The strength of a nation rises and ebbs over time. Strength - fiscal, moral, social, political - increases when a nation creates the opportunity for all of its citizens to pursue their hopes and dreams to the best of their own ability. People free to make their own way have invariably created more opportunity for those around them and given more freely to those less fortunate. A nation's strength ebbs away when its government takes freedom away from its people, no matter the professed motive of said government.
Our country became great by making more and more people more and more free over time. The process was not perfect and mistakes were made, but in the course of history no country made more such progress. And as freedom grew, so did creativity, productivity and the wealth of our nation. America led the world in manufacturing, agriculture and innovation and spread them around the globe. We made the planes, trains and automobiles, and the loans to export them to the world. In the process, America made all those willing to work, those who recognized that rights also bring responsibilities, more prosperous and free.
But sadly our strength now ebbs away because we are no longer a nation of makers. Ruled by a government bureaucracy run amok, we have become a nation of takers. Half of Americans pay no income tax. They take the benefits our great country provides but contribute nothing to producing them. We take the goods now produced overseas since we no longer make them, and pay for them with the loaned money we have taken from those same countries selling us what we no longer make.
This new economic model is clearly unsustainable. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher - eventually we're going to run out of people to take from. Only if we return to making - making people more free from government, making products here in the U.S., making people responsible for their own actions and free to reap their own rewards - will we once again thrive as a nation.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
A Message to my Senator
Senator,
You must vote AGAINST Harry Reid’s attempt to bring his 2,000+ page health reform bill to the Senate floor (and why did the Senate bill grow from 1,500 pages to over 2,000 – did Harry just want to make sure his was bigger than Nancy’s?).
Exactly one month ago I sent you a message thanking you for voting against Harry Reid’s attempt to scam the American people by passing the “doctor fix” separately from the health reform bill. Now he’s trying the opposite trick – passing the health reform bill without the “doctor” fix. And he’s trying to do it in such a way that only 51 votes will be needed for final passage of the bill, rather than the usual 60.
Harry Reid’s health care bill is an outright scam and a shell game, and an economic disaster in the making. It’s easy to make a bill appear to reduce the deficit when you include 10 years of “revenue” and only 6 years of cost in the first decade. But of course after that the program will be upside down and a permanent drag on the economy.
If the real goal was improving health care (as opposed to the increased government control and social engineering that are clearly driving the Reid -Pelosi agenda), the legislation would be concise and targeted to the major issues needing improvement:
• portability of health insurance among employers and locations
• encouraging increased competition and reduced cost through the sale of health insurance policies across state lines
• equality of tax treatment of health insurance premiums regardless of where or from whom policies are purchased
• allowing the sale of policies customized to buyers' needs rather than mandating one-size fits all policies that make people pay for coverage they'll never need.
These are simple concepts and each could be documented clearly in just a few pages. Even if each took 20 pages to outline you'd have only an 80 page bill. But the House version is 2,000 and the Senate version is now even larger.
Congress has proven it doesn't read bills before passing them, and we know they didn't write this themselves. Bills this long simply create the impression that Obama and Congress have told their favorite special interest groups to load up the legislation with whatever they want. And they're hoping to rush it through before we catch on.
Senator, Reid’s bill is a bad bill. It will not achieve the goals that are supposedly the reasons behind this effort; it will increase taxes and reduce service. All it will accomplish is increased government intrusion into our lives – and we’ll get to pay for that privilege.
You must vote to defeat this bill NOW, not try to amend or defeat it later. Stop Harry Reid and then do health reform the right way.
You must vote AGAINST Harry Reid’s attempt to bring his 2,000+ page health reform bill to the Senate floor (and why did the Senate bill grow from 1,500 pages to over 2,000 – did Harry just want to make sure his was bigger than Nancy’s?).
Exactly one month ago I sent you a message thanking you for voting against Harry Reid’s attempt to scam the American people by passing the “doctor fix” separately from the health reform bill. Now he’s trying the opposite trick – passing the health reform bill without the “doctor” fix. And he’s trying to do it in such a way that only 51 votes will be needed for final passage of the bill, rather than the usual 60.
Harry Reid’s health care bill is an outright scam and a shell game, and an economic disaster in the making. It’s easy to make a bill appear to reduce the deficit when you include 10 years of “revenue” and only 6 years of cost in the first decade. But of course after that the program will be upside down and a permanent drag on the economy.
If the real goal was improving health care (as opposed to the increased government control and social engineering that are clearly driving the Reid -Pelosi agenda), the legislation would be concise and targeted to the major issues needing improvement:
• portability of health insurance among employers and locations
• encouraging increased competition and reduced cost through the sale of health insurance policies across state lines
• equality of tax treatment of health insurance premiums regardless of where or from whom policies are purchased
• allowing the sale of policies customized to buyers' needs rather than mandating one-size fits all policies that make people pay for coverage they'll never need.
These are simple concepts and each could be documented clearly in just a few pages. Even if each took 20 pages to outline you'd have only an 80 page bill. But the House version is 2,000 and the Senate version is now even larger.
Congress has proven it doesn't read bills before passing them, and we know they didn't write this themselves. Bills this long simply create the impression that Obama and Congress have told their favorite special interest groups to load up the legislation with whatever they want. And they're hoping to rush it through before we catch on.
Senator, Reid’s bill is a bad bill. It will not achieve the goals that are supposedly the reasons behind this effort; it will increase taxes and reduce service. All it will accomplish is increased government intrusion into our lives – and we’ll get to pay for that privilege.
You must vote to defeat this bill NOW, not try to amend or defeat it later. Stop Harry Reid and then do health reform the right way.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Crawling to Conclusions
After the Fort Hood "man-made disaster", we were treated to the absurd irony of Obama telling the American people not to "jump to conclusions" about why this tragedy occurred. This from a man for whom jumping to conclusions is one of his primary skills and means of exercise. Obama had no trouble jumping to the conclusion that police officers in Boston "acted stupidly" in the arrest of Louis Gates, before he had any facts whatsoever about what actually happened. Yet in the case of the Fort Hood tragedy the murderer might as well have worn a Team Al Qaeda t-shirt, but Obama still can't even crawl to the conclusion that the shooter is a terrorist.
Friday, October 30, 2009
2,000 Pages!?!?
Pelosi's new health care bill arrived yesterday - and it comes in at 2,000 pages. Any bill that long is guaranteed to be a compliance and enforcement nightmare that will dramatically increase bureaucracy, inefficiency and cost (pardon the redundancy). Does anyone really believe that health care can be made more effective and efficient through a bill that's 2,000 pages long?
Anyone in Congress or the media who comes out today in favor of this bill is revealing themselves to be an ideological kool-aid drinker. They cannot possibly have read the bill and judged it on its merits, so it's clear they'd be supporting it only because Obama, Pelosi and the special interest groups that actually wrote it told them to.
Democrats will say that anyone who opposes this bill is simply being obstructionist. But which is more logical and responsible - supporting legislation that hasn't been read (as the Democrats do), or NOT supporting legislation that hasn't been read?
If the real goal was improving health care (as opposed to the increased government control and social engineering that are clearly driving the Democrats' agenda), the legislation would be concise and targeted to the major issues needing improvement:
Congress doesn't read bills before passing them, and we know they didn't write this themselves. Bills this long simply create the impression that Obama and Congress have told their favorite special interest groups to load up the legislation with whatever they want. And they're hoping to rush it through before we catch on.
Anyone in Congress or the media who comes out today in favor of this bill is revealing themselves to be an ideological kool-aid drinker. They cannot possibly have read the bill and judged it on its merits, so it's clear they'd be supporting it only because Obama, Pelosi and the special interest groups that actually wrote it told them to.
Democrats will say that anyone who opposes this bill is simply being obstructionist. But which is more logical and responsible - supporting legislation that hasn't been read (as the Democrats do), or NOT supporting legislation that hasn't been read?
If the real goal was improving health care (as opposed to the increased government control and social engineering that are clearly driving the Democrats' agenda), the legislation would be concise and targeted to the major issues needing improvement:
- portability of health insurance among employers and locations
- encouraging increased competition and reduced cost through the sale of health insurance policies across state lines
- equality of tax treatment of health insurance premiums regardless of where or from whom policies are purchased
- allowing the sale of policies customized to buyers' needs rather than mandating one-size fits all policies that make people pay for coverage they'll never need.
Congress doesn't read bills before passing them, and we know they didn't write this themselves. Bills this long simply create the impression that Obama and Congress have told their favorite special interest groups to load up the legislation with whatever they want. And they're hoping to rush it through before we catch on.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
We should trust these people because.............?
Perhaps the most critical element in the long-term success of any democracy is mutual trust between a nation's people and their government. Such trust must be earned through demonstrated integrity, fidelity to common principles and performance over time.
Right now, our government is asking us to trust them as they develop their plan to radically transform our health care system. So I thought it appropriate to review some relevant history to find out what our government has done to merit such trust.
Right now, our government is asking us to trust them as they develop their plan to radically transform our health care system. So I thought it appropriate to review some relevant history to find out what our government has done to merit such trust.
- Social Security and Medicare are the most analogous programs to what Obama and Congress wish to impose upon us with health care reform. Both are effectively bankrupt (the "lockboxes" don't actually exist) and contribute enormously to our federal deficit. How Obamacare will be any better on this account has not been explained.
- When Medicare was started in 1965 the government estimated it would cost $9 billion per year by 1990. In fact, Medicare was costing $67 billion per year by 1990 - more than 7 times the government's estimate. Why should the American people believe the forecast on the new health care reform will be any better?
- Obama promised that the $1,000,000,000,000+ spent on his various programs to "stimulate" economy would keep unemployment under 8%. He dramatically missed that forecast in less than 6 months and there's no prospect unemployment will be under 8% any time in the foreseeable future.
- We were promised by Obama and Pelosi that all health care debate would be open to the public, even broadcast on C-SPAN, and that everything would be available to Americans to review before legislation is voted on. They've already proven multiple times that they have no intention of living up to that commitment. What are they hiding - and why?
Based on these facts it would be difficult to make the case that our government merits the trust of the American people in crafting health care reform (or much of anything else for that matter).
While a nation's long term success depends on mutual trust between a government and its people, I maintain that under our Constitution - with its foundation on individual rights and responsibilities - the onus is on the government to earn the trust of the people rather than the other way around. Obama and Congress have done precious little to earn that trust.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Questions for my Senators
This evening I sent the message below to my two Senators, Warner and Webb. My expectation is that they will respond with the usual form letter about all of the great things they are doing on behalf of their constituents (although their previous responses have caused me to wonder how they define "constituent" - since it doesn't appear they're as interested in the welfare of Virginia's citizens as they are with the welfare of their party and Obama's agenda).
Senators Warner and Webb,
Why are Democrats hiding behind closed doors while crafting the health care reform bill? Obama promised that all debate and discussion on health care reform would be open for public viewing on C-SPAN. Why are you not doing that? What is it that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are trying to hide? Who is actually writing the legislation – and why should the American people trust those authors? Congress has already proven it doesn’t read legislation before passing it so members of Congress surely aren’t writing the health care bill. Who is? And why can’t we watch the debate as Obama promised?
Also, what happened to Obama’s promised “new era of post-partisanship”? Democrats in Congress are literally locking Republicans out of meetings and Obama is going to battle with anyone who dares propose ideas different than his own.
This is no way to build trust and confidence among the American people. And you’d be well advised to tell Obama to stop his incessant whining about what he inherited and blaming everyone but himself for the problems he faces. That behavior is undignified and cowardly and it needs to stop.
The courtesy of a clear, direct response to the questions I posed above would be appreciated.
Respectfully,
Lou
I'll let you know what I hear back from them, but my expectations are pretty low.
Senators Warner and Webb,
Why are Democrats hiding behind closed doors while crafting the health care reform bill? Obama promised that all debate and discussion on health care reform would be open for public viewing on C-SPAN. Why are you not doing that? What is it that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are trying to hide? Who is actually writing the legislation – and why should the American people trust those authors? Congress has already proven it doesn’t read legislation before passing it so members of Congress surely aren’t writing the health care bill. Who is? And why can’t we watch the debate as Obama promised?
Also, what happened to Obama’s promised “new era of post-partisanship”? Democrats in Congress are literally locking Republicans out of meetings and Obama is going to battle with anyone who dares propose ideas different than his own.
This is no way to build trust and confidence among the American people. And you’d be well advised to tell Obama to stop his incessant whining about what he inherited and blaming everyone but himself for the problems he faces. That behavior is undignified and cowardly and it needs to stop.
The courtesy of a clear, direct response to the questions I posed above would be appreciated.
Respectfully,
Lou
I'll let you know what I hear back from them, but my expectations are pretty low.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Reflecting on Predictions from a Year Ago
Below is a "letter to the editor" that I wrote on October 5, 2008. When it was written I wondered if it was perhaps a bit too pessimistic. Alas, it now appears that things are even worse than contemplated in this letter from a year ago. Take a look and let me know what you think.
Letter to the Editor from October 5, 2008:
“Hope” – untethered from logic and principle - can’t change the world, or our country, for the better. Promises of “change” are meaningless without a clear plan of action. Unfortunately, Barack Obama – without demonstrable logic or principle - seems to have gained considerable political momentum without any clear plan of action to actually create the “change” he seeks and which he has yet to clearly define.
Senator Obama appears to be an empty political vessel, into which can be poured the very worst of liberal doctrine and orthodoxy from the most leftist of ideologues, and from which may flow the class and identity warfare, income redistribution and suppression of alternative thinking that have proven disastrous multiple times throughout history.
Senator Obama has no record of being able to create or lead any substantive change. He’s a great orator, no doubt, but a man who voted “present” 130 times as a state senator clearly has no track record of making tough decisions in crunch time. Neither he, nor his supporters, can clearly articulate any reason Americans should consider voting for him. All they can talk about is what they are against, which is apparently George Bush, a man who is not even running for office. One has to wonder what the liberal democrats will do when they don’t have George Bush to hate, since they are seemingly more driven by hate for him than love for our country.
If Obama is elected, we will have turned our country over to the most liberal senator on record. A man who has taken more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the last 3 years than anyone, and has the failed CEOs of those organizations advising him on economics, of all things, yet blames George Bush and John McCain for their failure. And he will be assisted in implementing his socialist vision by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, a team that has led the most partisan and least productive congress in history. Obama, Reid and Pelosi running the country – so much for checks and balances.
We can avoid this fate, but only if the American public votes on the basis of logic and principle, and not on emotional reaction to empty political platitudes and clichés.
Letter to the Editor from October 5, 2008:
“Hope” – untethered from logic and principle - can’t change the world, or our country, for the better. Promises of “change” are meaningless without a clear plan of action. Unfortunately, Barack Obama – without demonstrable logic or principle - seems to have gained considerable political momentum without any clear plan of action to actually create the “change” he seeks and which he has yet to clearly define.
Senator Obama appears to be an empty political vessel, into which can be poured the very worst of liberal doctrine and orthodoxy from the most leftist of ideologues, and from which may flow the class and identity warfare, income redistribution and suppression of alternative thinking that have proven disastrous multiple times throughout history.
Senator Obama has no record of being able to create or lead any substantive change. He’s a great orator, no doubt, but a man who voted “present” 130 times as a state senator clearly has no track record of making tough decisions in crunch time. Neither he, nor his supporters, can clearly articulate any reason Americans should consider voting for him. All they can talk about is what they are against, which is apparently George Bush, a man who is not even running for office. One has to wonder what the liberal democrats will do when they don’t have George Bush to hate, since they are seemingly more driven by hate for him than love for our country.
If Obama is elected, we will have turned our country over to the most liberal senator on record. A man who has taken more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the last 3 years than anyone, and has the failed CEOs of those organizations advising him on economics, of all things, yet blames George Bush and John McCain for their failure. And he will be assisted in implementing his socialist vision by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, a team that has led the most partisan and least productive congress in history. Obama, Reid and Pelosi running the country – so much for checks and balances.
We can avoid this fate, but only if the American public votes on the basis of logic and principle, and not on emotional reaction to empty political platitudes and clichés.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Who wrote it and who will actually read it?
So now we have the 1,500+ page Senate Health Care Reform Bill. This is yet another bill that no Senator will actually read and that surely no Senator actually wrote. This raises some legitimate questions that Senators - particularly the Democrats driving this travesty - owe their constituents clear, direct answers to.
These questions include:
• Will you once again vote for a bill you haven’t read? If so, why?
• If Senators did not write this bill, which they surely did not, who did?
• Why do you trust the authors of this bill so much that you’d vote for it without reading it?
• Why should the American people trust that the authors of this bill have their best interest, and not the political interest of Obama and his Democrat cronies and sycophants, in mind?
• If there are hundreds of billions of dollars in savings in Medicare thru eliminating waste and fraud, why aren’t you going after those now to prove you can actually deliver those savings?
There is not a single historical example of the U.S. government even coming close to achieving any goals such as those Obama claims will be achieved thru health care reform. Government meddling created the problems we now face in the economy and in health care. Increased government meddling will only exacerbate the problems – not solve them.
There are things that government can do to improve our health care system, none of which involve the government increasing control over our lives or forcing a “public option” upon us.
These include:
• Eliminate the restrictions on insurance companies selling across state lines. This will increase competition and drive down costs, while adding a government insurance option will crush competition and dramatically increase costs and drive up the deficit.
• Equalize the tax treatment of all health insurance policies, no matter where or how they are purchased.
• Allow insurance companies to sell and Americans to buy policies customized to the needs of the insured, rather than forcing Americans to buy coverages they neither want nor need.
Senators need to remember that they are elected to represent and serve their constituents, not Obama and the special interests. They may think that’s an antiquated notion, but that does not make it any less true.
These questions include:
• Will you once again vote for a bill you haven’t read? If so, why?
• If Senators did not write this bill, which they surely did not, who did?
• Why do you trust the authors of this bill so much that you’d vote for it without reading it?
• Why should the American people trust that the authors of this bill have their best interest, and not the political interest of Obama and his Democrat cronies and sycophants, in mind?
• If there are hundreds of billions of dollars in savings in Medicare thru eliminating waste and fraud, why aren’t you going after those now to prove you can actually deliver those savings?
There is not a single historical example of the U.S. government even coming close to achieving any goals such as those Obama claims will be achieved thru health care reform. Government meddling created the problems we now face in the economy and in health care. Increased government meddling will only exacerbate the problems – not solve them.
There are things that government can do to improve our health care system, none of which involve the government increasing control over our lives or forcing a “public option” upon us.
These include:
• Eliminate the restrictions on insurance companies selling across state lines. This will increase competition and drive down costs, while adding a government insurance option will crush competition and dramatically increase costs and drive up the deficit.
• Equalize the tax treatment of all health insurance policies, no matter where or how they are purchased.
• Allow insurance companies to sell and Americans to buy policies customized to the needs of the insured, rather than forcing Americans to buy coverages they neither want nor need.
Senators need to remember that they are elected to represent and serve their constituents, not Obama and the special interests. They may think that’s an antiquated notion, but that does not make it any less true.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Ongoing Idol Worship
As I write this Obama is in the midst of his sprint through the Sunday talk-show circuit. His plan is to appear on five programs, including Spanish-language Univision. Conveniently for him, he's avoiding Fox News Sunday - the only place where he might be properly challenged on what he's done, and plans to do.
So the big question is - will anybody on any of the shows Obama is performing on this morning actually ask him any tough questions about his policies, programs and political associations (e.g. Acorn, Van Jones, Jeff Jones, SEIU, etc.)? Or will this be a contest in which each talk-show host seeks to prove he loves The One more than all the others?
Unfortunately for our country, I believe the latter is far more likely.
So the big question is - will anybody on any of the shows Obama is performing on this morning actually ask him any tough questions about his policies, programs and political associations (e.g. Acorn, Van Jones, Jeff Jones, SEIU, etc.)? Or will this be a contest in which each talk-show host seeks to prove he loves The One more than all the others?
Unfortunately for our country, I believe the latter is far more likely.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Exactly where - and what - is the plan?
Obama keeps saying, in his seemingly daily (or is it hourly?) speeches about health care, the words "under my plan.....", which are always followed by a string of fabrications and falsehoods that boggle the mind. But if there really is an Obama Health Care Plan, why can't anyone find it and why can't he show it to us so we can read it? And if he already has a plan - why are multiple bills being worked on in Congress? One would think that if Obama already had a plan then Pelosi and Reid could spare the special interest ghostwriters who wrote the stimulus bill the effort of writing health care bills as well.
Perhaps the saddest part of this whole situation is being faced with the reality that there are many Americans who actually believe the nonsense Obama is spewing. Whatever one's ideological disposition, simple logic would tell anyone who takes the time to read more than a bumper sticker about what he and his comrades are working on that it simply won't work. But then again - liberal democrats have never let facts get in their way. And if anyone disagrees - you can always just call them a racist and change the subject.
Perhaps the saddest part of this whole situation is being faced with the reality that there are many Americans who actually believe the nonsense Obama is spewing. Whatever one's ideological disposition, simple logic would tell anyone who takes the time to read more than a bumper sticker about what he and his comrades are working on that it simply won't work. But then again - liberal democrats have never let facts get in their way. And if anyone disagrees - you can always just call them a racist and change the subject.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Proof of Truth
Last night Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina yelled "you lie" at President Obama when Obama claimed that his health care plan would not cover illegal aliens. While the democrats have gotten themselves in high dudgeon over this allegedly horrendous breach of etiquette (forgetting of course that they booed President Bush during a State of the Union address and said things far nastier than "you lie" both to and about him), the real important question is being ignored.
If Obama is telling the truth, where is the proof? Throughout this health care debate it has seemed that every time Obama has made a claim about what is or is not in the plan, that claim is readily refuted by actually reading the proposed legislation. Even if that was happening only half the time it would be enormously concerning. But by my reckoning far more than half of Obama's public claims about what is or is not in the plan have been proven false.
So if it is so easily proven that Obama's rhetoric does not match what is actually being proposed as legislation, one can draw only a couple of possible conclusions about why that would be the case. Either Joe Wilson is right and the President is lying. Or the President is simply profoundly ignorant of the content of legislation. One or the other must be true, but neither leaves me with a good feeling about what Obama and the democrats want to do to "reform" health care.
If Obama is telling the truth, where is the proof? Throughout this health care debate it has seemed that every time Obama has made a claim about what is or is not in the plan, that claim is readily refuted by actually reading the proposed legislation. Even if that was happening only half the time it would be enormously concerning. But by my reckoning far more than half of Obama's public claims about what is or is not in the plan have been proven false.
So if it is so easily proven that Obama's rhetoric does not match what is actually being proposed as legislation, one can draw only a couple of possible conclusions about why that would be the case. Either Joe Wilson is right and the President is lying. Or the President is simply profoundly ignorant of the content of legislation. One or the other must be true, but neither leaves me with a good feeling about what Obama and the democrats want to do to "reform" health care.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The Gates Metaphor
The Professor Gates controversy in Cambridge is the perfect metaphor for the entire Obama presidency. To paraphrase Mr. Obama's answer to a reporter's question about the Gates incident at his recent press conference about health care, he effectively said "I know I'm biased,......I don't have the facts,.......but I'll speak out anyway."
When has that NOT been the case with Obama? He speaks with bias and without facts all the time, and supports other Democrats in doing the same. He has signed enormous spending bills that neither he nor the Congress have read - which I would interpret as a form of speaking without the facts. While pushing his radical health care agenda on a conference call with some liberal bloggers he admitted he hadn't read the bill he was arguing in support of. Again, speaking without the facts.
At least Obama has now admitted to speaking with bias and without facts. But most of us who have been paying attention knew that already!
When has that NOT been the case with Obama? He speaks with bias and without facts all the time, and supports other Democrats in doing the same. He has signed enormous spending bills that neither he nor the Congress have read - which I would interpret as a form of speaking without the facts. While pushing his radical health care agenda on a conference call with some liberal bloggers he admitted he hadn't read the bill he was arguing in support of. Again, speaking without the facts.
At least Obama has now admitted to speaking with bias and without facts. But most of us who have been paying attention knew that already!
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Questions for Congress About Health Care
The letter below was sent to my senators, Warner and Webb, this morning. All Americans should be contacting their members of Congress with direct questions to expose the hypocrisy of their imposing laws on us that they are not bound by themselves.
Senators Warner and Webb,
As President Obama rushes to nationalize yet another part of our economy – health care – and exert ever greater federal control over Americans’ lives, there are important questions you need to answer for your constituents.
When the health care bill comes to the Senate, will you offer or support an amendment that would require all members of Congress – past and present – to give up their current health care plans and join the plan Mr. Obama plans to force on the American people?
If not, how can you explain to the American people why we should pay for those who are supposed to be serving us and representing us in Washington to have better health care than we can get ourselves?
Please grant your constituents the courtesy of direct answers to the straightforward questions above. We have all received enough form letters from Congress – please actually answer the questions.
Respectfully
Lou
Senators Warner and Webb,
As President Obama rushes to nationalize yet another part of our economy – health care – and exert ever greater federal control over Americans’ lives, there are important questions you need to answer for your constituents.
When the health care bill comes to the Senate, will you offer or support an amendment that would require all members of Congress – past and present – to give up their current health care plans and join the plan Mr. Obama plans to force on the American people?
If not, how can you explain to the American people why we should pay for those who are supposed to be serving us and representing us in Washington to have better health care than we can get ourselves?
Please grant your constituents the courtesy of direct answers to the straightforward questions above. We have all received enough form letters from Congress – please actually answer the questions.
Respectfully
Lou
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Energy Lunacy
The Department of Energy was formed in October of 1977, when various other agencies focused on energy issues were combined. One of the primary missions of the D.O.E. was - and is - to improve the "energy security" of the United States by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. And how have Americans benefited from their investment in this federal bureaucracy (2010 budget request to Congress - $26.3 billion)? Our dependence on foreign oil has grown from 28% of total consumption in 1972 to 53% today.
Only in government could this type of gross failure to achieve stated objectives be tolerated. In the free market, without tax dollars to continuously fund this kind of ineptitude, such an enterprise would have been shut down long ago. Of course, this bureaucracy has been aided greatly in setting this record of incompetence by Democrats in Congress and the White House - who steadfastly refuse to allow Americans to access the resources we have within our own borders that could substantially reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.
And now the Obama administration wants to take this model of "success" and apply it to even more of our economy, most specifically health and the battle against global "climate change" (notice that its now referred to as "climate change" and not "global warming" because the earth has actually been cooling for 11 years).
Other than our outstanding military, is there anything the federal government provides that could not be done better by the states or private enterprise?
Given the monumental failure of the Department of Energy, and other federal bureaucracies involved in our "energy strategy", there is no basis whatsoever for any confidence that Obama's new energy plan will be anything but a disaster. Obama himself acknowledged that under his plan "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket".
A federal government purposely pursuing a policy that it knows will cause the cost of the energy that drives the American economy to "skyrocket" would be ridiculous at any time. But in the midst of the economic downturn we're now experiencing it is simply beyond stupid.
Only in government could this type of gross failure to achieve stated objectives be tolerated. In the free market, without tax dollars to continuously fund this kind of ineptitude, such an enterprise would have been shut down long ago. Of course, this bureaucracy has been aided greatly in setting this record of incompetence by Democrats in Congress and the White House - who steadfastly refuse to allow Americans to access the resources we have within our own borders that could substantially reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.
And now the Obama administration wants to take this model of "success" and apply it to even more of our economy, most specifically health and the battle against global "climate change" (notice that its now referred to as "climate change" and not "global warming" because the earth has actually been cooling for 11 years).
Other than our outstanding military, is there anything the federal government provides that could not be done better by the states or private enterprise?
Given the monumental failure of the Department of Energy, and other federal bureaucracies involved in our "energy strategy", there is no basis whatsoever for any confidence that Obama's new energy plan will be anything but a disaster. Obama himself acknowledged that under his plan "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket".
A federal government purposely pursuing a policy that it knows will cause the cost of the energy that drives the American economy to "skyrocket" would be ridiculous at any time. But in the midst of the economic downturn we're now experiencing it is simply beyond stupid.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Where are the flags?
Last night I took a walk with my wife and dog. It was a beautiful evening for a stroll through our Fairfax County, VA neighborhood. But some things seemed to be missing.
We first moved to Fairfax County over twenty years ago. Back then, it seemed a profoundly patriotic place - close to the national capitol, many military and ex-military residents and a sense of real closeness to the history of what made our country great. And on the 4th of July holiday American flags could be seen everywhere - on most homes and flying in front of most places of business.
Sadly, that all seems to have changed. During our walk last night I counted American flags flying from fewer than 1 in 20 homes. I took another walk this morning to see if I'd see anything different - if perhaps people had taken their flags in just before dark on July 3rd and put them back up on the morning of the 4th. But that was not the case. There were no more flags flying this morning than there were last night. In our neighborhood of over 900 homes, you could drive up and down every street and not see more than 50 flags.
Of course, when we moved here there was a President in office who so profoundly respected his country and his duty as President that he never went into the Oval Office without a suit coat on. Since then, we've had a President who couldn't keep his pants on in the Oval Office and now we have one who - as a candidate for President - refused to wear an American flag pin on his lapel. And as President now, besides driving our country rapidly into bankruptcy, he's spent most of his time in office telling the world what a terrible place America is and how awful its people have been to the rest of the world for the past two centuries.
I guess it shouldn't be surprising that with a President in office who takes no pride in our flag or our country's greatness we'd see less American pride on display in our neighborhood on July 4th. But it is still deeply disappointing.
We first moved to Fairfax County over twenty years ago. Back then, it seemed a profoundly patriotic place - close to the national capitol, many military and ex-military residents and a sense of real closeness to the history of what made our country great. And on the 4th of July holiday American flags could be seen everywhere - on most homes and flying in front of most places of business.
Sadly, that all seems to have changed. During our walk last night I counted American flags flying from fewer than 1 in 20 homes. I took another walk this morning to see if I'd see anything different - if perhaps people had taken their flags in just before dark on July 3rd and put them back up on the morning of the 4th. But that was not the case. There were no more flags flying this morning than there were last night. In our neighborhood of over 900 homes, you could drive up and down every street and not see more than 50 flags.
Of course, when we moved here there was a President in office who so profoundly respected his country and his duty as President that he never went into the Oval Office without a suit coat on. Since then, we've had a President who couldn't keep his pants on in the Oval Office and now we have one who - as a candidate for President - refused to wear an American flag pin on his lapel. And as President now, besides driving our country rapidly into bankruptcy, he's spent most of his time in office telling the world what a terrible place America is and how awful its people have been to the rest of the world for the past two centuries.
I guess it shouldn't be surprising that with a President in office who takes no pride in our flag or our country's greatness we'd see less American pride on display in our neighborhood on July 4th. But it is still deeply disappointing.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The Tortured Logic of the Left
It may seem an odd juxtaposition to use "logic" and "left" in the title of this post, given how completely devoid of logic the policies and programs of the political left are, but hopefully my reason for doing so will become clear.
Let me begin with some facts (which are also very scarce in the rantings of the political left);
These same people believe that item 2 is perfectly acceptable, the product of a woman's "choice". They praise as a hero a man, Dr. George Tiller, who performed hundreds of late term abortions resulting in the deaths of hundreds of viable babies. Yet they vilify the people who kept our country free from terrorist attack for over seven years because those people made three terrorists temporarily uncomfortable.
So, in the "logic" of the left, baby killers are heroes but the protectors of our nation are villains because they subjected known terrorists to some discomfort.
There are some things that are simply not compatible within a rational mind. Items 1 and 2 above would seem to be such things. It is simply not rational for the same person to believe that killing babies is acceptable but making terrorists uncomfortable in order to save American lives is not. Yet this is exactly what Obama and his sycophants in Congress and the media believe.
Unfortunately, basic logic tells us that the current leaders of our government are simply not rational thinkers. If they were, they could not possibly believe both of these things they so loudly proclaim they do believe.
Let me begin with some facts (which are also very scarce in the rantings of the political left);
- After 9/11 the United States waterboarded exactly three terrorists. This action led to the acquisition of vital information that prevented further terrorist attacks, and the terrorists themselves suffered no lasting physical consequences of being waterboarded.
- During the same year the waterboarding occurred, over 1,000 late-term abortions were performed in the United States. The procedure is also known as partial-birth abortion, for good reason. Babies, many of which would be viable on their own outside the womb, are partially delivered and then killed.
These same people believe that item 2 is perfectly acceptable, the product of a woman's "choice". They praise as a hero a man, Dr. George Tiller, who performed hundreds of late term abortions resulting in the deaths of hundreds of viable babies. Yet they vilify the people who kept our country free from terrorist attack for over seven years because those people made three terrorists temporarily uncomfortable.
So, in the "logic" of the left, baby killers are heroes but the protectors of our nation are villains because they subjected known terrorists to some discomfort.
There are some things that are simply not compatible within a rational mind. Items 1 and 2 above would seem to be such things. It is simply not rational for the same person to believe that killing babies is acceptable but making terrorists uncomfortable in order to save American lives is not. Yet this is exactly what Obama and his sycophants in Congress and the media believe.
Unfortunately, basic logic tells us that the current leaders of our government are simply not rational thinkers. If they were, they could not possibly believe both of these things they so loudly proclaim they do believe.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Idiots' Echo Chamber
Is there anyone on the political left - in the media, government, or elsewhere - actually capable of independent, rational thought? If there is, it might actually be helpful to the political discourse in this country. But unfortunately all signs indicate that the political left is in fact much more guilty of what they often accuse the political right of - completely monolithic thinking.
As evidence to support the hypothesis above I refer you to the New York Times, Washington Post, any show or talking head on any NBC channel or any democratic "strategist" or politician. If you observe any two or more of these for any period of time you will note that their talking points - right down to exact words and phrases - are often identical. They sing the same song in the same key, and they can each hear only that song.
We see the same issue in what passes for humor these days. Many of those who consider themselves enlightened commentators with a humorous edge - such as Bill Maher and John Stewart - built their reputations by viciously attacking President Bush with what they thought was sharp and insightful wit. Will these same brave commentators stand up to the Obama machine and poke fun at power when that power is entirely controlled by the left? Don't count on it.
Robust political discourse based on fact and reason can make a nation much stronger, by sifting out weaker arguments and elevating those with merit. But just as in-breeding within a species eventually weakens it, so too will the suppression of alternative viewpoints weaken our political parties and our nation.
Those on the political left try to position themselves as the champions of free speech, while at the same time demonstrating by their behavior that "free speech" that is not identical to their own is the last thing they want anyone to hear. In our national capitol today, those in power want everyone freely expressing opinions that are totally identical to theirs. Welcome to the idiots' echo chamber.
As evidence to support the hypothesis above I refer you to the New York Times, Washington Post, any show or talking head on any NBC channel or any democratic "strategist" or politician. If you observe any two or more of these for any period of time you will note that their talking points - right down to exact words and phrases - are often identical. They sing the same song in the same key, and they can each hear only that song.
We see the same issue in what passes for humor these days. Many of those who consider themselves enlightened commentators with a humorous edge - such as Bill Maher and John Stewart - built their reputations by viciously attacking President Bush with what they thought was sharp and insightful wit. Will these same brave commentators stand up to the Obama machine and poke fun at power when that power is entirely controlled by the left? Don't count on it.
Robust political discourse based on fact and reason can make a nation much stronger, by sifting out weaker arguments and elevating those with merit. But just as in-breeding within a species eventually weakens it, so too will the suppression of alternative viewpoints weaken our political parties and our nation.
Those on the political left try to position themselves as the champions of free speech, while at the same time demonstrating by their behavior that "free speech" that is not identical to their own is the last thing they want anyone to hear. In our national capitol today, those in power want everyone freely expressing opinions that are totally identical to theirs. Welcome to the idiots' echo chamber.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Triumph of Nuance (and the death of candor)
Every four years, as predictably as the coming of the presidential elections themselves, the media starts talking about "nuance". Invariably, this takes the form of the chattering classes discussing how wonderfully "nuanced" a Democratic presidential candidate is. Al Gore was described as much more nuanced than George W. Bush, as was John Kerry. And of course we were told that Barack Obama was much more nuanced than John McCain.
The implication of all this, and the conclusion the Democrats and their henchmen (or do I need to be politically correct and say hench-persons?) in the media would like us to draw, is that Democrats are wonderfully wise and insightful, while Republicans are neanderthals incapable of seeing the "shades of gray".
But what "nuanced" seems to actually mean, if you pay close attention, is that politicians - and particularly Democrats - are pathologically incapable of providing direct answers to direct questions. I've learned this first hand from my correspondence with my senators, Jim Webb and Mark Warner. In multiple letters and emails I have presented them with very clear, straightforward questions that could easily be answered with a yes or a no, or a clear statement of position. I've ended each correspondence with this request - "The courtesy of a clear, direct response from which a constituent can determine your actual position on these issues would be appreciated." Yet all I receive in response are meaningless, nonsensical talking points that do not even come close to answering my questions.
The same thing happens on television, radio, in press conferences and print - wherever Democrats speak, "nuance" takes over and candor dies.
The downside of all this is that the American people never really hear the whole truth about what's going on in Washington. Politicians nuance their way through every issue, a compliant media fails to hold them accountable, and truth and candor die.
A nation cannot excel on nuance. It can only excel when truth matters, and politicians are held accountable for the truth in all things. Sadly, it has not been so in Washington for a very long time - and there's no "hope" I can see that this will "change" under the Obama administration.
The implication of all this, and the conclusion the Democrats and their henchmen (or do I need to be politically correct and say hench-persons?) in the media would like us to draw, is that Democrats are wonderfully wise and insightful, while Republicans are neanderthals incapable of seeing the "shades of gray".
But what "nuanced" seems to actually mean, if you pay close attention, is that politicians - and particularly Democrats - are pathologically incapable of providing direct answers to direct questions. I've learned this first hand from my correspondence with my senators, Jim Webb and Mark Warner. In multiple letters and emails I have presented them with very clear, straightforward questions that could easily be answered with a yes or a no, or a clear statement of position. I've ended each correspondence with this request - "The courtesy of a clear, direct response from which a constituent can determine your actual position on these issues would be appreciated." Yet all I receive in response are meaningless, nonsensical talking points that do not even come close to answering my questions.
The same thing happens on television, radio, in press conferences and print - wherever Democrats speak, "nuance" takes over and candor dies.
The downside of all this is that the American people never really hear the whole truth about what's going on in Washington. Politicians nuance their way through every issue, a compliant media fails to hold them accountable, and truth and candor die.
A nation cannot excel on nuance. It can only excel when truth matters, and politicians are held accountable for the truth in all things. Sadly, it has not been so in Washington for a very long time - and there's no "hope" I can see that this will "change" under the Obama administration.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Letter to Senators re: Obama and "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"
Senators Webb and Warner,
There are some major questions related to the safety and security of our country and its citizens – the protection of which is among the primary duties of Congress and the President – which you should answer for your constituents.
First some background; President Obama this week released CIA memos related to “enhanced interrogation techniques” used on terrorists who attacked or planned attacks on America. He did so over the objection of the past four Directors of the CIA, who warned that doing so would not make America “safer and stronger”, as Obama claimed, but would in fact do just the opposite by giving enemies detailed information on the limits our interrogators are bound by. Obama has so far ignored requests to release memos that detail what was learned through those techniques and how Americans were better protected based on what was learned. Now Obama is leaving the door open to prosecutions of those who served in the prior administration who may have been involved in providing the legal opinions authorizing such techniques, and others. He’s conveniently leaving off the list of potential targets for prosecution all the Democrats in Congress who were fully and completely briefed on exactly which techniques were going to be used on which terrorists when. Pelosi, Reid and all their cohorts knew exactly what was happening as it happened, but raised no objection. Their blatant hypocrisy in complaining about these techniques now would be stunning if it hadn’t become so routine.
Now my questions:
Do you believe that the release of the CIA memos detailing the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” will make America “safer and stronger”? If so, what logic supports that position? Al Qaeda’s goal was, and remains, destruction of America and our way of life. Their goal was not to make sure we didn’t use enhanced interrogation techniques, so it would seem that believing that eliminating those techniques from our arsenal will make us safer defies basic logic.
Do you believe that President Obama should release all memos related to this topic, so Americans will know what was gained when such techniques were used? Obama promised “a new age of transparency”. If he was telling the truth, he should give Americans the whole story and tell us not just what the CIA can no longer do, but also what we’ll no longer get by giving up those techniques?
Do you support Obama’s position that members of the prior administration should be subject to prosecution for roles related to the enhanced interrogation techniques? If so, shouldn’t the members of Congress who were fully briefed on these interrogations be held to the same standard?
Senators, the fact that the President would flip-flop once again – having previously said he would not allow prosecutions of members of the Bush administration – and now effectively allow the prosecution of officials in a prior administration for what are basically differences of opinion, is frightening. All this while the Secretary of Homeland Security is saying that what demonstrably is a crime – crossing our borders illegally – is not a crime.
Has Washington gone completely mad? Obama is willing to prosecute the very officials who worked hard and successfully kept America safe since 9/11/01 – using techniques that Congress was fully informed of at the time – and his administration is not willing to enforce the laws that prevent criminals and potential terrorists from crossing our borders. Do you agree with these positions the Obama administration has taken?
The courtesy of a clear, direct response from which a constituent can determine your actual position on these issues would be appreciated.
Respectfully,
Lou
There are some major questions related to the safety and security of our country and its citizens – the protection of which is among the primary duties of Congress and the President – which you should answer for your constituents.
First some background; President Obama this week released CIA memos related to “enhanced interrogation techniques” used on terrorists who attacked or planned attacks on America. He did so over the objection of the past four Directors of the CIA, who warned that doing so would not make America “safer and stronger”, as Obama claimed, but would in fact do just the opposite by giving enemies detailed information on the limits our interrogators are bound by. Obama has so far ignored requests to release memos that detail what was learned through those techniques and how Americans were better protected based on what was learned. Now Obama is leaving the door open to prosecutions of those who served in the prior administration who may have been involved in providing the legal opinions authorizing such techniques, and others. He’s conveniently leaving off the list of potential targets for prosecution all the Democrats in Congress who were fully and completely briefed on exactly which techniques were going to be used on which terrorists when. Pelosi, Reid and all their cohorts knew exactly what was happening as it happened, but raised no objection. Their blatant hypocrisy in complaining about these techniques now would be stunning if it hadn’t become so routine.
Now my questions:
Do you believe that the release of the CIA memos detailing the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” will make America “safer and stronger”? If so, what logic supports that position? Al Qaeda’s goal was, and remains, destruction of America and our way of life. Their goal was not to make sure we didn’t use enhanced interrogation techniques, so it would seem that believing that eliminating those techniques from our arsenal will make us safer defies basic logic.
Do you believe that President Obama should release all memos related to this topic, so Americans will know what was gained when such techniques were used? Obama promised “a new age of transparency”. If he was telling the truth, he should give Americans the whole story and tell us not just what the CIA can no longer do, but also what we’ll no longer get by giving up those techniques?
Do you support Obama’s position that members of the prior administration should be subject to prosecution for roles related to the enhanced interrogation techniques? If so, shouldn’t the members of Congress who were fully briefed on these interrogations be held to the same standard?
Senators, the fact that the President would flip-flop once again – having previously said he would not allow prosecutions of members of the Bush administration – and now effectively allow the prosecution of officials in a prior administration for what are basically differences of opinion, is frightening. All this while the Secretary of Homeland Security is saying that what demonstrably is a crime – crossing our borders illegally – is not a crime.
Has Washington gone completely mad? Obama is willing to prosecute the very officials who worked hard and successfully kept America safe since 9/11/01 – using techniques that Congress was fully informed of at the time – and his administration is not willing to enforce the laws that prevent criminals and potential terrorists from crossing our borders. Do you agree with these positions the Obama administration has taken?
The courtesy of a clear, direct response from which a constituent can determine your actual position on these issues would be appreciated.
Respectfully,
Lou
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Is Obama Making Us Safer?
The better question might be - "is it his goal to make us safer?" By any objective, logical standard it would be hard to make the case that he's actually trying to make the country safer.
A brief review of some recent Obama highlights on this topic:
A brief review of some recent Obama highlights on this topic:
- the world-wide, non-stop apology tour seems like it will never end. Obama seems determined to apologize for everything that happened before he took office, and to confess the sins of every American except himself and his ideological soul-mates. This demonstrates nothing but weakness to our adversaries.
- he's been actively waving olive branches at the world's despots, including Kim Jong Il, Ahmedenijad, Ortega, Chavez and the Castro brothers. These tyrants have returned the favor by launching missiles, arresting an American journalist, continuing to develop nuclear weapons and berating America at every opportunity.
- his Secretary of Homeland Security - who can't call a terrorist a terrorist, but can call Americans extremists and terrorists if they happen to disagree with Obama - has just informed us that crossing our borders illegally is not a crime.
- Obama himself decided to release CIA memos that detail the interrogation techniques that those in the field protecting our country will and will not use. This will directly assist those who wish to do our country harm. Obama conveniently failed to release the memos that detail the intelligence gained thru the interrogation techniques he so desperately wanted to end.
- Obama has left the door open to prosecuting those in the prior adminstration who successfully kept this country safe. This will have a chilling effect on the intelligence community - what field agent is going to take the chance in this environment of ideological witch hunts that he or she will be prosecuted later if they interrogate aggressively?
There can be no logical, rationale argument made that anything Obama has done recently will make this country safer. If someone can make that case - logically, rationally and fact-based - I'm sure all Americans would be willing to consider it. But I doubt that any Obamaton will offer anything but ideology, emotion and anti-Bush nonsense in support of his approach.
The thing that really betrays the Obama agenda is the ludicrous assertion that releasing the CIA memos about enhanced interrogation techniques makes us "safer and stronger". Al Qaeda attacked America and American interests multiple times in many places long before we invaded Iraq or used any enhanced interrogation techniques. Our use of such techniques did not cause the terrorist attacks (excuse me, man-caused disasters), and eliminating such techniques will not reduce the probability of attacks at all.
Only if one believes that Al Qaeda's goal was to get us to stop using enhanced interrogation techniques could you believe that eliminating them will stop them from trying to attack us. Is there anyone out there who really believes that?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Who are the "Extremists"?
Lat night I attended one of the Tax Day Tea Parties in Reston, Virginia. The weather was miserable, but the spirit of the crowd was anything but. This tea party was moved from its originally scheduled site due to the anticipated size of the crowd - which turned out to be the right move.
According to the most recent DHS report (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5410658/DHS-Report-on-Right-Wing-Extremism) I could have been walking into the midst of a bunch of "extremists" and "potential terrorists". But what I actually saw were many mature, responsible, hard-working Americans gathered to peacefully express their concern about the immature and irresponsible behavior of their elected representatives in both parties. It was not ideological or partisan in any way. It was a simple expression of frustration with the ideologies and partisan behavior in Washington that are driving the country toward economic disaster.
Contrast the behavior of the "potential terrorists" at the Tea Parties with the enlightened free-speech crowd that greeted Tom Tancredo at the University of North Carolina on Tuesday night (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/16/tancredo-ambushed-by-unc-students/). According to TheHill.com "the former congressman wasn't able to get a word in. He was greeted by boos and chants of "no dialogue with hate" and eventually protesters were escorted from the standing room only crowd." Apparently anything that does not align 100% with the liberal point of view is "hate" and does not deserve to be heard. So much for free speech.
What I witnessed at the Tea Party was a sincere, rational expression of a legitimate concern about the future of our country. Those currently in power simply cannot conceive that there could be a legitimate difference of opinion about what they are doing to this nation, so they resort to the usual name-calling, labeling and efforts to stifle the dissent. What a sorry testimony that is about their ability to lead. Which is exactly why we saw the Tax Day Tea Parties yesterday.
According to the most recent DHS report (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5410658/DHS-Report-on-Right-Wing-Extremism) I could have been walking into the midst of a bunch of "extremists" and "potential terrorists". But what I actually saw were many mature, responsible, hard-working Americans gathered to peacefully express their concern about the immature and irresponsible behavior of their elected representatives in both parties. It was not ideological or partisan in any way. It was a simple expression of frustration with the ideologies and partisan behavior in Washington that are driving the country toward economic disaster.
Contrast the behavior of the "potential terrorists" at the Tea Parties with the enlightened free-speech crowd that greeted Tom Tancredo at the University of North Carolina on Tuesday night (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/16/tancredo-ambushed-by-unc-students/). According to TheHill.com "the former congressman wasn't able to get a word in. He was greeted by boos and chants of "no dialogue with hate" and eventually protesters were escorted from the standing room only crowd." Apparently anything that does not align 100% with the liberal point of view is "hate" and does not deserve to be heard. So much for free speech.
What I witnessed at the Tea Party was a sincere, rational expression of a legitimate concern about the future of our country. Those currently in power simply cannot conceive that there could be a legitimate difference of opinion about what they are doing to this nation, so they resort to the usual name-calling, labeling and efforts to stifle the dissent. What a sorry testimony that is about their ability to lead. Which is exactly why we saw the Tax Day Tea Parties yesterday.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
"Rightwing Extremism"
Below is the text of a letter I sent today to my Senators, Warner and Webb, after hearing about the recent DHS report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”.
Dear Senators,
On January 22 of this year I wrote you a letter that included the following paragraph:
“As my representatives in the U.S. Capitol, I am writing to you to express concern about the steady move towards greater government intervention in our lives already taking place under the Obama administration. You may recall that the 10th amendment to the Constitution reads “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That amendment has never been repealed, but it appears to have been forgotten in Washington.”
Based on the recent DHS report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”, are you going to report me to DHS as a possible “right-wing extremist” because I believe that the 10th amendment to our Constitution actually means what is says?
Governor Rick Perry of Texas said today “I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”
Is he a potential “right-wing extremist” as well?
DHS apparently released a similar report about left-wing extremists, but it made no mention or insinuation about the potential for violence from such groups despite their demonstrable record of such behavior. But now Secretary Napolitano suggests, without a shred of fact or evidence to back up her allegations, that returning war veterans and ordinary people who believe that the federal government is usurping powers that rightfully belong to the states may react with violence against the government. Aside from a completely transparent attempt to stifle dissent – what is the purpose of this report? And what facts, if any, is it based on?
Senators, when President Bush was in office one of the most popular bumper stickers said “Dissent is Patriotic”. Apparently Team Obama believes dissent is patriotic only when said dissent isn’t directed at them. Now that there is some legitimate debate and disagreement about Obama’s efforts to centralize control of our lives in the federal government, dissent is suddenly a threat and triggers the standard liberal name-calling in an attempt to intimidate those who disagree with Obama. The irony of a woman who can’t call a terrorist a terrorist, and who feels the need to rename the War on Terror an “overseas contingency operation”, calling ordinary Americans who just happen to disagree with what’s taking place in Washington “extremists” would be hysterical if it wasn’t so sad.
Do you believe that the First Amendment protects my right, and that of Governor Perry and millions of other Americans, to express concern about the efforts currently underway to expand federal government control of our lives? Is dissent still “patriotic”? Do you believe that the Tenth Amendment - “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” – actually means what it says?
The courtesy of a clear response from which I can actually discern whether or not you are taking an actual position on the important questions above would be appreciated.
Respectfully,
Lou
Dear Senators,
On January 22 of this year I wrote you a letter that included the following paragraph:
“As my representatives in the U.S. Capitol, I am writing to you to express concern about the steady move towards greater government intervention in our lives already taking place under the Obama administration. You may recall that the 10th amendment to the Constitution reads “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That amendment has never been repealed, but it appears to have been forgotten in Washington.”
Based on the recent DHS report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”, are you going to report me to DHS as a possible “right-wing extremist” because I believe that the 10th amendment to our Constitution actually means what is says?
Governor Rick Perry of Texas said today “I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”
Is he a potential “right-wing extremist” as well?
DHS apparently released a similar report about left-wing extremists, but it made no mention or insinuation about the potential for violence from such groups despite their demonstrable record of such behavior. But now Secretary Napolitano suggests, without a shred of fact or evidence to back up her allegations, that returning war veterans and ordinary people who believe that the federal government is usurping powers that rightfully belong to the states may react with violence against the government. Aside from a completely transparent attempt to stifle dissent – what is the purpose of this report? And what facts, if any, is it based on?
Senators, when President Bush was in office one of the most popular bumper stickers said “Dissent is Patriotic”. Apparently Team Obama believes dissent is patriotic only when said dissent isn’t directed at them. Now that there is some legitimate debate and disagreement about Obama’s efforts to centralize control of our lives in the federal government, dissent is suddenly a threat and triggers the standard liberal name-calling in an attempt to intimidate those who disagree with Obama. The irony of a woman who can’t call a terrorist a terrorist, and who feels the need to rename the War on Terror an “overseas contingency operation”, calling ordinary Americans who just happen to disagree with what’s taking place in Washington “extremists” would be hysterical if it wasn’t so sad.
Do you believe that the First Amendment protects my right, and that of Governor Perry and millions of other Americans, to express concern about the efforts currently underway to expand federal government control of our lives? Is dissent still “patriotic”? Do you believe that the Tenth Amendment - “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” – actually means what it says?
The courtesy of a clear response from which I can actually discern whether or not you are taking an actual position on the important questions above would be appreciated.
Respectfully,
Lou
Monday, April 13, 2009
"Investing" in Education?
We've heard a great deal lately from Team Obama about the moral imperative of "investing" more in education. Setting aside the irony of this crowd telling anyone about what's "moral", we need to think very carefully about allowing our dollars to be "invested" by them, especially when it comes to education.
Writing in the Denver Post, Robert Hardaway summed up the situation nicely (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5982482):
Writing in the Denver Post, Robert Hardaway summed up the situation nicely (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5982482):
- Spending on public schools in the U.S. exceeds that of any other country on earth
- Public schools in this country currently spend more than twice as much money per student as private schools
- If money were the solution, America's schools would be the best in the world. In fact, American public school students ranked 19th out of 20 countries in international achievement tests (nudging out Jordan), although American students did excel in "self-esteem" and the number of hours watching TV.
Further illustrating that there's no demonstrable link between increasing federal spending and improvements in education results, Mr. Hardaway reported:
- a study has shown that Iowa, which ranked No. 1 in the nation in SAT scores, ranked 27th in per-capita student expenditures.
- Utah, which ranked dead last among the states in per capita expenditures, finished 4th in test scores.
- In Japan, where public schools students consistently finish first or second in international tests, per-student expenditure is about a third of that in the U.S., despite a higher cost of living.
Between 2001 and 2008, federal spending on education increased from $42.6 billion to $67.5 billion, an increase of 58% or 6.8% annually. In fact, since the 1970s, federal per-student expenditures have tripled (adjusting for inflation), but test scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress have not improved. This does not sound like a very profitable "investment".
American taxpayers are spending, on average, more than $9,000 per student per year for all children in public schools. The average in Obama's hometown of Chicago is slightly higher than that, but a recent report published by the America's Promise Alliance found that the city's high school graduation rate was only 51.5 percent. Again, not a very successful "investment".
The problem with American education isn't lack of "investment" - it's lack of discipline and lack of competition. Entrenched interests (unions, bureaucrats, etc.) prevent our public schools from delivering an education which equals that currently delivered in private and charter schools for far less cost. Public school bureaucrats do not grant authority to teachers to discipline students or protect innocent students from disruptive ones. And just today the Obama administration rescinded charter school scholarships for poor African-American children in Washington D.C.
As the Heritage Foundation has reported, "Many Members of Congress value the opportunity to choose a safe and effective school for their own children, yet many of these same Members consistently oppose school choice legislation that would give the same opportunity to other families. For example, Senators Edward Kennedy (D–MA) and Hillary Clinton (D–NY) have been outspoken opponents of school choice initiatives even though both have sent their children to private schools."
Over 40% of Senators and Representatives send their children to private school, which is more than 4 times the national rate of private school attendance. They clearly recognize the failure of our public schools, and the failure of simply throwing more money at that problem. Yet rather than addressing the core problem, they simply dodge it by sending their kids elsewhere and continuing to compel the rest of us to make a phenomenally unsuccessful "investment". Once again, our employees in Congress want to have it both ways - to their advantage and our great disadvantage.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Kevorkian Media
In 1999 Jack Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder for directly participating in the voluntary euthanasia of Thomas Youk. Mr. Youk, 52, was in the final stages of ALS. Youk provided Kevorkian his fully-informed consent on September 17, 1998.
On November 4, 2008 our country effectively gave its consent to being euthanized, although that consent was surely not the "informed consent" that Mr. Youk provided Dr. Kevorkian. Rather, it was a consent obtained through the lies, of omission and commission, fed to the American public by a media completely incapable of credible, factual reporting.
What Obama is doing to the country now is not a surprise to those who took the time and made the effort to research his history, character and motivations. During the campaign, however, Obama was able to package his destructive, socialist agenda as "hope" and "change". The mainstream media went along with him unquestioningly and exerted great effort to convince America that Obama's program would actually be good for the country. And they will continue to do so, even as Obama destroys what has made this country a unique success in the history of the world.
Thomas Sowell captured the crux of the problem brilliantly in his column on April 7, 2009 (see link below) when he wrote "Perhaps the scariest aspect of our times is how many people think in talking points, rather than in terms of real world consequences. " In that same piece he also wrote "Liberals seem to think that they are doing lagging groups a favor by making excuses for counterproductive and self-destructive behavior. The poor do not need press agents. They need the truth. No one ever said, "Press agents will make you free."
And our mainstream media will not make us free either. They are as committed to the statist agenda as Obama is, and have dropped all pretense of playing the watchdog role so needed now. Washington DC is where the greatest risk to individual freedom always lies, but never more so than when a single party controls the White House and both houses of Congress. If a true watchdog press was ever needed, it is now. Unfortunately we now have a lapdog press, eager to please and unwilling to question those in power.
The Constitution defines the proper roles of the federal government, among which are the responsibility to "secure the Blessings of Liberty" for the American people. But the federal government itself is now the greatest threat to our "Blessings of Liberty", and with a compliant press ready to help the current Congress and administration euthanize us, all Americans are at risk if we don't move beyond the spoon-fed talking points and think about the real-world consequences of policies and programs destined to lead us to failure.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/04/07/random_thoughts
On November 4, 2008 our country effectively gave its consent to being euthanized, although that consent was surely not the "informed consent" that Mr. Youk provided Dr. Kevorkian. Rather, it was a consent obtained through the lies, of omission and commission, fed to the American public by a media completely incapable of credible, factual reporting.
What Obama is doing to the country now is not a surprise to those who took the time and made the effort to research his history, character and motivations. During the campaign, however, Obama was able to package his destructive, socialist agenda as "hope" and "change". The mainstream media went along with him unquestioningly and exerted great effort to convince America that Obama's program would actually be good for the country. And they will continue to do so, even as Obama destroys what has made this country a unique success in the history of the world.
Thomas Sowell captured the crux of the problem brilliantly in his column on April 7, 2009 (see link below) when he wrote "Perhaps the scariest aspect of our times is how many people think in talking points, rather than in terms of real world consequences. " In that same piece he also wrote "Liberals seem to think that they are doing lagging groups a favor by making excuses for counterproductive and self-destructive behavior. The poor do not need press agents. They need the truth. No one ever said, "Press agents will make you free."
And our mainstream media will not make us free either. They are as committed to the statist agenda as Obama is, and have dropped all pretense of playing the watchdog role so needed now. Washington DC is where the greatest risk to individual freedom always lies, but never more so than when a single party controls the White House and both houses of Congress. If a true watchdog press was ever needed, it is now. Unfortunately we now have a lapdog press, eager to please and unwilling to question those in power.
The Constitution defines the proper roles of the federal government, among which are the responsibility to "secure the Blessings of Liberty" for the American people. But the federal government itself is now the greatest threat to our "Blessings of Liberty", and with a compliant press ready to help the current Congress and administration euthanize us, all Americans are at risk if we don't move beyond the spoon-fed talking points and think about the real-world consequences of policies and programs destined to lead us to failure.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/04/07/random_thoughts
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Obama Defines Arrogance
After Obama effectively "called out" President Bush while on foreign soil this past Thursday, I contacted the offices of my Senators - Warner and Webb. The text of my message to them is below;
Senator Warner (and Webb),
Your constituents need to know your opinion of what Mr. Obama did today in France. It was bad enough when Gore and Carter and others cowardly stood on foreign soil and bashed America. But now our current occupant of the oval office is doing it too.
Do you agree with what Obama said today?
British newspapers are reporting the following:
Barack Obama: 'arrogant US has been dismissive' to allies President Barack Obama has offered an apology for the Bush era, declaring that America had "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" towards its allies.
It is beyond outrageous, reckless and irresponsible for a president to openly criticize his predecessor on foreign soil. It is truly a disgrace beyond what my words can express. Whatever the philosophical or policy differences may have been between Obama and President Bush - this way of expressing them is an absolute disgrace.
Your constituents have a right to know your position on this action by Mr. Obama.
Do you support his actions in making such statements on foreign soil?
The courtesy of a clear, direct yes or no reply would be appreciated.
Suffice it to say I am not expecting a response. All prior contact with these Senators has yielded nothing but boilerplate responses of the standard liberal talking points. These gentlemen have proven incapable of providing clear direct answers to direct questions. And they unfortunately have plenty of company in that regard within the current Congress and administration.
The irony of a man who is quite possibly the most arrogant to ever hold high office in this country calling someone else arrogant will of course be lost on Obama's loving press and the current Congress.
Senator Warner (and Webb),
Your constituents need to know your opinion of what Mr. Obama did today in France. It was bad enough when Gore and Carter and others cowardly stood on foreign soil and bashed America. But now our current occupant of the oval office is doing it too.
Do you agree with what Obama said today?
British newspapers are reporting the following:
Barack Obama: 'arrogant US has been dismissive' to allies President Barack Obama has offered an apology for the Bush era, declaring that America had "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" towards its allies.
It is beyond outrageous, reckless and irresponsible for a president to openly criticize his predecessor on foreign soil. It is truly a disgrace beyond what my words can express. Whatever the philosophical or policy differences may have been between Obama and President Bush - this way of expressing them is an absolute disgrace.
Your constituents have a right to know your position on this action by Mr. Obama.
Do you support his actions in making such statements on foreign soil?
The courtesy of a clear, direct yes or no reply would be appreciated.
Suffice it to say I am not expecting a response. All prior contact with these Senators has yielded nothing but boilerplate responses of the standard liberal talking points. These gentlemen have proven incapable of providing clear direct answers to direct questions. And they unfortunately have plenty of company in that regard within the current Congress and administration.
The irony of a man who is quite possibly the most arrogant to ever hold high office in this country calling someone else arrogant will of course be lost on Obama's loving press and the current Congress.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
ObaMadoff
The story of the "ponzi scheme" perpetrated by Bernie Madoff is by now familiar. Federal authorities are busy trying to confiscate his business and personal assets in an effort to recoup for Mr. Madoff's victims at least some of the tens of billions of dollars lost in the massive fraud.
In the meantime, other federal officials in the same government are carrying out a ponzi scheme that makes Mr. Madoff look like a rank amateur. While they surely did not start the problem, this Congress and the current President are pouring gas on the fire - spending so profligately and irresponsibly that the debt created will be unsustainable.
In an article on February 13 in WorldNetDaily, Jerome Corsi reported that our federal obligations exceed the GDP of the world. The link to his story is below, but here are some key points made in the article:
"As the Obama administration pushes through Congress its $800 billion deficit-spending economic stimulus plan, the American public is largely unaware that the true deficit of the federal government already is measured in trillions of dollars, and in fact its $65.5 trillion in total obligations exceeds the gross domestic product of the world. The total U.S. obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid in the future, effectively have placed the U.S. government in bankruptcy..."
Mr. Corsi provided links in his article, which I also provide below, to the actual reports from the U.S. Treasury Department that support his claims.
The simple fact is that all levels of government in this country take too much in taxes and yet still manage to spend more than they take in through those confiscatory taxes. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world (just a couple of percentage points behind India and tied with the economic powerhouses of Argentina, Malta, Pakistan and Zambia) and our individual rates are among the highest and going higher (at least for U.S. citizens defined as "rich"). More than half our states run deficits due to irresponsible spending, and now they're turning to the federal government to cover their shortfalls.
The tax and spend policies of our politicians - of all stripes but particularly those of the liberal persuasion - will inevitably bankrupt this country. Yet for some reason people keep electing the same nitwits to office.
Of the ten poorest cities in the country, all ten have Democratic mayors. Two of them have never had a Republican mayor and the other eight average 59 years since the last Republican administration. That can't be a coincidence.
It's long past time that the American people put aside the rhetoric and palavering of our politicians and watched what they actually do and hold them accountable. If we don't do it soon it may be too late.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88851
http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/
In the meantime, other federal officials in the same government are carrying out a ponzi scheme that makes Mr. Madoff look like a rank amateur. While they surely did not start the problem, this Congress and the current President are pouring gas on the fire - spending so profligately and irresponsibly that the debt created will be unsustainable.
In an article on February 13 in WorldNetDaily, Jerome Corsi reported that our federal obligations exceed the GDP of the world. The link to his story is below, but here are some key points made in the article:
"As the Obama administration pushes through Congress its $800 billion deficit-spending economic stimulus plan, the American public is largely unaware that the true deficit of the federal government already is measured in trillions of dollars, and in fact its $65.5 trillion in total obligations exceeds the gross domestic product of the world. The total U.S. obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid in the future, effectively have placed the U.S. government in bankruptcy..."
Mr. Corsi provided links in his article, which I also provide below, to the actual reports from the U.S. Treasury Department that support his claims.
The simple fact is that all levels of government in this country take too much in taxes and yet still manage to spend more than they take in through those confiscatory taxes. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world (just a couple of percentage points behind India and tied with the economic powerhouses of Argentina, Malta, Pakistan and Zambia) and our individual rates are among the highest and going higher (at least for U.S. citizens defined as "rich"). More than half our states run deficits due to irresponsible spending, and now they're turning to the federal government to cover their shortfalls.
The tax and spend policies of our politicians - of all stripes but particularly those of the liberal persuasion - will inevitably bankrupt this country. Yet for some reason people keep electing the same nitwits to office.
Of the ten poorest cities in the country, all ten have Democratic mayors. Two of them have never had a Republican mayor and the other eight average 59 years since the last Republican administration. That can't be a coincidence.
It's long past time that the American people put aside the rhetoric and palavering of our politicians and watched what they actually do and hold them accountable. If we don't do it soon it may be too late.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88851
http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Read Obama's Lips, No New Taxes
At least that's what Obama said on the campaign trail. Specifically, he said in Dover N.H. on Sept. 12 "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
But now that he's in office, Obama has signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products also got steep tax increases. Taxes on tobacco products fall disproportionately on those who are not "rich" (according to Obama's own definition).
The extra money will be used to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children, which was enacted last month with the passage of the SCHIP legislation. And that's where the logic really gets twisted.
The bizarre logic evident in this legislation belongs in the book “Catch-22”, not in U.S. law. In an economy where half the people pay no income taxes at all, the House has passed legislation that will provide free health care to families of 4 making up to $65,000, which is more than three times the federal poverty threshold. To fund this giveaway the House decided to increase the tax on smokers. Brilliant logic – given that the taxes on tobacco were initially raised with the specific goal of decreasing the number of smokers. So if the taxes succeed in their original purpose and drive down the number of smokers, then the funding for SCHIP will evaporate. If this is what passes for logic in the Congress, I fear that they’d all be losers on the TV show “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?”.
Since Congress has proven itself totally incapable of eliminating any program, even the most egregious failures, the loss of funding from taxing smokers will inevitably lead to Congress looking for something or someone else to tax to fund SCHIP.
You just can't make this stuff up.
But now that he's in office, Obama has signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products also got steep tax increases. Taxes on tobacco products fall disproportionately on those who are not "rich" (according to Obama's own definition).
The extra money will be used to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children, which was enacted last month with the passage of the SCHIP legislation. And that's where the logic really gets twisted.
The bizarre logic evident in this legislation belongs in the book “Catch-22”, not in U.S. law. In an economy where half the people pay no income taxes at all, the House has passed legislation that will provide free health care to families of 4 making up to $65,000, which is more than three times the federal poverty threshold. To fund this giveaway the House decided to increase the tax on smokers. Brilliant logic – given that the taxes on tobacco were initially raised with the specific goal of decreasing the number of smokers. So if the taxes succeed in their original purpose and drive down the number of smokers, then the funding for SCHIP will evaporate. If this is what passes for logic in the Congress, I fear that they’d all be losers on the TV show “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?”.
Since Congress has proven itself totally incapable of eliminating any program, even the most egregious failures, the loss of funding from taxing smokers will inevitably lead to Congress looking for something or someone else to tax to fund SCHIP.
You just can't make this stuff up.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
The other "fairness" doctrine
"That's not fair!" Those of us who have children have heard that phrase often. Most of us probably said it at some time when we were kids. Across the generations, the most common response has probably been "life's not fair, get over it".
Politicians, especially those of a liberal bent, just can't seem to get over it. They speak constantly about how hard they are working to create "fariness". The problem is that, for all their talk, they cannot define exactly what "fairness" means when it comes to enacting policy. And that's where the danger lies for the American people. "Fairness" apparently means whatever the liberal politicians want it to mean at whatever time they utter the word, so they use the pursuit of "fairness" to justify all kinds of destructive policies.
The most common context in which liberals use "fairness" is as it relates to taxation. In a recent interview Sen. Tom Harkin said that corporations and "the rich" need to pay "their fair share" of taxes. Both of my Senators, Warner and Webb, have responded to letters I wrote them by mentioning their pursuit of "tax fairness". None of them, however, can say specifically what that means. Apparently it simply means "more".
We now live in a country where nearly half the population will pay no federal income tax. And many of those will receive "rebates" of taxes they never paid. Apparently that is still not "fair" enough for Congress and this administration.
In 2006 the top 10% of taxpayers earned 47% of the income but paid 71% of the federal income taxes. Mayor Bloomberg recently said that "in 2006, 5,000 people paid 30 percent of the taxes in New York City." Over 8 million people live in New York City - and 5,000 of them pay 30 percent of the taxes. Is that "fair"?
"Fairness" is a wonderful concept, but a dangerous one when used by liberal politicians in search of more money to spend. When they talk about how they are pursuing it, they should be held accountable to define exactly what "fairness" means and exactly what they would do to achieve it.
Politicians, especially those of a liberal bent, just can't seem to get over it. They speak constantly about how hard they are working to create "fariness". The problem is that, for all their talk, they cannot define exactly what "fairness" means when it comes to enacting policy. And that's where the danger lies for the American people. "Fairness" apparently means whatever the liberal politicians want it to mean at whatever time they utter the word, so they use the pursuit of "fairness" to justify all kinds of destructive policies.
The most common context in which liberals use "fairness" is as it relates to taxation. In a recent interview Sen. Tom Harkin said that corporations and "the rich" need to pay "their fair share" of taxes. Both of my Senators, Warner and Webb, have responded to letters I wrote them by mentioning their pursuit of "tax fairness". None of them, however, can say specifically what that means. Apparently it simply means "more".
We now live in a country where nearly half the population will pay no federal income tax. And many of those will receive "rebates" of taxes they never paid. Apparently that is still not "fair" enough for Congress and this administration.
In 2006 the top 10% of taxpayers earned 47% of the income but paid 71% of the federal income taxes. Mayor Bloomberg recently said that "in 2006, 5,000 people paid 30 percent of the taxes in New York City." Over 8 million people live in New York City - and 5,000 of them pay 30 percent of the taxes. Is that "fair"?
"Fairness" is a wonderful concept, but a dangerous one when used by liberal politicians in search of more money to spend. When they talk about how they are pursuing it, they should be held accountable to define exactly what "fairness" means and exactly what they would do to achieve it.
Monday, March 30, 2009
If this isn't socialism, what is?
A common definition of socialism is "a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state". Today, President Obama fired the Chairman and CEO of a private enterprise and said that the federal government would stand behind the warranties provided by General Motors and Chrysler. These are clear examples of the means of production being controlled by the state and therefore, socialism.
All Americans should be very wary of the unprecedented power grab now underway. There is no Constitutional basis for what President Obama did today, and the criteria on which he based his decision to do it have not been communicated. If a president is permitted to grab power in such a way, with no Constitutional right to do so and with no reasonable explanation for the action - then the liberty of all Americans is at risk.
The tenth amendment to our Constitution reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The power to do what President Obama did today is clearly "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution", so this expansion of federal power is clearly unconstitutional.
When he took his oath of office President Obama swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". But today he blatantly violated that oath and took another step toward socialism and the dramatic reduction of the liberty of all Americans
All Americans should be very wary of the unprecedented power grab now underway. There is no Constitutional basis for what President Obama did today, and the criteria on which he based his decision to do it have not been communicated. If a president is permitted to grab power in such a way, with no Constitutional right to do so and with no reasonable explanation for the action - then the liberty of all Americans is at risk.
The tenth amendment to our Constitution reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The power to do what President Obama did today is clearly "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution", so this expansion of federal power is clearly unconstitutional.
When he took his oath of office President Obama swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". But today he blatantly violated that oath and took another step toward socialism and the dramatic reduction of the liberty of all Americans
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)