It’s surprising to me that so many people believe that Obama is unbeatable.  Considering his record and the state of the economy the Obama campaign staff has a huge task ahead of them.  Here are just a few of the obstacles they will have to overcome.

1. Unemployment will be very difficult to fix. There may be 2 million fewer jobs now than when Obama took office, but the slide started during the Bush administration. At the end of 2007 there were over 146 million people working. At the end of 2011 that number had dropped to 140 million even though the number of working aged people increased by 7.75 million.

In almost every year since 1947 both the number of people of working age and the number of people in the workforce have increased. From the start of 2009 through 2011 the population increased by 5.8 million but the labor force decreased by a total of 670 thousand. All these idle people may cause unemployment to increase when hiring starts.(see BLS numbers HERE)

2. Obama now has a record and, more importantly, future plans. His record will become a big part of the campaign. Start with his biggest problem – the promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, when in reality the US debt is now over 100% of GDP. Add green energy jobs and high speed rail, both of which crashed spectacularly. Healthcare costs guaranteed to be under $1 trillion while lowering premiums, allowing people to keep their existing coverage and not adding to the deficit. Failed stimulus, unemployment much higher than promised, mortgage assistance programs that didn’t work, the housing collapse, a record number of Americans on food stamps and the S&P downgrade of US just to name a few.

The GOP should also focus on Obama’s plans for the future.  His website is strangely quiet on what he wants to do if elected so Republicans have a chance to define the argument and should start doing so.  Look at his past – it will predict his future.

3. Motivation – We have it, they don’t. Democrats can’t reproduce the swooning of the last election. Republicans not excited by McCain are chomping at the bit to turn out against Obama. Whatever the speech, whatever the candidate or issue, the tag-line is always the same – “We have to defeat Obama!” Many liberals, however, feel betrayed. Their president wasn’t as radical as they had hoped and didn’t accomplish the agenda many had set. This ‘failure’ won’t result in votes for the GOP but it will certainly dampen the enthusiasm of many hardcore liberals.

4. Gas (and other) prices. Newt received great response to his promise of $2.50 per gallon while the administration’s energy secretary has tied Obama with $8 gas. Prices will climb into summer especially if war breaks out in the middle east. There may not be too much the President can do about gas prices but most people don’t understand that. And you don’t have to understand the irresponsible printing of money to know that almost everything costs more than it did 3 years ago.

5. Conservative attacks and support are divided – for now. Until there is an official nominee the GOP and other groups will spend much of their time attacking each other and splitting support among candidates. Very soon the focus will shift to the same candidate and the same opponent. If Republicans enjoy a 50/50 shot even amid the chaos imagine what will happen when they focus their message.

6. The Tea Party. We tend to forget that these groups (along with many similar grass roots organizations) did not even exist during the 2008 election. Tens of thousands of people that have never been interested in politics came out for events over the last few years. These groups will see resurgence over the summer and will play a big part in the fall elections.

7. Healthcare. If the Supreme Court rules the mandate Constitutional then conservatives will rally to block its implementation. If the court says that the government overstepped its authority, the argument will be that Obama will use a second term to try and get around it. Either way this single issue will drive a large anti-Obama turnout.

8. What else can Obama do? He has already killed bin Laden (and probably Qaddafi as well), pushed through national health-care, “added back more than 3.9 million private sector jobs”, pulled the country back from the brink of financial collapse, repealed don’t ask – don’t tell, got us out of Iraq, authored a $789 billion economic stimulus plan, taken out Somali pirates, extended the payroll tax cut, and gave us cash for our clunkers. And he is still barely at 50% against GOP candidates with an approval rating in the low 40’s!

9. Lackluster Fundraising. Obama is not raising the kind of money everyone initially thought. Labor unions are not as rich as they were in 2008 because of high unemployment and other fights all across the country. Hollywood has not jumped in, and people in general would rather spend what little they have closer to home and on their own families. And the PAC money Obama criticizes but so desperately needs is really running light.

10. Obama barely won in 2008. He pulled out a decisive victory in electoral votes (365 to 173) mainly because 9 states turned ‘blue’ after voting Republican in 2004. But he did this while gathering less than 53% of the popular vote. Realize also that the 2012 election will play out under a new census that redistributed population centers and even shifted some electoral votes from Democratic to Republican states.

11. The Debt Limit. Although the current limit was supposed to last past the election, another debt limit fight may come back to bite candidates before November. For the first 6 months of 2010 the US debt increased by an average of $54 billion every month. This number has risen to an average of $135 billion per month in the most recent 6 month period. At this rate (barring the shell-game trick the Treasury pulled in June-July 2011) we will hit the $16.396 trillion limit around September or October.

12. The Misery Index. Not yet getting much airplay, this number is calculated by simply adding the unemployment and the inflation rates. Accept the administration’s unemployment (probably 8% by the election) and look at real inflation that removes big ticket items we rarely purchase like homes and cars and the Misery Index tops 16 percent – similar to what the Carter administration faced. See more about the ‘real’ inflation rate at the American Institute of Economic Research.

Bonus Reason – Scandals. Most everyone would agree the chances of a scandal with Romney are pretty low, but it seems that every few months we learn of some new controversy in the Obama administration. Fast and Furious, vacation trips, questionable loans to Green and other companies that donate to his campaign, GSA spending and, most recently, problems with the secret service. It seems likely that we will have several more before November, especially since it takes a few years before some of these come to light.

Carter Beats Reagan?

Of course he didn’t, but this might have been your conclusion if you had looked at polling data in March of 1980 when you would have seen Carter with a 58 – 33 lead over Reagan. In late May the lead was still 39 to 32. Fortunately people came to their senses before the election. But no incumbent president in recent memory has been this far behind at this stage of the game. Help spread the word. Encourage your friends. And, more importantly, be ready to vote in November!

Check various news websites and you will probably find different delegate counts for the Republican primary.  The discrepancy is not surprising – even the Party itself can’t tell you the delegate count at this point.  The reason is that the GOP consists of thousands of state, county and district groups, most of whom have their own rules.  The only thing we do know is that the final choice to represent the Republican Party for president in 2012 will be selected by the delegates at Republican National Convention at the end of August.

Here is how it works, for instance, in Georgia

Georgia will send 76 delegates to the National Convention.  The Republican Party in each of the 14 Congressional districts in Georgia will have their own local conventions and select three delegates each to send the national convention.  The State will then select 34 more delegates at its convention in May.  These delegates are very carefully chosen and will consist of Republican Party loyals who have been heavily involved with the party for years.  Competition is fierce even though participation in the National Convention will probably cost each delegate personally between $3,000 and $5,000.

The delegates selected to represent Georgia will be assigned (or ‘bound’) to candidates proportionally based on the results of the primary when they get a chance to vote at the National Convention.  This means that most of the delegates will be voting for Newt in the first round.  I don’t know all the state laws, but I know in Georgia that unless released by the candidate (or the candidate drops out) the delegates are required by law to vote for their assigned candidate.  To fail to do so could even result in criminal charges.  While the delegates are required to vote for a specific candidate during the first round of voting, many states will ‘release’ their delegates after the first or second round.

If things go smoothly one of the existing candidates will receive at least 1,144 votes and become the Republican nominee.  If no candidate gets enough votes to win outright, votes continue to be taken until one candidate gets the majority.  Georgia’s delegates will be required to vote for their assigned candidate through the first two rounds unless they are released by their candidate or their candidate receives less than 35% of the votes on the prior vote.  Once released, the delegates can vote for any candidate.  This is what Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are hoping for.

Newt will not drop out

Newt wants to be president, and his campaign has released his path to victory.  Step one is to simply stay in the race.  This is from an e-mail blast the campaign sent out:

“Santorum needs Newt to stay in the race to deny Romney as many delegates as possible to keep him from getting the required number of delegates before the Republican National Convention in Tampa. If that happens then Romney would fail to get enough votes on the first ballot to secure the nomination. After losing the first ballot, all the delegates are released and can vote for any candidate they choose.”

This is not completely true because the state rules vary wildly – as I mentioned in Georgia the delegates are bound possibly through the first two rounds.  But their plan is simple.  Keep Romney from getting the 1,144 delegates required to ensure the nomination in the first round of voting, then count on Newt being able to sway enough delegates at the national convention to win the nomination.  There are still others who are hoping that no candidate receives the majority during the early rounds and the GOP offers up a candidate who wasn’t even involved in the primary voting.  While possible, this is the most unlikely outcome of all.

Mitt Romney hasn’t won, and even if by some counts he has 1,144 delegates nothing is certain until the national convention.  There are challenges to delegate assignments in a number of states that will have to be resolved before the delegate count is certain, but if Romney ends up with well past the 1,144 number in early estimates then the outcome becomes more certain.  However to get to the magic number Romney will have to win 45% of all the remaining delegates.

Additional Resources:

Fox News has an excellent overview of the whole GOP race, with results from each state along with dates for upcoming votes, poll results and estimated delegate counts.  Click HERE to visit the Fox website.  You can even drill down and see vote results by county and view exit polling data.  CNN did a good job also – click HERE to see their scorecard.

Jason Thompson, the Georgia 7th District GOP Chairman (and an attorney) has written an excellent article that goes into much more detail, which you can find by clicking HERE.

Our company recently had to register a new business name, which in Georgia requires a new business license.   E-Verify is not yet a requirement for a license renewal (it will be in 2013), but the over 460,000 individuals who apply for a new license each year in Georgia may be surprised to find out that E-Verify is now a requirement for their small startup.

Here is a summary of some of the more interesting things we discovered along the way to becoming an E-Verify company.

1. E-Verify requires that you hire illegal workers

E-Verify checks employee social security numbers with records from the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.  But you cannot run a check on the employee until after they have accepted a position with your company.  You also must run this check within three workdays of when they started work.

This could be a disaster for a small company.  Suppose you advertise an opening and receive 100 resumes for the position.  You whittle this down to 15 candidates and schedule interviews.  Five don’t show, and of the remaining 10 you have three you want to call back for a second interview.  It has now been three weeks (at best) and you have selected your top candidate, and after a week of negotiations he accepts your offer.  Only now can you check to see if your new employee is legally able to work in the US – and if he isn’t, what do you do about the position?  What about the other candidates who have already accepted jobs?

2. And you may have to keep an illegal alien on the payroll for weeks

How long can it take before you can legally terminate the worker?  If E-Verify informs you that the employee may not be eligible you must notify the employee.  They then have 8 federal workdays to contact either the SSA or DHS (whichever agency could not verify the employee’s status) and present their case.  The government then has 10 federal workdays to let you know their findings – although they admit that it could take longer.  During that entire time… “The employee may NOT be terminated or suffer any adverse employment consequences based on the employee’s perceived employment authorization status (including denying, reducing, or extending work hours, delaying or preventing training, requiring an employee to work in poorer conditions, refusing to assign the employee to a federal contract or other assignment, or otherwise subjecting the employee to anything that indicates he or she is unauthorized to work)”

For the small company listed above, now you are in real trouble.  Not only did you reject other qualified candidates and hire an employee who probably isn’t legal, but you now have to continue to pay him and even train him, wasting money (and time) that you don’t have, knowing all the time that you will probably have to start the hiring process all over again.

3. E-Verify companies can actually hire as many illegals as they want (the Giant Loophole)

Here is one of the most surprising things.  E-Verify calls the notice from SSA or DHS that the worker could not be verified a “Tentative Nonconfirmation,” or TNC.  No action can be taken on the basis of a TNC.  Instead the worker has the right to contest the result.  If a company is mandated to use E-Verify but wants to hire illegal workers all they have to do is never have any employee contest their TNC.  The employer then simply closes the E-Verify case.  Here is the wording from the E-Verify website: “If you continue to employ the individual, close the case in E-Verify by selecting ‘The employee continues to work for the employer after choosing not to contest.’”  There you go.  Company participates in E-Verify but still hires illegal workers and the burden to keep illegal aliens out of our workforce falls back on the Feds.  And we know what a great job they have been doing with that.

4.  The Federal Government may be able to access your PC

Here is a statement you must agree to before you access the E-Verify system:

WARNING – You are about to access a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) computer system … there can be no expectation of privacy in the course of your use of this computer system. The use of a password or any other security measure does not establish an expectation of privacy. There is no expectation of privacy in any media, peripherals or other devices placed in or connected to the computer system.

To play it safe you should probably set up a special PC that is not on your corporate network to access this and any other government website.

5. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

As an employer, you must declare that you will NOT “… use E-Verify to discriminate against ANY job applicant or new hire on the basis of his or her national origin, citizenship or immigration status.”  This idea is all over the E-Verify website, with statements like “The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) investigates charges of job discrimination as it relates to an individual’s citizenship, immigration status or national origin.”

The first definition for discriminate in most dictionaries is “Recognize a distinction; differentiate.”  Employers are using the E-Verify system to select which workers will be able to work at their company and which will not.  This, by definition, is discrimination.  I guess it makes them feel better to state that it is not.

6.  Can an illegal alien collect unemployment after they are fired?

I don’t know the answer to this one, but I don’t see why they couldn’t apply.  The only thing it says about what you can do after taking all the steps to find out he is here illegally is “… you can close the case and employment can be terminated with no civil or criminal liability.”  But during the three or four weeks that the process took the illegal was an employee of your company.

————————————————-

RightSideBonus (stuff I discovered but couldn’t really fit into the article)

You have to prominently display E-Verify signs in English and Spanish where candidates will see them. We put them in our lobby, and, I must say – they look very nice (we spared no expense and printed them in color and framed them). But, unlike every other government site I have visited, it appears the E-Verify website is only in English. Score one for E-Verify, I guess…

You can only access the E-Verify system with Internet Explorer of Netscape. IE I can understand, but Netscape? Really?

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices - I didn’t even know such a thing existed. This sounds like another article…

Anytime I can work in a quote from “The Princess Bride” I know I have done a good job.

The damage was done last year when Congress voted to spend even more money that we didn’t have.  The result is that the US debt is now greater than the US Gross Domestic Product.

A Little History

 In August of 2011 Congress authorized a debt ceiling increase of between $2.1 and $2.4 trillion.  The increase was to happen in up to three steps, and as the ink was drying on the President’s signature the administration raised the total debt limit from $14.3 trillion to $15.2 trillion (an increase of around $900 billion) to match ‘cuts’ that were in the bill.  The cuts were mostly meaningless, and were spread out over 10 years (while the debt increase was instant) but it gave cover to those who wanted to vote for it.  The story was that any increase in debt would be matched with offsetting spending cuts

A Super-Committee was formed to come up with another $1.5 trillion in cuts by December 23.  If they failed this would trigger ‘automatic’ cuts of $1.2 trillion beginning in 2013.  The final spending reduction was to be added to the $900 billion increase from August.  To nobody’s surprise the committee was not successful, which means that the total increase is supposed to be limited to $2.1 trillion.

Where we are Today

The Federal Government announced on December 30th that they had had used up all but $100B of the debt ceiling increase.  That is $800 billion dollars in just 150 days, which means that the government is borrowing $5.34 billion dollars every day, not the $4 billion that is widely reported.

So the President now wants to increase the total US debt from $15.2 trillion to $16.4 trillion, or 112% of GDP.  Congress reserves the right to disapprove of this increase, but the President can veto such an action.  The “Resolution of Disapproval” is not as forceful as an actual law and would be something as simple as stating that Congress disapproves of the President’s exercise of authority to increase the debt limit.  Difficult to say since they voted for it in the first place.

The Republicans, especially in the House where they are all up for election, will probably decide to make a big show and vote against the increase, forcing Obama to nullify the vote with a veto.  This is the best political strategy because it gives them cover in November (or in a primary) and allows them to make Obama out to be the bad guy.  And since they won’t have the votes to override the veto everyone will get the extra money anyway.

You would think that Representatives who voted for the increase in 2011 will have a difficult time voting against it this time.  The excuse they might try is that they were made promises that were not kept, which isn’t true.  They were promised a vote on a balanced budget amendment and that a Super Committee would be put together to find cuts to offset the debt limit increases.  Both of these happened.  A balanced budget amendment was brought to the floor in November of 2011.  It was a bad amendment (see why HERE) but with the exception of a few true conservatives many in Congress voted for it anyway.  The Super Committee did not choose their own cuts but, in theory, the offsetting cuts will be made for them.

(Aside – The definition of Irony – Get a promise to vote on a balanced budget amendment by voting for a bill that puts the budget more out of balance.)

The only other excuse I see for those who were in favor of it in 2011 but now want to come out against it is that they didn’t really know what was going on the first time.  But the “I voted for it before I vote against it” doesn’t play well to conservatives, and no congressman wants to admit that they might have made a mistake.

There is one other option.  They could do nothing and just hope it passes by without notice.  But they should know by now that we are watching.

It’s worse than we thought.

You may have been sickened by the reports that theUnited Stateswas borrowing money to cover its reckless spending at the rate of about $4 Billion per day.  But with some information that came out over the weekend it is very easy to see that the rate has increased dramatically.

At the beginning of August, 2011, after much end-of-the-world talk, Congress agreed to allow the Obama Administration to raise the debt ceiling by as much as $2.4 Trillion.  At the time the limit was set to $14.3 Trillion.  The idea was that as Congress found new cuts the President could increase the debt ceiling.  The initial bill included $900 Billion in spending reductions (over 10 years, which will probably never happen).  The administration quickly took advantage of this and over the next few months upped the limit to where it is today – $15.2 Trillion.

But over the weekend the administration stated (fairly quietly) that it needed another raise in the spending limit.  They said that the $15.2 Trillion was no longer enough and they now needed $16.4 trillion, announcing that by December 30th they had expected to be within $100 Billion of the limit.

So – here is the simple math:

August 1, 2011 – Debt Ceiling of $14.3 Trillion reached

December 30, 2011 – Within $100 Billion of the $15.2 Trillion limit

That is $800 Billion dollars over a matter of 150 days, which works out to $5.333 Billion ($5,333,333,333) per day that we are borrowing.

When they authorized the limit to climb to $16.4 trillion they did it to keep it from being an election issue.  The idea was it would last until 2013.  Well, bad news for the Obama administration – at the current rate they will hit the max again before September.

If you are like most Americans you remember much ado about Republicans who voted for an increase in the debt ceiling (I still maintain, a huge mistake) in exchange for a chance to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution before the end of the year.  Well – how did that turn out?

What Happened to the 2011 Balanced Budget Amendment?

Remember the epic Balanced Budget Amendment that was to be voted on before the end of the year?  The one that the “tea party hobbits” wanted?

On November 18th, just after the national debt crossed the $15,000,000,000,000 mark, a  roll call vote failed to get the required 2/3 majority in the House.  Unless you were paying very close attention it probably escaped your notice.  For some reason Republicans didn’t want to make a big deal out of it, and the media didn’t find it interesting enough to put in the spotlight.  Maybe everyone knew it was justWashingtongoing through the motions.  Republicans had used the promise of a balanced budget amendment as their cover for increasing the debt limit earlier, and now nobody really cared whether it passed or not.  After all, we were told, it would have died in the Senate.

The Balanced Budget Amendment was rotten anyway

There were a few good points, but if you are going to amend the Constitution you need to do it right and not just settle.  The amendment required the President to submit a balanced budget, and it did allow an exemption if we were at war.  But, if 2/3 of Congress approved, the amendment allowed the budget to be balanced with a tax hike.  Simply let Democrats, or big government Republicans, get a majority and that hurtle would barely be a speed bump.

Republicans who voted to raise the debt limit earlier certainly felt they had to vote for the amendment as cover, whether they liked it or not.  To their credit, a handful of true conservatives voted against the resolution, including two of my favorites – Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin and Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.  Their main complaint was that it allowed the budget to be balanced by raising taxes.  Representative Gohmert said that given the choice he would rather have a cap on spending.  Paul Ryan had pushed for a tougher version of the amendment that would have also set tight caps on annual spending.  Maybe in 2012 we can elect Representatives who will follow their lead and we can get something that conservatives can be proud of.

1 – Should it be called a Tax Cut?

YES

If we believe the Social Security claim of the last 75 years, what Congress is talking about is reducing the amount of your paycheck that is contributed to the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program.  Most people see this as a ‘lock box’, where we are putting away money to be taken out when we retire.  If this were the case then it is really not a tax at all but what you might call a forced savings program.

In reality, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, where deductions from employees and payments by employers are used to fund all the Social Security obligations.  Any money not needed is put back into general use by the government in exchange for special government securities that are put into the Social Security Trust Fund.  By 2017 or so the amount collected will no longer cover the expenses and we will have to start ‘redeeming’ some of these securities.  So, in that respect, it is a tax cut.

2 – Will this reduce the benefits you receive when you retire?

NO

To answer this I had to figure out how Social Security benefits are calculated.  Here is the basic math.

You receive “credits” for salary that you receive.  In 2011 you receive one credit for each $1,120 of wages.  The most credits you can receive each year is 4, so by the time you have been paid $4,480 you have maxed out your credits for the year.  You must receive 40 credits to be eligible for Social Security benefits.

Once you are eligible, the Social Security Administration (SSA) looks at 35 years of your salary history.  They take the highest Taxed Social Security earnings that were reported to the IRS on your W-2 each year (which may not be the total amount of your paycheck) add it up and divide by 35.  If you have not worked 35 years then they fill in the missing years with ’0′.  This number gets divided by 12, reduced by a very complicated formula, and the result is your monthly benefit if you retire at age 67.  So the fact that the SSA takes out less money will not affect this calculation.

3 – Does the cut affect the employer’s contribution?

NO (it didn’t in 2011)

Many people don’t realize that while you ‘contribute’ up to 6.2% of your income into Social Security you employer does the same.  This means that 12.4% of your gross salary (from your employer’s point of view) is going to the SSA, with 1/2 showing up as a deduction on your paycheck and 1/2 being shouldered by your boss.  The portion taken out for Medicare (you and your employer both contribute to this as well) and the portion your employer contributes remains untouched.

4 – Will this cut affect the solvency of Social Security?

Not really

We all know that Social Security is a sinking ship, but this little hit probably won’t make it sink any faster.  The bill includes a “pay for it” provision increasing fees associated with mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – but if you read the bill the money collected “… shall be deposited directly into the United States Treasury.”  I don’t see how this helps the SSA.  What is worse, the additional fees are in place through October 1, 2021.  Hurray – Congress has found another way to tax us.

5 – Will the payroll tax cut only last two months?

Probably NO

Two reasons.  First, Congress says they want to extend it for two months so they can fix it when they come back (at the end of January) to last for all of 2012.  Second, there are huge problems for accountants and payroll companies with having a tax rate change for only two months.  All taxes (including payroll taxes) are computed quarterly, and all tax software is set up to handle this three month tax window.  Nobody really knows how to handle a tax rate that changes within the quarter.

By David Hancock

From June 24 to July 8, 2011 Georgians were given the opportunity to vote online for a new license plate design.  Web visitors were presented with 8 designs in the order shown HERE.

The three “In God We Trust” designs came in first, second and third and together received more than twice as many votes as the five other plates combined.  In fact the winner of the first round (click HERE) had more votes by itself than all the motto-free plates added together. The second round of voting, with the same background images but where none of the plates had the motto, ran from July 18 to August 8.  Although four and a half times as many people voted in the first round (412,098 vs 90,981) the State decided to take the results of the second vote.  The State maintains that people were confused over by the words “In God We Trust,” and that the motto influenced their voting.  It appears it did.  In fact, one of the plates came in third when it had the motto and seventh when it did not (you can see the final vote counts at the end of this article).

The text for the first vote web page did not mention that the motto was an optional label.  Here are the original instructions:

THANK YOU for taking part in the selection of the new Georgia general issue license plate design.  The winning design will be displayed on millions of vehicles in Georgia and wherever Georgia vehicles travel nationwide.  Online voting begins June 24, 2011 and ends July 8, 2011.

The winning design will be announced July 15, 2011 by Governor Nathan Deal, Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle and State Revenue Commissioner Douglas MacGinnitie.

Please use your mouse/cursor to select your choice of License Plate Design and click on “Vote 4 Me.”

“In God We Trust” was, by all appearances, part of the design of the three winning plates, but it was an element that the State decided to ignore.  If the state was truly looking for what the taxpayers wanted they had a clear winner after the first round of voting.  Instead they now present Georgia with a blank plate and an option to pay an extra dollar (ironically, a dollar with the words “In God We Trust” on it) to add “In God We Trust” to the plate.

Why not make the standard plate say “In God We Trust” and then let people pay $1 if they don’t want these words on their car?  Driving around 285, being passed by cars doing 70 mph, do you really want God to know that you didn’t want His name on your license plate?

Honestly I am a little surprised that the State was able to just sweep this under the rug as easily as they did.  I guess there are two schools of thought.  Give the people what they want or give the people what will make the State more money.  But don’t give the people a chance to vote for something if you are just going to ignore the results.

Note 1: “In God We Trust” was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956

Note 2: Click HERE to see the final vote counts