The Left’s Central Delusion (or somethings are to good to not reprint part 4)

By  Thomas Sowell

The fundamental problem of the political Left seems to be that the real world does not fit their preconceptions. Therefore they see the real world as what is wrong, and what needs to be changed, since apparently their preconceptions cannot be wrong.

A never-ending source of grievances for the Left is the fact that some groups are “over-represented” in desirable occupations, institutions, and income brackets, while other groups are “under-represented.”

From all the indignation and outrage about this expressed on the left, you might think that it was impossible that different groups are simply better at different things.

Yet runners from Kenya continue to win a disproportionate share of marathons in the United States, and children whose parents or grandparents came from India have won most of the American spelling bees in the past 15 years. And has anyone failed to notice that the leading professional basketball players have for years been black, in a country where most of the population is white?

Most of the leading photographic lenses in the world have — for generations — been designed by people who were either Japanese or German. Most of the leading diamond-cutters in the world have been either India’s Jains or Jews from Israel or elsewhere.

Not only people but things have been grossly unequal. More than two-thirds of all the tornadoes in the entire world occur in the middle of the United States. Asia has more than 70 mountain peaks that are higher than 20,000 feet and Africa has none. Is it news that a disproportionate share of all the oil in the world is in the Middle East?

Whole books could be filled with the unequal behavior or performances of people, or the unequal geographic settings in which whole races, nations, and civilizations have developed. Yet the preconceptions of the political Left march on undaunted, loudly proclaiming sinister reasons why outcomes are not equal within nations or between nations.

All this moral melodrama has served as a background for the political agenda of the Left, which has claimed to be able to lift the poor out of poverty, and in general make the world a better place. This claim has been made for centuries and in countries around the world. And it has failed for centuries in countries around the world.

Some of the most sweeping and spectacular rhetoric of the Left occurred in 18th-century France, where the very concept of the Left originated in the fact that people with certain views sat on the left side of the National Assembly.

The French Revolution was their chance to show what they could do when they got the power they sought. In contrast to what they promised — “liberty, equality, fraternity” — what they actually produced were food shortages, mob violence, and dictatorial powers that included arbitrary executions, extending even to their own leaders, such as Robespierre, who died under the guillotine.

In the 20th century, the most sweeping vision of the Left — Communism — spread over vast regions of the world and encompassed well over a billion human beings. Of these, millions died of starvation in the Soviet Union under Stalin and tens of millions in China under Mao.

Milder versions of socialism, with central planning of national economies, took root in India and in various European democracies.

If the preconceptions of the Left were correct, central planning by educated elites who had vast amounts of statistical data at their fingertips and expertise readily available, and were backed by the power of government, should have been more successful than market economies where millions of individuals pursued their own individual interests willy-nilly.

But, by the end of the 20th century, even socialist and communist governments began abandoning central planning and allowing more market competition. Yet this quiet capitulation to inescapable realities did not end the noisy claims of the Left.

In the United States, those claims and policies have reached new heights, epitomized by government takeovers of whole sectors of the economy and unprecedented intrusions into the lives of Americans, of which Obama care has been only the most obvious example.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2013 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Politics win and the American people lose

The main stream media is having a field day blaming house Republicans for the inability of the federal government to get anything done.  This includes passing a budget resolution to fund the government. There is a continuing story line that seems to imply that the Democrats are more than willing to compromise but the Republicans will have none of it.

The President himself said recently in a NPR interview, “From the start I have said I am happy to talk to republicans about any issue”. Unfortunately when ask by the interviewer what he might be able to offer Republicans to forge a deal, our President responded, “what can I offer?....I shouldn’t have to offer anything”.

And there we have the Democrats idea of negotiations. “I shouldn’t have to offer anything”. In other words, there will be NO negotiations. To Mr. Obama the minority party and the millions of citizens they represent have no rights, have no voice, he won the election, that settles it, get over it.

But, as our supposed constitutional scholar President should know, that is not how it should work.  That is not how it has worked in the past and that is not how our founding fathers intended it to work - ever. The government was designed with separate branches and separate houses of Congress to keep the majority from steam rolling the over the minority. The rules were laid out to give the minority some power to affect the outcome of votes, to give the people the minority party represents some voice. Whether your party won the election or not your opinion as an American citizen is just as important as any other citizen

The Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obama-care, yes they ARE all the same) was pushed through with no input from Republicans.  This was at a time when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress AND the White House. A large minority or maybe even a majority of Americans see this bill as detrimental to the country, our economy and an attack on individual liberty. After the last election, we sent our elected officials to Washington with the instructions to attempt to do something about it.

The minority party in Congress has very limited tools to attempt to carry out the mandate that we elected them to carry forward.  Republicans will never be able to move a bill to the floor in the Senate, so the Republican controlled House is using the Budget Bill to attempt to force some concessions on the ACA. That is how the system works and all that is necessary is for the Democrats to come to the table and negotiate.

You would think that a bill like the ACA, that a majority of democrats have referred to as, “a train wreck” and the head of the AFL-CIO has said will, “wreck the middle class as we know it”, could use some work.

But in the recent words of a senior White House official, “we are winning, it doesn’t really matter to us how long the shut down last”.

Its fine for the Democrats to refuse to negotiate to score political points at the cost to the American citizen but let’s stop acting like it is all House Republican’s fault that the government is shut down.  The attitude of “I should not have to offer anything” is not how a real leader would begin to negotiate a settlement.

But then we don’t have a real leader with this President do we?

Extraordinary citizens make a extraordinary country

In recent discussions with many Republicans about the continued government shut down, numbers of people have expressed fear that the United States will lose its position as world leader if our government is to stay shut down for an extended time.  There is also concern that a government default would relegate our country to third-world status.

While a government shut down or default is serious and not the ideal situation, our over dependence on the government and government programs has lead us to forget a couple of things.

First, there is no doubt that some people will experience hardship because of the shutdown. But let’s not fool ourselves.  Someone suffers from every government action. Every time a bill is passed or not passed there are some winners and some losers.

Secondly and most important, the government is not what makes this country successful or extraordinary.  It is due to the individual citizen and the individual liberties that our government has, at least in the past, respected.

 The USA does not maintain the most lethal fighting force in the world because of the government. It is able to maintain a professional military because our amazing economy funds the entire thing and also because of the strength and resolve of the individual American service members. Every other western power has a robust federal government; but they do not have the economy to support a military like the USA nor do they have citizens with the deep resolve to protect our extraordinary way of life.

Our economy is not due to our government; it is due to the extraordinary individual business owners, inventors and workers that are, by far, the most productive in the world.

The amazing amount of public charity in the USA is not a product of the government. It is a product of the generous society and standard of living that affords ordinary people the finances and time to help their fellow man at a rate for beyond the rest of the world.

The individual citizen that pays all the taxes to make this government possible and produces all the wealth is not the product of the government put a by-product of limited government.

A federal government is an absolute necessity for a prosperous and functional republic. But a limited federal government is the one thing that makes this country so much more successful and prosperous than any other country in history. Every step the government takes that expands the governmental reach beyond the constitutional limits set forth by the founding fathers, limits the very liberty that makes the whole system possible.

The one thing that separates our citizens from those in other countries is our Constitution - the same Constitution that limits our government from the infringing on the very freedoms that were “endowed by our creator”.

People come to the United States of America from failed countries with failed governments all the time. They do extraordinary things with their lives that were not possible in their home countries. In American the government does not make individual, the individual makes the government. And that my friends is what makes this country so great.

The ACA and "if we only knew then what we know now".

Did you ever notice the number of unintended consequences to federal government action?

During WWI, federal farm policies artificially inflated wheat prices causing over production. That not only caused a huge surplus of wheat and eventually a bust in wheat prices; but they lead to the over planting of the land that then lead to the dust bowl.    

In an attempt to spur low income home ownership, Bill Clinton’s “Community Reinvestment Act” encouraged banks, along with Fanny Mae and Freddie Mack to make more risky loans to people who traditionally would not qualify for traditional mortages.  This law led directly to the housing bubble and subsequent recession. 

Mandatory air bag laws lead to the deaths of thousands of children who were buckled in child seats placed in front seat positions.

The banning of DDT chemicals lead directly to worldwide outbreaks of malaria that has killed millions.

Of course no one supporting these actions intended for bad things to happen, it’s just hard to see all the ramifications for huge far reaching programs on all 50 states when the programs are conceived and enacted in Washington.

This brings us to the so called “Affordable Care Act” (ACA).

In my home state of North Carolina, Blue Cross and Blue Shield has just announced price increases of 50-100% for many health insurance policies.  The “affordable” part is a little hard to see.  We have already learned that the President’s promise that “if you like your insurance policy you can keep it” was a bold face lie. And just in case anyone thinks criticism of the ACA is just from right wing extremists, we have Sen. Max Baucus, (D-Mont) calling the bill a “train wreak” and major union leaders calling for massive changes to the bill in the letter below to Democratic leaders in Congress.

               

Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi:

When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-line workers in the American economy. We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.

Now this vision has come back to haunt us.

Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of non-profit health plans. As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last week’s huge accommodation for the employer community—extending the statutorily mandated “December 31, 2013” deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.

Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios:

First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.

 Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.

And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.

On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.

We believe that there are common-sense corrections that can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to continue to keep their current health plans and benefits just as you and the President pledged. Unless changes are made, however, that promise is hollow.

We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions.

We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.

                               

I have no doubt that the bill was conceived, written and voted on with the best possible intentions. But as a wise man once said, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. It is time that the government stops making citizens pay for their bad decisions. (Actually it is time for our elected officials to stop making bad decisions!) Since the ramifications are hard to see and understand of a bill one thousand pages in length, maybe the government should take a line from the Hippocratic oath and at first “do no harm”.

A limited federal government is the only why I can see this happening.

I am sorry Mr. Putin but you are absolutely wrong.

 

This week we were treated to an op-ed article from President Putin who decided to lecture the American people on the proper use of military force and international cooperation. The whole thing would be funny if it was not so tragic.

 

It is amazing that Mr. Putin would  lecture Americans on human rights when his previous employer, the KGB of the now debunked USSR, single purpose was to deny rights to its countries own citizens and deal with anyone who resisted the crushing communist government with violence only exceeded by previous USSR governments. 

 

It is ironic that Mr. Putin uses the violence in Afghanistan, since the US lead the invasion, as an example of the problem with the use of military force and states “We need to use the United Nations Security Council to preserve law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world”. I don’t remember any UN resolutions Mr. Putin when hundreds of thousands of Russian troops flooded across the Afghan border. I don’t remember any UN resolutions Mr. Putin when that action started the violent down-spiral that eventually lead to Al Qaeda having complete run of Afghanistan. I don’t remember any UN resolutions Mr. Putin that stopped Al Qaeda from using that county to train and plan attacks like 9-11. I don’t remember you or any representative of the USSR objecting to the mass killing of civilians with Mi-24 attack helicopters during the USSR occupation. You showed no concern for international law or UN sanctions as the government YOU worked for carted political prisoners off to Siberia or as your Russian tanks crushed Chechen rebels.

 

Save us the lectures Mr. Putin.

We do not need them from a man who worked for one of the most murderous governments in history. The USS has supported proxy wars throughout history.  Your country has always been and still is on the side of tyranny, ruthlessness and brutal governments. Even today, in the country where YOU are President, citizens are beaten, imprisoned and killed just for voicing opposition to your polices.

Maybe in your country, with government controlled media and thug police, maybe there you can get away with the outlandish lies your article expounds. But in a country with a free press, in a country that encourages free thinking people, YOU are a hypocrite and a clown. You have stumbled on to a political opportunity to increase Russian influence.  This opportunity was brought about mainly due to the total incompetence of the current US President and his team of advisors. But don’t assume the majority of Americans are as ignorant as our current leader.

Your biggest error, your biggest misconception, is your belief that America is not exceptional. It is not the individual per say but something much greater. What makes America exceptional is the concepts of individual liberty and individual freedom that allows Americans to achieve exceptional things.  There is a reason that America had to supply wheat to feed your Russian citizens during the communist reign of terror. There is a reason why the US economy dwarfs all others and is 8 times the size of the Russian economy. It’s not because America’s citizens are smarter or harder working than any others. History has shown the brilliance and resolve of the Russian people. The difference is, the American Constitution that allows American individuals to achieve their maximum potential and not be limited by a corrupt and overbearing bureaucratic government.

Immigrants flock to the United States of America because in the USA; you can be or achieve anything. Our country is not perfect:  we are lead and governed by imperfect people.  But, our Founding Father’s concept of unalienable rights is perfect. It is the light that lead the world out of 10,000 years of darkness; that proved that the individual has value.  A person has value not because it was granted by some government or some King or some President; a person has value just because the individual exists.

If you were a great leader, you would understand this concept.

If you were a great leader, you would emulate this concept.

But then, I did say “if”………

 

 

Does anyone remeber the last war?

As we contemplate going to war in Syria; it might be a good idea to remember that we still are at war in Afghanistan. When we think about the people dying in the Syrian conflict; it would be nice to not forget we still have soldiers, airman and Marines dying in far off lands. A scan of major newspapers and news web sites show little or no mention of the continued combat operations in Afghanistan. So if being a “war weary nation” (our President’s words) means that we ignore the sacrifices of our military, maybe it would be best if we do not engage them in any other conflicts. If we are so bored and complacent that we don’t even notice that there is a war is going on, maybe we do not deserve their continued service and sacrifice.  

Thankfully internet sites like “The War on Terror” (http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/) are doing an excellent job keep us informed about where our military is deployed and, like the reports below, remind us that some are still making the ultimate sacrifice.

Maybe we could take a minute away from talking about the next war to remember those that are dying defending us in the current war.

Today, the Department of Defense announced the deaths of service men that were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom for the last 30 days.

           Staff Sgt. Todd J. Lobraico Jr., 22, of New Fairfield, Conn., died Sept. 5, 2013, from wounds sustained when enemy forces attacked his unit with small arms fire near Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan. He was assigned to the 105th Security Forces Squadron at Stewart Air National Guard Base, N.Y

   Staff Sgt. Joshua J. Bowden, 28, of Villa Rica, Ga., died Aug. 31, in Ghazni, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained when enemy forces attacked his unit with small arms fire while on dismounted patrol.  He was assigned to the 242nd Ordnance Battalion (EOD), 71st Ordnance Group (EOD), Fort Carson, Colo

          Staff Sgt. Michael H. Ollis, 24, of Staten Island, N.Y., died Aug. 28, in Ghazni Province, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device, small arms and indirect fire. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light), Fort Drum, N.Y.

       1st Lt. Jason Togi, 24, of Pago Pago, American Samoa, died Aug. 26, in Hasan Karez, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device.    He was assigned to the 2nd Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

       The Department of Defense announced today the death of two soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom   They died Aug. 23 in Haft Asiab, Afghanistan, from wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit with an improvised explosive device during combat operations. Both soldiers were assigned to 2nd Engineer Battalion, 36th Engineer Brigade, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

           Spc. Kenneth Clifford Alvarez, 23, of Santa Maria, Calif., and

           Pvt. Jonathon Michael Dean Hostetter, 20, of Humphreys, Mo

     Master Sgt. George A. Bannar Jr., 37, of Orange, Va., died Aug. 20, of injuries sustained when enemy forces attacked his unit with small arms fire in Wardak Province, Afghanistan. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group, Fort Bragg, N.C.

Died Aug. 11, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit with indirect fire. The soldiers were assigned to the 4th Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Ky.

           Staff Sgt. Octavio Herrera, 26, of Caldwell, Idaho,

           Sgt. Jamar A. Hicks, 22, of Little Rock, Ark., and

           Spc. Keith E. Grace Jr., 26, of Baytown, Texas

 

As citizens we have a responsibility to stay informed about things our nation is involved in.   I invite everyone to read “The War on Terror” blog regularly to stay informed. The main stream media has apparently moved on to the next big headline.  And remember, just because they are not reporting it, does not mean it is not happening.

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately"

“We mutually pledge to each other our

Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”

And with those words the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence risked their upper class lifestyle and maybe their lives for the then new idea of personal liberty. None of these men had to do this; most could have lived their lives out successful and wealthy under British rule. They realized something that maybe we forget at times, personal liberty is our greatest possession; it should never be traded away for personal comfort or security.

We all have an obligation to speak out to maintain personal liberty. We all have a responsibility tospeak up when confronted with failed political dogma and tyranny.

I stared this blog as a small contribution to spread the word and help maintain the freedom I enjoy for my children and grandchildren. When I became busy with work and family commitments it was easy to let it slip down the priority list. How easy it would have been for the founding fathers to avoid the coming conflict by quietly return to their homes and warm fires because of other pressing needs that were more important.  But they did not retreat in the face of adversity and we cannot either.

Thanks to Mr. Henderson for his recent comments on my 2/5/13 blog.  He reminded me that all of us have an obligation do our part to maintain the system we love; the system that is the last best hope for mankind. Mr. Henderson spoke up and set an example of how we all must support and encourage each other to continue resisting the warped and one sided liberal logic.

So, efforts renewed, I now carry Mr. Henderson’s example forward. We must speak out when confronted with liberal logic, get involved, vote, improve your knowledge, challenge a young person to think for themselves, sharpen your argument points and speak out when you hear some misguided soul expounding on the virtues of socialism.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing”

We can no longer afford to be the silent majority.

Here is my State of the Union Mr. President

A couple of weeks ago our President delivered the State of the Union address.  Early this week while reading over the Wall Street Journal, I realized the country portrayed in a number of articles is drastically different than the rosy picture painter by President Obama. After listening to the Presidents speech you would think the only thing left to do is get marriage for gay people and shorten up some lines at the voting booths.

A quick glance across the front section of the Wall Street Journal gives us an indication that the state of the union might still be lacking in some areas.

The lead article above the fold it titled “Payroll Tax Whacks Spending”. This article goes on to talk about how major retail stores and restaurants were lowering sales expectations as $110 billion dollars is transferred out of consumers hands to the federal government in the form of a 2% increase in payroll tax.  With consumer confidence shaken by a total lack of leadership in Washington, I think consumer spending will remain low for some time.

A page three article talks about how drivers are feeling the pinch of still high gas prices. With the national average hitting $3.78 a gallon, it is not hard to see how having the price of gas more than double in the last four years is hurting consumers.  Sure, it would be nice to go back to the $1.60 a gallon prices from before Obama took office and the democrats would like us to blame the big bad oil companies. But let’s not forget - that the single largest component in the price of gasoline is - - taxes. Taxes account for 48 cents of every gallon here in North Carolina where I live.

Almost the complete forth page is dedicated to the sequester and the potential fallout from it. Democrats are predicting a total break-down in life as we know it if 44 billion dollars of cuts to federal spending are allowed to go through. If the federal government cannot afford to absorb $44 billion in cuts over the next 10 months there is no hope. How will the government ever close the one trillion dollars a year in deficit spending if $ 44 billion will lead to a total break down on schools, police, air travel and boarder protection? The President and leading democrats warn that only higher taxes on the wealthy (on top the $ 600 billion dollars of higher taxes already agreed on by Republicans) can save us from anarchy. $ 3.8 trillion dollars of spending every year, and still not enough we are told.

Meanwhile the US State Department is, for about the 500th time, trying to “restart” talks about changing their nuclear program with Iran. I have the feeling if we were not successful the first 499 times this effort will not accomplish anything, well except buy a little more time for Iran to perfect its weapons.  Bill Clinton negotiated with North Korea while they completed their atomic bomb, he is still a hero of the left and maybe Obama is just following his lead.

Amazingly on the same page is a short article detailing plans by NATO to keep at least 350,000 troops in Afghanistan until at least 2015 with 225,000 being almost permanently deployed after 2017. During his State of the Union address the President said that the war ends in 2014.  But you can bet the bulk of any NATO force will be Americans.

One page further and we find a piece written by the co-founder of the Home Depot stores that discusses a recent Supreme Court case. The court found that three members of the National Labor Relations Board were unlawfully appointed by President Obama. The court found that the President could not use a recess appointment when the Senate said it was still in session.  By law the board must have a quorum to conduct any business so any decisions handed down by the board while the illegal appointees severed were not valid. The really important part of the story is the chairman of the board, Mark Pearce, disagreed with the court and was going to continue business as usual. In other words the NLRB was ignoring the Supreme Court completely. 

Dwight Lee writes an insightful story about the congressional pages that we find out are not being paid. Seems the elected officials who think private industry should pay entry level workers $10 an hour to learn basic work skills are the same elected officials that feel the US congress is doing those same entry level workers a favor by paying them nothing. Senators such as Barbra Boxer who urges the country to “heed the call” to raise the minimum wage to $10 a hour feels $0 a hour is more appropriate if her office is footing the bill. Charlie Rangel’s official web site notes although interns are unpaid they will gain “valuable work experience”. Well isn’t that what minimum wage earners in the private sector are doing also? The hypocrisy would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.

Left out this day’s paper was any mention of the dismal employment numbers. With full time unemployment at 7.9% there are more people actually without a job than during the Great Depression and the number of people actually in the job market is at a 20 year low. Those statistics combined with record numbers of people completely giving up on finding work, you would think this would be front page news. But the employment numbers have been dismal for so long it is hardly news anymore, unemployment above 7.5% is the new norm. The actual number of people collecting food stamps is up 50% compared to the peak of the recession. And for some reason the number of people collecting federal disability is nearly double. We actually have twice as many people suffering injury or sickness, or at least collecting disability under this President. All the while the number of people living below the poverty line remains at an all times high and increased by 2.6 million this year, over four years after the recession ended.

The Journal also missed the US government failing to pass a budget for the fourth straight year, if we did have a budget it would be easy to see that the federal government will spend about 1 trillion dollars more than it will take in this year. Yet the Democrats continue to tell us the government does not have a spending problem. Just like the unemployment numbers, the federal debt is no longer newsThe media has noticed the President’s big push to ban military looking weapons from the hands of law abiding citizens. Of course they could not find much time to report when Obama’s justice department allowed over 2000 of those same type weapons slip into the hands of Mexican drug gangs.  Some of those weapons were actually used to kill a US Border Patrol Agent. The response is more of a “Nothing to see here folks . . . . . go back to Dancing with the Stars”.

So there we have it.  Somehow, Mr. Obama missed all of this in his State of the Union. All of the above is why conservatives voted against this President. I just wonder if this is  the change his supporters voted for?

So do you really need an AR-15?

In the mist of the heated debate on banning what the liberal media describe as “assault weapons” and the equally maligned “high capacity magazines” I have read many wonderful articles defending the American right to bear arms and the Second Amendment. Although on the surface these would seem to be the best way to deflect attacks on gun rights by liberals, I think most people are missing the liberal thought pattern which is the biggest threat to our Liberty.

The liberal argument to ban these or any weapons is based on two and only two arguments.  First argument is that “no one really needs a rifle like the AR-15”. The second is that “for the safety and common good, it is necessary to remove the right to own a weapon with military type features or a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds”

So let me make something perfectly clear, at no time are we required to justify our “need” of anything to the federal government.

As big of a threat to individual liberty that a ban on some particular weapons is and as bad a president that it sets for further gun grabbing by the federal government, it pales in comparison to the concept that the government can begin to base policy on the government deciding what the American citizen “needs”.  It would be wonderful if we could depend on the government to make the proper call in these decisions. But looking at how the liberal’s prioritize what should be banned for the public safety, it seems like there may be more to their agenda than just saving lives.

If the liberals currently in control of the federal government were really concerned about saving lives by banning things we don’t “need”, there are a number of areas that would have a much greater effect. 

Maybe the President could start by banning alcohol; no one can defend the “need” for intoxicating liquor and with 15,000 people dying in alcohol related auto accidents, the effect of lives saved would be immediate.  This experiment did not work out very well the first time the government tried it but liberals have never had a problem with repeating failed policy.

Harry Reid could introduce legislation to ban all tobacco products. Again, there is no “need” for that product. Recently a federal court ordered the tobacco products manufacturers to apologize for a product that according to the federal government kills more people than AIDS, accidents and all murders combined. You would think the liberals first priority would be to do away with a product that kills more people than all not only all gun deaths but all murders total yet, this product remains absolutely legal and no permit or background check is required.

Or, how about football? The game most love to watch every Sunday for months at a time.  We have heard a lot of talk from the left about “keeping the children safe”. Yet, an average of over a dozen children or young adults die every year from football injuries. While we may enjoy watching the game and some love to play the game, no one “needs” to play football – ever.

The list goes on and on - there is no need for auto racing, motorcycles, sky diving, trampolines, roller skates, bicycles . . .   And once we have relegated the right for the government to define our “needs”, why would the government stop with a plastic box that holds 30 bullets? To save the environment who needs a 2000 sq/ft house or a personal car or to go to the movies?

I think that the banning of weapons might have more to do with disarming the American public than about public safety. Otherwise, the self-appointed government elite that seem to be determined to act as our nanny would be targeting products that are statistically killing our citizens year after year.  Obama and his liberal allies sound like Castro or Chaves when they talk about eliminating rights “for our own good”.

Really, when you come to think about it, removing a citizen’s rights based on government defined needs is about as good a description of socialism as you can find and in reality, is the best explanation why citizens need the ability to defend themselves.

History has proven time and time again that in a free democratic society the one thing that is NOT needed is the government deciding what IS needed.

Wake Up, Socially Liberal Fiscal Conservatives

 

By Jonah Goldberg

January 18, 2013 12:00 A.M.

Dear Socially Liberal Fiscal-Conservative Friend,

That’s pretty toothy, so I’m going to call you “Bob.”

But whatever specific name you go by, Bob, you know who you are. You’re the sort of person who says to his conservative friends or co-workers something like, “I would totally vote for Republicans if they could just give up on these crazy social issues.”

When you explain your votes for Barack Obama, you talk about how Republicans used to be much more moderate and focused on important things such as low taxes, fiscal discipline, and balanced budgets.

When Colin Powell was on Meet the Press the other day, you nodded along as he lamented how the GOP has lost its way since the days when it was all about fiscal responsibility.

And, Bob, you think Republicans are acting crazy-pants on the debt ceiling. You don’t really follow all of the details, but you can just tell that the GOP is being “extreme,” thanks to those wacky tea partiers.

So, Bob, as a “fiscal conservative,” what was so outrageous about trying to cut pork — Fisheries in Alaska! Massive subsidies for Amtrak! — from the Sandy disaster-relief bill? What was so nuts about looking for offsets to pay for it?

Bob, I’m going to be straight with you. I never had much respect for your political acumen before, but you’re a sucker.

You’re still spouting this nonsense about being fiscally conservative while insisting that the GOP is the problem. You buy into the media’s anti-Republican hysteria no matter what the facts are. Heck, you even believe it when Obama suggests he’s like an Eisenhower Republican.

Well, let’s talk about Eisenhower, your kind of Republican. Did you know that in his famous farewell address he warned about the debt? “We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage,” he said. “We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.”

Bob, we are that insolvent phantom, you feckless, gormless clod. The year Eisenhower delivered that speech, U.S. debt was roughly half our GDP. But that was when we were still paying off WWII (not to mention things like the Marshall Plan), and the defense budget constituted more than half the U.S. budget (today it’s a fifth and falling). Now, the debt is bigger than our GDP. Gross Domestic Product is barely $15 trillion. The national debt is over $16 trillion and climbing — fast. The country isn’t going broke, Bob, it is broke.

When George W. Bush added nearly $5 trillion in national debt in two terms you were scandalized. When Obama added more than that in one term, you yawned. When, in 2006, then-senator Obama condemned Bush’s failure of leadership and vowed to vote against raising the debt ceiling, you thought him a statesman. Obama, who wants to borrow trillions more, now admits that was purely a “political vote.”

Yet when Republicans actually have the courage of Obama’s own convictions, you condemn them.

You nodded sagely when Obama said we needed a “balanced approach” to cut the deficit. He said he couldn’t rein in entitlements without also raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires.” Well, he won that fight. We raised taxes on millionaires and billionaires exactly as much as he wanted. We also raised the payroll tax on everyone.

Obama’s response to getting the tax hikes he wanted? He says we still need a “balanced approach” — i.e., even more tax hikes.

Anyone who calls himself a fiscal conservative understands we have a spending problem. Do the math. A two-earner couple who retired in 2011 after making $89,000 per year will have paid about $114,000 into Medicare over their lifetimes but will receive $355,000. When will it dawn on you that Obama doesn’t think we have a spending problem? I ask because when he said “we don’t have a spending problem,” it seemed to have no effect on you.

And yet you still think Paul Ryan’s budget was “extreme.” Do you know when it balanced the budget? 2040. What’s a non-extreme date to balance the budget, Bob? 2113?

Look, Bob, I don’t want to go spelunking in that cranium of yours. I don’t know why you think you’re a fiscal conservative. The simple fact is, you’re not. The green-eye-shaded Republicans you claim to miss would be scandalized by the mess we’re in, largely thanks to voters like you, Bob. Eisenhower would take a flamethrower to today’s Washington.

I don’t expect you to vote Republican, never mind admit you’re simply a liberal. But please stop preening about your fiscal conservatism, particularly as you condemn the GOP for not being fiscal conservatives, even when they are the only fiscal conservatives in town.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. You can write to him by e-mail atJonahsColumn@aol.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO. © 2013 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

After guns then what?

Sometimes we begin to see a political movement’s true colors at the strangest times.

Recently Bill Clinton was supposed to be giving a speech on technology in Las Vegas. In the middle of the speech he diverted to a rant about gun control and in the middle of that rant he made the interesting if not surprising comment “why does anyone need a 30 round clip for a weapon”.   

And there we have it; the Liberal’s view of the future for America is not individual liberty for citizens. It’s not Americans having the greatest freedom to live their lives as they see fit. The Liberal’s view of America is a country where the government will decide what you “need”.

Today the Liberal “powers that be” have deemed we don’t need high capacity magazines. Maybe next year we will not need SUV’s, or two bathrooms in our houses. Maybe Washington will decide we don’t need to keep our houses so warm, or that we don’t even need private homes. In the last few years our elected officials decided we don’t need incandescent light bulbs or toilets that flush with too much water. More and more the people in Washington have moved from managing the government to managing our lives.

Recently a co-worker of mine was visiting a customer in China, it was the start of winter and he ask his host why it was so cold in the hotel lobby and in the factory he was visiting. The host explained the government had not turned the heat on yet, apparently the Chinese government had determined the people did not need heat at that time.  

History shows us a long list of failed governments that in order to maintain their power, continually crush the personal liberties of the citizens, all the time telling them they don’t need things like free speech or freedom of assembly. In all these cases, the first thing the government deemed its citizens did not need was firearms.

The funny thing is that being able to purchase a 30 round magazine is ultimately the only thing that really prevents the people in the government from the very tyranny Clinton and his liberal friends’ envision for our future.  Realizing what this one piece of legislation can lead to clarifies that the ability to purchase a 30 round magazine Mr. Clinton is exactly what we as American citizens need.

Not that it is any of your business.

A vote for Obama counts, but maybe not how you think.

On Tuesday, we all get to make a decision. Sure this election is about a lot of important issues that pertain to things that affect our daily lives but, it really is about something much bigger. This election is about how we view the influence and power of the federal government going forward in the future. There have only been a few times in history when a presidential election really changed the direction of federal power and ultimately our own personal freedom.

 The election of FDR certainly had a profound influence in the scope and reach of the federal influence. Most people view things like social security as a positive influence of the federal government: forgetting the tradeoff that for your whole life, the federal government takes over 12% of your income to administer the program and the program is still headed for insolvency without greater financial input from the citizens. What would our standard of living be like if we had the trillions of dollars to invest or spend rather than the federal government?  No one can argue that at the end of almost 12 years of FDR control, the federal government had grabbed power in numerous areas it never was involved in before. And with it, we Americans lost numbers of individual liberties we had up to that time taken for granted.

Ronald Reagan’s overwhelming victory in 1980 lead to a swing back to smaller federal government but his attempts to rebuild our military and his inability to force Congress to stick to spending cuts in other areas lead the country to the first large budget deficit increases since the end on WWII. Returning the US Military was important, but the precedent set was that the federal government could live with massive debt and has led to the 16 trillion dollar debt under this President. 

My point is some elections, more than others, have larger consequences. The federal government never gets smaller. Its power and control of our lives almost never decreases. Slowly, year after year, we trade away more of our personal and economic freedom in the name of “security” or “fairness” or “compassion” and more times than not the federal power grab is not in the least bit “fair” or “compassionate”.  Someone may in the short term benefit for this bestowing of federal tax dollars on a chosen group, but someone else must certainly pay for that gift. Using federal tax dollars to bail out a failing business might seem “compassionate” except to that businesses competitor who behaved responsible and does not need a government hand out. For example - workers at Ford pay taxes and those tax dollars were used to bail out a mis-managed General Motors just so GM can come back stronger with federal government backing and potentially take away some market share from Ford, potentially costing the Ford workers their jobs. This is not in any way “fair” or “compassionate”.

I remember reading about the devastating heat wave in Europe in 2003 that caused over 14 thousand mostly elderly deaths in France. Many died in government run retirement homes that had no air conditioning.  Most waiting in tiny un-air conditioned apartments.  When I heard this, my first thought was, after decades of socialist central government control, these people could not afford air conditioning? Here in the US, over 90% of houses are air conditioned. Then the article went on to say that the French federal government was setting up a data base so government workers could check on the elderly in times of extreme heat. No thoughts of why? Why after a life time of work, the vast majority of retires can’t afford A/C, No outrage that government run retirement homes were not air conditioned?  Just another government solution started at the top that by the time is gets to where it needs to be is useless. A solution that grows the size of their government and really would not help reduce the suffering of their elder population at all.

During this crisis where were the local governments in France? Where were the citizens? Where were the families? Unfortunately the worse of the heat wave hit during the two weeks the French take their annual holiday, most people were at the beach. I am sure they were having a good time and depending on the government to make sure everything was OK. After decades of the government solving every problem, the ability for the French to help their neighbors or even the families has been bred out of them. To people living with such an over bearing federal government there is no solution that is not a government solution.

As a lady in NJ said two days after the recent hurricane strike in the North East “no one has come to help us”. The settlers that crossed the country to settle the west did not wait for the federal government to help, the survivors of the Johnstown flood did not sit and wait for federal government “help”. We are becoming a nation sheep being lead to the feed troth provided by the government. 

So the big question we will answer in this election is do we support Obama’s version of America?  One where the federal government consumes more and more of this country’s financial resources?     One where the federal government makes more and more of our personal decisions?   One where the federal government takes more and more power from the states and local governments and dictates more and more decisions that were once freedoms we all enjoyed?

Did the founding fathers envision a nation of sheep being herded by the federal government shepherd? If you think so then Obama is your man. If you think the country was founded on a very different ideal then you had best pick the other guy.

Federal Laws

I wonder if anyone really thinks about the never ending list of federal laws, rules and regulations that flow out of Washington year after year?(1)

Now obviously, to have a civilized society we need some laws to set a level playing field for all the citizens. But you would kind of think that at some point, say after a couple of hundred years, you would have all the laws you needed to structure a free and functioning democracy. My concern is that, in most cases, every new law, regulation or rule decrease our freedoms. Take for instance the new health insurance laws, over 1000 pages of new rules that did not exist before passage of this law.

Before this law, you had the right to decide if you wanted to spend your money on health insurance. You no longer have that right. Before this law, you had the right to decide exactly what options were included with the health insurance you bought. You no longer have that right. Before this law, you had the right to decide if you wanted to have your insurance cover your adult children. You no longer have that right. And the list goes on and on. A 17-year-old college student used to have the right to a credit card without a co signer, no longer. A long time ago you had the right to decide for yourself if you wanted auto insurance, no longer. No longer can you decide if you want to wear a seatbelt, or own a establishment that allows smoking.

I am not saying that some of the rules don’t have a positive effect. What I am saying is we are a lot less free than we were 20, 30 or 100 years ago. And our freedoms continue to be infringed upon with every new addition to federal law. It’s a little scary when I think about where it all will end.

So, I started to think about what we really should consider when we are deciding, as citizens to support or oppose any new federal law and I came up with three basic areas that we should consider when considering some new law.

1. Is it constitutional? No matter how much good we think a law will do, no matter how much we want a particular regulation to be enacted, it must adhere to the constitution.

The founding fathers were very familiar with the problems of an un-checked government. Heck, they had a king appointed by God. One can’t really disagree with his decisions. So they set out to write a constitution that protected our basic human rights, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence, and limited the power of the federal government to a very basic area of control. They stated very clearly that any powers not granted to the Federal government in the constitution are reserved for the states. Now, the first few laws passed were pretty easy to understand. We needed a law against murder because to murder someone deprived them of their basic human right to life. Same thing with stealing, an infringement on you right to liberty. Things get a little cloudier with laws that seize you income so the government can distribute it to someone else. This type of law now gets the government picking the winners and losers on our system Government give a tax break to people buying hybrid cars, winner, people who buy hybrid cars, losers everyone who paid taxes so it could be given to hybrid car owners. Think about this, this is not the government collecting taxes to support the government, this is the government seizing your property (income) just so the government can distribute it to people the government has decided are more deserving of the fruits of your labor than you are. Thinking of it another way lets say you have 3 TV sets and your neighbor has only one, the government decides that’s not fair, comes to your house, takes one of your TV’s and hands it to your neighbor. No matter how well meaning these wealth redistribution type laws are it is pretty hard to find the power granted in the constitution to allow your property to be seized and distributed as our elected officials see fit.

2. What are the intended consequences? Will the new law or regulation really accomplish our intent? The new health care bill is expected to improve health care. Yet, in the over 2000 pages, there is almost nothing about health care, only health insurance. Is the only problem with our health care caused and related to our health insurance? Does limiting you options for health insurance and benefits really improve your chances for good health? Will the trillions of new tax dollars spent really improve most people’s health?

3. What are the unintended consequences? In 1963, the government started mandating seat belts in new cars. No longer did you have the right to decide if you wanted this feature, the government mandated it. As the years went on this mandate expanded from just the front seat to all seats, then to mandatory seat belt use (enforced by the federal government withholding federal tax money to states that did not enact mandatory seat belt laws). So, the government collected taxes from all states, then used that collected money as a bribe to get states to do as the federal government wants but really did not have the power under the constitution to enforce. Then the government, seeing that people still were not behaving like the federal government wanted, enacted laws to make air bags mandatory. “Sorry you don’t get a choice, the people in Washington know what is good for you.” And then we find out that the new federal mandated safety device forced on us actually kills people, from 1993-1996 alone 32 people died from air bag related injuries including 21 children (2). So then we get more laws and now it is not legal to put your child in the front seat of your car. We actually have safety warnings in new cars (another new law) telling you to be careful because your federally mandated safety device could kill you. Now that is what I call an unintended consequence.

We are slowly trading our liberty for the security of mommy government, protecting us from the challenges of life. We are slowly trading away our personal freedom, the one real thing that makes this country great and unique.

(1) How Many Federal Regulations are There?
According to the Office of the Federal Register, in 1998, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the official listing of all regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes that claimed 19 feet of shelf space. In 1970, the CFR totaled only 54,834 pages.

(2) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that since 1990, airbag deployment has killed 227 people in low-severity crashes, including 76 drivers, 10 adult passengers, 119 children between the ages of 1 and 11, and 22 infants. Of the 76 adult drivers killed, 28 were women under 5 feet 2 inches tall, and 4 of the 10 adult passengers killed were females smaller than that height

The tax man cometh, and he's wearing a disguise

We have seen over the last four years the federal government suing states. The feds have sued Arizona, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Florida among others. Of course we have seen the feds sue companies; Boeing, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo are just a few. But not many people have heard about the latest list of federal “enforcement actions” the Federal government suing cities. In this case of Federal government expansion of jurisdiction is to punish cites, and by extension the tax payers, for violations of recently changed EPA rules about waste water run-off.  

Most city sewer systems have some safety system to dump waste into water ways to prevent backups into citizen’s basements. But now the EPA has mandated city’s sewer systems can only have four discharges a year.

·         Does the EPA take into consideration how much rain a city gets? . . . . . . . . Nope

·         Does it consider how much a city discharges in one instant? . . . . . . .Nope

One gallon or a million gallons, it still counts as one discharge.  The best thing for the government is that no Congressional oversight is required; just more bureaucratic rule making that is a hallmark of this administration.

From a list of 227 violators identified by the EPA there has been 25 cities fined 21 billion dollars in the last four years and if Obama is reelected you can be sure the EPA will vigorously pursue these supposed law braking municipalities. 

It’s not that American cities have not made extensive efforts to combat the problem of waste being discharged into waterways during heavy rains. For years cities have developed rain gardens, catch basins and other “green” solutions to control rain water run-off. These are lower cost solutions than the federal mandate of rebuilding complete city sewer systems.  

The Confederation of Mayors insists they are making progress and the EPA vendetta can’t be justified by science. Cities are spending twice what they were 25 years ago on controlling discharge and still being forced to spend more and more to make smaller and smaller gains. It will take more than 300 billion dollars to make upgrades to meet expanding EPA regulations. Forcing cities to accelerate upgrades on their systems will mean new bond issues and increased water rates; the mayor of Lima Ohio testified to Congress that the new rules will increase annual sewer bills for city residents which averaged $330 a year to $ 850 a year.

A recent Wall Street Journal article labeled this EPA overreach the “The Obama Storm Tax”.  I am sure the administration would insist this was not a tax, just like the “fine” for not purchasing health insurance is not a tax, and the 3% fee on sales of medical equipment manufactures is not a tax. I guess you can make the claim you have not increased taxes on the middle class when nothing the federal government does that takes money out of the citizens pocket is actually called a tax.

To me it is not surprising that a government that already borrows 40% of every dollar it spends it will find new and inventive ways to separate the citizens from their money – you from YOUR money. Obama will tell you he only is going to increase taxes on the very wealthy but if you spend ten minutes looking at the amount of money available from that segment of the population compared to Obama’s 16 trillion dollar federal debt, you will realize all their money is NOT going to cover the check Obama is writing and as soon as he is done with the “wealthy”, once again the tax man WILL cometh and he will be coming for you.