 |
|
|
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS
|
Armstrong Williams is called "one of the most recognizable conservative voices in America" by The Washington Post. Williams is a pugnacious, provocative and principled voice for conservatives and Christian values in America's public debates. |
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS' BLOG
Are you now being drained by the swamp, Speaker Pelosi?
Democrats and their much-to-be-desired leadership are simply falling victim to their own ideology. We certainly should be in no rush to excuse or bail them out of their legal woes.
The complexity of the tax code, the insanity of political-contributions laws — these are all brainchildren of the Democrats, not Republicans.
It’s particularly offensive when Democrats like Waters and Rangel get caught up in these Byzantine laws, because they are the ones who came up with them! They’re the ones who say, “Follow the money” when it comes to tying a vote or official favor to campaign contributions.
Conservatives say, “Let anyone donate as much as he wants to any candidate he wants for whatever reason he wants, make that process open and public, and then let voters kick out the bums they feel are abusing the system.”
Democrats say we must write laws to keep such contributions and favors from happening in the first place. Well, OK — looks like Waters and Rangel and many more got just what they asked for!
Mama Grizzly growing stronger
Sarah Palin continues to be a polarizing figure after her days as McCain's presidential running mate. Irrespective, a popularized Palin has resonated within the hearts of many Americans across the nation. Palin has rocked and shocked the national political climate for the upcoming November elections. She has resurrected GOP candidates to victory, raised a ton of money, and continues to be a potent political force that is both feared and admired.
Two years ago Sarah Palin was a divisive figure capable of scaring away even those on the fringe of voting for the McCain-Palin duet. She had botched big-stage interviews and fell victim to public scandals. McCain and his staff eventually turned on her. Irrespective, somehow a popularized Palin continues to connect with many Americans and has become their symbol of a possible new renaissance across the Heartland.
She is nothing short of a ball of fire that has creatively rallied groups, such as her Grizzly Moms, to stand up for conservative principles and be heard. More recently, she was able to turn election races around for conservative candidates in South Carolina and Alaska. The possibilities of what she can and has accomplished in American political theatre are endless and downright heart-warming to her devout supporters.
Does anyone now doubt Sarah Palin's increasing star power on the political stage? It’s somewhat reminiscent of President Obama’s. However, instead of reaching out to the esoteric intellectual left, she is reaching out to Independents / Conservative families with small-town values.
Love her or despise her folks, Mama Grizzly is a force that you must come to grips with.
California's latest spending outrage
It’s great to see that California, known for their uncontrollable government spending and large deficit, has the money to spend $578 million on a school just a year after they asked the government to bail them out. The school is the costliest in the nation and will be located in Los Angeles.
The school is located at the famous Ambassador Hotel, where presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. Obviously, administrators were looking for a posh palace for students that the entire community can marvel at. The school is capable of holding roughly 4,200 students, grades K-12.
I’m not quite sure what administrators are trying to do here. It seems as though they believe that by having state-of-the-art buildings that students will want to come to school and get an education. However, it seems like they have fallen victim to a superficial culture that prizes appearance over substance.
Many schools in the area have up to, and over, a 50 percent dropout rate. Not to mention, the area is home to a large illegal immigrant community — perhaps the largest in the nation. I’m not saying we shouldn’t spend money on our children. Why so much on the aesthetics of a building? We should be retraining our teachers instead.
Where does good ol' commonsense come in? It’s blatantly shameful that more effort isn’t being put into the quality of education our children receive. Clearly the California teachers' union has the state in a vice grip.
Apparently it's not that No Child Should Be Left Behind — it's that No Child Should Be Left Behind in a dilapidated school building.
Misleading talking points
New evidence from the Congressional Budget Office (CB0) proves that the Iraq War is not a demonic force that’s thrusting this country into economic chaos, as many popular economists and President Obama suggested. The American people were led astray to believe the war cost this nation $3 trillion, when the CBO states it was $709 billion.
When President Obama took office, Americans knew he wasn’t going to have it easy. Yet, he has used the false premises of frivolous spending on the Iraqi War to justify his spending efforts and our economic mess.
More specifically, Democrats have lead Americans to believe that Bush tax cuts, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the recession are the reasons for our current deficit. While in fact, the Democrats passed an $814 billion economic stimulus immediately while in office. This grossly trumps the $709 billion spent on Iraq.
So no, Iraq is not the fiscal giant that Americans were made to believe; and yes, Democrats need to start taking responsibility for their reckless spending.
As questions of Americans shameful of spending on our education system continue to be raised, it’s important to realize President Bush, under his two terms, spent more on education than he did on the Iraq war. The war was less than a quarter of what was spent on Medicare. Please, Democrats, get your facts straight and begin to own the problems that this administration is creating. Thank you.
The right to live
The initial stages of ObamaCare death panels have begun by targeting the 40,000 American women killed by breast cancer annually. The FDA has recommended rescinding government approval of Avastin, a treatment for later-stage breast cancer, due to its high cost. Avastin can cost as much as $88,000 annually, but can have significant results in expanding the life of those suffering.
The federal government needs to stay away from the personal health decisions of Americans. Yes, there are some who wouldn’t care to live longer after suffering from breast cancer. However, there are many women suffering from the illness who would like to spend every extra day possible with their families. Our government doesn’t have the right to withhold that from them.
It’s ironic that in the summer of 2010, in which our government has redefined profligate spending, President Obama’s FDA would decide to pinch pennies and recommend withdrawing the approval of the life extending drug despite 40,000 annual breast cancer deaths. Even more shocking is the silence of the American Feminist, as they abandon the many women that find themselves in this crisis situation. A recent search on NOW.org, the National Organization for Women’s website, appalled me — there wasn’t one hit on the issue of Avastin.
With a beginning like this, I’m not looking forward to seeing how the lives of Americans suffering from illnesses are at the mercy of government entities controlled by people who have never looked them in the eyes.
KISS
I am not yet ready to concede an optimistic economic future to the liberal Democrats without a fight. I am not an Ivy League economist, but we have been consistently successful in our 20 year old business. As a business owner, I always apply the KISS (“Keep it Simple, Stupid”) solution to intractable problems. I recommend that the President apply the KISS solution to America’s fiscal problems. The first KISS solution is “do not spend money you do not have.” That means no more spending programs, period. The second KISS solution is “cut budgeted spending until it is less than government revenues.” The third KISS solution is “stop borrowing money that our children will have to repay.” The fourth KISS solution is “to stop enacting regulations and taxes that discourage growth in the private sector.” The government generates much more revenue from a fast growing economy than it does from higher tax rates in a slow growth economy.
Of course the President is too sophisticated to apply the KISS solutions. The Ivy League trained leftist politicians and bureaucrats in Washington are much smarter than the rest of us. They apply discredited Keynesian theories and models that only PhD’s understand. The best example is how Congress justified borrowing $860 billion for a stimulus bill that was designed to put Americans back to work. Instead of keeping unemployment from increasing beyond 8% as intended, unemployment increased to 10%. You don’t need a PhD in economics to understand that borrowing from Peter to pay Paul will not solve your financial problems.
The KISS solution is a much more pragmatic approach to solving America’s fiscal problems than increasing spending across the board. I don’t know about you all, but I’m ready for some serious change comes November.
Williams is heard daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7pm-8pm and 4am-5am, M-F.
Change Club Med Environment at Club Fed!
Unleashing criminals from American jails onto American streets is determinately criminal. But still, the debate on American incarceration continues to flare up due to tough economic times and because our country spends roughly $50 billion annually to incarcerate public nuisances and dangerous thugs.
Shockingly, the annual cost per prisoner in California is $50,000. No wonder there has been a violent push for the privatization of prisons and the revamping of the American legal system.
The proposition that relaxing or changing laws will create fewer criminals, precisely because there’re fewer laws to offend, is shamelessly preposterous. Just punishment is the only deterrent which pragmatically prevents criminals from making a career of victimizing American citizens.
Turning prisons into productive businesses is a much better solution for the high cost of annual imprisonment, than loosening laws. Yes, that’s right! Don’t house criminals in facilities where, for many, amenities are better than what they had on the streets. Rather, they should be put to work doing hard manual labor in order to pay for their stay. This will change the financial and social landscape of the prison system in a hurry. We will notice a sharp decrease in recidivism and fewer taxpayer dollars would be necessary to subsidize the industry.
Something is terribly wrong in our nation when frightfully 1 in every 100 adults is locked behind bars. We are leading the modern world in imprisonments. Yet, most of America is relatively safe. If we truly desire to make America safer, we must change the Club Med environment at Club Fed.
Paying our bills
Surprise! America is being berated as a ticking time bomb. Economist Larry Kotlikoff recently wrote a piece for the Financial Times declaring America to be in worse fiscal shape than Greece, which had its financial system taken over. According to Kotlikoff, “The U.S. is bankrupt. Neither spending more nor taxing less will help the country pay its bills.”
According to an article by Nobel economist Paul Krugman in The New York Times, America’s “new normal” is slow growth whereby our children cannot expect to have it better than their parents. Where does that leave America? Surprise! America is being berated as a ticking time bomb. Economist Larry Kotlikoff recently wrote a piece for the Financial Times declaring America to be in worse fiscal shape than Greece, which had its financial system taken over. According to Kotlikoff, “The U.S. is bankrupt. Neither spending more nor taxing less will help the country pay its bills.”
According to an article by Nobel economist Paul Krugman in The New York Times, America’s “new normal” is slow growth whereby our children cannot expect to have it better than their parents. Where does that leave America?
Does anyone care that America will have to run a nearly impossible long-term budget surplus in order to pay its bills? Where are the alarmists to scream out that no matter how much our government lowers taxes or creates jobs, we still won’t make our bills? Are Americans willing to concede optimism about our economic future to the ruling liberal Democratic Congress and administration so they can impose a slow-growth Western European social welfare state on the U.S. economy?
Sadly, with so many Americans going through foreclosure and bankruptcy, I wonder if we are beginning to accept that maybe we are just in a time where paying bills is simply too difficult. If we can’t pay our bills, why pressure our government to do so?
Don't give Islamic extremists another victory at Ground Zero!
It’s a holistic pride within human nature that desires to shamelessly document all of our greatest victories with a sign of success for the world to see. The American flag on the moon is one of these glorious achievements that will be enshrined in history forever. This sentiment, which has been used to cultivate pride among nations, is being used against America with the building of the Ground Zero mosque.
Americans, and especially the families of innocent victims of the terrorist attack, have been tortured enough. No proud American should stand by to allow salt to be thrown into the wounds of our great nation and people again.
President Obama, in his speech Friday night after a White House dinner, is siding with Muslims in his usual fashion of favoring sophisticated philosophy over humanity. Our president is clearly more impressed with hearing himself speak rather than sympathizing with the people of America — he just doesn’t get it.
I am not trying to advocate for the practice of one religion in our free nation. Rather, I would like our country to recognize the sensitivity of the building of a mosque at Ground Zero. Let Muslims build another mosque anywhere else they want to in America. Let them practice there and be free within the confines of American law. But don’t let them throw dirt into the face of Americans and deepen the main of their tragic loss on 9/11 by building a mosque facing Ground Zero.
Need for Self Examination
The nastiness of Washington is an excellent example of how civility and respect have lost their way in our nation. With that truism in mind, I believe it’s time for a little self-examination.
For this author to continue to single out the Democratic Party over issues such as the health debate is a bit disingenuous, don’t you think? They did not start the “Death Panel” nonsense, for example. I think we all do our credibility and arguments a disservice when we continue to be partisan at a time when both sides of the aisle are mired in name-calling, prevaricating and pursuits that do not have the interests of the people they represent at heart.
Many of the Tea party folks are fed up with all aspects of Washington, as we all can understand and embrace in many respects. Historically, it started during the Clinton administration, continued full force under Bush, and not surprisingly, is part and parcel of Obama now. This is the reason for my daily blog. It is written in a dedicated way, so that we can elevate and make our elected officials accountable to we the people and not just to themselves. I strive to do this without the name calling, self righteousness, and a belief as if we have some monopoly on the only truth that will save us. Yet even the Right Side misses the mark from time to time.
The many virtues we hold dear have been ignored for years. That’s why we’re in serious trouble. We are all responsible in making these politicians understand daily that we're the true owners of government; they are merely caretakers, entrusted by us to serve the public’s interest. When this writer and others castigate the Democrats only, we make it seem like it’s a party problem rather than an endemic aspect of Washington culture. Republicans would do well to keep such things in mind should they secure the House come November.
If we are to save “our America,” we must put aside partisanship and first save ourselves from these bankrupt politicians. As political pundits generally and blog writers specifically, I and my colleagues should feel an even greater sense of responsibility to elevate our rhetoric and assess political situations in Washington more judiciously. We won’t always get it right, but if the tone in this town is to change, it must begin somewhere. And it might as well begin with me.
What happen to Manifest Destiny?
If we fast-forward a couple of millennia or so to the birth of the American nation, we once again see the influence of Christ as a central tenet in the political equation. Many of the early European settlers in this land were willing to uproot themselves from their homes in hope of finding a place in which they could practice their religion without interference from the government . In sixteenth-century Europe the Church had become wealthy and corrupt, and was in bed with the monarchies in wielding political power. Established religion had ceased to be a source of liberty and was used to enslave the masses. Thus, in seeking to remove religion from politics, the early colonists were not forsaking their faith, but in fact reaffirming it. And, in fact, Freedom of religion is the well from which all of the other freedoms we enjoy in this country spring.
Furthermore, it was Christ’s example which inspired the great acts of courage in the American Revolution. The writings of Thomas Paine and others look to god-given virtue as the qualification for selecting a leader, and rejected of the idea of divine right of Kings as a self-serving fallacy. Hereditary succession was viewed by colonists as a sure sign of corruption. The Boston tea party, in which colonists dumped the usuriously taxed products of Britain into the Boston Harbor, was an act of defiance inspired by Christ’s repudiation of the money-changers.
Many of America’s founders derived their national zeal from a sense of manifest destiny: a belief that God had given them a mission to govern this land in order to spreading democracy.
An Argument for a new tax system
The ascendancy of lawyers, bankers and political professions is as sure a sign of any that our society is becoming less free and more tyrannical.
In many ways, these professions have replaced scribes and Pharisees as the money changers in our temples. Just as the scribes and Pharisees interposed themselves between the average believer and God, so lawyers, bankers and politicians have interposed themselves between the citizen and society.
However, when we as individuals begin to open our hearts to one another and rekindle moral excellence as the primary social currency, the need for oppressive laws and taxation lessens. Not to mention the deadening impact lawyers and so many laws have on the cultivation of virtues in the first place.
It's to the point where we've stopped talking about what's right and wrong and more about what's legal or illegal — what one can successfully get away with, instead of what one should do. What's right or wrong hinges more on recent case law — whether Napster or the recording industry won, for example. When trying to determine whether a course of action is good for the soul or the community of which we're a part, it's more "What did the Supreme Court recently say?" than "What would Jesus do?"
Williams is heard daily on Sirius/XM Power 169, 7pm-8pm and 4am-5am, M-F
The Cost of Cheap Labor
In a very interesting way, the immigration quandary poses a deep question about the nature and viability of American democracy as we know it. On the one hand, Americans continue to view citizenship within the nation-state as a prerequisite to the full enjoyment of the rights, privileges and responsibilities that have come to characterize the American way of life. On the other hand, the basis of our economic system seems to require labor input at conditions of less than perfect liberty. Whether in the form of outsourcing jobs abroad, or the tacit agreement between government and corporate America to turn a blind eye to undocumented workers, we find ourselves deriving a large part of our livelihoods and consumer goods from cheap labor.
As it plays abroad, we attempt to break down the door to markets such as China, and open our markets to goods from these countries, yet find ourselves compromised when it comes to demanding that these countries respect the labor rights of its citizens. We are loathe to insist as a precondition of trade that China adopt minimum wage, maximum work week, and worker safety, because we are attracted to the price at which we can purchase labor and the goods that only semi-slave labor can afford. We have made the pragmatic decision in the past to form relationships with repressive regimes and therefore secure oil and other resources, only to have it bite us in the rear later on down the road.
At home, we have a tough time speaking with one voice about illegal immigration and its potential pitfalls because we are in love with the strong work ethic and skills we can employ at cheap wages --- wages which are depressed by the fact that undocumented workers have few options and cannot complain about low pay and poor working conditions without fear of deportation.
Create Jobs with Business Confidence
Supporters of extending the unemployment benefit unconvincingly argue that the extended benefit will stimulate the economy and thereby create jobs. This macroeconomic benefit would be more convincing if unemployment benefits were not a zero-sum transfer of money from the productive sectors of the economy. Realistically, these payments come from taxes on the employed who must reduce their consumption to pay the taxes; or from investors who finance the increasing federal deficit rather than financing productive companies that create jobs.
The best way to create jobs and reduce employment is to create an environment where business has confidence in the future economic outlook.
Unfortunately, most of the programs the federal government has tried over the past 18 months have not created business confidence. Job credits which subsidize the hiring of the unemployed who would have been hired anyway do not create confidence. Cash for operable clunkers that are replaced by subsidized cars do not create confidence. Additional unspecified federal regulation of Wall Street may sound good on Main Street, but it does not stimulate bankers to lend to or invest in American businesses. The $867 billion stimulus package allocated more to plugging state government deficits than proving opportunities to private business. Shutting down Gulf coast offshore drilling for six months may play well with the environments, but it does not help the hundreds of thousands of employees who lose their jobs as a result.
Virtues of the Individual
There are certain economic systems that promote the virtues of the individual more so than others. Although, at a certain level there will always be people at the top who succeed, there will always be another set of people on the economic fringe who are more vulnerable to the economic systems in which they live and work in. And, just as well, there will always be individuals who occupy the lower strata of the economic stratosphere that have little or no hope of obtaining a higher standard of living; either out of circumstances that are outside of their control or out of their upholding of a value system which keeps them there. So, in order to accurately access the value system of competing economic frameworks it is best to look at those on the fringe of either becoming something great or continuing in mediocrity.
Two hundred years from now capitalism and free markets will still be the best economic system to promote economic virtues of the individual. But can the same be said for any country fortunate enough to be founded on free market principals and foolish enough to follow a path of abandonment?
Who are “They”?
It’s hot outside. Too hot for a summer stroll or any sort of outdoor activity. So yesterday morning, I settled in for some riveting Sunday talk show action.
Aside from the usual histrionics surrounding the Sherrod racial episode and the “necessary dialogues” on race the mainstream media feels compelled to hold every other month just so it can sleep well at nights, the latest argument to follow in Washington is what to do over the expiring Bush tax cuts.
Specifically, in a matter of months, the tax rate cuts President Bush and the Republican-led Congress pushed through in 2001 are set to expire, returning the top bracket to its 39.6% rate up from today’s 35%.
I laughed out loud when talking heads such as Sam Donaldson of ABC News dismissively said of those who would be affected, “They don’t need the money. They won’t miss it.” Then others cackled in unison on the various shows. Talks of “them” and “they” and occasionally, the disdain in the pundits’ voices of the “mega wealthy.”
So just who are these folks that Donaldson and others refer to as “they”? I presume these journalists-turned-social judges are referring to top 1% earners in America, particularly those making over $250,000 as a family.
Folks, in Washington, DC and other major urban areas, that’s a lot of money, but it’s not “mega wealthy.” It might surprise our president that $250k jumps up real quickly, even for two GS-14 federal employees here in town. Would the labor unions really like to see federal workers be referred to as the uber wealthy?
I’d wager that Sam Donaldson and many of his colleagues fall into the richest Americans category themselves. Yet how come we never hear of Sam saying, “I’d be willing to pay more for…”? He won’t, because it undermines the value of his point and those like him if prime time journalists start referring to themselves as part of this elite income class. There's something surly about that, and prevents them from attacking said profiteers.
If they remain silent, they can parrot the Marxist rhetoric of Speaker Pelosi and others when referring to “Wall Street bankers” who cashed in million-plus bonuses. Yes, those payouts do occur. But it’s more the exception than the rule.
Think about it. Most of us know of at least 2-3 families who may make close to $250,000 in income. But many can’t name a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet just down the street in their neighborhood.
The point here is the mainstream politicians and media elites love to live in glass houses and throw stones at the folks in bigger glass houses, disregarding the glass while fixating on their relative size.
What apologists such as Donaldson fail to realize is that many small business owners, for example, don’t pay corporate income taxes. Their businesses aren’t big enough or structured that way. Instead, they earn “millions” on the books and are pushed into the highest individual tax brackets.
How will that spur investment and job creation? Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said yesterday that tax hikes on the richest Americans will have a negligible negative impact on this economic recovery. If I were advising President Obama, I’d fire him before some USDA employee. This is the same cabinet member who told a congressional panel he was an expert on the Great Depression, yet still managed to keep us in the ditch of America’s Great Recession.
It’s time to stop the politics of pronouns and start putting a face on “they.” It might surprise all of us that those individuals are the same ones we sat next to in church yesterday, and they don’t deserve what Obama wants to give them.
Final Thoughts on the New Racist in America
The ease with which the NAACP and other organizations dismiss the Tea Party debate by crying racism—and the vitriol reserved for those Black Americans who deigned to disagree—tells us that the same old racial fault lines remain in this country. While racial discrimination is nowhere near the insurmountable barrier it once was, we still can’t seem to get beyond the same old paradigms: Blacks must support the Democrats and anyone who thinks otherwise is labeled a racist--something we've seen reprised in recent months regarding Obama.
Why is it that White Americas are allowed to embrace political diversity and to come to their own conclusions about issues, but black Americans MUST move in lock-step with the Democrats? This refusal to allow the black populace to embrace diversity of political thought can only be described as racist.
In many ways, this form of racism is more insidious than the racism of the past—because it is more subtle. Whereas once racists marched down our streets in hoods, now they simply make us feel a terrible sense of guilt for even considering our political options. Even worse, many of our so-called civil rights leaders are willing participants in this subtle form of mind control.
Sadly, many of our so-called civil rights leaders have built their careers around convincing large segments of the black voting populace that they are forever victims of slavery. This is how they came to power in the 50’s and 60’s, and they continue to cling to this outdated message in order to secure their power. These old-school black politicians fatten themselves by feeding the black voting populace a steady diet of fear and victimization. To these leaders, nothing could be scarier than a black Republican because it threatens all of the assumptions that they rely upon in order to stay in office.
A White House consumed with race
For the life of me, I can't understand this White House when it comes to racial politics. They just can't seem to leave well enough alone. As if the incident between Harvard professor Henry Gates, Jr. and a Boston police officer didn't teach this administration enough about trying to show the country just how wise this president is when it comes to singling out black/white episodes and imposing his own brand of justice, we now have yet another one. This time, the zeal to uncover an injustice when nothing existed has trickled down to the Department of Agriculture.
By now, Hill blog readers are familiar with the story involving ousted USDA official Shirley Sherrod for comments she allegedly made regarding not doing enough to help white farmers seeking federal assistance. "What [the farmer] didn't know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was," Sherrod was recorded as saying in a recent speech to the NAACP,(which is an arm of the DNC) "I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him."
It was later learned her comments were taken out of context, but not before conservatives and liberals alike used the vignette to score points on both sides of the racial divide. Many groups didn't bother to learn all the facts before hurling accusations. The Democratic Party's NAACP was against Sherrod before they were for her. They should know better; after all, she did speak at one of their functions. Even White House press secretary Gibbs admonished the media for not asking the right questions, paternally claiming this to be a "teachable moment" for all involved. Please. It was this same administration that, just hours before, had to eat crow and apologize to Sherrod for running her out of her job on a rail so quickly her head was spinning.
If the White House was so measured in its approach, then why the need for the Agriculture Secretary himself to call Sherrod personally to apologize? Didn't the White House learn its own lesson months before with Boston? Just who was teaching who, Mr. Gibbs??
The point here is: this episode was more about questionable fact-gathering and amateur journalism more than the ugly face of racism. Yet it's symptomatic of a White House that is utterly consumed with race and all things racial. They see virtually everything through that prism, even when criticizing the other party through the likes of RNC Chair Michael Steele. It's to the point where it's clearly distracting and often embarrassing. I'd like to think the president and his team will learn from this mistake, but maybe the third time's the charm when it comes to race-baiting.
Russia, An Embarrassing Democracy?
An inside look at Russia might cause quite a scare. Set aside the fact that the Kremlin has adopted its own form of heavy-handed government in the past 15 years. Jailing the country's top entrepreneurs and private owners on trumped-up charges, followed by shuttering the major news outlets throughout the land. These aren't exactly laudable examples of a flourishing democracy in the East, let alone one of representative government.
Just recently, Russian prosecutors attacked the organizers of an art exhibition in Moscow for blasphemy. The prosecutors, who are part of a group of religious militant fundamentalists, are challenging the dynamic in Russia; from between a more militant church ruled state to a more secular one. The accused are looking at possibly facing three years of jail time for their exploits in creative freedom due to the offense of “debasing the religious beliefs of citizens and inciting religious hatred”. Although one would expect this activity to go on in developing countries, and the West hundreds of years ago, it does strike fear that a supposed world power would still be engaging in this type of activity in modern times.
Good Laws and Regulations
Thomas Paine, the great American freedom fighter, echoed the common sentiment among Americans that government is a necessary evil in a society of free men.
Because the laws governing society have become so complex, ordinary people often feel helplessly lost and feel they have to rely on experts just to perform basic, ordinary functions as citizens. Laws governing the voting process require proof of identification that can be difficult to obtain. The system of taxation has become opaque, fuzzy and susceptible to all forms of trickery and abuse. Small business owners find themselves bound by a mind-numbing set of regulations that impede the basic economic engine of our country from growing, stifle innovation, and discourage the entrepreneurial spirit.
And our members of Congress have succumbed to the self-serving and amoral dictum, when fighting to fund this or that worthless project, that it’s going to be spent somewhere, so why not in my district? We certainly have lowered the standard for what’s right and wrong, haven’t we? In no small part because the laws are so complex and self-contradictory that we’ve almost been left with no other way to look at moral matters.
Pelosi's delusional moment
Speaker Pelosi has never been one to shy away from outrageous and illogical comments; some to the point where it seems like she just rolled out of bed and decided she was going to say the first thing on her mind.
However, when Pelosi recently suggested that she wanted to extend unemployment benefits in attempts to stimulate job growth, she had me doubtfully re-reading her comments to see if I had them right.
Is the Speaker really in hopes that people will take their unemployment checks and spend money with it? There's no doubt that people getting an unemployment check is more beneficial to the economy than not having a check at all. But does our nation really want an economy that is artificially propped up by a government program that essentially siphoned tax dollars from hardworking Americans?
I have to imagine no one on the Speaker's staff bothered to contact any experts on this statement. Ask any behavioral economist about this policy idea and they'll tell you it can't be sustained, and it's terrible policy. Smaller checks with inherent disincentives to work and somehow that will stimulate job growth? For whom?
The only job growth Pelosi's idea seems to help stimulate is her own. I reckon Pelosi and the Democrats feel they can't possibly turn this economy around in time for November's elections, so they'll just throw more money at them in hopes the masses will continue to be confused and numb to their poor-minded ways.
Does anyone not see this charade for what it is? Why would anyone go out and pursue a job, when they can just sit at home and collect benefits. If America is to maintain its economic dominance in the world we must recapture the can-do spirit instead of the, “what can you do for me” spirit.
Republican party must rescue blacks from the Democratic plantation.
The modern Republican Party has utterly failed to effectively reach out to the Black community. This failure is most clear at the grass roots level where Republicans have not done enough to make clear to American Blacks that they understand their problems, care about their problems, and have solutions to their problems.
By contrast, about one-quarter of the membership of the Democratic National Committee is black. This strong representation within the party facilitates more hiring and elected representation of American blacks in government at every level and creates a positive ripple effect throughout the community. A black politician, for example, may maintain close associations with other black community figures such as ministers, teachers, entrepreneurs, and union officials. These interlocking relationships proclaim to American blacks that they are part of the Democratic Party.
Over the past three decades, the Republican Party has abysmally failed to offer any kind of grass roots counterbalance. Consequently, the Republican Party has failed to reestablish itself as a credible option among minority voters. Without this basic, grass roots credibility, the Republican Party will never recapture the black vote and save them from the Democratic plantation mentality.
You see, in a democracy, establishing credibility with the voting populace is even more critical than the issues themselves.
Kagan vote delayed
Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, questioned Supreme Court nominee Kagan on a series of notes that she had written while serving as a political advisor in the Clinton administration. On one page, Kagan scribbled that a proposed ban on soft money donations would “affects Repubs, not Dems!” McConnell rightly seized on these documents to question whether “Ms. Kagan’s work in the Clinton White House reveals a woman who was committed to advancing a political agenda — a woman who was less concerned about objectively analyzing the law than the ways in which the law could be used to advance a political goal.” For this, McConnell was savaged in most liberal news outlets.
This marks quite a shocking turn of events. Just remember the chilling fire Janice Rodgers Brown was consumed by when she was nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Senate Judiciary Committee was poignantly ruthless in their attack against her; which seemed much more personal than anything else.
Janice Rodgers Brown is a woman who is willing to uphold the principles of this country that she so stringently embraces. She was uninhibitedly attacked for her suggestion that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal infected the public with an “underground collectivist mentality”. Pundits accuse her of being a backward thinking woman who was turning her back on her own race –and Democratic Pundits didn’t stop there.
I am not arguing that there is anything wrong with this. As I remember it, Janice Rodgers Brown was on the fringe of removing herself from the highly coveted position. Yet, she found miraculous strength to face an award winning vicious attack by the opposition. This is the type of leaders that America is known for and deserves.
The bottom line is that Americans eagerly desire to understand what politicians are craftily trying to slip past them. We have had enough of the deceit. And believe that everyone, whether ally or opposition, if put into a position of power residing over the American people, should be forced to answer the tough questions. If you can’t answer them, then gracefully bow out!
Sad Day for America
The NAACP is expected to approve a resolution on today condemning the Tea Party movement for "explicitly racist behavior." I would require a flow chart to explain all of the ways that this is wrong. For starters, the mere act of criticizing a black president is not racist. Nor is it racist to raise to public consciousness to the very important issues of spiraling debt, misguided bailouts, and a series of social policies that may bankrupt the country. The country benefits from uninhibited discussion about these serious issues. Very simply, when movements--Tea Party or otherwise--openly debate these issues, the truth rises up. When the NAACP labels and dismisses the Tea Party as racists, it has a chilling effect on this important debate. As a result, the national dialogue is stifled.
It is sad that the nation's oldest and most revered civil rights organization has been so co-opted by the Democrats that use the racism epithet to chill political discussion, rather than engage opposing viewpoints on the merits. Please understand, I have the utmost respect for the NAACP. But I cannot ignore the simple fact that the issues supported by the Tea Party relate principally to smaller government, lower taxes, less government debt, enforcing the immigration laws and more individual freedom. These issues have nothing to do with abridging the rights and dignity of African Americans. By pretending otherwise, the NAACP has willingly allowed itself to be co-opted by the Democratic party. Even more alarming, they risk turning the word “racist” into a proxy for “someone whose politics you disagree with.”
A World Cup “win” for South Africa
Sports has a unique way of bringing out the best in humans. Beyond the sheer sense of competition, merit and sportsmanship, major events on the world stage seem to bring nations together in some ritualistic bond of community. A common language is shared, no matter the winner. The 2010 FIFA World Cup tournament was no different.
Only 6 other teams have tasted World Cup victory. Yesterday marked the seventh, as Spain secured a hard-fought victory over the Netherlands to win its first title. And while only 86,000 fans watched the tournament in person in South Africa, over 700 million individuals across the globe tuned in for this final game. All told, tournament hosts predict that some 38 billion will have watched some or all of the games from the first to final rounds. Those numbers alone should give you a sense of that community I mentioned above, and to have it all play out on the stage of a country, a continent, that is mired in poverty and economic blight is all the better.
While many football (“soccer” for you non-fans out there) connoisseurs were disappointed in the sloppy play during yesterday’s finale of Spain versus the Netherlands, kudos should be given to the host country for its flawless execution of the World Cup games.
Not only does the tourney put South Africa on the map, the economic impact will be felt for years. During the 1994 World Cup in the U.S. that finished in Los Angeles, for example, the city collected $624 million in total revenues. To put that into perspective, the Super Bowl that year netted only $183 million. Consider that 80% of all sponsorships in Africa are sports related, and one begins to understand that South Africa, and the larger continent, will see a nice economic shot in the arm.
You can bet that Spain won’t be the only nation celebrating tonight. South Africa and its people should be proud of the tournament they hosted. In one of sport’s grandest events, the nation clearly stepped up and delivered.
To Russia with (no) love
Yesterday's sentencing and immediate deportation of 10 suburban Russian spies has me hot under the collar. At first, I actually started to believe what Moscow was saying when the spies were initially caught - that this was all a major misunderstanding blown out of proportion. Why else would it take the FBI a full 10 years to dig up anything on these mild-mannered strangers, and even then, no formal charges of direct espionage and spying in the Cold War sense were ever leveled.
Even the Russians made us all look and feel a little foolish with our decoder-like accusations, immediately and incredulously criticizing our "police" as trigger happy keystone cops.
I guess I wanted to believe the Russians weren't so bold as to actively spy on our shores regarding items that many felt could have been collected via the Internet. That they had learned their lesson from the Cold War -- America had kicked some serious Russkie butt, and they never wanted to repeat the mistakes of their failed, centralized form of government. But boy, was I wrong.
These folks mean business. And they still see the United States as Enemy #1. And here we are as Americans, quietly going about our business, but not before we make sure we get our fair share in some sort of back-room swap. Just who are the four we're trading the Russian 10 for? I think we have a right to know.
There are far larger implications here. Set aside the fact that the Kremlin has adopted its own form of heavy-handed government in the past 15 years. Jailing the country's top entrepreneurs and private owners on trumped-up charges, followed by shuttering the major news outlets throughout the land. These aren't exactly laudable examples of a flourishing democracy in the East, let alone one of representative government.
What worries me most are Russia's "friends." Who's to say that the Iranians aren't behind this in some twisted way? Or perhaps even Venezuela's Chavez? He's so moronic, there's no way his country could implant foreign agents on U.S. soil. But old habits die hard with Soviets. This is less about trying to warm otherwise frosty relations with Russia's leadership, and more about concerns our intelligence agencies should have with these latest discoveries.
Our country's leaders would serve themselves and its citizens well if they chose not to see this spy case as an isolated occurrence.
Empty Promises
President Obama, the American people are still waiting for meaningful results from the grandiose plans you so eloquently and deceptively articulated to the public. However, there is no rhetoric that you can smoothly deliver, nor enough tele-prompters that can fabricate the results you have promised. "All bark and no bite," has ever sounded truer over the past months. Where is the changed you have promised? I'm sharing the sentiments of many Americans when I say "the numbers don't lie.
Why has no one seen you or Vice President Joe Biden at a health care clinic lately touting the new benefits that began to go into effect this month? July marked the beginning of several “goodies” of the new reform law before all the tax hike pain comes later, and yet, very little, if any, national attention was created by your bully pulpit.
The Obama administration is basing the future of its now-tenuous grip on power on pure chance. The White House’s forecasters can’t tell you when the economy will rebound, but when it does, they’re ready to take the credit. On health care, it’s difficult to say if a major new entitlement will slow the rate of inflation and actually cover millions of uninsured, but don’t fret. They have a good feeling about this one. Why? Well, it’s the only option lawmakers haven’t tried. On financial regulatory reform, it’s unclear if the new law will work because Tim Geithner still isn’t sure if Treasury properly diagnosed the 2008 crash.
Being Responsible
If Americans do not like the way business leaders allocate national resources by following the impartial rules of the market economy, they should consider the alternative -power hungry government bureaucrats and politicians. The politicians and bureaucrats allocate resources arbitrarily rather than by the impartial invisible hand of the free market and do not create additional income or wealth in the process. On the other hand, business leaders make decisions based on the free market which reflects the decisions of millions of individual participants making economic decisions in their own best interest. The system works because individuals assume responsibility for themselves. If there is no incentive to benefit from the fruits of your labor or disincentive to suffer from indolence or risky behavior, why bother working at all? So that others may benefit? Most people are not built that way.
The running foe the bears
Has anyone checked the Dow lately? I realize that’s the worst piece of advice a broker or financial planner would give to clients these days. When times are tough and the economy is on the mend, most analysts will tell you to take a vacation away from your stock portfolio until you have a good reason to look at it again.
But the NYSE closed Monday once again under 10,000. In fact, it’s hovering around 9,700 and trending in the wrong direction. I had to chuckle last week when the Dow tipped up a few percentage points on news Congress had passed a sweeping financial services overhaul. Many in the media said that was because financial institutions such as banks would now have some sense of direction as to how their industry would be regulated. Yet like many policies of this administration, the security and sense of direction lasted about as long as a teen-induced sugar high.
The market is trying to tell us something folks! This economy is headed in the wrong direction. And no matter how hard he tries, Obama can no longer lay this at the doorstep of his predecessor. I know every morning, the Administration has some intern who scours the papers just for the current mess du jour. More governing by victimization…
To be more specific, our private sector (the true job creators) is still reeling. It’s struggling under the crushing weight of impending fixed costs such as health care, higher wage pressures, more reporting requirements and fewer incentives for innovation. Even with the dollar rising against foreign currencies such as the euro and China’s modest actions last month, the bears still run Wall Street.
If such moves were part of a larger correction that many analysts say was needed, then I would be less apt to point a finger at the White House. But such market fixes should have taken place months ago. What we have here today is more tinkering by federal fiat. If anyone outside Washington actually believed Congress’s steps through “overhaul” last week would yield any positive benefits, then forecasts for Q3 and Q4 of this year would be far better. And still, they are not.
As I’ve said before in this column, an economist I am not. But I do know that one of the single largest indicators of the economic health of this nation is hemorrhaging. The Dow, and our nation’s critical private sector, needs help. The longer the White House views the private sector as some harem of fat cat capitalists, the more our workers will be out of long-term jobs.
"Who We Are"
Changes to the Constitution have increased enfranchisement of the electorate (every citizen, upon reaching the age of 18, is granted the right to vote, regardless of color, class, education, ethnicity or other superficiality in the eyes of the law) and have granted us greater authority in choosing our leaders (for instance, the 17th Amendment allows senators to be chosen directly by the people of their respective states).
It is this history and coveted freedom that Americans should commemorate as they exalt their country this July 4, 2010 --a day to celebrate the generations of men and women who have sacrificed their time, energy and often their lives in order to build a better country. This is an opportunity to reflect upon the deeds of our founding fathers and to consider the means by which we might continue to guard those essential freedoms that we associate with happiness. So, where do we find the greatness today? We see it in the brave soldiers who risk everything to secure freedom abroad. But we also see it in those everyday Americans who revel in the everyday joys and responsibilities of raising a family.
Government is not the Solution
Most successful businessmen know what it is like to have the financial wolf at the door. Many started at the bottom as working people, come from working class backgrounds and have known failure in life. They are much more sympathetic to the working man than the left give them credit for. However, they have learned that brooding over poor decisions and blaming others for your situation does not do anybody any good. You have to solve your own problems. If you want “Big Brother” government to solve your problems, you then become a slave to “Big Brother”. Big Brother will support you only if you do what it wants. Paraphrasing the lyrics of Michael Jackson “look at the man in the mirror” to solve your problems and change your ways. That is the American way.
President Obama’s rhetoric may sound good to those who do not think through the unintended consequences of a Western European style welfare state imposed on the United States. However, it will lead to economic serfdom, a loss of individual freedom and a less prosperous America. Remember, our President has never met a payroll, provided goods or services that consumers were willing to pay for, or provided jobs with his own money or that of investors willing to trust him. Why should Americans think his nanny state rhetoric will solve America’s problems?
SCOTUS nominations shouldn’t be pro forma exercise
U.S. Solicitor General and Supreme Court nominee yesterday Elena Kagan entered her second and perhaps final day of intense scrutiny by the Senate Judiciary Committee. After over nine hours of questioning, we still lack critical insights into how Justice Kagan would approach some of society’s most pressing questions before the Court.
We do know, however, that Kagan is a Democrat, and proud of it. Under an earlier set of questions, she seemed to respond to one Senator with the proper White House talking point, saying, “One thing I know is that my politics would be, must be, have to be separate from my judging.” Yet barely a few hours later, Kagan described herself as “generally progressive” and going further to say, “I've been a Democrat all my life. I've worked for two Democratic presidents, and that's what my political views are.”
I don’t know how anyone can listen to those near-defiant statements and see Kagan as approaching issues of such value to the Democratic platform including abortion rights thinking she’ll judge each case on its merit.
But hey, we knew from the beginning that Kagan was a liberal cut from the same mold as the one she hopes to replace. As has been said before, elections have consequences. And the election of President Barack Obama means he gets to seat the justice of his choice.
What bothers me about these proceedings is how the press and Washington’s pundit class are seemingly annoyed that Republicans are asking tough and sometimes pressing questions. As one Washington Post columnist described the scenario yesterday on a radio show, this is a fait accompli. The Republicans don’t have the votes to block Kagan’s nomination, his argument went, and they never will. The inference there is clear: why don’t Republicans stop their belly-aching and just toss in the towel? Look the other way while the Left exerts its will. This will all be over in a few days, and we can get back to other things.
What flawed logic. Would Chuck Schumer lay down and play dead if President McCain were choosing his nominee to the Court? Did he roll over when Justices Alito and Roberts were nominated? Hardly. No one expected him and his colleagues to merely see the political writing on the wall and let this pass without asking tough questions. So why should anyone expect anything differently now?
There are serious, precedent-changing decisions that could come before the Court in the next 5-10 years. For Republicans to weigh in with their concerns about Kagan’s record and her sense of jurisprudence is only right and proper. To expect and do anything less is to diminish the awesome responsibility of the Senate’s constitutional prerogatives to “advise and consent” no matter which party holds the chairman’s gavel.
An Aging Congress
As our nation has aged, so, too, has our Congress, perhaps even more acutely. A 2008 Congressional Research Service report found that the 110th Congress that year was the oldest of any Congress in U.S. history. The Congress currently in session today broke even that record. The average age of senators at the beginning of this 111th Congress was 62.7 years. By comparison, the average age in the first Congress more than 200 years ago was a mere 47.
Clearly, longevity and the miracles of modern medicine explain away these differentials. Yet a closer look at the age breakdowns reveal a heavy tilt in the upper chamber towards those entering or currently in the eighth decade of their lives.
As of last week, four sitting U.S. senators were currently in their 80s, and 22 are in their 70s. One senator — the once indefatigable Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia passed away yesterday at the ripe old age of 92. Even at that tender age, Mr. Byrd did not reach the pinnacle of my old boss and mentor. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was 100 years old when he left the Senate.
But is that a good thing? Is our nation better off because individual lawmakers tried to outlast one another and die in their jobs?
We are the recipients of the policies these “elders” enact are entitled to their personal and vested involvement.
Mr. Reagan quipped, "Thomas Jefferson once said, 'We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.' And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying."
Unfortunately, I’m still worrying. Worrying that our oldest lawmakers are more consumed with the trappings of the office they hold than the work they provide, leaving the dirty work to faceless staff members who are neither elected nor directly accountable for their actions.
Obama’s failed leadership at the G-20
The world’s most powerful economic nations met this past weekend in Toronto, Canada for another routine summit. There were the routine meetings, speeches and grandstanding among luminaries. There were even routine protesters to riot, yet not have a bloody clue what the G-20 meant, let alone what it was considering.
The most important outcome of the session, however, occurred early Sunday when Canadian Prime Minister Harper managed to corral enough of his colleagues to issue a joint pledge calling for a return to fiscal sanity in the coming years and cut their respective national deficits in half by 2013. We all know such goals are unenforceable, but they set an important precedent for future behaviors, while also revealing how the world’s economic engines view the fiscal nosedives of countries such as Greece and now Spain.
While he won’t admit it, Harper’s move seemed calculated, designed to smoke out his prodigal neighbor to the south, and our president took the bait.
Apparently, President Obama likes the current, accountability-free spending spree the U.S. is currently enjoying. While he explains such massive gluttony is necessary to get the economy moving again, other nations are anxiously hoping the world’s last superpower gets off its duff and starts acting responsibly again.
The White House announced proudly yesterday the President had pushed his colleagues for a hall pass for more stimulus spending. "We can't all rush to the exits at the same time," Obama was quoted as saying following the final session.
What exits, Mr. President? The exits from this clown funhouse we’ve been inside the past 24 months? If we stay, God only knows how much more money the Administration will manage to print and burn through.
G-20 leaders see the folly and short-sightedness of massive government infusions of cash. German Chancellor Merkel has instituted massive spending cuts and tax hikes. (If we act soon enough, we won’t need the tax increases.) Britain is returning to spending levels not seen since World War II. And yet our president thinks 2013 is too much, too soon?
Even though Obama was out of the country this weekend, his actions do not go unnoticed. If he were truly serious about addressing this fiscal calamity our country faces – the same crisis he eschews while in Washington – then the G-20 summit would have been the perfect venue to stake such ground. And yet the president was, once again, AWOL on any steps toward meaningful spending restraint.
Accountability in the military
Many in the world of armchair quarterbacks are giving President Obama high marks for his handling of the Gen. Stanley McChrystal implosion and subsequent resignation. After all, Obama faced a difficult decision; some in the media world were even dubbing it a “game changer” for his presidency. No matter how difficult one scores the “test” Obama faced, the bottom line is he passed.
For my part, I felt Obama only had one option. Insubordination cannot be tolerated, especially within the military and with that senior of command. I would wager that, for many Americans, too, the president really had one option.
What’s missing in political Washington is any ability, or desire, to police your own. Look at how the Democrats have turned a blind eye to transgressions from folks like former Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel. Look at how Republicans will do nothing to Joe Barton over his humiliating apologies to BP. It’s increasingly all about power, not accountability. The reason why the US military is the only American institution that still enjoys huge respect among the public is because they still have a sense of accountability. Criticizing the Commander in Chief in the press demands accountability.
Frankly, I’m a little surprised the Defense Secretary didn’t deliver such accountability immediately. I could easily see Gates sending a cable to Afghanistan informing McChrystal of his new civilian status, and telling him not to take military transportation back to the States. But if Gates wanted Obama to have that glory, then it was a wise choice.
I only wish now the Administration would apply similar standards of accountability for its domestic programs that it does for its military commanders. These agencies have their fair share of insubordinates engaging in daily activities of government malpractice. Loyalty to the president should be expected and demanded. I wish the president offered the taxpayers a similar allegiance.
American socialism revisited
Socialism was adopted by Europe, which made sense given its century's old concepts of surfs being taken care of by their nobles.
The governments of Europe replaced the royalty which was duty bound to take care of its loyal subjects. As a result, the government is seen as the answer to almost all of their issues from health care to employment.
But taking care of those who cannot or will not take care of themselves has overwhelmed their systems with cost, and while "everyone" is cared for, the level of services are on a downward slide. These costs can only be offset by taxes which eventually suffocate productive companies, individuals, and eventually the country itself. Socialism has undoubtedly played a hand in destroying the great economic empires of England, France, Holland, and others.
The current Administration admiringly embraces the European model instead of out right rejecting it. Our nation was built on rugged individualism and any attempt to model our nation after Europe is a disaster of the greatest proportion!
Public Education Crisis
Anyone who tells you that public schools are public because anyone can go to any school is lying. You can only go to the schools where you can afford to live in the neighborhood and the school quality is part of the expense of that house. In effect, our public school system remains separate and unequal, still. Bottom line: the public school system is failing its students—particularly those of color. By contrast, private schools are thriving. (Just ask the members of Congress who fight against school vouchers but wouldn’t deign to send one of their own children to D.C.’s public schools.) At least part of the success of private school students can be attributed to the fact that private school educators are held highly accountable for their job performance. They do not have long-term job security,work on year-to-year contracts, and are held accountable by annual job evaluations. Private school teachers work harder because they have to. In public schools, by contrast, powerful teachers’ unions have secured long-term tenure for the teachers, thus removing a powerful mechanism for professional accountability.
In effect, America’s public school system functions as a monopoly. As with all monopolies, there is no incentive to change. Even as the economy continues to tank, public school teachers know that they are virtually immune from termination. Their annual evaluations are meaningless because they have tenure. Predictably, many public school teachers do just enough—sometimes barely—to not get kicked out. But could you imagine how much more engaged public school teachers would be if their jobs were actually on the line—especially with this economy! Holding public school teachers accountable for their performance could kick-start a revolution in America’s public.
Paradigm Shift for Women
Since the 1960’s civil right movements, women tended to sympathize with the liberal policies of the Democratic Party and identify themselves as Democrats. 41% of American woman identify themselves as Democrats compared to 25% who identify themselves as Republicans. The Democratic Party platform promotes equal social and economic outcomes with an emphasis on woman’s rights and liberal social policies. These policies are designed to appeal to the disenfranchised members of society, which formerly included most women. Furthermore, women played a prominent role in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party from Bela Abzug to Nancy Pelsoi.
Is it possible that the real story of 2010 is a seismic shift in women’s political orientation from liberal to conservative? Perhaps women no longer see themselves as disenfranchised members of society. It is no surprise that women who are often responsible for household budgets understand basic checkbook finance better than their elected spendthrift representatives and want a financially responsible government.
Those pesky “special interests”
I’ve had the good fortune of knowing, interviewing and interacting with scores of politicians through the years. No matter where one fell along the ideological spectrum, I was most impressed with those whose views could be summed up in one word – consistent. Like what you will about someone such as former Senator George Allen, for example. He was a firebrand; a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. But he knew exactly what he believed in – a Jeffersonian Conservative as he liked to call himself. And no matter the position he took, even if you disliked it, you couldn’t help but like the man because he was consistent in his views. There was no waffling there, and his colleagues appreciated that character trait.
Contrast that with our dear president today. Here’s an individual who spent nearly his entire campaign and certainly the first months of his presidency railing against the “special interests” that have corrupted this town. Whenever his agenda was heading south, Obama would take to the airwaves, and in typical Leftist fashion, would play the victim card, usually aiming his sights on “special interest groups” hell-bent on preserving the status quo in Washington.
That’s some good rhetoric, no? Consistent? Hardly. Later today. The President travels to Wheaton, Maryland to hold a satellite town hall on his unpopular health reform law. Apparently, internal White House polls show that while most Americans hate this piece of legislation, they’re willing to keep an open mind and see how the new measure will impact their daily lives.
The Administration will spend countless hours and millions of taxpayer dollars marketing this stinker to average Americans, hoping to change their minds.
Yet one dirty little secret the Administration won’t hype is that it’s now asking dozens of health groups and associations to roll up their sleeves and pitch in. That’s right, those same “special interests” Obama excoriated along the health reform trail he’s now cozying up to and hoping they’ll pull their weight.
I ask you, Mr. President, what do you think of them now? Are they only the Devil when you say they are? Where’s the consistency in that?
The problem with this little charade is it continues to undermine Obama’s credibility as a leader on domestic policy issues. What are everyday Americans to think of these health care providers when one day, they are akin to the Taliban, and the next day, they’re champions for the “little guy” for no other reason than our president chooses to say so. Playing politics with these job creators and service providers is hardly a profile in executive leadership.
Endangered Jews
Helen Thomas is either willfully ignorant or just an out-and-out bigot. Facts are facts. The Jewish people have inhabited the land of Israel since before the birth of Jesus. There are six billion people in the world and fewer than 13 million Jews left. If there had been no holocaust there would be a 100 million Jews in the world. Now, there are fewer than six million left in their historic homeland-- the Land of Israel. Will we do more to save the spotted owl than we will the last remaining Jews in their natural habitat?! The Jews are an endangered species who deserve the world's protection and not their persecution. To hear Iran, Hamas, or many other groups tell their side of the story, the Jews would have been wiped from this earth a long time ago.
There have been Jews living in the land of Israel in an unbroken chain of history for millennia, despite cruel twists of history of expulsions and diaspora. Helen Thomas, as she approaches the ripe old age of 90, might do well to study the facts, for the truth shall be your salvation.
Cycle of Nature
The sun rises and sets every day. Spring and fall come every year. Old plant life dies back in the fall and returns in the spring with renewed vigor. This is part of the cycle of nature. Man’s intervention has no meaningful impact on the cycle of nature. Sensible men accept the cycle of nature and work with it. The individual farmer takes the cycle of nature as given when he plans his planting season. Nobody thinks it is appropriate for the government to tell farmers when to plant, weed and water.
Similarly, the economy has its own cycles of prosperity and recession which come and go. In a recession, ineffective and obsolete businesses fail, speculative bubbles burst and overextended consumers cutback spending. The result is a renewal of vigorous economic activity by more efficient businesses and un leveraged consumers. Individuals and businesses make rational economic decisions based on where they are in the economic cycle. As a result, economic excesses created during prosperity are corrected during periods of recession.
Capitalist economies are very robust and recover from recessions regardless of government intervention. This has been true since the spectacular boom and bust of the Dutch Tulip Mania in the 17th century. It has been true in America since the industrial revolution. Government intervention may accelerate or retard a recovery, but it does not stop it. Historically, most government intervention has retarded recoveries. The most egregious example of retarding recovery was the government intervention of the New Deal in the Great Depression. During this period, economic recovery programs, new regulations and higher taxes prolonged the recovery for a decade. Government policy delayed the economic recovery, but did not stop it.
Those who think that our current economy is improving are correct. Unfortunately the current economic policies of ineffective stimulus, pending mandates on health insurance, pending tax increases, excessive deficits and over- regulation, are impeding the recovery and not helping it. It is like the farmer who is over watering his crops after it rains or putting on too much fertilizer because he is impatient for his crops to grow. If the government wishes to help the economy, it should implement policies which follow the Medical professions first principal - Do No Harm. These policies include reduced taxes, balanced budgets, and less regulation.
Obama's own brand of voodoo economics
Later this morning expect some "good news" from the Labor Department on May unemployment figures. Many analysts expect the jobless rate to fall to around 9.7%, where the economy actually created over half a million new jobs last month. That may sound like good news, but the Street knows better. Many, if not all, of those jobs were created by good ole Uncle Sam.
You guessed it, the Census Bureau put several hundred thousand to work last month - a figure that will certainly skew the final calculus and present a picture that would make Joe Biden proud. Never mind those jobs are temporary; and already, Census workers are wondering aloud on blog and social media sites if they're eligible for unemployment benefits. You must be kidding me. Could we end up spending more taxpayer dollars to give these workers benefits they're not entitled to? Did the bean counters at OMB forecast for these conditions if some court gets happy and decides the workers should receive yet another handout?
The point here is you can't fool the American business cycle. The real job creations (the ones that last at least) occur in the private sector. No amount of class warfare changes that dynamic. Using federal dollars to pay union construction workers to retrofit a Social Security building in Kentucky so more federal workers can feel good about their "green" work stations does little to grow our tax base in any long term capacity. And here's the worst part: the money used is borrowed from China. So we're now borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar spent and we turn around and toss it in another federal rat hole. I ask you - how does this vicious cycle of theft help the average American?
President Obama's economic policies make "voodoo economics" look like a Nobel prize contender. The question now becomes when, not if, these misguided and mega expensive gambits will end. For the sake of the world's last great economic superpower, I hope it's soon.
The Negotiator, Bill Clinton
President Clinton's involvement alone tells anyone with a pulse the White House was trying to move Mr. Sestak off a very nice perch. We all know presidents aren't asked to lend their "personal touch" unless someone is at the end of his options and needs the high-brow nudge of a former commander-in-chief. And Mr. Clinton? This is the same guy who managed to get those in his party to vote for the largest tax increase in history in 1993. And the same president who passed sweeping trade and welfare reforms in the face of withering fire from the Left.
Mr. Sestak was a thumb-sucker for Mr. Clinton. He is used to moving folks, especially members of Congress. The White House knew that. Why else would it send in such a heavy closer?
Frankly, I'm sort of shocked Mr. Clinton stooped to such a level. After all, earlier this month he single-handedly helped his party maintain control of a House seat in Pennsylvania's special election to replace the deceased Rep. John Murtha. Mr. Clinton was riding high as the party's secret weapon given his popularity and political legend status. Now, he looks like nothing more than a hooligan, hired to come in and bust the knee-caps of recalcitrant members like Mr. Sestak.
Even Keystone State Gov. Ed Rendell – a hard knocker by any standard – was scratching his head on this one. He said earlier last week that the drip-drip nature of this information is only undermining the White House and raising more questions than anyone cares to answer. And we know the administration's politicos have answers. That's probably why they're hiding and only surrendering bits at a time.
Israel’s Brass Knuckles Policy
Much is being made today and throughout this past weekend over Israeli commandos’ handling of an armed assault aboard a flotilla of ships bearing “humanitarian aid” for Gaza settlers. I put that phrase in quotations, because that was allegedly the cargo, this time…
What about all the other times when Gaza sympathizers snuck through under the cover of night, smuggling arms and other weapons materiel for one purpose – to kill Israelis? Just look at the underground network of tunnels through Egypt as one example.
That larger point is missing from this rapidly-developing storyline: Hamas is hell-bent to destroy the nation of Israel and all who live there. Imagine if this blockade run had succeeded – it would have opened a new distribution channel for Hamas arms smugglers to penetrate the blockade, and God knows what else.
Yes, the assault probably wasn’t necessary, or at least could have been handled through alternative means. But a quick word about that: I bet that had those Turkish passengers possessed weapons, they would have used them, and then offered the same rationale that Israeli solders used – self-defense. So spare me the outcries from the passengers used in calling the attack unprovoked or whatever they offered as excuses to assault the commandos. If they had nothing to hide, and were law-abiding citizens, why attack an Israeli soldier?
I have to commend Prime Minister Netanyahu for his actions so far on this matter. His country is wedged between nations of hatred. Imagine if you lived in a community and your neighbors just next door to you were your sworn mortal enemy? And if given the chance, they would cut the wires to your home, bust out your windows, and even worse, kill you the first chance they get?
That’s how it is every day in Israel. No one should live in that fear. Netanyahu’s brass knuckles military policy when it comes to Hamas and Gaza is unfortunate but necessary, and the right strategy in that part of the world. I truly hope they find a path to peace in the coming years. But unless and until that changes, and both sides agree to live in harmony, then Israel must do what it needs to defend itself and its people.
Kim Jon-II, Insanity Plea!
Are you perplex by what's happening on the Korean Peninsula? Does anyone truly understand the end game to this madness? What does Kim Jonj-II expect to gain from this dangerous gamesmanship? Does he want to gain control of South Korea? Does he expect some kind of nuclear ransom for his insane behavior? Does he truly think that he can destroy the United States military by engaging it's proxy, South Korea? Is he trying to provoke a Nuclear Holocaust? Deep down maybe he's feeling that he truly doesn't have anything to lose by putting this end game in motion.
When examining all the rationale reasons and outcomes of his behavior, one must come to the inescapable conclusion, that without a doubt he is a mad man. Perhaps we should be sending a core of world renowned psychiatrists to North Korea, rather than diplomats to resolve this brewing crisis.. Upon their arrival they should be well supplied with the lithium drugs or the surgical instruments to perform a lobotomy.
Obama & Bill Clinton's playbook
To put it bluntly, the president has lost all remnants of coattails from his historic victory in 2008. In fact, I’m not sure he still has his jacket left. Many pundits feel it will only get worse for Democrats as the weeks drag on.
What the media is only starting to realize is last Tuesday’s elections (and the ones forthcoming) are reflecting several sentiments, but chief among them is a palpable anger towards this president’s policies. And the only way to stop that hemorrhaging is for Obama to take a page from Bill Clinton’s playbook. Remember in the days following his party’s ignominious defeat in 1994, Clinton uttered his famous “Era of Big Government is over” line? Obama needs to give that same speech, TODAY. Waiting until after the election will surely solidify his place in history as a one term president. That’s the source of all this angst, and Obama ignores it at his own peril.
Obama Apologizes Again
Why is the President of the United States apologizing to President Calderon of Mexico about an Arizona law that enforces federal laws curbing illegal Mexican Immigrants? President Obama should be castigating President Calderon over the conditions in Mexico that encourage these illegals to cross the border. The Mexican government should be working with the American government to prevent illegal immigration and enforce immigration laws.This might have the spin-off benefit of contributing to the defeat of the drug lords that informally rule much of Mexico and sell illegal drugs in the US.
Illegal Americans in Mexico are subjected to harsh Mexican immigration laws. Likewise, illegal Mexicans in our country are only subjected to a slight slap on the wrist. Why do Border States feel they are not getting the support from the President on enforcing existing federal law and have to enforce federal immigration law themselves?
If there were fewer illegal immigrants in the US, there would be more jobs available for unemployed citizens and legal residents. It would also result in higher wages for low skilled American workers who would not be competing for jobs against illegal Mexicans willing to work at lower wages. The lack of commitment to enforcing immigration laws is one of the disconnects between the President and unemployed Regan Democrats and legal minorities in the Democratic coalition that got him elected.
Mr.President where is your back bone. Tell the President Calderon that illegal immigrants are criminals and should be punished to the full extent of all laws.
Reagan Democrats and Obama
Now that Obama has shown his ideological cards over the last 18 months, he is quickly losing the white working and middle class that was part of his2008 election coalition. The issues that are of foremost importance to them are not the unusual suspects: They include jobs, immigration,strong defense, war against terror, and conservative social values. Obama is clearly on the wrong side of these very critical issues to these growing disenchanted Reagan Democrat voters.
Attorney General Eric Holder epitomizes the disconnect between the President and the once loyal Reagan Democrats. He's against the Arizona immigration law, even though he hasn't read it. He continuously refuses to admit that Islamic terrorism was the central motive for the recent attempted Time Square bombing. He continues to equivocate on where the location for the 9-11terror trials should be held.
Our president's big government and stimulus spending is defying the logic of check book accounting that most Americans ascribe to: You can't spend more money than that which you have in your checking account. The State Department is now apologizing to the Chinese about the Arizona Immigration Law because it violates human rights. What is wrong with this picture, given the Chinese past and current history with Human Right's abuses in their country. The President's Supreme Court choices are clearly out of sync with Regan Democrats who don't believe a Latino jurist is inherently any wiser than a WASP.
The Gulf and gas prices
There's no question the ongoing spill in the Gulf of Mexico and BP's inability to contain it will have long-term repercussions on the industry and how government responds to future incidents. There's also little doubt this spill sets environmentalists clearly in the driver's seat for future policies as they relate to offshore drilling. I don't fault them. After all, industry made the mistakes, and boy, were they monumental. Perhaps it's time for the green faction to exert some muscle and exact a price for all those years industry thumbed its nose at their agenda.
But there's one issue that hasn't been discussed too much " the price of gas. At first, prices at the pump spiked, a typical reflexive action, but not necessary given that most of the crude in today's stations was bought weeks, even months, ago at pre-spill prices. But what happens next? If you've filled your tank lately, you've noticed that prices are actually on the DECLINE " down nearly 3-4 cents per gallon in the past 10 days, and expected to fall another 3-4 cents either this week or next.
Is that tube BP recently installed having its intended effect? Are we saving millions of gallons and hence, stations have excess supply? Not hardly. Economists chalk these latest price drops to a sharp rise in the dollar when compared to European currencies. If there's one sliver of benefit from the fiscal calamity facing Greece and her sister nations, it's that the U.S. dollar has backed its way into a position of prominence once again. I could spend two full columns arguing how that situation spells peril for us in the long term, but I won't go there.
Even then, this indirect benefit at the pump will be short-lived. Economists are already running forecasting models determining the long-term impact not of the loss of a major well in the Gulf presently, but of losses of potential new rigs many were relying on to meet the insatiable demand for crude domestically. Current rigs are already running at or beyond capacity. They can do no more. Further, if current moves by the Congress are any indication, you can bet regulators will be watching those existing wells like vultures.
The bottom line? Economists expect prices to rise significantly in about five years. Yes, folks, $5 per gallon of regular is not farfetched. So it appears the environmentalists will seal another win for their agenda " the goal of pricing fossil fuel at such a high rate that demand is stifled and America's addiction begins to wane. I wonder if BP will take responsibility for that? I don't think so ...
Obama's Supreme legacy
I'm loving the drama that is unfolding around President Barack Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
Conservatives are, true to form, bungling the narrative they should be rightfully pushing " an unqualified liberal just chomping at the bit to legislate from the bench. Meanwhile, Miss Kagan's record on anything that might reveal her jurisprudence is so sparse that liberals are beginning to get a little skittish on just how she may rule on various issues.
As Ive said before, this president " and his successors " are entitled to nominate whomever they wish. We should gladly grant them that prerogative. That does not mean, however, the Senate shouldn't do its job and ask the tough questions.
Yet the most interesting part of this presidential vignette isn't the nominee herself. Rather, its what Miss Kagan and her selection reveal about the man behind the nominee " Barack Obama. This is less about her qualifications, and more about where Miss Kagan sits in this great cultural mixing bowl called America. The presidents choice is more of a social experiment than a well-wrought conclusion of her being the best constitutional scholar for the job. And by the way, that's still the No. 1 requirement the last time I checked said document.
Miss Kagan does not represent the real world, as Mr. Obama put it. If she does, look out, because heaven only knows where the court goes from here.Neither does she understand the law as if it affects ordinary Americans, as the president stated during his speech last week.
The Washington Posts Kathleen Harrington summed it up best by writing, a New York City girl who attended a prep school, Ivy League colleges and law school " who once barred military recruiters from Harvard's recruitment office and was an adviser to Goldman Sachs " can't be characterized as anything close to mainstream America.
There's only one word to summarize Mr. Obama's choice " legacy. Miss Kagan's ascension to the court affirms a liberal predilection the likes of which have not been seen since the Burger court. Think about it. The presidents domestic agenda is in a shambles. His foreign policy moves of late have been questionable, particularly with respect to Iran and North Korea, not to mention his inaction on Chinese currency. His party stands to lose at least one, if not both, chambers of Congress because of his leftist bent.
Time to get a job, Al Sharpton
Here we go again. Someone somewhere is playing the victim card, and the Rev. Al Sharpton is there to somehow pretend hes a victim too. The latest country-trotting for Sharpton involves a trip to sunny Arizona to feign utter outrage over the states enactment of tough new immigration laws.
Im not here to argue the merits of the state law. Even the Arizona Legislature just last week had to tweak the measure to ensure it was doing what lawmakers intended without violating constitutional rights. But Al Sharpton? Again? Didnt I see him at the local Dairy Queen last week? And just before that, on HBO with Bill Maher?
The good reverend is now vowing to bring so-called freedom walkers to Arizona this summer in acts of civil disobedience to protest and boycott the states actions. "You can amend it, you can bend it, you can do anything you want to it, but the law will inevitably promote racial profiling, Sharpton was quoted as saying. Bend ... amend ... Wait a minute, was that Jesse Jackson I just heard? Since when did Sharpton take to rhyming? And since when did these guys need to come up with we-shall-overcome lyrics every time they swoop in on an alleged injustice they deem worthy of their advocacy? And who pays for this stuff?
Can you tell Im a little fed up? So should most Americans be. In my mind, Sharptons presence cheapens the arguable claims of Arizona immigrants, or at least their right to challenge them as legitimate. Yet when Al Sharpton arrives on the scene, I feel the country heaves this collective sigh and goes about its other business.
Lets face it, hes a political ambulance-chaser. Sharpton may make a killin doing it, but I wonder if he really is helping those he purports to speak for.
Republican Party and black advancement
Over the past several weeks we have received an unusual volume of mail requesting that research and writings be done regarding the Republican Party and its significance in advancing the plight of American blacks in this nation.
While pollsters and high priest of blackness continue to remind us that black support for the Republican Party has significantly dropped since the election of President Barack Obama, we don't hear much about the many serious black conservative candidates running for Congress today with an excellent shot at winning.
In reality, no political group has done more to help minorities than Republicans.
Originally formed out of the abolitionist movement, the Republican Party announced the total elimination of slavery as part of its official platform during the first Republican National Convention in 1856. For this, the Democrats derisively dubbed them Black Republicans.
During Lincolns third term, this Republican platform was finally realized. Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower were Republicans as well. It was Roosevelt who invited Booker T. Washington to the White House, and it was Eisenhower who sent federal troops to Little Rock, Ark., to enforce school integration.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Republicans helped push civil rights legislation into the mainstream. Eisenhower used federal troops to enforce the Supreme Courts desegregation ruling. And despite the myth to the contrary, a far greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (a sublime piece of legislation that had its roots in the Republican-backed Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875). In fact, the high level of Republican support prevented the 1964 Civil Rights Act from being filibustered by Southern Democrats who relied upon race-baiting to stay in office.
When the GOP once again embraces its founding principles, storied history and uncompromising stance on the critical issues, Americans of all stripes will realize that she is the party of choice.
‘Too big to fail’
This regulatory environment worked very well into the late 20th century. When commercial banks failed, the FDIC arranged for their liquidation or merger and protected depositors. When investment banks failed because of risky behavior,the partners or shareholders lost their investments and the entities were liquidated or merged. No investment bank was too big to fail. During this period there were no major systemic financial crises.
However, with the increasing globalization of finance, American commercial and investment banks were increasingly competing against well-capitalized foreign banks that were not subject to the restrictions of Glass-Steagall. In 1999, a Republican Congress and a Democratic president (Clinton) repealed the portion of the act that separated commercial and investment banking. Commercial banks began acquiring investment banks and engaging in more risky investment activity formerly confined to investment banks.
BP = better pay!
I've been monitoring the cleanup efforts by oil giant British Petroleum (BP) and its inability to cap a gaping hole in the ocean's floor that's oozing thousands of barrels of black gold per day. I have to say I'm perplexed that a billion-dollar corporation that has specialized in underwater oil extraction since the process was created can't seem to solve this crisis. I'm no engineer,but these guys are. So what's the problem? In applying with the Department of Energy and EPA to open the mega-platform years ago, BP told regulators they weren't worried about potential environmental damage to the coastline's industries if a spill ever occurred because the rig sat nearly 45 miles offshore, presumably allowing BP plenty of time to eradicate any damage prior to landfall.
And yet here we sit today, a modern-day Valdez in one of our nation's largest and busiest commercial ports. And after 11 days, oil continues to spew, polluting the coastline and threatening fishing and other commercial enterprises. Gulf-area workers and residents are growing restless. What's more unsettling than the spill itself is the fact that BP can't seem to plug the hole.
Our government is also growing restless. President Barack Obama traveled to Louisiana yesterday to vent his own frustrations, and I appreciated his tough talk.
"BP is responsible for this leak. BP will be paying this bill," Obama said. On behalf of all Americans, let me be the first to echo that sentiment.In fact, as far as the feds are concerned, BP should now stand for "better pay!" That's why I was worried when, in the same speech yesterday, Obama stated, "Your government will do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to stop this crisis."
Uhh, just what exactly does that mean, Mr. President? I realize your administration believes government can play a role in every facet of our lives,but when it comes to this situation, don't you dare let BP off the hook.Besides the fact that our country is flat broke, not one American believes one tax dollar should be spent helping a British oil company; I don't care how many American jobs they create. This is their mess. Lean on them to speed up the process, but don't give them any slack. And please, refuse the urge to tilt another government department toward any grand agenda.
It's national situations like these that average Americans fully understand and appreciate. We don't need any new laws to gum up the works or any new bureaucracies to watch other bureaucratic agencies. Forget the chance to push a leftist philosophy and just play this one straight up the middle.
AWOL leadership on the budget
You just know the editors at the Washington Post enjoyed drafting Tuesdays front page headline on the federal budget picture: Presidents team is optimistic on deficit. Whewthat was close. For a few months there, liberals were beginning to wonder if they could ever spend with abandon again. Now, they have even a sliver of empirical evidence that all those taxes raised on financial institutions have started to pour in. Katie, bar the door. Its time to go shopping, Federal Government style! Never mind that even if this White House stays on its current course, it will continue to set major league records on spending, ending this year with close to $1.3 trillion in deficits. Unprecedented spending as far as the eye can see. The sad commentary in this fiscal charade is the average American is either completely oblivious to the goings-on around Washington or he/she simply doesnt care. If you were fed major services such as free health care and told you had a moral right to everything the federal government provided through its nanny doctrine, after a while, dont you think youd be duped, or at least so gluttonously fat off the largesse you couldnt move even if you wanted to?? Think its not happening? Think again. Fresh off a trillion dollar hangover, congressional Democrats are reminded they have to return from recess and actually govern according to the laws of the land. Chief among them is Congress actually having to produce a budget on how it will run the government for the next fiscal year. And yet, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are thinking thats not such a good idea. A budget merely complicates and formalizes their runaway habits, and thats much too nasty to have on paper, especially at this time. So come the statutorily-mandated deadline of April 15th for Congress to produce a budget, Democrats will be AWOL on the subject. Never mind that at the most desperate time when hardships abound, the first thing families do is sit down and pen a new budget, congressional Democrats do the exact opposite. Not only is their spending so shameful, they no longer want to be bothered by writing it down! Were so bankrupt as a country that even our kids and grandchildren will be on the hook for cleaning up this mess, and now they dont want to tell us how it will all be spent?? The situation would be laughable if it werent so dire. This latest move is another symbol of the Lefts true intentions " spend till it hurts, but be damned sure it hurts someone other than our special interests. Williams can be heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 9pm - 10 pm est M-F.
Virtues of Capitalism
Sometimes we need to be reminded that there never has been such a virtuous economic system as that of American capitalism. Others, not so fortunate to be in control of their futures "due to a burdening economic system, yearn for the power that is left in the hands of the individual in a capitalistic society.
Capitalism claims that it will reward those who produce and is therefore a system built on virtuous economic incentives. A person is free to excel or fail; and,always the market will set values and adjust itself when necessary.
The free thinking nature of our Founding Fathers assured that the new United States would follow this exemplary model. They knew what it was like to be hindered by a mercantilist system where much of enterprise was controlled by state. Liberal capitalism, with private enterprise, was at the core of the new freedom they sought in a foreign land.
Unlike any other economic system, capitalism instills a sense of virtue in those who are in the middle class and on the fringe of rising to greater heights. Too often socialism and communism unduly protects those who refuse to work and become contributing members of society. Yet, the individual in capitalism is exposed to the market and therefore is forced to add value to society.
In all, although discontents with our great economic incentive may arise, we must remember that the individual economic virtue is facilitated by this great economic system. There will never be anything greater than American capitalism!
The Constitution and Health Care
There is nothing in the constitution which gives the government the right to tell people what goods and services they should purchase. Proponents of Health Care Reform argue that the Commerce Clause conveys this right to the government. It states "[The Congress shall have power] to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States "
Without dismissing the complex legal arguments of the expansive Commerce Clause, the mandate on individuals to purchase insurance is clearly at odds with the Tenth Amendment. Never before has the U.S. government required individuals to purchase a product or service unless they were doing so to participate in a public privilege such as driving on a government road. Clearly the Tenth Amendment was enacted with intent of limiting what the government could force its citizens to do.
If the government can force its citizens to buy health insurance, can it next mandate Americans to purchase General Motors cars? Organic foods? American-made TV sets?
Without mandated insurance for every American, health care insurance reform collapses.The young, the healthy and the optimistic will choose not to pay the high premiums required by community ratings (as opposed to actuarial calculations). They will only purchase health care insurance when they become sick or transition into a higher risk classification. That will further increase premiums and exacerbate the already complicated costly system.
What future will be left for our children?
Though the healthcare bill is a debacle, of much more significance is the future of young people and our nation. The level of unfunded mandates including social security and Medicare are over 40 trillion dollars. This situation threatens to destroy our financial future. When social security was first enacted, it was a logical program, because there were five workers for every retiree. Now there are only three workers for every retiree and in20 years there will only be two workers for every retiree. The significance is that in the beginning there were more people putting in than taking out and as our population ages and life expectancy increases there will be more people taking out than putting in. So you must push the system back to something that is logical that will work again. Why did it work before? Because the average age of death was 61 and the benefits wouldn't kick until the ripe old age of 65. Therefore adjustments are absolutely necessary. If you don't adjust accordingly, you will soon see part II of Bernie Madoff. You will soon awaken to the startling fact that our government no longer has the funding to pay your benefits.
The alternative for the government is too raise taxes to an unbelievable level for everyone, which basically changes our society to serfdom once again,like the pre American European society. They will also commence to monetize the debt, which simply means printing money and devaluing the dollar to the point where it become worthless. Either of these solutions is a disaster for our children and grand children. If there is any shred of decency left in our society, we should heed the words of George Washington and many of our founding fathers who felt that it was morally unjust to pass on debt to the future generations.
Are any of us surprised that this country remains vehemently against the recent healthcare bill that was passed by intimidation and mobster like negotiations.
Financial Amber Alert
Two financial events occurred in the last 24 hours which may be the beginning of the US governments financial apocalypse. Yesterday the NY times reported that Social Security disbursements exceeded revenues for the first time. This was not expected to happen until 2016. This is the beginning of Americas financial hole in Social Security that will only become deeper as baby boomers continue to retire. Unless there is the political will to fix the social security imbalance immediately, it will eventually bankrupt the treasury of the U.S Government.
Secondly,the Wall Street Journal reported today that "Unease at Deficit Hurts Demand for Treasuries". The U.S government is beginning to have trouble financing its huge deficits. Unlike past treasury auctions over the past few years, the usual foreign buyers did not show up to finance Americas deficit. Moody's warned investors last week that American AAA bond rating is in jeopardy. Have investors begun to heed Moody's warnings and unofficially downgrade Americas AAA bond rating? This is leading to significant increases in interest rates which will affect not only the cost of government borrowing,but the cost of consumer and business borrowing as well. As interest rates increase, consumer and investment spending will decline and government deficits will continue to expand. This is not the recipe for stimulating a weak economic recovery.
Are ever increasing government deficits, projected tax increases and increased interest rates going to stall Americas weak recovery? Is this the beginning of the second phase of a W recession? If so, this will further exacerbate the governments deficit financing problems.
The Europeanization of America
Every state wide elected official , Republican and Democrat alike, woke up Monday morning with the stark realization that they now have to pay for the mess Congress has created. And I guarantee you every one of them began the thought process with similar words, Unlike Washington, we have to balance our budgets what are we going to do??
One things clear" the polarizing politics of nationalizing one-sixth of our country's economy won't easily dissipate. If the president isn't careful, he could alien ate even Democratic allies at the state and local levels " all facing excruciatingly tight budget woes, and none too eager to swallow more problems in the name of party loyalty.
Many are beginning to wonder whether the passage of health care has signaled the opening of Pandora's box in a rapid move toward socialism and government control over their lives. Will government eventually determine what books are read in school? What you eat? Where you live? What car you drive? Whom you marry? What you watch on TV as entertainment?
Are we finally witnessing the null of American life and the end of the greatest economic and military might ever known to man? What a sad and pathetic way for our once great nation to be remembered in the future history books.
No government deficits!
Go back to first financial principals. Like prudent individuals, the federal government should not spend more than it receives in revenue. While this principal should be self-evident, it has been almost consistently ignored by western governments since the Great Depression. At that time the great British economist John Maynard Keynes convinced world politicians that deficit spending stimulates the economy. With this economic rational, the deficit genie was out of the bottle. Spendthrift politicians found a justification for spending government money that they did not have. Now that the deficit genie has been out of the bottle for 75 years, it may require a constitutional amendment to force Congress to do the right thing and balance the budget.
Maybe no Fallout after the Fall
Last nights historic health reform vote in the House of Representatives has thousands of analysts this morning monitoring for potential political fallout. Who stays? Who goes? If you walked the halls of the House office buildings this morning, you'd barely notice anything other than exhausted staffers " as if they'd fought a mental battle of Armageddon and are just now sorting through the bodies. Republicans last night were upset, but I couldn't help detecting a glint of glee in their mannerisms over the spoils they will allegedly reap come November. To that I say, Not so fast.
When one scans the landscape of how Republicans fare at this point in the electoral cycle,its hard to see a wave election building at all. Yes, February fundraising numbers for the GOP were up, with Republicans out raising their counterparts, but only by $2 million. The campaign arm of House Democrats(DCCC) is still flush with cash " holding a nearly 3-to-1 advantage over the NRCC. The senate GOP election arm is in a similar situation, and the party overall is lagging, given Chairman Steels largesse.
Unrelenting,President Obama has an ambitious schedule planned in the coming days and weeks to bolster the health bills public brand. And perhaps more importantly,the measure passed last night comfortably by modern day standards for so-called tight votes. If this bill were so controversial and the American people were so against it, then why did three additional Democrats walk the political plank when they didn't need to? 219 is a comfortable margin these days. I'm somewhat sarcastic in saying that, but the fact is Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn had some wiggle room. And if the promised nuclear winter was truly threatening in the wake of this vote, then the Democratic Party is either very confident or very stupid.
Dont get mewrong, I still believe voters hate this bill. And I want them to hate it,but I dont know if their vitriol is actionable hate. In other words,will the average voter remember this day come November and will they truly votethe bums out?
Maybe we got itwrong. Perhaps health reforms opponents overestimated the sentiment ofthe people. One things for sure, I think we all underestimated thediscipline of House Democrats. Speaker Pelosis job was on the line, andlike the mailman, she delivered.
Is this bill badpolicy? You bet. The worst ever? Probably. But for now,Democrats are riding high. They targeted a third rail of sorts and theywerent electrocuted. Sure, theyll lose seats, but that was part of Pelosisstrategy all along " to thin her ranks a bit so her lines are even tighter onfuture votes. But will this be the end of the House Democrats? Standing here today and looking at some important election indicators,Im not so sure the fallout will be there.
Dem latest move is an Obamanation
I've seen a lot of bizarre excuses for enacting laws in this town through the years, but one offered over the weekend by Democrats deserves a unique spot on the Wall of Shame. To now justify the heavy-handedness and sheer arrogance of their actions, Democrats are saying they have no choice but to press onward. To walk away from their efforts on health reform would be tantamount to wasting a full legislative year " time they cant get back so they dare not waste in vain. Please.
Yes, indeed they will have wasted a year, but is that really any reason for the greatest democracy in the world to force a corrupt healthcare bill down the throats of free citizens? Trust me when I say history will be far kinder to this president and his party if this abomination dies a death it should have experienced weeks ago. Did he ever stop and think the process is standing in his way because it was designed for such a purpose " to slow the misguided and ill-planned efforts of would-be tyrants who believed they knew what was best for the citizenry?
This nation has spent nearly 300 years steeped in independence and democracy. Our cause: we didn't want some overseas government foisting exploitative policies on our nation. The men and women who served and died for this country so we could have independence did so in order for the generations to come to be able to make their own decisions.
This is precisely where we stand today " the moral imperative for us as voters and informed citizens to make our own decisions. And whats so special about this particular topic is the American people are well-informed, Mr. President. I know your cronies believe that if they just get something passed, some veil of secrecy will be lifted and the righteousness of your proposal will be revealed. Its not working. And it wont work, because the people aren't buying the propaganda, no matter how loudly you state your case. They deserve a bill that will alleviate the current ailments in the system, not exacerbate them beyond feasibility.
To push legislation through for the sake of one year in disregard of our nations brutal fight for democracy is absolute politically hysteria. This is clearly the sign of a party that does not understand the principles that have guided our country into greatness; principles that many of us still abide today and recognize them as nothing less than being American.
In all, if there were to be one reason to push healthcare through it should be because it would make our system infinitely better and serve the needs of the people of America.Not because Democrats need to save face and give President Obama a pyrrhic victory.
Is Lack of money the primary cause of our Education Crisis?
I don't think money is the primary problem for our education crisis. We've been throwing good money after bad at the educational system for years, yet things seem to get worse.I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think that though there's a correlation between money and successful students, its only a correlation "not a causal factor. I think better schools get more money because there's a value on education in that schools area FIRST. Its because the local community demands it and is itself made up of education-minded, educated, and successful parents who themselves make money and thus pay more in taxes to their communities and, in return, demand more from their schools. Inner cities,on the other hand, are characterized by less-educated, lower-earning, and less education-minded folks who don't provide as much of a tax base for better-funded schools, not to mention the fact that they demand less of their teachers and even less of their children in terms of school performance.
Would throwing money at these schools help? Probably. I think we can agree that if we threw billions into bad schools and enforced accountability from school leaders and paid good teachers good money to go in and clean things up, things would change for these disadvantaged students. But what of the cultural dynamic? By that I mean, you can lead a horse to water (i.e., put laptops in every kids lap and a well-paid master teacher in every classroom), but can you force him to drink(i.e., change entirely the minds and goals of inner-city students who haven't bought into the notion of education as a means of self-fulfillment and life long success)? Id like to hope so; I believe in the power of good teachers, because I wouldn't be in business and media if it weren't for a professor or two who excelled at bringing the subject to life for me.
Medicare Dilemma
Historically physicians felt it was their duty to care for indigent patients and were able to do so because insurance company's paid a reasonable reimbursement. With the advent of HMO's and indexing of payments to medicare the margins for physicians were significantly reduced making it impractical for them to continue free care. The reason physicians accepted medicaid and medicare in the beginning was out of a sense of duty to the poor and elderly. They never suspected that it was the camel's nose under the tent and everything would be indexed to those payments. In other words no good deed goes unpunished.
Ostensibly the purpose of Obama care is to make healthcare available to everyone. However, there exist still many inherent dilemmas associated with his proposals. The administration bill calls for a 22% reduction in physicians reimbursement for medicare patients. Please keep in mind that medicare patients overall are rarely profitable. This reduction will make them absolutely zero profitable and in many cases physicians will end up paying to see the patient. The plan has touted that it will cover 30million more Americans. You don't need to be a mathematician to understand that if you include 30 million additional people and reduce the number of health care providers willing to see healthcare patients that instead of more access there will be less access. Therefore this system being thrust upon this country will only increase the dissatisfaction with health care and make matters much worse.
You can't expect physicians to absorb the cost now to care for patients. They areal ready burdened with significant overhead and in every case there is increasing exposure to malpractice law suits which this plan offers no solutions for. For physicians this is a lose, lose, lose proposition which ultimately spells doom for the patient and will discourage many bright future physicians from pursuing the medical profession and will compound the access issue in the future.
The likely outcome is many physicians will seek early retirement and many would be medical students will pursue other careers. Both scenarios are devastating for the field of medicine.
Republicans Stimulus Hypocrisy
Republicans rightly opposed the stimulus last year on the grounds that it wouldn't stimulate job growth -- or at least, not as much as cutting taxes and liberating the economy's true job creators, small businesses. Fair enough. But over the past year, Republicans have used the stimulus as a sort of slush fund behind which they can hide their own political cowardice. For example, it's not easy to tell seniors and veterans who want more money in the form of a COLA(cost-of-living adjustment) that, well, there was no inflation last year, so you're not going to get that increase. So, how do you say no to seniors and vets if you're a Senate Republican? You don't! All you have to do is find a way to split the baby, and that's exactly what many Senate Republicans did last night: they supported an amendment -- offered by a Republican -- that would have given seniors and vets an additional $250 this year -- because hey, they want it! -- as long as the money came from unobligated stimulus funds.
Beautiful, right?They knock out a few birds with this stone. They get to remind people that the stimulus isn't working and could be used for better things. They get to tell seniors and vets they voted to give them checks, but the Democrats preferred to use that money to grow the government and opposed Republicans. And, at the end of the day, since they lost, at least money won't be spent on these checks that, in their heart of hearts, they didn't really think these folks deserved anyway.
This sounds to me like the same shenanigans Republicans pulled when they ran the show in Washington, and I worry that it signals they haven't learned their lesson: that good governing requires making hard choices and telling some people"No." And I also worry that Republicans actually buy into the idea that government spending, as long as it's done right, is good for the economy.Maybe, like Democrats, they actually believe this stuff. Republicans defend their vote last night by saying the money was going to be spent on less worthwhile stimulus projects anyway, so they may as well have tried to redirect it. But the problem is, what are these Republicans going to do a year or two from now when there's no stimulus slush fund for them to raid and these same folks want another COLA check they don't deserve? Are Republicans going to find the courage then to vote no? I doubt it, because now they're on the record as having supported giving these COLA checks to seniors and vets when there was,in fact, no inflation to justify it. They're setting themselves up for tough decisions " not to mention a bit of hypocrisy " down the road.
Far better, I think, for Republicans to let Democrats go down with the sinking stimulus ship.Republicans need to keep their hands out of that stimulus bill, or people might end up thinking there's not much difference between them and Democrats.
Logical Health Care Reform
The United States spend twice the money as the next closest nation on Health care per capita. Many of these countries have found phenomenal success in spending less and with highly touted results in health care. The key to our success is to drastically remove the cost from our system. How do we then take advantage of the strengths that already exist in our current system? All of our diseases and procedures are categorized and coded. Our computer systems are unmatched in the world which clearly indicates that we can do billings and collections electronically in an instant without needing mountains of paper and armies of people to push them around. This of course has created enormous administrative cost that is absolutely unnecessary.
We often hear the complaint that millions of people are without health care which of course is a false accusation for they can always go to the emergency room. How do we create a system that produces an incentive to regularly visit the clinic rather than go to the emergency room which costs five times more than the clinic? We need to be mature enough to recognize that we're already absorbing the cost, so we should use economic dollars rather than premium dollars to care for them. When people visit clinics there is often more of a tendency to focus on preventive care. It's critical that our goals should be to prevent medical issues from becoming worse and delving into the primary cause of the problem. Many of us are now aware that receiving care in the emergency room only concerns itself with the immediate acute problem at hand.
Catastrophic care which allows insurance companies to falsely elevate the cost of premiums must be given a serious overhaul. These companies often claim they have all these catastrophic health care needs which they are responsible for. We now have the ability through Medicare to shift the responsibility of catastrophic health care away from the private sector and to the government. There is no need to create a new entity that already exists,which is Medicare.
Of critical importance is tort reform. A system needs has to be created which cares for the need of people who sustain medical injuries. The best way is not to reinvent the wheel but look to others that have been successful in doing so. When we speak about the cost of medical litigation we need to consider not only the astronomical dollar amount but also the disruption that losses cause in the lives of doctors and the practice of hospitals. We must look closely at the cost of defensive medicine which is out of control but very difficult to quantitatively measure.
This is a logical and bold start. Is president Obama listening?
KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid.
Obama is exactly right:Americans want the health-care system fixed. Obama is exactly right:Republicans don't have their own comprehensive plan. Obama is exactly right: Republicans are the party of no when it comes to this bill.
But though Republicans might lose today, Obama's going to lose even worse for simple reasons: Americans hate this bill more than they want the system fixed. They hate this bill more than they care whether the Republicans have an alternative comprehensive overhaul. And they hate this bill more than they do the party of no.
Hell get an A for effort from the American people " they'll admire his stones with as light uptick in polls " but don't be surprised if there's no movement whatsoever on their support of the policy.
And this really is a setup, as Pence said last week on Meet the Press. They want to be able to say they tried so they can turn right around and pass it through reconciliation. They've sold themselves " whether they're able to sell it to the American people tomorrow or not.
KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid.. the bill is much too complex and no one understand sit including our President and Congress. It would be much easier for people to comprehend an individual bill which handles single issues. Are you listening Mr. President and Congress?
A dangerous and deadly problem at Toyota
Congress has finally worked itself into a full-throated frenzy over the recent series of recalls by the worlds #1 auto producer. I use the word finally because any time Americans are dying as a result of businesses cutting corners, its our governments job to step in quickly and address the problem. Ive been a little less than satisfied with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSA) responses in recent months to these recalls. Its almost as if the agency and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood wanted to look the other way as Toyota officials fixed its problems on their own; hoping the issue would quickly dissipate from the national conversation. Yet the longer drivers waited for their Corollas to be repaired, the more we learned of other problems along the manufacturers complete line of autos.
Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda will testify before a congressional oversight panel today, prepared to take full responsibility for any safety problems in his company's vehicles. His groups president said as much yesterday, and the company has been in full damage control for weeks now trying to reassure drivers their cars are safe to be on the road. But they're not safe. And no amount of elevator music and soothing announcer talk can mitigate those realities. People are dying! Which only leads me to believe there's full-scale corruption at Toyota where profits trump safety, and cutting corners means the company stays on top. That's a false claim of auto hegemony, and Toyota himself should be ashamed.
A Mere Millionaire is not Wealthy
A 60year old couple with a net worth of $1 million is hardly wealthy. They probably accumulated this wealth by hard work and savings. Their net worth is probably composed of a $500,000 house and $500,000 of pension assets. When they retire, they can expect a taxable income of $20,000 to $30,000 per year from their pension assets at todays rates and about $25,000 per year from social security. $50,000 per year is enough to support a comfortable middle class life stile, but it is hardly a luxurious retirement.
President Obama has repeatedly implied that families with incomes in excess of $250,000are wealthy. There are many families in New York, Washington, DC, San Francisco and other expensive American communities who barely live an upper-middle class life style on $250,000 per year. These couples tend to be successful professionals, business managers and small business owners. If they want to retire with an upper middle class life style on $250,000 per year without touching principal, they would need financial assets of $6 million to$8 million. In other words, a net worth of less than $10 million merely lets the retiring couple maintain a comfortable upper middle class lifestyle. This is the life style of the American Dream to which most Americans reasonable aspire. It is not the super luxurious and sumptuous life style of the rich and famous.
It is unfortunate that the Progressives reject the proven economic tools that lead to general prosperity; tax reductions, less regulation, balanced government budgets, and policies that encourage individuals to be productive and responsible. After all the mere millionaires are the most productive members of the economy. Why do the progressives want to reduce Americas productivity by taking the hard earned wealth of the mere millionaires? If this happens, the whole economy will suffer.
One Way and One Way Only to Cut the Deficit!
A week ago my written blog addressed the size of the deficit and how it continues to damage our future. In reading and hearing responses many asked what solutions can be offered instead of just criticizing the "Great One". Today's blog focus on concrete measures to reduce the deficit. The unavoidable fact is that the only way to cut the deficit is to reduce spending. History has shown that increasing taxes to solve budget problems reduces government revenues in the long term. This occurs principally because it reduces GDP growth and taxpayers react to increase taxes by shifting their resources to non taxable instruments or non taxable pursuits. Consequently the only conclusion that any common sense thinking human being can reach is reduce cost.
The quickest reduction in federal cost must come from the reduction of the federal payroll. This includes a cut of federal employees and a substantial reduction in federal salaries. In this mode Congress should set the example. In a business that consistently loses money, it's leaders take significant reduction in salaries, bonuses and perks. It would not be unreasonable to ask these congressional leaders to take a 20% salary reduction until the deficit is in balance. Give them additional incentives to balance the budget with a 50% bonus when it has been balanced.
Federal employees make approximately 40 to 50% more than the average American worker in the private sector. It would not be outrageous to ask federal employees to review their federal compensation and put it in line with the private sector. In a business that can't make a profit managers terminate or reduce salaries of the least productive employees. Perhaps another area that must be addressed are federal transfer payments. Social Security is a no brainer and can become solvent with one simple fix. Ask people to work an additional two years to reflect increased longevity. Federal pensions should be readjusted to reflect the current demographic trends to longer lives. This would require lower payout's or increased working longevity for eligibility.
End all earmarks, need I say more.
Fire the Teacher's Union
Heroes can and will emerge from the most unsuspecting places and make crucial decision that can reverberate around the world. Rhode Island superintendent,Frances Gallo, boldly confronted the neglect of Central Falls High School students by pompous teachers and the Central Falls Teachers Union. Her challenge boldly illuminates the burden unions and governments jobs have on productivity.
Courageously glaring at the shameless monster of one of the worst school districts in the nation reporting 50% of students failing their classes and less than 50% graduating,Frances Gallo was willing to challenge facilitating negligent teachers who were obviously apathetic to the success of their students. All they cared about in the end was their fat paychecks every two weeks and no concern for the dismal results of their students.
The continuing embarrassing situation became a desperate matter for Gallo in the Rhode Island public school system. The shameless teachers and administrators boasted an average salary of $72,000 - $78,000 a year in a town where the average salary was only $22,000.
Frances Gallo be came fed up and demanded that student results become a priority for these hypocritical and selfish teachers and demanded six changes that she knew would turnaround the unaccountability of that school. Some of these included: adding 25minutes to the work day, eating lunch with students one day a week, two week training in the summer and occasionally tutoring. All of which I am shocked were not a priority and demand for these teachers.
The cold hearted and self centered union's showed no compassion or commitment to improve the condition of their students. In fact they rejected and refused to enact any of Gallo's recommendations. This is where Frances Gallos conviction and commitment to the well being of her students took precedent and fired nearly 100 teachers and administrators. Wow,thank you so much for your needed example of boldness!
Why does it take so long for one person with courage and conviction to take an unprecedented and uncompromising stand against Teacher Union bosses that impede the education and progress of our school children across this nation? Nothing has eroded faster in this country than our primary public school system. This is only perpetuated by powerful and calloused teachers unions who bully administrators into accepting their way of doing business. And they just don't stop with the so called powerful teachers union.
As Americans, we need to halt the push for unionized jobs. The people of our country deserve the best products and productivity. Thankfully, Frances Gallo's actions have been brilliantly showcased at a time when our country desperately needs more like her. Please superintendents everywhere, take note and get results!
Fraudulent Climatologist
Pseudo climatologists are invading the global community lavishly armed with epithets rooted in the fear and guilt that we are responsible for the inevitable apocalyptic dying of our majestic Earth. More frightening is that these so called climatologist have infiltrated respectable organizations whose research is responsible for global climate policy.
If it weren't for the respectable climatologist, the global community would be abandoned without a penny of hope to defend themselves against the claims of these so called scientists and their fundamentalist followers.
As the debate over climate change intensifies, the truth behind the work of many of these organizations are becoming clear. Climatologist's are noticing that organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)are developing extensive reports with frightening conclusions infested with the reckless treatment of evidence "fortunately this is now coming under boldly intense scrutiny.
Gravely exacerbating the findings is the realization that powerful green lobbyist are behind much of this research, and they intend on having the global community shovel billions of dollars into their pockets. These exploitative sums, in many cases, will not curb the effect of climate change by proportions relative to expenditures.Their trivial science is shamelessly holding many at ransom!
The truth is that yes,climate change is a reality. But, our climate has been changing from the beginning of time, starting with an inhabitable planet of fire to ice ages. On a smaller scale cycles of heating and cooling exists and we are living those cycles on a day to day basis. Also, increased CO2 does contribute to this warming, although in trivial amounts. The intricate variables that go into climate change are in upward of the thousands and they are constantly in flux.
No amount of fighting climate change is going to stop it. This is the reality living on our Earth.And, many are forgetting what NASA has been so courageously willing to point out: global warming does have its benefits including a much richer biosphere.The people deserve to know more about what those benefits are.
In conclusion, the global community needs to stand up against the high jacking of climatologist.No longer will we be held captivated by lies of an apocalyptic future that will never happen by money hungry green lobbyist whose will end up robbing the unsuspecting.
There are many complex interactions among these and other factors involving climate change that none of us fully understand. It's obvious clear that the proponents of global change and warming have not provided clear enough explanations that is convincing.
Forget the girls, Government gone wild
Most Americans can't fathom the grim realities of what it's like for a country to go bankrupt, or for a currency to completely crash. I am sure those who have close relatives who lived through the Great Depression may have a little bit more perspective. They have seen their frugal ways. How they pay attention to everything they spend. How they keep a watchful eye on the way the markets are turning. The ruling generation appears to be far detached from a mindset that can thrive even in the harshest of conditions.
All one really has to do is look at Buenos Aires " once one of the richest cities in which to live, on par with New York City and Paris. However, after going through a couple of decades of irresponsible state leaders, war and, probably most controversial, a forced alien economic system, the country, although it claims to have recovered, really hasn't.
Worse yet, the Argentine government adopted protectionist policies to protect its native uncompetitive industries.
This shouldn't be the future of America. We as a people need to protect the value of our currency. We need to protect our markets and keep them competitive over the long haul. We have a right to stand up when something doesn't sound economically feasible. There is an eminent threat that can, and will, destroy our country.
Americans must remember that other countries want to have the position of being a global hegemonic force. They want to have all of the world's talent and resources filtered directly into their country.
Americans should look back on the Keynesian economic policies " a mixture of socialism and capitalism " of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Don't be afraid to remember that many of his socially radical policies were later shamefully revoked and some rightfully deemed unconstitutional. Instead of bowing to an ideological economic approach, such as the Keynesian approach "which favors government spending to recover what is lost on the consumer and business side of the GDP equation " maybe the government should focus on doing what is fiscally responsible.
An Unbridgeable Philosophical Divide?
When you deconstruct and closely analyze the details in their rhetoric, one quickly realizes the major philosophical and principle divide between liberals and conservatives. Put simply, conservatives like us believe in equality of opportunity and unfettered freedom. Liberals on the other hand, want a world where the outcomes are equal " almost guaranteed - even if it requires less societal income/ wealth and lesser freedoms.
In the real world,most Americans are neither completely liberal nor conservative in their overall views. Views and opinions change, based on ones own station in life and through differing circumstances. That's why we have laws, based on fundamental principles of whats just. Because if left to the devices and whims of populists, so-called principles would change in an instant, and freedoms would suffer. That's why conservatives look back to the Founders" they approached the building of this nation with the freshest of views "chief among them was the unfailing pursuit toward more, not less,freedom.
Conservatives will never be able to cogently persuade a true liberal who is more than willing to sacrifice his freedom and income so that there is absolute perceived equality. Likewise, liberals will never persuade conservatives to sacrifice individual freedom and hard earned wealth to be redistributed by bureaucrats and politicians in Washington, DC. For this reason alone, the Left and Right will never meet. Its probably good that they don't, for conflict is at the heart of democracy. I'm just glad I and my conservative colleagues are on the side of liberty!
It's to Warm to Snow?