Sunday, October 30, 2011

The TOTAL ABSURDITY Of What Many Try To Pass Off As Acceptable K-12 Education In America

This article which uses John Stossel's "Stupid In America" as a starting point is one of the best I've read about the sorry state of K-12 'education' in America. It gets right to the heart of the matter.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338

Here's one of Stossel's commentaries that covers education's problems all pretty well with lots of interviews and examples: http://www.onlineschools.org/education-debate/saturday-night-john-stossels-new-stupid-in-america/. Especially view the video in that article. If this doesn't bring you nearly to tears, perhaps you don't get it yet. This is not only our kids we're messing with, it's their future ... our country's future!!! Doesn't any of that matter?

The following interview with Michelle Rhee, the fired head of DC schools, is heart-breaking to me. How can we excuse the resistance to this woman's commitment and sensible efforts to fix the problem with DC's schools? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Irx9o7DjO8

[While you're at it you may want to check out other of Stossel's articles in his ongoing series of commentaries about how we're "Stupid In America". Here's one search that will help you do that: http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=stossel+stupid+in+america. All them basically attest to how poorly our schools are doing and how stupid our priorities are.]

As for K-12 education in particular, I don't think we have a chance of achieving the quality of education we need to ensure a healthy and productive society in the future unless and until parents wake up to the travesty of government failures running education in America. Based on Stossel's commentaries and investigations I think parents who don't get it or, worse, don't care(!) are the biggest impediments to fixing our truly broken and simply pathetic K-12 education system.

That leads my arguments full circle back to my previous blogs about the problem with men in America. It's well past time that men began caring about this problem and doing something about it. If men across America would get their priorities straight again ... off themselves and on their family, community and living responsibly ... pretty much all that's wrong in and with America would be corrected in very short order.

To men in America I say, GET OVER YOURSELVES ... BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE FOR OUR COUNTRY!!!

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Aspiring To Be Good At Gaming The System (Ref Previous LIRR Blog)

Thinking about my previous blog about the LIRR fraud case, I've come up with at least three things that should be said about 'Gaming The System':
  1. When 'the system' becomes too oppressive or cumbersome it invites, even demands (for thrill or survival sake) people find ways around whatever rules there are whether those ways are illegal or 'only' immoral.
  2. There are too many people who accept doing this as a challenge and that to be victorious is a good thing. To them, there's honor in dishonerable actions.
  3. There are too many people for whom the immoral aspect of it is irrelevant. This 'moral relevance' thinking based on one's own desires being more important than others' is destructive of civility in a society. If you haven't noticed, it's increasing dramatically in the USA and elsewhere.
An over-reaching and/or too bureaucratic and too 'nanny state' government always leads to this. It's a historical truth. As I've said in recent blogs, it is simple human nature to behave this way. Either the survival instinct kicks in or people find their motivation to do bad things in the thrill/challenge of finding ways to benefit from not following the rules ... to benefit from the pain (economic or otherwise) of others. Their pain is irrelevant. My gain whether deserved or earned is all that matters.

We're going too far down this road. We're becoming a something for nothing society and history is full of lessons why and how this is very, very bad for us. To those doing the gaming, both the historical truth where this leads and the impact on fellow citizens who pay a price to the successful gamer are completely(!) irrelevant. If you can get something from the system that you don't deserve and didn't earn, so what? If 'they' are stupid enough to allow me to do it and get away with it, shame on them. Unfortunately, it isn't 'the system' or government that pays the price, it's one's own fellow citizens, one's neighbors, one's relatives. Personal moral responsibility is irrelevant. In fact, it's a totally subjective thing, not something which has objective importance in absolute terms.

We humans resist objective restrictions on our behavior if they infringe on what we want. Human nature you know. The constitution is too restrictive? Then we must declare it a 'must be made relevant to the times' document and keep it relevant to current 'needs'. We must it change it to accommodate what we want, regardless of the document's historically derived 'healthy society' foundation. But it's justified to change it isn't it? After all, the Founders had no idea how we'd develop materially, scientifically or otherwise. No they didn't. They 'only' understood where human behavior would lead without cultural and government boundaries. They understood the inevitability of our decay if our behvior (wants versus basic needs) were not restrained.

Changing from a society substantially based on personal responsibility for one's life and for the well-being of one's family and community to one based on automatic equal outcomes for everyone is destructive. It gives perceived if not implied and even factual license to people to get whatever's fair by their own definition by any means and at whatever cost to others that are necessary. Wrongness becomes subjective which is destructive of a civil society. This has played out so many times in history that it's irrational to ignore it. It is arrogant and ignorant of us to think it won't or can't happen to us ... that we will manage it better than all those failed societies. Man's arrogance (in the societal and personal sense) knows no bounds. The Founders knew this to be true and did a remarkably creative job of establishing sensible boundaries. We ignore their intentions at great, great risk to our society.

History screams at us: beware what you wish for!

Friday, October 28, 2011

Union Benevolence Run Amok: The LIRR Fraud And Corruption Case

This is no trivial matter is it?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281597/public-employees-busted-retirement-scheme-nathaniel-botwinick

So much for unions doing what's 'fair' much less what's right. Unions spend much effort trying to convince us that they only stand for what's fair and deserved. Hmmmmmm.

How can so many average Americans think it's okay to do something like this? It's disgusting and the root of it has everything to do with my previous blog today about men (people in general but men in particular).

American Men: "Deadbeats Or Players". On Human Nature And Choices

In my previous blog I commented on President Obama's lamentation over Americans losing their entrepreneurial and industrious spirit. The sorry state of K-12 education in America is most certainly behind it. The question is how do we fix that? Where can we start that is both 'necessary and sufficient'? That's a high tech term for fixing something that actually fixes a problem and is not overkill. Unfortunately, what government does to 'fix' things is too often neither of those things.

Liberals, especially progressives have been attacking the school environment and the curriculum with lots of experiments that didn't work at all. What they shied away from, naturally for progressives, is personal responsibility at the parent and local school level. Has 30 years of their failed approach taught us anything yet? The one thing we can do for, in fact owe, our kids is to prepare them for real life after K-12 schooling. The one most singularly spectacular failure has been not instilling a sense of personal responsibility in our kids. That must start with the practice of personal responsibility by their parents which has also been spectacularly missing among most of the kids who fail in school.

Where ought we begin in our efforts to address the failure of parents regarding the sorry state of K-12 education? The answer if we're honest is with men in general, dads in particular. While the following article isn't directed at what the behavior of men has done to families in general and K-12 education in particular, the point it makes is relevant equally to the problem with education:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/281490/blame-sexual-revolution-br-not-men-mona-charen

The bad things that men are doing politically, socially and relationally are completely in line with human nature. That doesn't make it okay but it's important to understand that's true in order to deal with it effectively. The progressive solution to that is to have the government take over control from families and communities (ie, from responsible men, husbands and fathers). But you have to realize that the only reason they feel the need to do that is because men in families and communities aren't doing the job. The best and correct fix is to get men back on track, not for government to become the father (and mother!) figure.

Progressives deny the problem as I've defined it because that would mean that our Founders were absolutely correct. The Founders' understanding of human (mainly man's) nature is what led them to construct the constitution and through it our government the way they did. For progressives to accept that would mean accepting they've been leading our country down the wrong path all this time. (Of course, the history of progressivism (socialism) throughout the world already teaches us about its inevitable failure but they deny that too and are therefore obliged(!) to make a strong effort to edit that out of K-12 history books/teaching but that's an entire subject for another day.)

American men by and large (and undeniably) have become deadbeats and/or players at living and acting responsibly. The article linked above attests to the fact that women get it. They've tried moving ahead without men but are realizing that's not working out so well either (surprise!). The fix for this must be for men to man up rather than for women, kids and governments to write them off.

Getting men to man up would address the most fundamental root cause of many of America's ills. Poverty for one and that's a pretty big one. Broken/hurting families and divorce for another very big one. A general decline in civil, lawful, principled, and moral behavior for another. There's a reason why 99% of the really, REALLY lame and downright stupid things shown on America's Funniest Home Videos are being done by men. To understand what's wrong with America, one only has to watch that TV program a few times. It's a joke but the joke's on our culture and at its core it's not really funny at all. It's quite sad.

Men need to do a better job living with a sense of dignity, self-respect and responsibility. They need to make better choices. After all, all their bad/undesirable behaviors are nothing more nor less than choices. Narcissism has grown among American men to a culturally (very) destructive extent. They get disrespect from women for a reason: just like the Smith-Barney commercial used to say, they earned it.

Conclusion: When a big majority of men begin putting their girl friends, wives, children, community, and especially godly(!) principles ahead of their own narcissistic desires more of our problems will be substantially resolved than by any other means. There is no singular other 'fix' that'll do so much good so quickly and so cost-effectively. It won't cost the taxpayer anything and it'll work. What's not to like about that?

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Per President Obama: We've Lost The Entrepreneurial And Industrious Spirits! Well, DUH!

It's interesting to hear President Obama lament the decrease in entrepreneurial spirit and the decrease in industriousness to create and make things. It's interesting because the progressive agenda has everything to do with that.

One of the root causes of what finally(!) concerns President Obama is the stagnation in K-12 education that began the day that progressives breathed life into the federal department of education whose charter was to control K-12 education. In the past 30 years since the federal department of education was created our kids' scores in math, science and reading have gone from best to worst among developed nations. 30 years of experimentation with old math, new math, open classrooms, closed classrooms, tenure, huge increases in teacher pay and compensation, etc, etc, unfettered by conservative interference has produced exactly what? Maybe because we don't understand math and logic any longer we're too stupid to add 2 to 2 and get 4. We're incapable of connecting dots and making rational objective judgements why we're in this pickle because we've been dumbed down by that very system.

With these education results, is it any wonder that both our desire and ability to analyze, innovate, create, and build has decreased? A Harvard graduate ought to be able to figure this out. It's not too complicated.

Too many of you (mostly under 50 years old) don't remember our national discussions about the loss of industry. We were beginning to lose our lead in steel and other metal industries, auto industries, appliance industry, and many, many others. We conservatives became alarmed and the progressive political class patronizingly told us "yeah, we're losing those but don't worry because we'll do fine shifting from a manufacturing-based economy to one based on the service industry".

When was the last time any president promoted high tech or industry as a genuine national policy that he actively pursued? Remember what happened when President Kennedy challenged us to get to the moon before Russia did? That national call to arms helped promote one of the greatest expansions of interest in those areas that now concern Obama.

Obama is lamenting this loss but what is he doing about it? Nothing. In fact, he can't do anything about it because what needs to be done pretty much requires thinking and action that's the opposite of the progressive agenda. He doesn't know what caused it, much less how to fix it.

Where's the national inspiration/leadership to excel in school? "Programs" alone won't do it and in fact haven't.

Where's the national inspiration/leadership to be personally responsible for one's life and success?

Where's the national inspiration/leadership to control one's impulses? Instant gratification (on a personal level and by politicians who want our votes more than they want a healthy economy) has been running amok and caused national and personal debt we have no choice(!) but to pass on to future generations. This is not just 'unfortunate'. It's sick!

Where's the national inspiration to work in the private sector versus the public sector? (One sector produces all the things that sustain a vibrant economy; the other only sucks the vitality/life out of the economy.) Work in the public sector is noble. Work in the private sector is only okay if you promise not to become successful and become one of the 'evil rich'. (So why do it?) Work in the public sector where you're guaranteed a job regardless of your performance versus work in the private sector where you actually have to work hard ... every day ... and run the risk of losing your job if you goof up even once. Work in the public sector and have a guaranteed retirement at your ending salary or work in the private sector where there are no guarantees. Security regardless of work ethic and performance versus having to work hard simply to keep your job much less get any pay increase.

In one breath President Obama blasts the successful rich as inherently bad. In the next he laments why there's not more people with the motivation to become as successful as they possibly can. The lack of logic in that is breath-taking!

Bigger government made to control increasingly large amounts of our lives and our industry results in decreased quality of both. It's a historical and logical truth. So, it's 'interesting' to hear President Obama lamenting what progressives have been going about destroying for the past hundred years. We conservatives have been telling you for at least 40 years this would happen if they continued doing this. Now progressives want us to help pay for their bad ideas and choices that were poorly thought out. And progressives wonder why the TEA Party got so much traction?

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

The Occupy Wall Street Crowd Don't Seem To Understand That Government Is The Bigger Problem By Miles. In Fact The ROOT Cause!

So, the two main things I'm hearing from the Occupy Wall Street crowd is that:
  • The wealthy class is unfairly rich and the government should do something to redistribute their income and
  • They want government to give them free or nearly free college education.
Sounds good on the surface because, for sure, it's not fair for people to get so wealthy while being partly responsible for the economic mess we're in. Also, for sure, a college education costs too much.

But have you considered:
  1. The contribution the wealthy make to creating jobs and providing resources for new business start-ups?
  2. The ROOT cause of our current economic mess lies federal government policies and regulation (regarding sub-prime mortgages)?
  3. The ROOT cause of the high cost of education significantly lies in federal government policies and regulation? The government took our tax money to cause this problem and now they're supposed to take more of our money to fix it?
Regarding #1, the following article makes some points you may not have considered. It pretty much speaks for itself so I won't comment further. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/281292/equally-poorer-michael-tanner

Regarding #2 AND #3, when the federal government intervened in our free economy's natural checks and balances they became the root cause of the problems we have in those (and other) areas today.

Everyone who understands economics knows that competition helps keep prices down. Free Enterprise has been key to our country's economic success. Competition drives innovation too ... make a cheaper product that's a better one and you'll be successful. Competition is good on a personal level too (motivates a person to do more with his life and do it better). Government regulation is needed to keep the competition fair and lawful but when government tries to level the playing field out of a progressive desire for economic equality, it discourages competition and personal/corporate responsibility.

Pretty much every time the federal government steps in to force the leveling of a playing field they make things worse by discouraging if not nullifying competition. Every time the federal government subsidizes something, the cost goes up, if not on the specific thing they're tinkering with then on a competing product.

Take the ethanol push. The government didn't 'force' any farmers to grow only ethanol corn but what did they expect farmers to do when ethanol subsidies made it very profitable to grow ethanol corn? Not only did the availability of consumer food corn decrease, so did nearly all other food products because farmers switched from whatever they were growing to corn. The price of ALL food went up dramatically. It made world hunger a bigger problem too because of the cost and unavailability of food in poor countries.

Around three decades ago the government decided that a higher education needed to be more readily available to the poor. Noble intent gone wrong. College subsidies were extended to pretty much ALL students over time. Guess what colleges did in response? The government was guaranteeing they'd be paid no matter how much they charged students. Competition for student dollars evaporated and colleges no longer had to worry about keeping costs down so that the average person could afford it. The cost of college has skyrocketed primarily(!) because the federal government subsidizes it. There's a HUGE irony in all of this. So, government's well-intentioned meddling drove college costs up (which taxpayers have been paying for already) and now these protesters want the people in government who caused this problem to take MORE taxpayer money to pay for the problem government created.

The exact same thing happened to cause our current economic problems. If the federal government had not subsidized homes for people who couldn't afford to pay the mortgages we wouldn't be in this mess!!! Sure, I understand that Wall Street made money off this arrangement but that's not the root cause. Those mortgages were unaffordable and WHATEVER entity ended up owning them would have been in financial trouble. It just happens to be that Wall Street packaged these nonsense loans into high risk packages and traded them around among themselves in the total disillusionment that they could make money off them. Well, IF they were inclined to consider how risky those investments actually were, what was their motivation to avoid pushing them? Answer: NONE! Why? Because the federal government guaranteed(!) their money was reasonably safe ... all those mortgages had Fannie and Freddie backing. While it is true that Wall Street was immorally motivated to trade/invest these things, why did they do it? If the ill-advised sub-prime mortgage progam had never been created OR had been run by Freddie and Fannie with an ounce of economic sense, people who actually couldn't afford to pay the mortgages wouldn't have gotten them!

The big question is why did Fannie and Freddie push sub-prime mortgages (the ROOT cause of our troubles)? Answer: congress and Clinton told them to do it. In fact, one of the last executive orders Clinton gave was for Freddie and Fanny to make half their mortgages be these sub-prime types. The ONLY way Fannie and Freddie could do that was to loosen the qualification requirements so much that there really weren't any. The root of our current economic troubles is that sub-prime mortgages were pushed by government, mostly progressives in congress and the White House. Yes, Wall Street made it worse. But ONLY 'worse'. The housing market would have collapsed even if Wall Street had stayed out of it because whomever had owned those mortgages would have gone under. This problem would never have happened ONLY if progressives in our government hadn't tried to regulate nearly everyone into a home whether they could afford it or not.

The Occupy Wall Street folks are protesting the wrong culprits. Sure, Wall Street has dirty hands and college costs too much but if these protesters want the root cause of both problems fixed at the cheapest cost to taxpayers they need to protest congress, especially progressive regulation and other meddling. The 'fixes' they're calling for will mostly make the problems worse. If college already costs too much, what do you think will happen to the cost if it's subsidized even more? C'mon folks. Think about it.

What's hilarious is that so many people think that lack of regulation is what caused the sub-prime mortgage and, therefore, housing market collapse. In fact, it was government regulation that caused it by forcing (ie, regulating) Fannie and Freddie into lowering their loan qualification standards below what made any economic sense whatsoever.

One ought to consider what progressive-ism has brought us in recent decades. Their push to subsidize student loans and home mortgages is fundamentally at the root of our current economic troubles. The federal government is absolutely key in causing problems with both programs by forcing taxpayers to subsidize them and now we taxpayers are expected to pay more to a government that created the problems? The logic completely escapes me.

Monday, October 24, 2011

Son Matt Has Been Busy Professionally With His Music

As I've blogged before, both of my sons have hearts and skills for music. I just blogged below about Chris' accomplishments at San Jose State University and I have to brag how fortunate I am that my younger son, Matt, has been professionally engaged with his musical gifts as well. Here's a link to samples of that:  http://mattoldsmusic.wordpress.com/music/

Matt's talents in writing and playing music blesses us so much. We really enjoy hearing him express himself in the variety of ways he's found to do that. Go Matt!!!

Son Chris Has His Senior Recital Scheduled For Nov 12th! Yay!!!

Son Chris is a student at San Jose State University, majoring in Music Ed. He's nearing the end of that journey and has his senior recital scheduled for November 12th. His Mom and I are very proud of his accomplishment and are looking forward to attending it and celebrating this important milestone.

Go Chris!!!

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Law Of The Land In Libya: Sharia Law. So Much For The Hope Of Freedom.

If you know anything about Sharia law, you know it's very anti-freedom. 'Arab Spring' government overthrows are moving countries in that direction and that's not a step toward either freedom or peace in that part of the world nor in other parts of the world where the consequences of it are felt. The following quote is from MSNBC today.

"And [Abdul-Jalil, head of NTC, Libya's transition council] laid out a vision for the post-Gadhafi future with an Islamist tint, saying Islamic Sharia law would be the "basic source" of legislation and existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified. In a gesture that showed his own piety, he urged Libyans not to express their joy by firing guns in the air, but rather to chant "Allahu Akbar," or God is Great."

I have nothing against Muslims or their religion, Islam, but if they're honest they must acknowledge that basing a country's government and legal system on Sharia law creates a legal system that stands in stark opposition to religious, much less individual freedom that's being desired and embraced by most of the non-Muslim world. A telling question is, what are the chances that Christians will enjoy the same peace, safety/security and freedom in these Muslim countries that operate under Sharia law as Muslims are afforded in Christian countries?

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Actually, President Obama Is Meeting Bush's Promise On Iraq Withdrawal

From MSNBC and most media, including FOX News: End of war in Iraq is a major campaign promise kept by Obama.

Well, I'm as happy as the next guy that we're getting out of Iraq but that claim is nothing more nor less than spin (or poor memory) of the highest order.

Actually, removing troops from Iraq by the end of this year was Bush's promise cast in an agreement with the Iraqis several months before Obama won the general election. Prior to that agreement that Bush made with the Iraqis in mid-2008, Obama's consistent campaigned-on date was "16 months after taking office" ... June 2010. All Obama can honestly claim is not screwing up a promise Bush made to Americans and Iraqis.

In case you're interested, the facts and timeline are:

Through 2007:
Here is a quote repeated by many sources: "Obama will immediately [upon taking office] begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month [starting day 1 of his presidency], and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months (ie, by June 2010)."

February 19, 2008 (At his Texas primary victory speech):
Per CBS News report: "In his victory speech in Texas Tuesday, Barack Obama promised to end the Iraq war in 2009" ... ie, during(!) his first year in office. So, a few months after saying he'd get them out by June 2010, he said he'd get them out 6 months earlier than that ... by December 31, 2009. That may have been a gaffe because he consistently said "16 months after taking office" in all other speeches during his campaign.

March 7, 2008 (Per Politico.com):
Obama's campaign website describes Iraq withdrawal within 16 months of taking office (ie, by June 2010).

August 4, 2008 (Per AntiWar.com):
"Seventeen months after President Barack Obama pledged to withdraw all combat brigades from Iraq by June 2010, he quietly abandoned that pledge Monday, admitting implicitly that such combat brigades would remain until the end of 2011." This anti-war group has no reason to bend the truth and they weren't happy he changed his mind at the last moment to the date Bush already agreed to with the Iraqi government.

So, throughout his campaign, Senator Obama consistently(!) said he'd get the troops out by June 2010. It wasn't until after he'd won the Democratic primary and was all but assured of winning the general election a scant three months later that he said he'd bring them home by the date Bush previously established by written agreement with Iraqis, December 31, 2011.

It's completely irrational to claim Obama campaigned on bringing them home by the end of 2011 when for all but the last three months he said he'd do it by June 2010. He ran his entire campaign on bringing them home by June 2010. It wasn't until the campaign was effectively over that he conceded to do it by the date previously established by Bush ... the end of 2011.

Let's give credit where credit is due. What's really happening is that we're bringing the troops home by the date Bush promised to Americans and Iraqis. The only thing for which we owe Obama credit is not messing that up.

Friday, October 21, 2011

Fear-Mongering Is What This Adminstration Does; And Then There's Hillary!

I don't really know where to start in response to VP Biden latest tirade. Every time Obama's team sends him out on the war path this is the kind of nonsense we get from him:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280849/joe-biden-cops-and-crime-andrew-stiles
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280847/biden-sticks-playbook-jonah-goldberg

He does this all the time and it's just so lame to see our country's VP act this way.

And then there's Hillary's amazingly inappropriate comments about Herman Cain Thursday. Her disrespectful, condescending, mocking, and generally insulting comments about him in front of other countries' leaders(!) are beyond inappropriate for our Secretary of State. (Never mind that the leader she said it to, Afghanistan President Karzai of all people, is arguably corrupt and routinely hostile toward America.) Check out a video ... from the HuffPost(!):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/hillary-clinton-herman-cain-hamid-karzai_n_1021700.html

Mr. Cain's accomplishments are the epitome of the American Dream ... that one can rise from the worst of circumstances one is born into and accomplish pretty much whatever he/she can dream. He is the walking embodiment of MLK's American Dream. Okay, so Mr. Cain isn't as sophisticated as you, Mrs. Clinton. Irrespective of his gaffes here or there, his accomplishments and his character deserve respect, not criticism and mockery. After all, this country IS a place where peanut farmers [;-)] and pizza entrepreneurs can accomplish pretty much whatever they can dream.

What's not to like about a person with this kind of background and accomplishments:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280727/cain-restaurant-years-katrina-trinko

Can you imagine anyone with real class such as Condi Rice behaving that way? Of course not! Mrs. Clinton and her boss owe Mr. Cain a personal, very contrite and very public apology. In fact, they should apologize to all Americans too who deserve to have their Secretary of State carry out her duties with more respect for her own fellow citizens and our democratic processes, especially when there's a chance other countries' leaders could end up having to do business with the man whose character she just trashed.

What's up with the people in this administration? Mean-spirited, hateful, arrogant, elititist, disrespectful, and dishonest are descriptions that suit them very well. It's a major reason I have little respect or patience with progressives, especially among the 'political elite'. They seem to act all nice until someone gets in the way of their agenda. Then they get downright mean and nasty.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

MSNBC Lost It's Credibility A LONG Time Ago In Judging Truth, Much Less What Taxes Do

Latest headline from MSNBC: "[Tax and other] facts took a beating" in last night's debate. Never mind that MSNBC has been purposely(!) lying about tax increases for years in total denial, if not ignorance, of the facts.

For example, they continue to claim that the Bush tax cuts hurt both employment and federal revenue when the facts are these:

80% of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy didn't cut in until June 2003. When they did, very good things happened to the economy.

Unemployment turned around the next month(!) and decreased UNWAVERINGLY to 4.4% which is considered full employment and is as good as Clinton did.

Federal revenue started back up a couple of months later after more Americans returned to work and the federal government therefore(!) began collecting more revenue. Immediately after Bush's biggest tax cuts were implemented, revenue increased UNWAVERINGLY to a RECORD $2.5 Trillion, 25% HIGHER THAN CLINTON ACCOMPLISHED AT HIS 4.4% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. (Yes, revenue decreased after the 2008 collapse but it had nothing to do with Bush's tax cuts ... it was caused by the collapse of the housing market. It's an economic fact folks!)

Equally hilarious is how MSNBC twists the facts in explaining other claims of erroneous statements by Republican candidates. MSNBC routinely(!) ignores or at least excuses Democrats' bogus claims and then goes out of its way to mischaracterize statements made by Republicans. They wouldn't acknowledge, much less recognize, a fact if it body-slammed them to the ground. Anyone who thinks MSNBC deserves any respect or credibility in their political reporting is misguided at best.

Monday, October 17, 2011

When Is A Mob Not A Mob?

Answer: when it's espousing socialism and the progressive agenda.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi, then the Speaker of the House, called peaceful Tea Party rallies mobs? They weren't occupying streets, parks or government buildings for weeks. They weren't costing cities millions of dollars in police and cleanup costs. They weren't damaging property. They weren't being arrested by the hundreds. But it's the Tea Party rallies that were mobs and the Occupy Wall Street folks who ARE doing all those things are not. Double standard and hypocrisy by the liberal political elite and The Media? Naw, they never do that!

Friday, October 14, 2011

Congressmen Cannot BE Honest As A Matter Of SELF Control ... They Need A LAW Saying They HAVE TO BE!?!?

Is this really a surprise to anyone?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/279235/appeal-honest-budgeting-andrew-stiles
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/280187/class-dismissed-andrew-stiles

The "Affordable Care Act" is proving to be one of the most dishonest pieces of legislation EVER! We conservatives have been telling you that for two years. All the while, the Obama adminstration and others among the progressive class in government kept telling you we were liars or stupid or both.

It turns out that Democratic and White House leadership KNEW we were correct and went to extraordinary efforts to hide it from the American people by various intentionally devious and manipulative means.

Now congressmen are saying that such deviousness and dishonesty is now so ingrained in their very nature that it's impossible for them to simply stop. Even being caught in their dishonesty is not enough to make them to quit, cold-turkey, and change their ways. They admit they cannot simply stop lying and conniving. They need a LAW IN PLACE TO STOP THEM!!! HUH???

What they appear to need is some kind of 12-step program to break the hold this dishonesty addiction has on them.

What worries me is the implication this has for getting our debt under control. If they're so completely lacking in self-control, what are the chances they're capable of fixing our fiscal problems? Not too good I'd say. This is kinda scary, is it not, considering what's at stake (the very survival of our economy)?

Are you all ready to accept what we in the Tea Party have been saying, that it's time to get back to the basics of honest republic-form government as the founders intended?

Thursday, October 13, 2011

The 'Unruly' Don't Define This Protest Movement ... But Such Types DO Define The Tea Party?

Let's see. Where Tea Parties gather, if one loon hitching himself to the message does/says something insane/inappropriate it DOES brand the whole Tea Party movement to be just as loony, racist or whatever.

In the current "occupy Wall Street" protest, when far worse happens (hundreds of arrests, trashing city parks, occupying government buildings, shutting down traffic, expressing racist views, causing millions of dollars in both police presence and cleanup), it DOES NOT define that movement?

In fact, I agree that a small percentage of folks engaging in outrageous behavior should not automatically 'define' the anti-Wall Street 'movement'. But the far milder actions of some people who attend Tea Party rallies ought not define the Tea Party either.

The unfair and generally untrue claims against the Tea Party deserve endless coverage, disdain, criticism, and harsh judgement by The Media and liberals. However, these current protesters can get away with actual crime and civil disobedience and that's okay or is to be excused.

No hypocrisy or irrationality there, right? Not by The Media. Not by the current protesters. Certainly not by the 'high-minded' liberals in congress who irrationally pontificate about how evil the Tea Party is due to the actions of a much lower number of loons.

I have news for you. The Tea Partiers have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to their protests as these "occupy Wall Street" protesters do. In fact, the Tea Partiers have, arguably, more right to theirs because they have consistently(!) been 100 times more civil and lawful about it for a number of years now. Freedom of speech applies in fair measure to all or it isn't freedom at all.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Founders Said The Form Of Government They Created Was Intended To Protect The Minority From Tyranny By The Majority

I have a question for you. Who said the following during some confirmation hearings about 6 years ago?

"The Founding Fathers established the filibuster as a means of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority."

See the answer to that question in my blog tomorrow.

In the meantime, let me add that the quote above is in fact true. Our Founders proclaimed exactly that which is why they consciously set up our government as a Republic rather than a Democracy. Indeed, they feared tyrannical rule by the majority if we allowed 'the majority' to fully control all legislation.

Nevertheless, the quote above sounds like something you'd hear from crazy "constitutionalists" or the evil Tea Party, right? "Tyranny of the majority" is crazy talk, right? That's "old constitution" talk, not "living constitution" thinking, right? Not so fast. See my blog tomorrow for a real eye-opener.

THIS Is "Affordable (Health) Care"? NOT! Not When My Costs Can Double in 8 Years Or Less!!!

Anyone who has lived long enough to understand federal government's shennanigans and limitations KNEW President Obama's "Affordable" Care Act would create a health care system that is anything BUT affordable. Here's on assessment, similar to many others from people who dare to be honest:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-09-30/news/30244666_1_premium-for-family-coverage-affordable-care-act-obamacare

Note the line, "In fact, the White House is still claiming the law will lower premiums." What parallel universe are these people living in? The rest of the article tells the truth for those of us living in the real world outside the White House bubble.

And it's not just working folks who are suffering from rapidly increasing health costs. My health care costs in retirement have increased about 30% in two years. And one of my two doctors told me that his Medicare reimbursements have decreased 30% in two years. Now he's giving up vacations like I am to match his income to his expenses. How long will it be until I can't find a doctor willing to take Medicare patients? Probably not long. That's one way to reduce Medicare costs ... keep people (especially in rural areas) from using it (due to costs and no doctors accepting Medicare patients). I'll need to keep paying into the system for something I get no benefit from.

The line in the article referenced above from the Obama administration that may be the most hilarious (in reality, maddening) is: "Managed care companies were told they would have to "justify" rate increases above 10%" starting in September this year. Maybe that's why I was told of 15% increases in August this year, one month prior to the start of such scrutiny? And the administration came up with this new 'tool' why? Because they were surprised by the increases we're seeing! I don't understand. They were told this would happen and it did. Republicans were called fear-mongers for saying that two years ago. Now it's coming true just like they said and Americans don't find this fishy?

Those companies which will, henceforth, have their increases scrutinized have already increased my costs an annual average of 15% each year (though 2012) so what do you think will be the increases in the future? Maybe a guaranteed 10% (the maximum amount that will avoid HHS' scrutiny ... surprise!)? You know this administration will act surprised when health care companies in fact do increase our cost by exactly that 10% pretty much every year!

For a real eye-opener, do the math on that 10% annual increase. If managed care companies increase their rates 10% (and thereby escape scrutiny) my health care costs will DOUBLE (from the date of the bill's passage) by January 2017, 5 years from now (factoring in the 15% annual increase to date). And here's the really bad news:

AT THAT RATE, HEALTH CARE COSTS WILL CONSUME OUR ENTIRE INCOME (MINE AND MY WIFE"S) BY 2019! Health care we can afford, eh?

Another GOTCHA is that HHS Secretary Sebelius said the "scrutiny" law would result only in LOOKING AT health care companies' increases. She DID NOT say they'll hold the increases to a 10% maximum ... only that they'll LOOK at it! So there's no guarantee the costs will be less than 10% either! The double-speak language this administration uses is maddening. Doubly maddening because the average American doesn't seem to understand what it really means.

You think I'm exaggerating? Well, you thought that two years ago when I and other Republicans started saying this would happen. Since we've been 100% correct to date, do you think we're more likely to be correct going forward or less likely?

For sure, the "Affordable Care Act" has been life-changing just like President Obama and other progressives said it would. Life changing for sure ... can't afford camping vacations or most other things we could two years ago. Clearly it hasn't been better for working OR retired Americans as this administration PROMISED ... and still(!) keeps promising in total denial of fact as if everything is okay when anyone living in the real world outside the White House can see it isn't.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

The Federal Government Has A Right AND Obligation To Drive States Into Bankruptcy! HUH?

While ObamaCare's individual mandate is the aspect most under scrutiny these days, there's another that's arguably worse and at least as unconsitutional. It will be playing out in the Supreme Court too so watch for it.

Here's an article describing the problem:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/279105/dems-vs-dems-medicaid-avik-roy

ObamaCare forces states which weren't really able to afford Medicaid previously to spend much, much more on it. That was one of the key features of ObamaCare ... extending nearly free health care to millions more who couldn't afford even minimum coverage from insurance companies. Sounds good in principle, right? 'Caring', compassionate and all that. In the abstract (ie, assuming state and federal government could find the money to pay for it), it IS the compassionate thing to do. But at the cost of bankrupting states? You cannot be serious!

So, the supreme court will soon hear this case (ref the article link above) and decide what's to be done about Medicaid in California. Either they do nothing which forces California into bankruptcy or they rule that the federal government has no constitutional right to force states to pay for something they cannot afford. This case is at least as interesting (consitutionally and otherwise) as the individual mandate case that's getting the most notoriety.

Note that ObamaCare requires all taxpayers to kick in to support this increase in Medicaid availability at the federal level too. Liberals paid for that by stealing some $500 Billion from the Medicare program, making that less affordable. That forces those currently on Medicare to pay more for that so that others can have nearly free health care. Redistribution y'know ... a good thing regardless the harm it does macro-economically. Redistribution is not to be questioned if you know what's good for you as if it's some kind of heresy to do so. The costs of Medicaid are helping to bankrupt us at the federal level too but the states are at a significant disadvantage ... they cannot print money as can the federal government. Nor can they steal money from a different large social program to pay for it as the federal government has stolen from Medicare.

By the way, the results are what we conservatives said they'd be. My Medicare costs have increased roughly 30% the past two years and my doctors tell me that medicare is paying them 30% less. Why is that? Because the money taken from the Medicare trust fund must be made up somehow. It won't be long until we cannot afford Medicare and doctors cannot afford to treat Medicare patients. The only solution? Full-government control over health care, the ultimate goal of progressives anyway. That's what they want. It'll just take longer than they'd prefer. They'll bankrupt both Medicare and Medicaid so that federal 'action' (a kind of state of emergency in health care) will be required.

The nanny state that's coming will be a societal train wreck for our republic. Kiss your freedom goodbye.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Does Anyone 'Out There' Realize That Obama's Teacher, Police and Fire "Stimuli" Only Last A Year? Then What Do Cities/States Do?

States and cities will have the SAME problem with Obama's new proposed stimuli (ie, in his current 'jobs bill') as businesses do with government stimuli. These federal stimuli only last one year, then cities and states have to come up with their own funding to keep those jobs intact ... or they must(!) fire the people hired just a year prior. EVERYONE knows we're not going to get out of this debt problem within that year and be able to keep paying new-hires Obama wants state and local governments to hire now. Everyone(!) must know (after all, it's common sense) we won't be able to afford them next year so why is anyone for this nonsense?

Most states and localities already have a huge debt problem of their own! How can they take on NEW obligations arising in the form of new-hiring paid for by federal funds only lasting one year? IT MAKES NO SENSE PEOPLE! Well, it apparently does make sense to liberals but that's normal thinking for them and must make perfect sense somehow because they keep coming up with these cockamamy ideas. Personally, I don't get it. (Sorry liberals!)

Here's a more detailed explanation of why government stimuli doesn't work:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204138204576600630985154132.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

What this means is that the federal government is throwing our money away ... again ... when we can least afford it. Hello! It does some good for one year but after that we're back to the same problem as before. Therefore, it's a completely wasted effort. It would be better if the federal government 'spent' money on growing permanent jobs in the private sector. THAT will sustain and grow the economy but this SILLY STIMULUS SPENDING CLEARLY (BY ANY RATIONAL ANALYSIS) CAN NOT!

Business leaders see the folly in that and refuse to hire when a given stimulus lasts only a year. They won't hire someone only to have a very high probability of needing to turn around and fire them one year later after the stimulus wears off. Business leaders cannot run a business effectively when they can't keep employment reasonably steady and reliable. Why hire a person to start doing a task for you that you're pretty sure he own't be able to finish (because you'll have to fire him/her next year)? It's nonsense that business leaders understand and refuse to fall prey to.

Not so with state and local governments. They'll take the federal government 'handouts', boost hiring and then start whining next year when they can't afford to pay those new-hires out of the state/local pocketbooks. They'll either keep them and go further into debt or fire them and blame Republicans for heartless spending reductions. These short-lived stimuli do not produce lasting results and only frustrate the professionals in the fields Obama claims to be be helping. It's NONSENSE folks! Don't fall for it!

Monday, October 3, 2011

What REALLY Happens When The Federal Government Gets Involved In Banks' Profits?

For those of you who (foolishly I'd claim) believed that the Dodd-Frank 'Financial Reform' bill would fix what caused our current economic problems, here's another reason to consider otherwise:
http://links.heritage.org/hostedemail/email.htm?h=7c5746c335f82a0c8fc040a0c45ccb5a&CID=9974621059&ch=D5404F3D06D14A0B26DB0AE15BCAD3F1

Durbin's stated purpose of his amendment to reduce debit card fees was to keep banks and other financial institutions from over-charging people for services. He thought it was ridiculous that banks could get away with charging so much for a debit card transaction so he got a law passed that reduced by some 80%(!) how much banks could charge businesses for that. What was the result, really?

Banks charged businesses less but did that reduce what businesses charge customers for using their debit cards? NO! Businesses kept the savings from the reduced debit card transaction fee and did NOT pass it on to us. Did Durbin's amendment reduce banks' and financial institutions' profits from such fees as he intended? Of course NOT! Now banks will get that fee directly from us instead of through businesses! So, customers now pay MORE, not less, banks and financial institutions make just as much as before and only businesses got the benefit. So much for watching our for average Amercians Mr. Durbin!

This is the kind of nonsense that happens when the government tries to regulate a business' profits. Businesses will either find a different way to keep their profits the same (or higher) or they'll stop making the less-profitable product. Government cannot regulate profit in a free economy. They think they can but they cannot. Make a product less profitable and businesses will find a way to restore the profit or they'll stop producing it. It's Econ 101 ... and, fundamentally, common sense which both seem completely lacking in Durbin and like-thinkers among progressives.

Age Discrimination In Employment: The National Disgrace Employers And Government Want To Ignore

Wow! Even MSNBC gets it now!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44730688/ns/business-careers/#.TonUtLLWS8A

The numbers in this article are far short of telling the whole story. Because we older Americans know that no one will take our concerns seriously, very few of us file actual complaints. It takes time and money we don't have for something we know is a complete waste of time.

I've experienced age discrimination in employment many times which I've described in past blogs. One prospective high tech hiring manager even told me, "I didn't think you were that old" and he immediately excused himself. An HR person then came in to tell me, "he was called away" and told me "we'll follow up with you to reschedule the interview". Of course I never heard from them again.

I also experienced discrimination in layoffs many times. The older I got, the more frequently I was RIF'd and the longer I stayed unemployed before finding work. This is not 'subtle' discrimination at all! I ended up retiring much earlier than I wanted mostly because I couldn't find work. It shouldn't be that way in America.

And don't tell me what I experienced is because of my skills or experience. I have an excellent resume which includes a master's degree in computer design from Stanford, an excellent employment record and military service (volunteer) during the Viet Nam years. There's no excuse for this travesty. It's a national disgrace of proportions no one wants to know or admit, much less do anything about!

The federal government is failing to protect this demographic. Incredibly, they're about to increase the qualification age for SS (again!) and Medicare thus telling us we must work longer even though no one will hire us. If that isn't sick, I don't know what is!

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Yes, President Clinton, It IS The Same Old Debate!

Check out this article:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/01/8088894-bill-clinton-obama-faces-same-old-debate-about-governments-role

Yes President Clinton, Obama is facing the same old debate you did. When government grows a lot, resistance from conservative citizens increases and we get more vocal. But, contained in your sentiment, is a lament for some made-up 'good old days' that never existed. There has never been a time when government had more control/freedom to do whatever it wanted and had so little trouble doing it. If Clinton really wants to go back to some nostalgic 'good old days' we'd be going back to a time when the government had FAR less control, not more. This fake nostalgia for a time that never existed is nonsense and savvy citizens aren't falling for it. Most of us know in our hearts this is true but too many of us have a difficult time putting it to words. We just have a sense that it's nonsense.

This debate is as old as the constitution. In fact, this conservative resistance is as old as the Declaration of Independence so maybe the more liberal folks among us should read it again. In those days most of those who'd pass for liberals among the founders would be called conservative today. Even the most liberal of our founders feared the federal government becoming too controlling. That's the primary reason they decided to add the Bill of Rights to the constitution's protections for the country's citizens.

What Clinton and Obama won't tell you (perhaps they don't even understand the history of it!) is that the founders agreed much more with today's conservatives than with the likes of Clinton and Obama. So we conservatives think we're in pretty good company politically. President Clinton's fake nostalgia for a time that never existed and darn sure was never intended by the founders is a lame exercise in trying to get Americans to likewise yearn for a more liberal environment.

Such progressives as Clinton and Obama are NOT your friends, my fellow citizens. They want to be your nanny. To do that, they need you to turn over control of your life and livelihood to them. And if you won't give it to them willingly (via your elected representatives), they'll TAKE IT FROM YOU via the EPA, Education Department, Health and Human 'Services', and others that report ONLY to the president. Our FOUNDERS WOULD BE HORRIFIED at this power-grab by progressives! They would certainly recognize that we're trading the freedom for which they were willing to give their lives for this progressive nanny state.

Question 1: Who's really trying to run your lives, conservatives (bent on restoring freedom) or liberals, progressives in particular (bent on getting as much control over your lives as possible so they can take care of you)?

Question 2: Why is it that you, my fellow citizens, never, ever hear a progressive say he/she is fighting for your freedom?

PRESIDENT CLINTON, WE'RE NOT BUYING YOUR NONSENSE, SIR!!!

P.S. (to Clinton and Obama): you'd do well to re-read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and then bone up on our country's political history. Your beliefs aren't the ones being repeatedly assaulted since our founding. It's ours!

Saturday, October 1, 2011

The Truth, If You Care (Dare), About Recent Palestinian Claims

Krauthammer's analysis stands well on it's own to make the point I want to make: Israel is NOT the intransigent one in this 'middle east peace problem'. Israel is NOT the one keeping that region of the world from making progress toward having a Palestinian state and relative peace. The Palestinians (indeed, it appears, most Muslims) will only agree to steps that move the world closer to annhilation of the Jewish state.

Palestinians had their best chance at genuine progress toward statehood and real peace three years ago (with encouragement and assistance from the Bush administration) as a result of the most significant Israeli unilateral(!) concessions ever. A rational person would expect the Palestinians to make some positive gesture in return if they had any inclination to accept a two-state solution.

If you're wondering what's really going on and why, Krauthammer has a rational assessment based on facts you won't hear in the mainstream media:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278751/land-without-peace-charles-krauthammer