Friday, September 23, 2011

No More Shawshank Redemption For Me

Say it ain't so, Red.

It's always disappointing when, instead of providing a logical argument, people just name-call those they disagree with.  When I call someone a socialist, I try and give an explanation and a supporting argument.  I don't believe in name-calling, as it reduces whoever is using it to a "simpleton".  A simpleton has no coherent argument.  They either know their case is weak, or have no idea what their case is...other than, "I want our side to win."

Too bad for Morgan Freeman.  I really like his movies.  It's always unfortunate when you get to know the actors for the people they really are.  Makes believing any role they play in the future (or have played in the past) simply...unbelievable.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

All You Need To Know

I will not offer many responses to this, as I think it's important to just let a socialist speak for herself.  Elizabeth Warren is the new front runner in the Massachusetts Senate race.  She has a lot to say, as most politicians do who want to call themselves Senator.

What caught my ear was her reaction to business.  In my opinion, business is what makes the world go 'round.  Business employs, business creates, business pays taxes (and so do the people who the business hires and so do the people who buy their products).

But she thinks that business "owes" something more, just because, well they're a business.  You see, in her opinion, business would not survive if it were not for the tax revenue that paid for the roads, schools, police, and fire that the business uses.

I disagree.  In my opinion, business pays a lot more tax than the common American.  In fact, 50% of Americans don't pay any taxes at all.  Does that mean that 50% of Americans who don't pay taxes should be grateful to the wealthy who do?  They should, but seems like lately, it's the wealthy who are deemed "bad" and should pay their "fair share" (even though they already pay far more than most...far more).  Even though the business is paying a higher rate and greater quantity of taxes than the common American, Elizabeth thinks that business owes....and owes....and owes some more.

You see, Elizabeth gets it backwards.  It should be the taxpayers who are grateful to business, for business supplies the jobs, business produces what we consume, business pays most of the is the economy we rely on.  Yet, in her her socialist should be grateful to us.  Business "owes" us more.  In her world, a "fair portion" of tax is more...and more....and more...and more....

If you think socialism is a thing of the past or just a punch line, just remember...she's the front runner.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011


That's, an...uh...interesting photo.

Not really sure what else to say, other than, which one is not like the other?

"Barack Obama joins Open Government Partnership for group photo."

By the way, I think that's Ronald Reagan in the back row.

Monday, September 19, 2011

What Do You Deserve?

Recently, Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said that "I'll put it this way, you don't deserve to keep all of it.  It's not a question of deserving, because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together."

"Keep all of what?" you may be asking.  Your money.

You see, Representative Schakowsky believes that you don't deserve to keep all of your money.  Why don't you deserve to keep all of your hard-earned money?  Because of government.  You see, we have to have government.  We can't exist without government.

I disagree.  I say, government can't exist without us.

There is another conversation that we need to have before we can talk taxes.  It's a conversation about whether we, as American citizens, have inalienable rights.

Tina Korbe from Hot Air recently blogged about this.  Quote:
"...the government does have that authority (to tax) from our consent, the consent we express in the Constitution, which does give the federal government the power to tax...when the federal government taxes us, then, it doesn't really take our money.  We freely--if indirectly--choose to appropriate our money to the federal government by voting in the Congress that establishes the tax rates in the first place.  We consent to giving the federal government authority over a particular portion of our private resources, making those private resources public.  In effect, we cede our right to that property to the federal government.  The federal government, then, has a right to our tax dollars because we give it that right."

Did you catch the important phrase?  "...we give it that right".

J.E. Dyer from Hot Air continues this thought.  She says, "The question of what we 'deserve' boils down to which came first, the individual human with rights, or the state.  America was founded on the principle that the individual human with rights comes first.  Any idea that violates that principle is counter to our founding idea...The American founding idea is that we the people decide what government will do, and we decide how much money government will have to do it with.  Then we contribute out of which is inalienably ours."

Catch that one?  "Then we contribute out of which is inalienably ours."

You see, this is the core of the true debate.  How big should the government be?  How much should the government do?  What does the government deserve to get?

How many of our rights to property (our money) do we cede to the government?  How should the government spend our ceded property?

And...who gets to decide this?  We the People or We the Feds?

Now, back to Congresswoman Schakowsky.  She, along with many in our country, have reversed the above.  They believe that government existed first, and should, therefore, have first dibs on our property.  She says, "Government is those things we decide to do together.  And there are many things we decide to do together."

Really?  I don't remember wanting to purchase shares of Chrysler.

She continues, "I think you need to pay your fair share of the things we decided are national priorities."

Bingo.  She's not talking about all of government.  You see, most of your life you exist at the local level.  Local ordinances, local government, local codes, property taxes, state ordinances, etc.  Very rarely, are you living at the national level.  But she's reversed that.  What she calls "we" is really "them" at the federal level.  The federal government is consuming more and more of your property.  And what do you have to show for it?  Less and less.  In fact, much of what you give to the federal government, in the hopes of future pay outs, is  insolvent.  Like Social Security.

So, if you believe that we give the government power, and we decide how big government should be, then I propose you do this:

Go cash in your shares of Chrysler.  Get your money back...we are constantly told "we own" the company.

Yet, this is what will happen.  Nothing.  You don't own anything.  The federal government owns the shares.  Now, tell me, is Representative Schakowsky talking about the things "we decide to do together", or is she really saying, "we the federal government has decided the things we will do without you"?

Interesting question to ponder.  Are We the People really in control?  For if our government does things we do not consent to, nor have the ability to correct, are we still living under the wishes of the Founding Fathers?  Are we still living under the guide of the Constitution?

Or are we somewhere else?

"If any of us doesn't deserve to keep everything he has earned, then that man is a the American idea, the state doesn't operate on the basis of 'what we deserve'.  It operates on the basis of law.  'What we deserve' is outside the scope of the state's competence to decide.  America was founded on the principle that individual rights precede and constrain the state.  As far as government is properly concerned, we all deserve to keep 100% of our money.  The question of what we decide to do with it, and how the functions of government figure into that, is a separate and subordinate topic.

It is impossible to live as free men and women otherwise."

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Evil Is Real...And So Is Courage

As we recognize the 10th anniversary of September 11th, 2001, many thoughts are brought forward.  We all have our stories.   9/11 means so very much to so many people.  Each has their own story, with each having a fundamental impact on their lives.

For me, it's a profound sense of sorrow and loss.  Yet, that feeling is shortly replaced by what is more fundamental--how we performed after being attacked.  I was on an aircraft carrier leaving the Persian Gulf (3 weeks later flying the first flights into Afghanistan).  It was hard for me, being that I thought I was overseas fighting the enemy...but it seemed the enemy was closer than I was to my homeland.  But, my fellow citizens proved that courage was much more common that I think many thought.

As people attempted to escape the flames of the Trade Towers, the firefighters and police charged into the flames.

As the walls of the Pentagon verged on collapse, Americans charged into the smoke to pull out fellow citizens, only to go back after they saved a life.

And aboard Flight 93.  True courage.  Common citizens displaying uncommon valor.  "At the moment democracy was under attack, our citizens defied their captors by holding a vote."

And that take back the plane.

As we acknowledge the loss, let's also acknowledge the courage and the vision that those in Flight 93 had.  Simply, we are a land of the free, and a home of the brave.  Simple and common words, until you actually have to live them.

We are a great nation.  We have in us a spirit that is not easily broken.  "We the People" should remind us that our nation is not our's supposed to be us.  We each make up the citizenry.

To those who say that America's best days are behind them, I say "Let's roll."

Monday, September 5, 2011

Battle Lines...

...are being drawn.

As we anxiously await the President's solution to all of our economic woes on Thursday, we're all getting a sneak peak on what the next year or so will look like.  Democrats used to make fun of President Bush's "you're either with us or against us" doctrine.  Looks like the Democrats are actually big fans of the idea.  Politically, that is.

If you're part of the Tea Party movement, you're terrorists, banned to damnation, and are the obstacles to bigger government solutions.

If you're Republican, then you are barbarians.  No kidding...the Vice President thinks so.  At an AFL-CIO (big union) rally, the Vice President is in a fighting mood...literally.

Seems the battle lines are being drawn.  Today, in an introduction for the President of the United States, Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. (seriously, if you were the President, would you want anyone named Jimmy Hoffa introducing you?) said that the labor unions are the President's "army" and that we should take these "sons of bitches out" (referring to Tea Party activists and Republicans).

Yeah, well, you know rhetoric.  I'm sure the President distanced himself, right?

Nope.  The President is proud of the remarks.

So, what side are you on?

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you don't know, you're probably already the enemy.  Watch your back.

Call me crazy, but the battle has already started.  I hope you are prepared.

Keynesian Socialist

What's the difference between a $14.7 Trillion debt and a $15.7 Trillion debt?

Maxine Waters.

Regular readers of this blog know my feelings about the Congresswoman representing South Central Los Angeles.  She's threatened to nationalize the oil companies (which reminds me of someone else), and has told a good number of voting Americans to "go to hell" due to their desire that the federal government live within their financial means.

There are many more reasons, but let's focus on the most recent.  Congresswoman Waters believes in the fallacy that if the government gives someone a dollar, they'll create $1.84 in economic stimulus.  The problem with this theory is that the government doesn't create wealth.  It has to take wealth, in the form of taxes, to spend on government programs.  Money taken in the form of taxes is wealth that could have been used to invest, create, hire, or spend in a free-market economy.  This is simply redistributing wealth not creating it, either telling how people should spend their money or simply making that decision for them.  She apparently doesn't understand this...or, she's a socialist and doesn't care.  Case in point, Meet the Press from this weekend.  She wants to spend a trillion dollars on a "jobs plan".

"I don't think he can have a program that simply gives more tax breaks to the very people who got us in this trouble in the first place."

You mean Congress?

Ma'am, let me introduce you to another theory.  The people in your district would be served better if you thought this way...and you would make less ridiculous statements on national t.v.

What Would You Do?

Let's play a game! Sorta like the TV series, we'll be playing "What Would You Do?" Skippy-style.  After I ask the question, take a moment to think about what you would do, then I'll give you the government's answer to all the questions.  Let's play!!

Question 1:  Your favorite ice cream company delivers their yummy products via trucks across the country.  The company finds out that one of their drivers is often drunk when he drives the trucks.  You think to yourself how many people that trucker has put at risk.  The company no longer allows the trucker to drive their trucks, but keeps the trucker in the company to do something non-driving related.  Did the company make the right decision?

Government Answer: No.  You violated the man's civil rights by removing him from driving.  You see, alcoholism is a "disability".  You know, the same as blindness, deafness, down syndrome, and multiple sclerosis.  Therefore, by removing him from his position (doesn't matter that you didn't fire him and kept him with the company) you violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, and we, as the government, are going to sue you.  We will sue you to reinstate the man as a driver again, provide him with back pay, and provide him with punitive damages.  Full story here.

Question 2:  California has a multi-billion dollar budget deficit.  It has some tough decisions to make.  For one, it has decided to close over 70 state parks.  For anyone that has been to California, they know that some of the most beautiful parks are located within the state.  What should the state do next?  Cut more from the budget?

Government Answer: No.  Actually, just the opposite.  You see, the federal government couldn't pass the DREAM Act because of a lack of support.  No problem.  California has plenty of support for illegal aliens....excuse me, undocumented, they'll pass the DREAM Act at the state level.  Even though they're having incredibly huge budget problems, the California Appropriations Committee has decided to spend $40 million via Assembly Bill 131.  This funds "Cal Grants", which would allow illegal aliens to collect public financial aid to spend for a college education. Story here.

Question 3:  The US Postal Service is going bankrupt.  As their costs grow beyond their revenues, the Post Office has recently closed 3,700 branches and eliminated Saturday delivery.  What could be causing the budget problems?  Labor.  FedEx labor costs are 32% of costs and UPS's labor costs are 53%.  The US Post Office's labor costs are 80% of all costs.  You see, the US Post Office has so many contractual issues with their employees (via labor unions), which include "no-layoff clauses", they are unable to control the costs of paying their people.  What should the Post Office do?  Re-negotiate with the unions?

Government Answer:  No.  Hey, Post Office.  We're going to bail you out.  Even though the American taxpayer is voting with their feet (via UPS and FedEx), we'll use taxpayer money to continue your unsustainable business model.  We understand unsustainable monetary models...we're the Federal Government.

That's all for today's game!  Hope you enjoyed today's frustrating results.  Excuse me, I must go give Office Depot more business.