Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts

Monday, November 11, 2013

Ineptocracy - a new definition of America?


I was actually sent this in a email - it was a picture of the definition on a t-shirt, so I'm sure you can find it somewhere online if you look:


Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy), n. A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Quotes of the Day - union leader Samuel Gompers


Samuel Gompers, born January 27, 1850, was a cigar maker. He is best known as the founder of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), where he was president from 1886-94 and then again from 1895 until his death on December 13, 1924.

His take on labor unions, their purpose and their actions, is a bit different from today's and so I thought it might be interesting to share some of his quotes, especially in light of the many issues facing unions - and all of us - today.

While I don't agree with everything he said and stood for, there is wisdom and insight in much of what he said and stood for, especially in his support of America during World War I and his opposition to socialism as a unsound economic solution to the ills Americans were experiencing at the time. He opposed immigration without Americanization, something many labor leaders of today fail to address.

And he opposed loyalty to a particular party. Wonder what he'd think of today's labor movement?

The worst crime against working people is a company which fails to operate at a profit.

I want to urge devotion to the fundamentals of human liberty – the principles of voluntarism. No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion. If we seek to force, we but tear apart that which, united, is invincible. . . . I want to say to you, men and women of the American labor movement, do not reject the cornerstone upon which labor’s structure has been builded – but base your all upon voluntary principles and illumine your every problem by consecrated devotion to that highest of all purposes – human well being in the fullest, widest, deepest sense.

There may be here and there a worker who for certain reasons unexplainable to us does not join a union of labor. This is his right no matter how morally wrong he may be. It is his legal right and no one can dare question his exercise of that legal right.

We want a minimum wage established, but we want it established by the solidarity of the working men themselves through the economic forces of their trade unions, rather than by any legal enactment. . . . We must not, we cannot, depend upon legislative enactments to set wage standards. When once we encourage such a system, it is equivalent to admitting our incompetency for self-government and our inability to seek better conditions.

The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems which are held to be not only impractical but a menace to their rights, welfare and their liberty.

Labor Day is devoted to no man, living or dead, to no sect, race or nation.

I have no word of censure for a man because of his views on political, social or economic questions, but I contend that trade unions are the natural form of organization for wage earners under existing economic conditions, and I propose (so far as I may be able) to keep them undefiled and free from alliance with any political party . . . . Factions who wish to dally with hobbies and fine spun theories . . . have no place in the ranks of trade unionism.

And what have our unions done? What do they aim to do? To improve the standard of life, to uproot ignorance and foster education, to instill character, manhood and independent spirit among our people; to bring about a recognition of the interdependence of man upon his fellow man. We aim to establish a normal work-day, to take the children from the factory and workshop and give them the opportunity of the school and the play-ground. In a word, our unions strive to lighten toil, educate their members, make their homes more cheerful, and in every way contribute an earnest effort toward making life the better worth living.

That which we call freedom, that which we call liberty, are not tangible things. They are not handed to any people on a silver platter. They are principles, they are questions of the spirit, and the people must have a consciousness that they not only have the term liberty and freedom, but they must have the power and the right to exercise these great attributes of life.

To strengthen the state, as Frederick Howe says, is to devitalize the individual. . . . I believe in people. I believe in the working people. I believe in their growing intelligence. I believe in their growing and persistent demand for better conditions, for a more rightful situation in the industrial, political, and social affairs of this country and of the world. I have faith that the working people will better their condition far beyond what it is today. The position of the organized labor movement is not based upon misery and poverty, but upon the right of workers to a larger and constantly growing share of the production, and they will work out these problems for themselves.

I do not think American labor is engaged in a class struggle and I do not think American labor believes it is engaged in a class struggle, because in our country we have no such thing and I hope never will have.

We are proud of the country which we claim as our own; we are proud of its history, proud of its heroes and proud of its traditions, and we hope as we struggle for its glorious future. But we maintain that patriotism does not mean the hatred of our neighbor. Nor do we believe that it is a wise policy, as some would advocate, that a foreign war might be a good cure for our domestic evils.

In the exercise of great powers often requisite under military control, the right of free meeting, the right of free speech, and free press is endangered. And when the smoke of battle is gone these rights, taken from the masses of the people under often necessary conditions, are seldom freely given back to the people.

That war transformed me from an ultra-pacifist to one willing to fight and sacrifice with my fellow countrymen in defense of the principle of living our own lives and working out our own destiny; and if there be a mad-man nation still, large or small, which will attempt to repeat that monumental crime I hope that the generations, perhaps yet unborn, of our self-governing civilized nations, may throw themselves with equal vigor in the battle to maintain the fundamental principles of freedom, justice and humanity.

[D]uring the years of [World War I] I was absorbed with the one object that it was labor's war as much as it was the war of any other group of our people; that labor had to make good in helping to win the war and to emerge from the war with freedom and democracy safeguarded and its honored name and high ideals maintained.

I want to tell you, Socialists, that I have studied your philosophy; read your works upon economics, and not the meanest of them; studied your standard works, both in English and German -- have not only read, but studied them. I have heard your orators and watched the work of your movement the world over. I have kept close watch upon your doctrines for thirty years; have been closely associated with many of you, and know how you think and what you propose. I know, too, what you have up your sleeve. And I want to say that I am entirely at variance with your philosophy. I declare to you, I am not only at variance with your doctrines, but with your philosophy. Economically you are unsound; socially, you are wrong; industrially, you are an impossibility.

You are mistaken in asserting that I am embittered against everybody or anything that savors of socialism. What I resent and what I have persistently opposed is any effort that will mislead the wage-earners and delude them with vain hope. There have been so many burdens and so much suffering and so much misery heaped upon those who are called the wage-earners, that I resent with every particle of force within me anything that would perpetuate their suffering or lead them into greater depths. Because I am firmly convinced that socialism is founded upon principles that will not lead out into broader liberty, independence and opportunity, I have done what I could to show men the fallacies of the doctrine of socialism.

There are people in the labor movement who seem to believe that success can only come by entrusting great, yes, absolute power in the hands of an individual or an executive officer. I warn you against a calamity none greater than which can occur to the labor
movement. Autocracy is as dangerous in our movement as in the state. Mistakes may be made by the masses but they learn to do better by reason of their mistakes. The individual, on the contrary, when having absolute power rarely makes mistakes, rather commits crime. The man who would arrogate to himself in the labor movement absolute and autocratic power would be a tyrant under
other circumstances and has no place in the labor movement.

One thing to be considered in discussing immigration is that the greater the number of immigrants the less American the United States becomes. . . . The American Federation of Labor believes that the foreigners now in this country should be assimilated before others are permitted to come except from such countries as Great Britain, France, Germany and Scandinavia.

America must be kept American. Those who would flood the country with hordes of immigrants from southeastern Europe care no more for America then do the Hottentots. Their desires are governed by greed.

The industrial field is littered with more corpses of organizations destroyed by the damning influences of partisan politics than from all other causes combined.

We deny the assertion made by some of our opponents when they say the American Federation of Labor is against political action. We are against the the American labor movement being made a political party machine.

I am very suspicious of the activities of governmental agencies.

We have been asked, or advised, to go for all the laws we can get. Save the workingmen of America from such a proposition! There are numbers of laws we can get, but prudence and defense of the rights and the liberties of the toilers are much more important than the effort to secure all the laws we can get.

Several times the proposition to form a labor party has been considered by the trade union movement, but after careful and thorough consideration it has been invariably decided that we can attain our purposes more quickly and more effectively by continuing our political policy of independent political action partisan to principles rather than to a party.

A law that is really a law, is a result of public thought and conviction and not a power to create thought or conviction. The enforcement of a law follows naturally because the people will it. To enact a law with the hope and for the purpose of educating the people is to proceed by indirection and to waste energy. It is better to begin work for securing ideals by directing activity first for fundamentals. Frequently, when the people concerned become mindful and eager for what will promote their own welfare, they find that they are much more able to secure what will benefit and adapt their methods to changing circumstances than is any law or the administration of that law.

There are a number of people who mistakenly charge me with being a Democrat. I never was a member of the Democratic Party. I was at one time, in my early years, a member of the Republican Party, and cast my first vote for a Republican President--U. S. Grant as soon as I attained my majority. I never did belong to the Democratic Party. In the pursuit of the Nonpartisan policy of labor in which I thoroughly believe, I supported Republican or Democrat or publicist as in the varying parties I believed that they would best serve the people without regard to party.

I love my liberty, and imprisonment would be, to say the least, very disagreeable to me; but there are some things that are even less desirable, among them one's loss of self-respect and the loss of inherent and lawful constitutional rights.

The meaning of America lies in the ideal she represents. That ideal is liberty and opportunity. But beautiful as any ideal may be, it becomes of practical value when it has effectiveness in the daily lives of men and women. Real liberty and opportunity mean a certain mental attitude toward life, certain standards of life and work, and possession of that which secures the enjoyment of opportunities. America the ideal -- the land of the free -- exists only when her people are American in all things.

By nature I am a non-conformist. I believe that restrictions dwarf personality and that largest usefulness comes through greatest personal freedom.

Note: Many of these quotes are from the Samuel Gompers Papers.

Sunday, May 05, 2013

Marcy Kaptur thinks Obama is "worst socialist ever"


This was a tweet from Rep. Marcy Kaptur, preserved by the Sunlight Foundation:

Marcy Kaptur (D) @RepMarcyKaptur

Barack Obama is the worst socialist ever. Dow Touches 15000 on Jobs Data http://t.co/sGa4Es4kAG via @WSJ

Deleted 1 day ago after 8 seconds, originally posted via Tweet Button

You'll note that it only stayed up for 8 seconds before it was deleted.

So what does she mean by this?

Well, the article, S&P Tops 1600 on Jobs Data, says this:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 142.38 points, or 1%, to 14973.96, after touching an all-time intraday high of 15009.59. It closed at a record.

The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, meanwhile, pushed through the 1600-point level, 13 years after it surpassed 1500. The index rose 16.83 points, or 1.1%, to 1614.42. The Nasdaq Composite Index climbed 38.01 points, or 1.1%, to 3378.63.

So clearly, socialists do not want individual investors to have wealth or get wealthier, right?

In order to be the 'worst' socialist when the stock market rises, what other conclusion could there be?

And who are those investors?

Well, they're not all 'evil rich white guys,' that's for sure.

They're you and me. They're union workers with pensions invested in mutual funds and various stocks.

They're public employees like teachers, and fire fighters and police who all rejoice when their funds gain money and provide a return on their investment for those funds will cover their costs after retirement.

They're the young entrepreneur with a start-up company who relied upon venture capital funds that came from investors who made money from this very stock market.

The question no one ever seems to ask Rep. Kaptur is why she so identifies with socialists?

But with this tweet, why is she so disappointed with the stock market doing well? Doesn't she like that her constituents and their retirement accounts are making money?

What kind of a representative wants her constituents to LOSE money?

And did she really just criticize the president for a good stock market? Is the president really responsible? Or is it that she believes his actions can NEGATIVELY impact the market and result in a loss for all her constituents?

Does she want President Barack Obama to be a 'good' socialist as opposed to the "worst" one? She must obviously believe he's a socialist if she's grading him as the "worst" ever.

Why does she think the president is a socialist?

And since she supported him and encouraged others to vote for him, why does she want a socialist as the president of the United States?

Was it meant as a joke as some are implying? Is she making the claim that he's not a socialist with the stock market doing so well?

You know they say some of the truest things are said in jest...

Regardless, there's a reason why the website detailing the the deleted tweet is called "politiwoops."

Sunday, April 15, 2012

Quotes of the Day - Milton Friedman


The following are quotes from Milton Friedman (1912-2006) Nobel Prize-winning economist:

"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." 

"The proper role of government is exactly what John Stuart Mill said in the middle of the 19th century in On Liberty. The proper role of government is to prevent other people from harming an individual. Government, he said, never has any right to interfere with an individual for that individual's own good.  The case for prohibiting drugs is exactly as strong and as weak as the case for prohibiting people from overeating. We all know that overeating causes more deaths than drugs do. If it's in principle OK for the government to say you must not consume drugs because they'll do you harm, why isn't it all right to say you must not eat too much because you'll do harm? Why isn't it all right to say you must not try to go in for skydiving because you're likely to die? Why isn't it all right to say, "Oh, skiing, that's no good, that's a very dangerous sport, you'll hurt yourself"? Where do you draw the line?"

"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."

"Spending by government currently amounts to about 45 percent of national income. By that test, government owns 45 percent of the means of production that produce the national income. The U.S. is now 45 percent socialist."   (We Have Socialism, Q.E.D. in The New York Times 31 December 1989)





 
 

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Contradiction abounds in requirement to provide free birth control

Friday, the Obama Administration announced final regulations requiring health care plans to cover birth control without charging any co-pays or deductibles to their participants. The requirement will begin Aug. 1.

The administrative rule will require organizations like religious schools and Catholic hospitals to offer birth control - at no cost - to employees covered by their health plans, though not until 2013. Houses of worship are exempt.

I'm certain that many people are going to be writing about the infringement on religion, and the Catholic religion specifically, but I want to focus on the clear contradiction in thought: that requiring health care plans to provide contraception (or any service/treatment/drug) without a co-pay or deductible somehow 'saves money.'

First, there isn't anyone who doesn't have 'access' to contraception. Any person can purchase condoms and anti-spermicide at the drug store counter - and the effectiveness of each is increased by using them together.

Any woman can get a prescription for birth control from numerous outlets. A doctor may recommend a specific type over another based upon the woman's personal and medical history, but there are so many doctors willing to write the prescriptions that no woman is without 'access.'

This regulation isn't about 'access' - it's about a woman not having to pay for the contraception she wants to use.

From The Hill:

"Birth control is not just basic health care for women, it is an economic concern," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. "This common sense decision means that millions of women, who would otherwise pay $15 to $50 a month, will have access to affordable birth control, helping them save hundreds of dollars each year."

As Richards readily admits, women already have access, but they're paying "$15 to $50 per month." With this new rule, they won't be required to pay anything - at least, not up front.

But someone always pays, hence the contradiction.

The manufacturer will still need to be compensated for the product they provide. So while the individual woman won't have to fork over any money at the time she actually get her contraceptive, insurance companies will still have a cost that will need to be covered. Without the ability to charge the individual user, they'll raise their rates on everyone to cover the expense.

This means higher rates for all - including the ones who think they're now getting their contraception for free. Talk about a contradiction between hype and reality.

So of course, it should come as no surprise that the overwhelming comments on the HHS rule were in favor of the requirement. All those people who supported it think they'll no longer have to pay. But that's just a bigger comment on their intelligence and reasoning skills - or perhaps our education system - than it is on the rule itself.

So what about seniors who don't need contraception? Or a single person who is celibate? What about men and women who have had a medical procedure that eliminates the need for contraception? Or individuals who are sterile?

All of these people will now be covering the costs so some can have the luxury of not having any out-of-pocket expenses for a product only they are using.

This is un-American. And it's no different than if my co-worker stole money out of my wallet in order to pay for her birth control pills.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

If Obama talks like a socialist, acts like a socialist and supports socialist policies, is he a socialist?

If you redeived a decent education, you probably learned about the New Deal, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's 'solution' to the Great Depression. It failed miserably.

President Barack Obama's solution to our recent economic condition is similar to the New Deal - and has even been called the New New Deal (see here, here, here and here).

But Pres. Obama's plan - like the original one - is failing miserably. You know what they say about those who fail to learn from history...

The President doesn't it like it when people say he's a socialist or that he supports socialistic policies (see here, here, here and here).

What I found interesting in all this is a paragraph from Walter Williams latest column, Ominous Parallels, where Prof. Williams is comparing Pres. Obama's policies to those of Pres. Roosevelt:

Roosevelt's agenda was not without its international admirers. The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised "Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies" and "the development toward an authoritarian state" based on the "demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest." Roosevelt himself called Benito Mussolini "admirable" and professed that he was "deeply impressed by what he (had) accomplished."

When Pres. Obama talks like a socialist, acts like a socialist, supports socialist policies, and those policies are praised by socialists, it's fair to ask if he is, indeed, a type of socialist.

And if the President doesn't want to be likened to a socialist, he should stop acting like one.

Wednesday, June 01, 2011

The Blade vs. The Constitution

Recently, Lucas County commissioners decided to form a storm-water district to address mandates from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The district encompasses several of the county's townships, including Sylvania Township.

The proposal is to charge all the property owners in the district for the costs associated with the EPA requirements - about $48.72 per year for residences with businesses being charged based upon the size of their paved areas, roofs, etc...

The problem is that Sylvania Township has looked at the requirements and determined that it can meet their EPA obligations at less cost, so they don't want to be a part of the district. And why should they? The obligation of Sylvania Township Trustees to represent their residents - and meeting these EPA mandates on their own will cost their residents less. And the EPA doesn't care how the requirements are met - so long as they are.

But that doesn't sit well with the socialists/collectivists at The Blade. They slam Trustee Kevin Haddad for, basically, doing a good job on behalf of Sylvania Township.

In their editorial, they admit that Sylvania Township can perform their EPA obligations at roughly half what they'd pay as part of the district. But that's a bad thing, according to unknown author of the editorial who points out:

It is not known what effect removing the most populous community from the water district would have on the cost in the other six townships.

There you have it.

The Blade has, for a long time, believed that other communities should subsidize the efforts of the major city, Toledo. And here is another example where it believes that well-run, proportionally-taxed communities should pay for the things other jurisdictions have to do - but have no money with which to pay for them. And, just to be sure we're clear, the reason many of those 'other' communities don't have the funds to do these mandates is because their elected officials are too busy jumping to spend money on things the paper promotes.

The Blade has also been a proponent for regionalism, including a push for a county-wide council to govern the entire 88 square miles of Lucas County. But in their push for uni-gov, they forget a critical component - cost. You see, to the editors at our local daily, the idea is the critical thing and the costs are to be born, regardless.

Mr. Haddad has an odd idea of regional cooperation. He says he is all for it — as long as his community doesn’t end up subsidizing work anywhere else. In February, he trashed the county commissioners’ regional refuse-collection plan, calling it a ruse by the City of Toledo to get other municipalities to subsidize its garbage collection.

No community wants to subsidize the outcome of another community's bad fiscal decisions - and they shouldn't!

But that's not the worst of it. The reason they promote these types of illogical ideas is because they start from an incorrect premise. It's no wonder they come to bad conclusions. Here, in their own words, is the problem - their idea of the function of government is not constitutionally based - but rather based upon the failed socialistic perspective:

One of the reasons governments exist is to collect resources from a broad base and redistribute them, not necessarily equally but rather where they are needed most.

Note how closely that aligns with Karl Marx's "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

And compare that to the U.S. Constitution, which explains why we established our government:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Unlike the editors, our founders created our form of government to 'secure the blessings of liberty' not to redistribute the wealth.

The Blade and its editors have a warped sense of government. Even in the clause, providing for the common defense, they are talking about doing so in order to protect the individual liberties of the people within the nation.

If they want to try and twist their position into saying it's to 'establish justice,' they would fail as there is nothing 'just' in taking from one to give to another. In fact, that is routinely called 'theft' when done by anyone but the government these days.

Even if they tried to claim their philosophy was to 'promote the general welfare,' well, perhaps a study of James Madison quotes about that phrase would be educational:

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

...or Thomas Jefferson:

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

The scary part is how close we are today to the warning in the second quote from Madison.

But here we are, with a local paper that clearly has no concept of the proper function of government and is excoriating a local elected official who has the temerity to suggest that bigger is not better simply because it's called 'cooperation' and believes that the overreaching federal government mandates can be met at less cost to his constituents if he doesn't capitulate.

The Blade is on the wrong side in this issue, but when you believe as Marx did, is it any wonder?

Sunday, October 03, 2010

All the evidence you need

I was browsing around the Internet and came across the following resolution, which sounds very much like the policies being advocated by President Barack Obama, the Democrats in Congress and even some of our local officials:

Whereas, Rapid jobs growth is central to resolving the economic crisis for working people. There can be no real economic recovery without full employment. Renewed profits on Wall Street and a rising stock market do not make a recovery;

Whereas, The jobs crisis is especially damaging to youth, women, African American, Latino, and other racially and nationally oppressed communities, who in addition to higher rates of unemployment also suffer higher rates of home foreclosures, bankruptcies, lack of medical care, homelessness and hunger; and

Whereas, Private industry is not capable of, nor has any interest in, putting people back to work at a sufficient pace to resolve the economic crisis. Economic recovery requires robust government action; therefore be it

Resolved, That we support and will join others in fighting for;

* Emergency jobs legislation that includes massive direct government investment in public works. This would include rebuilding our crumbling public infrastructures in housing, transportation, medical care, education, communications and recreation;

* Direct emergency aid to state and local governments to maintain and expand public services in all areas of people's needs;

* Unemployment compensation reform that provides unemployment for the duration of unemployment and for first time job seekers;

* Jobs legislation that will protect and promote trade union rights, protections and standards in all public works including card check union recognition on all public projects;

* Federal industrial policy that promotes and massively invests in new green energy and green production infrastructures needed to meet the needs of our people in sustainable ways;

* Public spending and investment that prioritizes help for the communities hardest hit by the economic crisis;

* Government intervention that is paid for by shifting money from wasteful and destructive military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan to rebuilding the domestic economy, and by tax policy that closes corporate loopholes, significantly raise tax rates on corporate profits and the very rich, and taxes on stock transactions and risky speculation on Wall Street.

Even in the Marcy Kaptur-Rich Iott debate the other evening, our representative said something along the lines of 'the private sector isn't creating jobs at the rate it needs to, so government had to step in.' This is very similar to the third 'whereas.'

You might be surprised to learn where this resolution came from and what group actually passed it.

But when you learn, I hope you'll realize just how far this country has strayed from the principles our Founders fought so hard to establish: liberty, individual responsibility, the ability to succeed - and fail, and freedom.

So where did I find this? On the Communist Party USA website.

Resolution adopted by the 29th National Convention of the Communist Party USA, New York, NY May 21-23, 2010.

As if that's not enough, just watch this YouTube video of 'Proud Socialists at Left-Wing Protest in DC.'

Remember in November!

Monday, August 24, 2009

Would Obama settle for one term?

Back in March, I wrote a post questioning whether or not President Barack Obama cares about winning a second term.

From that post:

The goal is not the presidency - that's merely a tool with which to achieve the agenda: the European-style socialism of America and the total consolidation of power within the hands of radical leftists. Sacrificing his re-election would be a small price to pay for accomplishing this nefarious feat.


Yesterday, I saw this headline on CNSNews.com

Obama ‘Quite Comfortable’ As One-Term President, White House Spokesman Says

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was "addressing a question about a comment made by Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), who said the president told him he is willing to risk a second term to get a health care overhaul bill approved."

I've also seen several articles and opinion pieces which ask if Democrats would be willing to 'sacrifice' majority control in the House and Senate in order to usher in some of their policy agenda items.

While I think most politicians are more concerned with maintaining control via constant re-election, I believe there may be some who would trade a temporary loss of the majority in order to obtain a massive change to a type of socialism for our country.

What do you think? Is the loss of an election is too big a price to pay for the goal of socializing our nation?

Monday, June 08, 2009

A tax on plane tickets to fund global warming fight?

Yep - that's what's being suggested.

Of course, it's only 'rich' countries that will be subject to the tax,despite the fact that 'countries' don't actually purchase plane tickets...

And then there are the super rich who don't purchase tickets, but fly in private planes.

What are the implications? Well, if you make ticket prices higher, the individuals who would normally purchase them might decide not to. That will result in less tourism across the globe - and less 'income' from the tax. Businesses who have no choice but to travel internationally will pass along those increased taxes to the individuals who purchase their products, causing an overall increase in costs, as well.

Then there is the suggestion to match the plane ticket tax with a shipping fuel tax. Of course, that drives up the costs of commerce - again making products more expensive.

The worst part of all this is that the billion and trillions 'they' want to spend to combat global warming may - just maybe - reduce temperatures by a fraction of a degree. Is a fraction of a degree really worth the extra cost?

The core problem, however, is that everyone just assumes that our current temperature is the 'right' one and that it must be preserved. Personally, I'd like it to be a bit warmer, especially during the winter months. And who can tell us, with any amount of authority whatsoever, what the 'proper' temperature of the earth should be so that we can aspire to reach it?

If you read the linked article, you'll see that another complaint from the conference is that 'rich' countries aren't giving enough money to the 'poor' countries. That whole 'redistribute the wealth' idea doesn't work - all it does is make the 'rich' want to stop producing. As Margaret Thatcher said, 'eventually you run out of other people's money.'

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Encouraging signs from America's campuses

Quite often I look around and get rather discouraged at what I see happening with our young people. Teaching them moral relativism to the 'superiority' of Marxism while neglecting the basic principles upon which this nation was founded is creating a generation that is more interested in their feelings than in facts, reason, logic or even thinking.

But then I come across something that makes me think all is not lost.

Ashley Herzog has two columns that show reason is not yet dead on America's campuses. In Socialism, College Style, she takes a look at applying the socialist 'spread-the-wealth' concept to grades...much to the surprise of students who willingly embrace the idea when it comes to money but reject it when it actually applies to them and their grades.

She follows up with Part II, applying the concept to the way professors run their classrooms - exposing the hypocrisy of what is taught versus what is practiced.

Then there is Dr. Mike Adams, a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, who seems to be the lone conservative voice crying in the wilderness of political correctness and socialism in our university systems. His most recent column, however, is what gives me encouragement.

In Revolt in East Lansing, he writes about a group of Michigan State University instructors who have formed The Conservative Faculty and Staff at MSU to "protect and defend the values articulated in the Declaration of Independence here at Michigan State University."

That college professors are beginning to speak out for their ideals and for the free exchange of ideas and concepts in what is supposed to be an open forum and 'safe' place to do so, is just fantastic. I, like Dr. Adams, hope this idea catches like wildfire and spreads to all American campuses.

Maybe it's not so discouraging after all....

Monday, April 20, 2009

Calling it 'capitalism' doesn't make it so

In a recent New York Times column, Richard W. Stevenson wrote:

In a series of comments in recent weeks, Mr. Obama has begun to sketch a vision of where he would like to drive the economy once this crisis is past. His goals include diminishing the consumerism that has long been the main source of growth in the United States, and encouraging more savings and investment. He would redistribute wealth toward the middle class and make the rest of the world less dependent on the American market for its prosperity. And he would seek a consensus recognizing that an activist government is an acceptable and necessary partner for a stable, market-based economy.

The article, 'Redefining Capitalism After the Fall,' reminds me of George Orwell's 1984 wherein the definition and meaning of words are modified by government. Just like the old joke: "How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg? Four - calling it a leg doesn't make it so." If you take socialist-type practices and call them capitalism, it doesn't mean it's capitalism.

But let's look at what Pres. Obama has suggested.

"His goals include diminishing the consumerism that has long been the main source of growth in the United States, and encouraging more savings and investment."

There's a lot to be said for encouraging individuals to save and invest. However, such an approach is completely contrary to what government has done. Congress, under both Presidents Bush and Obama, has taken various steps to encourage spending - everything from direct 'stimulus' checks (which didn't 'stimulate' the economy) to the latest 'stimulus bill' which borrows against future generations in order to spend now.

How do you say people should save and invest when you are encouraging them to do the exact opposite? And if saving and investing is good in the long term, why are we not encouraging such activity now? How can people (or government) borrow now, incur huge debt and then expect to have any money left over to save in the future?

"He would redistribute wealth toward the middle class..."

Well of course he would. He said exactly that to Joe the Plumber. The problem with this scenario is, as Margaret Thatcher said, eventually you run out of other people's money. Under such schemes, the threshold of whose wealth is 'redistributed' continually goes down, meaning that those 'middle class' people who think they're going to be getting someone else's wealth find themselves classified as 'wealthy.'

As it is, Obama has said that 'rich' starts at earnings of $250,000. According to the most recent data from the IRS (2006), the top 10% of filers, those earning more than $108,904, paid more than 70 percent of all taxes. If you have two union members in a household working overtime, it is very likely they earn enough to put them into the top 10%. If the top 10% are paying 70% of all taxes, that means that 90% of the people are paying only 30% of the bill. How much more does wealth need to be redistributed?

Obama also wants to:

"...make the rest of the world less dependent on the American market for its prosperity."

While I certainly want other nations to be economically successful, I still want them to depend upon the American market. We live in a global economy and I want other nations to depend upon the American market. I want the United States to be in the driver's seat when it comes to the economy. I want our citizens to be the client the world's businesses want to satisfy. But the way to do that is through capitalism - not through a mandated version of what government thinks we want or need.

Finally, Obama says he:

"...would seek a consensus recognizing that an activist government is an acceptable and necessary partner for a stable, market-based economy."

Well that's not capitalism, which is precisely the point. The last thing our founders had in mind for this nation was an 'activist' government. They saw the results of 'activist government' and fought a revolution in order to free of us from such oversight.

Just look at the words: 'activist government' and 'market-based economy.' If government is determining the economy, it cannot be 'market-based.' Either the market determines the economy or government does. And you cannot redefine capitalism to remove the market-based aspect and replace it with government-based and still have 'capitalism.' Socialism or fascism, maybe, but not capitalism.

Leftist like to say that the so-called 'failure' of the economy is a result of our capitalism, failing to realize that the U.S. has moved so far from a free-market economy due to government interference, regulations, subsidies, support, etc. It isn't the failure of a free market that brought us to today's economy, it is the idea, practiced in many areas, that government can dictate to that free-market and still have a free market. If government hadn't mandated loans to individuals not determined, under normal circumstances, to be qualified, do you really think the burst of the housing bubble would have been so severe? When you order banks to consider unemployment insurance payments as income, is it any wonder that people who didn't have a job had trouble making their loan payments?

Of course, leftists also believe that the solution to problems government created is...more government.

Additionally, capitalism includes the possibility and consequences of failure - something government has now determined to prevent, via bailouts, loans and the 'too big to fail' concept. That's not capitalism, either, as capitalism requires reward commensurate with risk. If I risk nothing because I have a government willing to bail me out, I'm likely to take on riskier propositions. The situation becomes worse as a result of government guarantees against suffering the consequences of severe risk, i.e. failure.

Of course, the 'government' really isn't doing this. We, the taxpayers are - those same taxpayers who wouldn't invest their own personal funds in such endeavors are doing so, through taxation and distribution by government, after the failure has been achieved.

Again, that's not capitalism and calling such doesn't make it true.

It is these types of goals and ideas that have so many Americans worried and concerned over the future of their nation. While we're not a socialist country, yet, we see signs that we are moving in that direction and when Pres. Obama says those are his goals, is it any wonder every day citizens took to the streets to protest such aims at the Tea Parties?

For more on the free market, I highly suggest this article from the Foundation for Economic Education.

Thursday, April 09, 2009

A majority believe capitalism is better than socialism

Rasmussen is reporting their latest poll that says 53% of those surveyed believe that capitalism is better than socialism.

They found that 20% believe socialism is better and 27% are not sure.

But the scary part of the poll is when they break the numbers down by age.

"Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better."

These numbers have got to be a result of the several factors, including the education children have gotten and the lack of historical perspective that young people often have.

I can only conclude that we've stopped teaching the consequences of socialistic economic systems in school - that such systems have failed every time they've been tried. Or that such systems are touted as equally valid under the moral relatively viewpoints. Or that such systems result in 'social justice' and are therefore to be desired for promoting 'common good' over individual responsibility and achievement.

Perhaps this difference in opinions by ages is to be expected. They old saying goes that if you aren't liberal when young, you have no heart and if you aren't conservative when older, you have no brain. Maybe, as they grow older, become investors (who choose capitalism by a 5-to-1 margin), and have the perspective of world history, they will change their minds.

One can only hope.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Don't worry - be happy! Government is here to help

"A socialist is somebody who doesn't have anything, and is ready to divide it up equally among everybody." ~ George Bernard Shaw

If the ever-constant move toward a socialistic government is enough to make you cry, don't worry! Government has a solution to that as well.

From the Drudge Report:

NANNY STATE: GOVERNMENT WEBSITE TO WARN OF SADNESS/CRYING OVER ECONOMY
Mon Mar 30 2009 18:43:56 ET

The U.S. government is set to offer an online emotional rescue kit!

"Getting Through Tough Economic Times" will launch Tuesday with a media push across all platforms.

The site is meant to help people identify health concerns related to financial worries.

The feds will warn of depression, suicidal thinking and other serious mental illnesses. It will raise warning flags for: Persistent sadness/crying; Excessive anxiety; Lack of sleep/constant fatigue; Excessive irritability/anger.

The guide will be available starting at midnight at http://www.samhsa.gov/economy.

The site is live now and it offers such advice as: "Trying to keep things in perspective - recognize the good aspects of life and retain hope for the future."

See? Government actions drive you to the brink and waiting there is ... government! Because without a government website to help you identify health concerns, you wouldn't know you had them. And, true to form, government will offer solutions, because without government, you wouldn't be able to seek solutions on your own.

And if you are not one of the ones suffering distress over your financial conditions, you can help, too!

Encourage community-based organizations and groups to provide increased levels of mental health treatment and support to those who are severely affected by the economy.

Yep, because as government continues to spend us into oblivion, increasing debt beyond understanding, it will create more distress among the citizens, resulting in more need for government spending to help us recover from the travails inflicted upon us by government.

It's a never-ending circular trap. It's a good thing government has the issued covered.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Does Obama care about a second term?

Yesterday, on WSPD, I interviewed Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) about the GIVE Act and her efforts to prevent any monies distributed through the act from being used for political purposes.

The interview is available here and you can listen to it or download it for all the details.

But one comment she made really struck me, because it was the first time I've heard anyone say this.

"I believe that President Obama is doing what he said he wanted to do. He doesn't care whether he has a second term. He just wants to get all this stuff passed because he knows once it passes, it's extremely difficult to undo it and so they are using all the capital they have right now.

His approval ratings are going down like a rock and he's going to do as much of this as he possibly can and then say "I've done my part. I've gotten it in law."

And what they've done so far is going to hugely damage this country."

With the current status of the economy and 'bold' plans from Congress and the President for spending our tax dollars to 'stimulate' the economy and bring down debt (yes, I know, spending never reduces debt, but that's their plan), there has been some speculation that if the economy does not turn around, Obama will not be re-elected. But that's a standard line for anyone sitting in the White House - not just this man.

To speculate that he doesn't care about a second term so long as as he can convert this nation to socialism is another matter, entirely, and one, I suspect, that may be true.

Obama's philosophy and statements indicate he believes government is not only the best solution to the problems, but the only one. He and congressional Democrats are expanding the role of government, discouraging (through their policies and laws) wealth, nationalizing businesses (yes, with prior help from the Bush Administration), seeking more power and more regulation, discouraging private charity, and on and on and on.

They are, as Rep. Foxx explained, using the rules and procedures to eliminate debate and input on bills in order to push them through without compromise. And they are rushing to do these things now, hoping the American public won't notice until it's too late.

Obama even broke his own campaign promise (how many times now?) to wait five days before signing bills so Americans could view them and provide feedback prior to them becoming law. Why the rush? It's not like a mere five days will make any difference in the economy, but it ensures that people won't know what's included until there's nothing they can do about it.

And Rep. Foxx is right. Once it's law, it's extremely difficult to repeal it or change it.

The goal is not the presidency - that's merely a tool with which to achieve the agenda: the European-style socialism of America and the total consolidation of power within the hands of radical leftists. Sacrificing his re-election would be a small price to pay for accomplishing this nefarious feat.

UPDATE: I guess I'm not the only one who thinks a European-style socialism is the goal.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

The politics of envy and greed

Dictionary.com defines greed as a noun meaning "An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth."

It's hard to characterize others as 'greedy' though, because determining what one needs or deserves is always subjective. While 'need' might be a bit easier, determining what one 'deserves' is much harder.

So, who gets to be the ultimate judge of whether or not a person is greedy? Why, each of us, of course. And our judgment is the only thing that matters, isn't it?

Isn't that why a bunch of people were touring the homes of AIG executives yesterday? To emphasize that since the executives have more than the protesters, those executives must - by personal definition - be greedy?

It is very likely that the AIG executives 'possess more than what one needs.' But how do any of the protesters know about the executives' 'desire to acquire' much less whether or not such desire is 'excessive'?

And if an employer believes you are of such a value to a company as to command a high salary - or if your customers value your offerings so much that you are able to sell things and earn high commissions, how can others determine whether or not such possessions are 'deserved?' Especially if such others have no idea about your job or the market in which you work?

***
Sidebar: Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending the use of taxpayer dollars to pay out large bonuses, but then, I opposed the use of taxpayer dollars in the first place and we wouldn't even be having this discussion if the government hadn't spent our money unwisely - kind of what politicians are accusing AIG of doing. (pot meet kettle) Additionally, Congress approved the bailout (porkulus) bill without reading it and knowing that they were specifically voting in favor of a provision that would allow such payouts - so shame on them for their grandstanding now and for not knowing what they were voting on in the first place.
***

An article in the Mercury News tells us just what the protesters thought:

""We think $165 million could be used in a more appropriate way to keep people in their homes, create more jobs and health care," said Emeline Bravo-Blackport, a gardener.

She marveled at AIG executive James Haas' colonial house, which has stunning views of a golf course and the Long Island Sound. The Fairfield house is "another part of the world" from her life in nearby Bridgeport, which flirted with bankruptcy in the 1990s and still struggles with foreclosures and unemployment."

"Lord, I wonder what it's like to live in a house that size," she said."

Well, I wonder that too, but that doesn't mean I begrudge the owners their accomplishments and acquisitions. Besides - if your main source of income is as a gardener, it's pretty likely you'll not attain such a home, unless you turn your skills into a thriving business generating lots of earnings.

"Another protester, Claire Jeffery, of Bloomfield, said she's on the verge of foreclosure. She works as a housekeeper; her husband, a truck driver, can't find work.

"I love my home," she said. "I really want people to help us.""

hmmm...a housekeeper? If I were her, I'd be leaving my business card and a flyer offering my services. Maybe with the bonuses the executives got, they could hire a housekeeper and then I'd have more income and be benefiting by working to earn some of that money.

And the comment about 'loving my home' made me think that I love my home as well - but that doesn't mean I expect others to help me maintain it.

And then there was this:

"Mary Huguley, of Hartford, said AIG executives should share their wealth with people like her sister, who is facing foreclosure.

"You ought to share it, and God will bless you for doing it," she said."

I wonder, Mary, how much the executives who live in the homes you viewed have given to charity and other non-profit programs and services within your community? Do they support the arts? Do they give to churches? Do they attend fundraisers for organizations that help people in various ways? How do you know whether and how much they 'share the wealth'?

This little tour was hosted by the Connecticut Working Families Party, not that you'll find that mentioned in the article. This is an organization that believes in a living wage for everyone - not 'earned' but mandated by government - and is pushing for higher minimum wages; government-mandated paid sick days; and shifting more of the tax burden to the very wealthy and corporations (the ones who actually provide the jobs in America).

They - and others - are practicing the politics of envy, attempting - and succeeding - in generating a "feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another."

It's used all the time in an attempt to divide people, especially in voting situations, along class lines. The message is that you should have what others have - not by working hard as they did, but through the force of government. If others have something you don't, they should share it - not through their own generosity, but through the force of government taking it and then dispensing it.

The sad part is that so many people are buying into this philosophy and politicians are willingly catering to it - and promoting it - in an attempt to earn voters/supporters for their next election.

I have to wonder about the ultimate goal of such promoters. Do they think that no one should have anything and that the 'collective' should equally divide all assets, earnings, items? Do they want the elimination of private property? And who gets to decide who gets what in such an environment?

That's where we're going - despite the fact that we've seen how disastrous such an approach is.

Envy is part of our human nature, though most religious faiths teach us it is something to be avoided - not embraced and used for political purposes. I was raised with the idea that if I wanted something, I needed to work to attain it - not expect that government was going to ensure I had it at the expense of others. If I wanted a lifestyle that allowed me the luxury of a home in Connecticut with views of a golf course and the Long Island Sound, then I needed to attain the skills, education and experience that would allow to me to get a job that paid enough to support such a home (or marry into money, but that really didn't seem like a viable option).

I was also taught that the people who did have such things had done exactly that, for the most part, and that they sacrificed many things along the way to get to that point. I needed to remember that the grass is not always greener and that some of those sacrifices I might not be willing to make - like giving up time with family, friends or hobbies to work 70-80 hours per week in order to get to such a level.

But the message people today seem to be embracing is one of greed and envy: 'I want what you have, but I don't want to do what you've done to get it, so let's have the government take from you and give to me.'

Fairness is often used as an excuse: 'It's not fair that you have more than you need while I suffer without.'

But it's a warped sense of fairness in that the other side of the equation is conveniently forgotten or purposefully denied to exist: 'It's not fair that I worked hard and sacrificed to get to this point and you want to take from me and give to others who don't want to make the same sacrifices or work as hard or for as long as I have to be able to attain the same things.'

This trend of believing that everyone somehow deserves the fruits of others' labors is what scares me the most - primarily because the non-producing or under-producing members of society are a growing segment and may actually be the majority who can rule through the tyranny of the voting booth.

"History affords us many instances of the ruin of states, by the prosecution of measures ill suited to the temper and genius of their people.

The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy.

An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy...

These measures never fail to create great and violent jealousies and animosities between the people favored and the people oppressed; whence a total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections, by which the whole state is weakened
." ~ Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations

Sunday, January 25, 2009

A prediction for Obama's presidency

Dick Morris, former political advisor to Pres. Bill Clinton, penned a column for The Hill predicting that President Obama will forever change the American political system into socialism.

"Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.

...

But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.

Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.

...

But none of these changes will cure the depression. It will end when the private sector works through the high debt levels that triggered the collapse in the first place. And, then, the large stimulus package deficits will likely lead to rapid inflation, probably necessitating a second recession to cure it.

So Obama's name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.

But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio."

Do you agree with his predictions?

Monday, December 15, 2008

Konop's college conspiracy

Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop issued the following press release last night to announce his new program to fund a college education for all Lucas County residents - and he says he can do it without raising taxes.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Konop to Outline Program for Free College Education for all Lucas County Residents...Without Raising Taxes

Common sense proposals would fund $70 million dollars worth of college scholarships for students and displaced workers


Seeking to seriously change the direction of our local economy and the future of our community--without raising any taxes--Commissioner Ben Konop will today outline an aggressive $70 million program to help guarantee all Lucas County high school graduates and displaced workers the chance to get a college education for free.

"In the 21st Century, the best way to truly get our economy moving again, and get our people back to work, is to invest in college education for all Lucas County residents," Konop said. "Through a more efficient government, we can generate a $70 million scholarship fund for Lucas County residents that would enable us to compete and win in the global economy."

Under Konop's proposal, county departments would go to a four day work week, the county would adopt energy efficiency measures and open source software, and adopt a privatized EMS ambulance service. Together, these savings would allow $4 million dollars a year to be dedicated to a bond issuance which would then fund the scholarship program. This would, based on conservative estimates, generate $70 million dollars. The recipients, college graduates and displaced workers, would only receive the scholarship funds if they agree to return to Lucas County for a period following graduation.

"We are at the critical juncture in our community's history," Konop said. "If we are really serious about putting people to work and improving the local economy long term, we have to invest, right now, in Lucas County's best asset--its people."

WHAT: Konop Outlines Program For Free College Education for County Residents

WHEN: Monday, December 15, 2008 / 12:00 p.m.

WHERE: Toledo Bar Association Luncheon / Georgio's Restaurant, 426 N. Superior / Downtown Toledo

My first question would be, as it always is, where does the county get the authority to do this sort of thing. I know that there is no provision in the Ohio Revised Code that gives a county the ability to expend tax dollars to provide a college education. But I also know that many unauthorized expenditures are made under the guise of 'economic development' which has few restrictions for how 'economic development efforts' are funded. So to claim this is somehow related to economic development in order to provide some authority for doing it would not come as a surprise.

My second question is whether or not government should provide a 'free' college education for some while taking tax dollars from others in order to do so. Why do we think people who want to go to college should be allowed to do so at no cost to themselves? You appreciate what you've earned more than you appreciate what's been given to you. And those of us who've had to pay for our own education certainly know it's possible to obtain a college education if you're willing to work and even, for some of us, go to school part-time if that's all you can afford.

But other questions also arise.

The ideas to cut expenses in the county are admirable. I'm still not sold on open-source software, but a four-day work week, energy efficiency and privatized EMS ambulance service are terrific ideas. (I must remind Comm. Konop, though, that he opposed new windows for one of the county buildings - windows which would have improved the energy efficiency of that building.)

But if you can do these things and save $4 million, why don't you do it anyway, even if you don't pay for college for everyone? And since the county is planning on laying off people as of the first of the year, why aren't we already taking such steps to save money? And if you can save $4 million a year, the county can certainly lower the taxes (sales or property) so taxpayers don't have to pay so much. I'd much rather have the county apply such savings to my tax bill so I can further my own education - rather than pay for someone else's.

The scheme would require students to "return to Lucas County" for a period of time following graduation. Does this mean they get to go to an out-of-county or out-of-state school? And are they required to return even if they don't have a job? Would they be able to collect welfare if they don't have a job upon their return to the county? Would they be required to take any job they could find, even if it wasn't related to their major?

And just how much would the oversight of such a program cost? Will there be a staff person who disburses the funds and keeps track of the graduates, where they live and whether or not they get jobs? Will that person (or persons since there would be so many people to track) also be responsible for 'directing' students into specific degrees? It might not start off with such restrictions, but you know government - would such 'direction' end up being part of the package, especially if it would ensure a viable job upon graduation? Or would there be outrage by taxpayers if students got degrees that didn't qualify them for viable employment within the county? How many job openings do we have in Lucas County for Medieval Studies majors?

I'm all in favor of the county saving money, but I don't want those savings to be spent providing someone else a benefit that I don't have access to. I'm paying taxes and I worked full-time so I could pay for my own college education, taking five years to get my degree as a result. If I, and thousands of others, can do it, it can be done - without spending my taxes to do so.

My fear is that Konop's idea will be reported, but not analyzed, as have so many of his ideas. Main stream media will cover his speech, say a few words and praise him for coming up with 'bold, fresh, new' ideas, as they've done in the past. But this idea is just more of the spread the wealth, socialism concept being promoted by so many on the left. And it means that government expands while taxing all to provide a benefit for few.

I wish Konop much success in privatizing EMS ambulance services. I think that should be done because it will save tax dollars.

I wish him success in going to a four-day work week, if mandatory functions can be performed and money can be saved while doing so. I also think everyone should work to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings, our own homes included. I hope that a cost-benefit analysis will be performed to ensure that expenditures will actually result in savings - and not just sound good and get good headlines.

But, if the county saves money by doing any of these things, it needs to reduce the amount it collects from all of us - not conspire to find new ways to spend those dollars. Give the savings back to the people who paid for it in the first place - and let us decide how to spend those dollars. We may further our own education, start a new business that provides jobs for those hoped-for graduates, spend the money within Lucas County generating more sales tax income for the county, or even save it for our retirement.

We are better at spending our money than government ever can, or will, be.

Sunday, November 09, 2008

Bailout 'scope creep'

It's a term most often heard in engineering, architectural and technology projects: scope creep. It's when you make your plans and start your project only to find, along the way, a bunch of new 'wants' or ideas that participants want included.

Since you're re-doing this, why not re-do that at the same time? It's not always that easy and it usually ends up costing a lot more than anticipated.

That's exactly what is happening with the bailout. The legislation was supposed to be limited to the financial markets - to provide liquidity in the financial sector so loans could continue to be made and institutions that were critical to the liquidity/credit areas would be solvent.

Now, it's the automotive industry. Remember when they got their own legislation for $25 billion? Well, that just wasn't enough. Now automotive CEOs and many in Congress are saying that some of the $700 billion in the bailout bill should go to the auto industry.

"In a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) asked Paulson to "review the feasibility . . . of providing temporary assistance to the automobile industry during the current financial crisis."

The letter notes that Congress granted Paulson broad discretion to use the bailout money to "restore financial market stability. A healthy automobile manufacturing sector is essential to the restoration of financial market security," the letter continues, as well as to "the overall health of our economy, and the livelihood of the automobile sector's workforce."

If the request is granted, it would expand the federal government's role in private enterprise far beyond the financial sector."

That's scope creep.

The logic is that survival of the American auto industry is critical to the economic health of the country. The problem is, that logic can be applied to any number of industries - and the expansion is never ending. Fortunately, the Treasury Department, so far, is restricting its focus to entities that are subject to federal regulation.

Friday, General Motors reported a $2.5 billion net loss for the third quarter. Ford's quarterly loss was $129 million.

GM has lost $57 billion since 2005. Ford has lost $24.5 billion since 2006. But these losses are only part of the problem.

"Going into the third quarter, GM had 21 billion dollars on its books. By the end of September, that had plunged to 16.2 billion dollars, coming perilously close to the 11 billion to 14 billion dollars it says it needs on hand to keep the company operating.

Ford burned through 7.7 billion dollars in the quarter, though its reserves are nearly twice as richer thanks to a massive line of credit it acquired last year.

Though it doesn't report its full financial data, the privately-held Chrysler LLC is also thought to be fast running out of cash: one reason, analysts believe, why its parent, Cerberus Capital Management, was so eager to sell Chrysler to GM.

That deal, however, was scuttled by GM, and observers believe Cerberus may now rush to find another buyer as the economy continues to worsen."

So my first question is: what have they been doing since 2005/6 to address their obvious problem? And why must I, as a taxpayer, save them when they haven't indicated their willingness to do what is necessary to save themselves?

They're already getting a $25 billion low-interest loan package to help them retool their factories to produce fuel-efficient vehicles that meet tough new emissions standards. (That Congress passed new emissions laws whose compliance needs to be funded by said Congress is a problem in the first place.) These are funds coming from you and me to reward them for not paying attention to the market and our wants in terms of vehicles over the past several decades.

"But the seeds of the current crisis date back to the last big oil shock, of 1979, which helped the Japanese gain a foothold for small, fuel-efficient products.

As gas lines faded from memory, the Asian automakers continued to gain ground by focusing on quality, something GM, Ford and Chrysler have only recently come to grips with -- and with varying degrees of success.

Further compounding the situation, Detroit has been consciously slow to embrace changes in the American automotive marketplace, especially the shift from big trucks to small, fuel-efficient passenger cars.

And even where it has, lamented Consumer Reports' auto analyst David Champion, it has needed "more models that were exciting for people to buy.""

Yes, the auto makers have started their redesign efforts which is why they say they need additional money. Their new designs, which they hope will lead to long-term success, need the influx of capital in order to bring them to market. Without such cash infusions, they are likely to cut back on the very designs the market desires in order to save money.

And there is some relief in labor costs anticipated beginning in 2009, which will also help. But the argument is that this industry is 'too big to fail.'

Again, that's scope creep.

Many criticized the warnings being shouted by others of the 'slippery slope' the government was approaching. It's here - and it will be even harder to stop the slide now that we've begun.

Sunday, November 02, 2008

The politics of selfishness

The state cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man.” ~ William Graham Sumner

Barack Obama, in defending his 'spread the wealth,' redistributionist tax policies, recently said:

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic. You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

Isn't just like a socialist to describe your desire to make your own decisions about how to spend the money you've earned as 'selfish'?

What could be more selfish than someone thinking you should give them your money so they can spend it instead of you? Please note - they don't want to redistribute their own funds - no, they want to take your funds and give them away.

It's also a rather popular media ploy - to attack a logical argument with - what did the Clintons call it? - the 'politics of personal destruction.' You are no longer 'good' if you think you can do a better job of spending your funds than the government. Now, you are being 'selfish' if you don't want to give your money to the government so it can give it to someone else, instead.

And this is, indeed, a media ploy, as well as a poor defense against a policy rejected by the majority of Americans. Dictionary.com defines 'selfish' as:

"devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others"

Under this definition, Obama seems to be saying that Republicans, conservatives and even many Democrats care only for themselves, without regard to our fellow man.

But then, that's in keeping with what Democrats believe. Remember the interview with Ohio Democrat Party Chairman Chris Redfern on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD?

As I wrote on August 27, 2008, the date of the interview:

"When morning show host Fred Lefebvre used his board operator, Don Zellars, as an example of someone who wants to know why he has to pay for other people's homes and food while struggling to pay for his own, Redfern's comment was that Don must feel really good inside knowing he's helping so many people.

Redfern explained that America needs to tax people to provide charitable services through the government because, without forcing people through taxation, most Americans wouldn't help take care of the 'least among us.' When Fred pointed out that Don would be happy to help 'the least among us' if government weren't taking so much of his money first, Redfern said:

"I suspect Don would, but unfortunately, most Americans would not - and if we remove that kind of support, stratagem, then you remove the entire reason for having any kind of projects, programs, initiatives..."

This is the driving philosophy behind calling us selfish - the idea that if government doesn't FORCE us, through the power of law, to 'give,' we wouldn't do it.

However, nothing could be further from the truth. Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University and author of "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," documents that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives. Brooks found:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

You see, conservatives believe the duty to help others is their own - and not something they should abdicate to the government. And because we disagree on the METHOD of caring for others, Obama calls us selfish.

What's truly selfish is that the individuals supporting Obama and this 'share the wealth' philosophy believe they should be given what other people have - just because. I don't have X, you do, therefore, I should be given part of your X. Talk about selfishness and greed!

The biggest tragedy of the politics of selfishness is the emphasis on the money and the spending. By calling conservatives 'selfish' it focuses the discussion on a personal attribute, rather than the proper role of government. The question really isn't 'is a person selfish' because they don't believe in redistributionist tax policies, the proper question we should be asking is this: Is it the proper role of government to take something from a citizen of this country in order to give it to another citizen?

This is not about jointly sharing the costs of such public infrastructures as roads, or about interstate commerce, or even mutual defense of the country and persons. This is about whether or not the property you acquire is free from confiscation by the government in order to gift it to another.

As I said in my Toledo Free Press column, our founders would be appalled:

Ben Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

And James Madison said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government
.”


But I suppose Obama, Democrat leaders and others would call them 'selfish' too.
Google Analytics Alternative