Why I Vote for Republicans (Mostly).
My voting is primarily driven by my conservative principles of personal freedom, limited government and American Exceptionalism. The issues are more important to me than the person’s gender, religion, sexuality, ethnicity and, to some extent, character. I lean mostly – but not exclusively — to the Republican Party as the best vehicle to advance my beliefs – although not always the perfect vehicle. I will support – and have supported — Democrat candidates.
On top of the list of things that keep me in the GOP camp is the Democratic Party drifting toward socialist – and even communist policies. I am a free-market capitalist. It is the means by which we the people determine economic choices – not the officeholders and bureaucrats in Washington or some state capital. Free-market capitalism has been the economic system that has produced the greatest success for the nation – and the best standard of living for the people. Socialism – and communism – oppress the people and are doomed to failure because they are unsustainable by their very nature.
The more specific contemporary issues that keep me supporting Republican candidates for the most part include (and let us start off with an easy one):
- A Powerful Regulator Central Government. Democrats are the antithesis of limited government. They are the promoters and protectors of an increasingly powerful regulatory central government run by an ensconced bureaucratic ruling class. The more distant the government, the less influence we the people have. Yet, under Democrat administrations, the federal government has become a regulatory behemoth – taking over powers, functions and services once the domain of state and municipal governments.
- Men in Women’s Sports. Allowing self-proclaimed transgender women (men?) to compete in women’s sports is nonsense … period. Democrats often frame this as protecting transgender rights and inclusion. But 69-75% of Americans believe as I do — that athletes should compete on teams matching their birth sex. The opposition is strongest among Republicans and independents, but even a majority of Democrats agree.
- Voter IDs. This is just common sense – so common that polls indicate that more than 80 percent of Americans favor voter ID requirements. Democrat claims that ID requirements are racist is more nonsense. Blacks vote in greater percentages than ever since Democrats ran elections in Dixie. This just another example of Democrat policies opposing voting security – such as ballot drop boxes and ballot harvesting.
- Sanctuary Communities. Such “sanctuary” policies only serve to protect people who are are in the United States illegally (including violent criminals). In fact, sanctuary policies are an enticement for criminals. If it were not a policy, it would come under “aiding and abetting” criminals. People who are in the United States legally and have no criminal record have no need for protection from the law.
- Open Borders. President Trump secured the border expeditiously after taking office – proving that it could have been done. Democrat favored open borders have produced the humanitarian and civic crisis we are dealing with today. Millions of Americans have suffered from thefts, stolen IDs, fatal accidents, drug addiction, assaults, murders, rapes, car jackings and other crimes at the hands of illegal aliens – all the result of Democrat open border policies.
- Weak Law Enforcement. As long as I can recall, the GOP has been the law and order party. Democrats have historically coddled criminals. District Attorneys in the major Democrat-run cities have used “prosecutorial discretion” to not charge criminals. The courts have been revolving doors for street criminals. More recently, Democrat administrations and prosecutors have de-criminalized crime. In some places, stealing goods worth less than $900 is no longer a crime. In riots, the vandals, the looters and the arsonists are rarely prosecuted. Democrats have turned attacking police from a crime to a right.
- Defunding Policing. Along with weak law enforcement, Democrats have pushed to defund police – either by direct reduction in budgets or by diverting funds to social services. Democrats often claim that they do not favor defunding police, but the record speaks louder than their claims. Among the cities that have cut police budgets and/or diverted funds to social work are Austin, Texas, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Los Angeles, California, New York City, New York, Portland, Oregon, San Francisco, California, Denver, Colorado, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Baltimore, Maryland, Oakland, California and the list goes on.The radical left wing of the Democratic Party has called for cutting off all funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
- Progressive Tax Policies (and increased taxes generally). One of the provisions of limited government is limited taxes. Sticking it to the super wealthy has always had a class warfare appeal but has never proven to be beneficial to anyone. I have written in the past of my preference for ending the income tax and replacing it with a slightly progressive national sales tax. The wealthy would pay more taxes because they buy more – and no loopholes. The national income tax – tied to automatic withholding – has enabled the exponential growth of the federal government.
- Censorship of Social Media, etc.. I am a free speech extremist. The Constitution does not protect all speech – inciting violence, slander and perjury, for example. But once we police speech that is offensive or unpopular, we lose our individual freedoms. Democrats do just that – with calls for censorship and the establishment of “safe places” where snowflakes do not have to hear things that wound their fragile egos. Even though I believe much of the news media deals in misinformation, I would not censor it.
- American Foreign Policy. I believe that America should be the shining light of democracy and freedom to the world. I believe that American Exceptionalism is a real concept – not perfect, but real. That means that America must provide leadership internationally – economically, commercially, politically and militarily. I am not an isolationist. Democrats have had generally weak foreign policy – crossing red lines in Syria … President Obama did nothing when Russia seized the Crimea … weak response to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine … playing paddy cake with Iran … weakness against international terrorism. Democrats tolerated NATO members not paying their fair share. They praise the failed United Nations. And America picks up the tab – including unlimited and unsupervised foreign aid. Democrats favor reduction in defense spending.
- Climate Change. Democrats use the earth’s warming as a political money machine. Yes, the earth is in a warming cycle. The one percent of greenhouse gas produced by humans has minimal impact one way or the other. If we humans produced no carbon emissions and returned to the stone age, the earth would still be warming. The most prudent approach would be to engage in policies to mitigate that fact.
- Abortion. I believe in the right to life – and not based on religion, but on civil rights in a justice society. The individual in the womb is a vulnerable developing human being – just as much as a child right after birth. Democrats promote and protect abortion at all stages – even the unpopular late-term abortions.
So … here is a dozen reasons why I lean to the Republican Party. Make no mistake. I do not agree with all GOP policies, positions and actions. I do not agree with everything Republican politicians do – especially those who function as Democrat-light. I do not always agree with all fellow conservatives on every issue. My political opinions and my vote are based on my foundational conservative philosophy – something I share with the Founders according to their writings, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
We have historically been a right-of-center nation – and that has been our strength – the secret sauce. In terms of my commentaries, I call them as I see them.
So, there ‘tis.
I was a democrat for a very long time my wife is a Republican I stop being a democrat when Jimmy Carter gave complete pardom’s to Vietnam draft dodger’s and being a Vietnam combat veteran that told me where the democrat party was headed right down the path to being communist.
And they have arrived
That was a Danger clone that Joe allows. The frank Frank says
I appreciate Larry reminding me why I vote for Democrats. I do agree we go too far, went too far before Trump 1.0, and are currently paying the price in Trump 2.0, a price higher than the battle of the 60’s and 70’s. Back then, we were the party of the working class, the Union class, and then we went to college, became the middle management class, did what we wanted to, left the working class out, didn’t listen, and paid the price. I would say, oops, shit happens, but we do this again and again, over and over. We still have the bigger tent, your tent is smaller, but we lost a lot of the working class. We might be elite, professional, office types, but all we did was replace the factory class with a middle management office class. Traded our union overalls for a suit. If you feel elite is better educated, therefore more affluent, and looking for progressive social programs, and that we didn’t listen, travel in packs, take workers for granted, think everyone should and will go to college, well, we paid the price for that thinking or lack thereof. We are the office elites, we are in packs, by definition; we think about community because we are the city, we look to government for to lend a helping hand, not a hand out believing a rising tide lifts all boats.
Larry got it right, America leans towards center, perhaps a bit right, and we leaned left, pretty hard, and paid the price. Larry touts his conservative principles of personal freedom, limited government and American Exceptionalism as making him a Republican, yet he holds the largest deficit in history, perhaps of the planet. His economies suffer as compared to Democrats. Many articles like the 2024 EPI “New report finds that the economy performs better under Democratic presidential administrations” litter the landscape. They do give credit to lower taxes spurring future growth, but who can prove that? Likewise, the man against socialism supports the Felon King who:
Approved Nippon Steel’s $14.9 billion acquisition of US Steel, only after Trump secured a “golden share,” granting him (or a designee) veto power over major decisions—functionally, a controlling stake.
Trump’s Department of War is spending $400 million in taxpayer funds to buy 15% in MP Materials, a California company that harvests rare earth minerals. The arrangement makes the government the firm’s largest shareholder virtually nationalizing the company.
Trump crafted an export control deal for Nvidia and AMD to sell artificial intelligence chips to China—on the condition that they pay the federal government 15 percent of the revenue. The conservative National Review called this “extortion” and a “lurch toward state-directed capitalism.”
Commenting on the chip deal, Cato’s Clark Packard said, “There is no statutory basis for these companies having to pay a share of their Chinese sales revenue in exchange for their export licenses. … Beyond the troubling legal questions, the deal with Nvidia and AMD reeks of more crony capitalism.”
Trump administration announced it is acquiring 10 percent of Intel stock in exchange for $9 billion in federal grants the tech company was slated to receive under the CHIPS Act. This makes the government the largest Intel shareholder. Walter Isaacson observed, “You’re seeing what is really state capitalism here (socialism), where the government is interfering in all sorts of ways in corporate decisions, whether it be pricing, whether it be Coca-Cola, whether it be Intel, and maybe taking a stake in it.”
Rand Paul cautioned, “Today it’s Intel, tomorrow it could be any industry. Socialism is literally government control of the means of production.” Cato’s Scott Lincicome described it as “a dangerous turn in American industrial policy.
Trump demanded the resignation of Intel CEO Lip-Bu-Tan, suggested Goldman Sachs leadership find other work, and, according to Fortune, has “publicly called out and humiliated” executives at JPMorgan, Bank of America, Walmart, Apple, and Harley-Davidson. Trump has also fired Fed Governor Lisa Cook, pressured Chairman Powell to resign, and dismissed the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner after claiming jobs data were “RIGGED” to make him and Republicans “look bad.” IOW – he’s using the bully pulpit to control the free market.
Socialist no: but combined with his attack on the press, his censorship of the press, his complete disregard for the 1st, amendment, and his militarizing of our domestic police forces —- I think he looks like a communist in words and actions.
But Larry’s dream is regressive and regress I have not, will not. Both China and Russia rely on use-based VAT taxes, China heavily. That should tell you something about Larry’s thinking.
Next I will look at Larry’s tax dream that is crushingly regressive, favors only the rich, and, most important, is unfair. Any tax you make will created winners and losers, can’t be stopped. The best you can try for is fairness, that the losers will say, “damn, well, at least it’s not totally unfair.’ Larry’s regressive use tax is unfair.
Just picking on Larry’s silly consumption tax.
Larry starts with “sticking it to the super wealthy has always had a class warfare appeal but has never proven to be beneficial to anyone.” He offers no evidence, no proof and the math does not seem to pass a basic sniff test. Beyond his own emotional baggage, how does he even know? He does not even attempt to show the math that supports this lunacy. Here are the actual facts on US marginal tax rate for top bracket rich in recent history: 1917–1918: 67% to 77% (World War I payments), 1932: 63% (Great Depression), 1944–1963: 94%-91% (peak rate for two decades), 1965–1981: 70%, 1982–1986: 50%, 1988–1990: 28% began the Reagan short-sighted legacy of lower taxes helping create rising deficits beginning our current trend that Reagan started after 35 years of success with less deficits and less debt from The Greatest Generation, 1993–2000: 39.6%. (Bush raises taxes to correct Reagan’s debt-fueled disaster and gets hammered in the election), 2003-2025 35%-39.6% (today’s rate is lowest in decades while Trump set our record highest deficit ever). Trump’s deficit is GOAT; Biden’s not far behind and Obama set the stage with the Great Recession deficits. And we never pay them down.
I would think Larry could find a beneficial economy for at least one year somewhere between 1944 to 1986 when Republican and Democratic administrations were “sticking it to the super wealthy.” Not one of those 44 years was beneficial in Larry’s mind. At least that’s what he claims. Ridiculous.
But let’s look at Larry’s world. This is a consumption tax, plain and simple. And Larry’s theory is that the rich consume more, which I just showed is not quite true. Thus he will need some level of a progressive consumption tax to make it mathematically work. Love to hear how he operationalizes that one, He can’t.
Let’s see what the world thinks. Larry’s concept is most used by OECD countries; his top example is Chile that gains 54% of revenue that way. Yeah, let’s be like Chile. Next, it’s Columbia at 45%. And then Hungary, Latvia, Turkey and Estonia —- oh yeah baby, I want economies like those. And note — the top level is 54%, no one floats their boat on a consumption tax alone, or even majority of the revenues.
It’s clear that taxing the wealthy is an American as apple pie, and that many a good year, as in beneficial, has resulted. It’s also clear that, using Trumpian spin, mostly shithole countries rely on a consumption tax and NO ONE relies mostly on a consumption tax.
That’s because it’s a stupid, regressive tax, that should never be the main lynchpin of any taxing strategy. And it is not. Except in Larry world.
Larry writes: “I have written in the past of my preference for ending the income tax and replacing it with a slightly progressive national sales tax.” Again: basic math sniff test failure. Slightly progressive sounds like some weasel wording for trying-to-fix-regressive. Maybe Larry’s slightly pregnant? He drones on with a fact you cannot deny: “The wealthy would pay more taxes because they buy more – and no loopholes.” Gee, he has that system today, it’s called tariffs as conservatives say one thing: lower taxes out of one side of their lying mouths, and then tax you more with tariffs out of the other side of that lying mouth and tell you that you are not paying a tax. And “no loopholes” can be accomplished in any tax strategy. Of course the rich spend more, the amount is not the point. Is what we tax them fair — no matter how much they spend or pay in taxes. Is it fair?
My contention is that it’s not what you spend, it’s not what you pay in taxes, it’s what you get to keep, to play with, the amount of discretionary spending left over after the tax bill and basic needs expenses come in that best determines fairness. If you tax the poor guy every time he spends, and all the poor guy does is spend every last dollar he has for basic needs to survive at 65 degrees of heat. And then the rich guy spends four times as much to survive on prime rib and campagna, at 72 degrees of heat, and has 80% of his income leftover for the fun stuff: is that fair? The rich guy gets 80% of fun and the poor guy, nada. Could not the rich guy chip in a little more to MAGA? To pay down the debt?
The real problem here is runaway spending by our Congress, spending beyond our means by our President (any party), on top of bad returns on much of this spending given we can’t charge ourselves enough in taxes to cover what we spend, what we owe.
“The national income tax – tied to automatic withholding – has enabled the exponential growth of the federal government.” No Larry, Congress did that. Both parties. Putting gas in the car does not force you to drive over the speed limit. Owning a gun does not force you to commit murder unless you are on ICE. Revenues do not force you to spend; Congress controls the purse strings.
Taxes do little to spur growth when you can borrow all you want, have deficits that go through the roof, and still can be re-elected. That’s the people speaking about desire, a natural thing, and our leaders shutting up about fiscal responsibility, a cowardly thing. Team Larry has proven that being conservative and being fiscally irresponsible are not mutually exclusive. He owns the largest deficit in history. He owns the largest spending in history. He does it all the time, over and over while telling you it’s Democrats fault. And he’s doing it again. He likes these policies. But if you think deporting 20M brown people will make you richer, will open incredible job opportunities, you be smoking something. It’s just pure expense for very little profit. This is not a bigger, better, deal.
Deport your GDP and and expect to make it up with PFM (pure f-ing magic) has never worked anywhere. Trump is already scrambling to make up revenue. Will get worse as some tariffs fade away. My taxes have gone up more with Trump 2.0 than the last four administrations. Not income, but in many other places. May not all be Trump, but they are all on his watch. The tariffs are a hit to my economy; they are a tax, PERIOD. I’m also being gigged everywhere with new taxes but not on income. Means testing Social Security, Medicare IRMAA tax, little hits everywhere. New Part D “out of pocket” spending looks like a tax. They claim the BBB lowers taxes, but all I see is a tax death by a thousand cuts, just not in income tax. And most of the BBB cuts require incomes a few dollars short of my good fortune. I get a major hit for a minor success in investing. Meanwhile, Trump is raking hundreds of billions in taxation-without-representation tariff taxes. It’s how he is floating the ICE, DHS, army to deport 20M of our GDP adders, an expense without a profit. Trump is floating the deficit on tariffs. Without the tariff tax, Trump’s deficit is higher than Biden’s 2022, 2023, or 2024 deficits. My social security is being means-taxed for the basic amount, plus my Medicare portion is taxed for thousands each year. My Part D now has a 2,000 Out-of-Pocket that they tout as “not a deductible.” Looks like a tax to me. Deductible or out-of-pocket, either way, my bank account is down $2K. I used to deduct SALT: now it’s capped and I pay another few grand. The BBB claims it makes SALT better, but I still cannot deduct all of my SALT so I am still worse off than I was before Trump. I used to deduct WAH expenses, gone with Trump, investment expense, gone with Trump, just more tax increase to me, thousands. Taxwise, I was better off before Trump for taxes; he’s not raising income taxes, but he’s killing us with a thousand little tax knives coming in from all directions with tariffs at the top of the list.
Wait until you see what happens when Larry scraps income tax and goes for a use-tax, a most regressive plan that hurts the lower incomes and benefits the upper income classes. Again, that’s just the basic math of it all. Larry’s weasel wording about “slightly progressive” is an admission of the regressive nature of a use tax.
Larry looks at this ass-backwards telling you the rich spend more, so taxing on spending means they will pay more. Of course, that’s obviously true in an aggregate. Same is true with income where we use progressive rates in an attempt at better fairness. Larry’s method depends on more spending to do that and he portends that the rich spend more, so there it tis. But spending is an option; you do it or not, you can spend more or less. Except we all have to spend a basic minimum to survive; you don’t spend it and you die. The rich can cut back at any time and survive quite well. So yeah, they spend more but they can cut more spending too.
The rich make more, the rich spend more. No duh. Amazingly though, if you look at it on percentages, Larry’s plan screws you royal, and not in a way that will make you smile. Under Larry’s plan, the rich will spend a smaller percentage of what they make to survive and you will pay a larger percentage of what you make just to survive. That means you keep a smaller percentage of what you earn than the rich who keep a larger percentage of what they earn for discretionary spending, or fun. And the amount you have for fun is smaller too. That, IMO, is less fair than a progressive income tax.
Here’s an example: $84K is median income, I will use $100K to make the math easy. Americans spend about $75K to survive leaving $25K or 25% for discretionary spending. While the $75K survival rate does not change dramatically with income shifts, the percentage for discretionary changes a lot.
About 1M US citizens make over $1m a year. If you use the same math, they spend $750K to live and have $250K for discretionary spend versus the little guy’s $25K. But the $750K for basic living is bogus as if the rich guy will have 10 times more of everything for basic survival. Hey, I can believe more, but not that much more. You can look it up but experts claim: “Frugal millionaires often spend between $9,000 and $10,000 per month on basic living expenses in retirement, focusing on sustainability. Studies indicate that many millionaires live in middle-class neighborhoods, drive modest cars, and spend relatively little on essentials like groceries, which average under $500 per month, even for high-net-worth individuals.” Think about it: if the house is twice yours, the heat is too. The food is more expensive, but they don’t eat twice what you do. Clothes too. But needing ten times more for basic survival; does not pass the sniff test.
No, most of the “extra” spending Larry harps on is discretionary, not mandatory for basic living. And discretionary can be cut at any time for any reason.
So, if we double frugal to $240K per year in spending, that leaves the rich with $750K for discretionary spending or 75% of what they make versus our 25K or 25% left over for the poor guy. That does not sound fair to me. You can work the math yourself to play with numbers, but Larry’s theory that they spend more is bogus UNLESS you factor in discretionary spending which is OPTIONAL at all times.
FYI: where the rich do spend more is investing, where hopefully they bring in even more revenue, so that’s really where the extra discretionary spending goes so I ask you —- is it fair to tax some of extra, EXTRA, for the public good, the same public that helped make that reality true for the rich guy. I can live with that, and yes, I will pay more than the poor guy. I have always said I hate to be taxed anything, but I have no issues paying for the public good IF the spending by the public in office is PROFITABLE. Not wasteful, not stupid, but profitable.
But I am a big guy and say —– use both methods. That’s what most countries using a consumption tax for and no country relies solely on a consumption tax as Larry desires. And feel free to put a VAT on top. Better yet, keep income, the way it is now, but nail the upper rates as we did in the past when we had big debts to pay down, important social programs that need to be made current. I mean unless you have an alternative to Social Security or Medicare. Relying a lot on a consumption tax is regressive given consumption is fairly equivalent across the wage brackets and discretionary is optional, plus for the rich, mostly investment. You can make consumption tax “slightly progressive,” but I promise you that winds up looking like a progressive income tax scheme if you want to wind up with the same revenues, but in all practicality, you won’t even get to 50% of your required revenues from a consumption tax, at least from a real world view; Larry’s 1965 vantage point is no better.