouldn't have been the "9-9-9" plan that Herman Cain campaigned on.

Still, I think as Americans we can use at least the simplicity of the concept of the "9-9-9" plan to right our own paths individually, and to make a strong effort toward getting our own financial houses in order. As we jump into 2012, I think we have a greater opportunity than we've had in a long time to set a new course for ourselves, and to pave a path that is far less rocky than it's been since at least 2008.

So what does a "9-9-9" plan at home mean? It means looking for simple ways to increase our earnings by 9%, decrease our spending by 9%, and reducing our debts by 9%. Granted, this is not something that's entirely easy. For example, how in the world do you increase your earnings by 9% when the average worker is probably lucky to get even a 2% increase in their wages?

Well, let's take a step back momentarily. I didn't necessarily suggest our plan would be 9%. What I said was we can use at least the simplicity of the concept of the "9-9-9" plan to right our paths individually, and to make a strong effort toward getting our own financial houses in order.

At the end of the day that number is probably not going to be 9%. But what if that number is just 1%? Can this still work out to be an effective plan? I think it can. Let's say you earned $40,000 in 2011. A 1% increase is a mere $400.

The point I'm making is that irrespective of whatever percentage number you choose, having a plan and being committed to that plan is what's important. And by the way, keep in mind as well that all of these numbers combined work together to acheive the goal. If you can increase your earnings, for example, by whatever percentage you decide is workable for you, why couldn't you also redirect that increase in earnings directly to savings? And what about debt reduction? What is the actual cost benefit to reducing debt? Paying less in interest payments of course. If you added it all up at the end of the day, I tend to think that engaging a plan like this would all benefit the entirety of the plan. Each part would complement the other, and compound the overall effect of the plan. The effective percentages would be higher than the base percentages overall.

Going into 2012 I think it's vital that we head ourselves onto a better path. We need to be more self-reliant. We need to be more capable of weathering a storm. We need to have more flexibility and therefore, more opportunity to get things accomplished, and make the path we're on less dangerous and risky as we've done in the past. Going into 2012 is a time to lay out all of our cards on the table and determine the best way to play them. It's a time to reflect on how we've played our cards in the past, and avoid the mistakes we made that helped us into this fine mess that we're only now starting to see ever so sligtly tidying itself up.

For you maybe it's the "2-2-2" plan. The numbers you pick aren't what's important. But if you want to see the most benefit in 2012, certainly picking the do-nothing "0-0-0" plan, or worse, picking the negative percentages plan from pre-2008 we were on will only get us right back where to we started in this whole fine mess.