The intellectually-superior liberal Left is at it again. As the economy continues to stagnate amid repressive conditions and global debt crises, one congressional genius has found the ever-elusive and supposed only answer to our job-creating woes.
The remarkable Reverend Jesse Jackson's prodigy, whom has been unfortunately influencing national policy for 16 years, is now proposing that the federal government employ all 15 million of the unemployed in this country. The economic-savant would like each paid $40,000 to participate in civilian conservation corps and something called a Works Progress Administration. Cleaning up communities. Because those pesky unemployed occupiers are definitely swift with the sanitation....
Congressman Jackson Jr. claims the initiative could be a 5 year program. At a cost of only $600 billion. What he does not mention is that this sum is a per year figure, meaning the entire cost of his proposal would be somewhere around $3 TRILLION (or 20% of our national debt). To pay people to sweep streets. Equally. And fairly.
The esteemed legislator also recommends the President circumvent Congressional appropriation processes by using "extraordinary Constitutional means," since Congress is in a state of "rebellion" unseen since the Civil War. Definite justification for further erosion of our Constitution.
Mr. J-cubed apparently thinks that the economy will work itself out by the time the Federal money spigot gets turned off in five years time and that all of these 15 million people will then funnel back into tax-paying, actually productive jobs in the private sector. Or maybe he doesn't. Maybe this is just the beginning of the end of the private work force. I seem to remember Stallin instituting some 5 year plans....
The Occupation of Decline
Have we become the France of the 21st century? An interesting perspective provides insight into how we have facilitated our own decline. The similarities are striking.
Lower Manhattan has been occupied for the last three weeks by a group of spoiled, under-performing college kids intent on getting their voices heard. Their poorly-communicated list of demands includes: free college, $20/hr minimum wage, fair living wage for the unemployed, free health care, and elimination of all debt in the world. They say a job is a universal right. All Utopian fantasies that sound great but have no successful practical application.
Encouraged by a complicit media that spins favorable coverage (versus the misrepresentation of the Tea Party) they claim corporate greed has ruined our society and Wall Street refuses to create jobs. What is failing to be realized is that their comfortable existence thus far has been enabled by ambitious, entrepreneurial companies that have grown and advanced the quality of life for everyone. When they decry million dollar bonuses, they fail to acknowledge that 35% of that check goes straight to the federal government, not to mention the state income taxes that hit the residents of New York. The wealthier residents of New York have an overall tax burden in excess of 50% when you consider state and federal income taxes in addition to property and sales taxes. Hardly less than their fair share.
To be sure, there has been fraud and corruption in some corners of our financial system. But when people point to propaganda efforts like the movie Inside Job, produced by the massive corporation, Sony, narrated by $20mill/movie Matt Damon and with commentary from Barney Frank and George Soros, the conversation is seriously skewed toward misinformation. Not to mention the sad irony of using Eliot Spitzer as a protagonist commentator juxtaposed against Wall St. solicitation of prostitution as an example of corruption.
So many of these immature protesters complain about their massive college debt. Do they not realize that without banks "investing" in college education, most would never get to play frisbee on the hallowed grassy lawns of University life? Where is the outrage at their own schools for charging so much while their tenured faculty heroes get guaranteed salaries for teaching one class a week?
The answer is not the destruction of the system that has created the most dynamic nation the world has ever seen. The answer is also most definitely not sitting in drum circles in-between tweeting frustrations from your iPad, sipping your Venti MochaFrappacino.
The answer starts with the defeat of the mentality that encourages people to be dependent on others. Self-motivation and the enrichment of one's skills and abilities breed success. If some of these people spent half of this energy creating a useful product or service to sell to a willing buyer, they would realize very quickly just how great this country can be.
The alternative is answering the Former Occupation question on a future job application with the foreboding term: Wall Street.
Lower Manhattan has been occupied for the last three weeks by a group of spoiled, under-performing college kids intent on getting their voices heard. Their poorly-communicated list of demands includes: free college, $20/hr minimum wage, fair living wage for the unemployed, free health care, and elimination of all debt in the world. They say a job is a universal right. All Utopian fantasies that sound great but have no successful practical application.
Encouraged by a complicit media that spins favorable coverage (versus the misrepresentation of the Tea Party) they claim corporate greed has ruined our society and Wall Street refuses to create jobs. What is failing to be realized is that their comfortable existence thus far has been enabled by ambitious, entrepreneurial companies that have grown and advanced the quality of life for everyone. When they decry million dollar bonuses, they fail to acknowledge that 35% of that check goes straight to the federal government, not to mention the state income taxes that hit the residents of New York. The wealthier residents of New York have an overall tax burden in excess of 50% when you consider state and federal income taxes in addition to property and sales taxes. Hardly less than their fair share.
To be sure, there has been fraud and corruption in some corners of our financial system. But when people point to propaganda efforts like the movie Inside Job, produced by the massive corporation, Sony, narrated by $20mill/movie Matt Damon and with commentary from Barney Frank and George Soros, the conversation is seriously skewed toward misinformation. Not to mention the sad irony of using Eliot Spitzer as a protagonist commentator juxtaposed against Wall St. solicitation of prostitution as an example of corruption.
So many of these immature protesters complain about their massive college debt. Do they not realize that without banks "investing" in college education, most would never get to play frisbee on the hallowed grassy lawns of University life? Where is the outrage at their own schools for charging so much while their tenured faculty heroes get guaranteed salaries for teaching one class a week?
The answer is not the destruction of the system that has created the most dynamic nation the world has ever seen. The answer is also most definitely not sitting in drum circles in-between tweeting frustrations from your iPad, sipping your Venti MochaFrappacino.
The answer starts with the defeat of the mentality that encourages people to be dependent on others. Self-motivation and the enrichment of one's skills and abilities breed success. If some of these people spent half of this energy creating a useful product or service to sell to a willing buyer, they would realize very quickly just how great this country can be.
The alternative is answering the Former Occupation question on a future job application with the foreboding term: Wall Street.
The Torture Hypocrisy
One of the political Left's loudest complaints with President Bush was the previous Administration's policy on "Enhanced Interrogation" and detainment procedures related to CIA prisons abroad and more popularly, Guantanamo Bay. Calls of war crimes have been common for both the former President as well as former Vice-President Cheney.
A few months ago, an elite covert operations team performed a raid on a foreign compound based, in part, on intelligence gained from enhanced interrogation of detainees at these military facilities resulting in the execution of Osama bin Laden. No moral outcry was heard in regards to a lack of due process.
Now this past weekend, yet another drone strike has taken out an al Qaeda operative. This time the casualty was an American citizen. Again, no moral outcry. Instead the media elites are offering confused rationalizations.
How is it that pouring water over a terrorist's face or making them listen to Eminem is inhuman torture but ordering commando death raids and firing collaterally-damaging rockets that kill American citizens abroad is strong, efficient leadership?
A few months ago, an elite covert operations team performed a raid on a foreign compound based, in part, on intelligence gained from enhanced interrogation of detainees at these military facilities resulting in the execution of Osama bin Laden. No moral outcry was heard in regards to a lack of due process.
Now this past weekend, yet another drone strike has taken out an al Qaeda operative. This time the casualty was an American citizen. Again, no moral outcry. Instead the media elites are offering confused rationalizations.
How is it that pouring water over a terrorist's face or making them listen to Eminem is inhuman torture but ordering commando death raids and firing collaterally-damaging rockets that kill American citizens abroad is strong, efficient leadership?
Inflating the Baseline
A common debate on the news is whether or not government spending should be cut. Large numbers followed by the terms billions and trillions are thrown around for effect and we are all led to believe significant changes will be made to the way our government is financed.
The truth of the matter is that these cuts that get discussed are actually only proposed reductions in mandated increases. For example, if a government agency has a billion dollar budget this year, by law, this same government agency's budget will increase up to $50 or $100 million by default. Any cuts (or increases) proposed to this agency's funding would be against this increased budget amount.
This happens because the scorer of the cost of government, the Congressional Budget Office, uses a technique called baseline budgeting. Because of a 1974 law, all funding for discretionary programs must inflate itself to keep up with the times so all programs increase year to year by a formulaic percentage. This works great when revenues are steadily increasing. But when the economy retracts, no correction in government spending is made to correlate. Any talk of spending cuts is only against mandated increases.
So going back to that hypothetical agency....if a "cut" of 2% was proposed to its funding, the net result would be a budget that had actually increased in real dollars by $29 million. This goes on across the entire federal government.
A legislative solution has been proposed to change the CBO's technique to a zero-baseline formula, one where any changes to a program's funding must be explicit and outright. One where a cut is actually a cut. Anyone serious about solving our deficit crisis should be in favor of this legislation.
The truth of the matter is that these cuts that get discussed are actually only proposed reductions in mandated increases. For example, if a government agency has a billion dollar budget this year, by law, this same government agency's budget will increase up to $50 or $100 million by default. Any cuts (or increases) proposed to this agency's funding would be against this increased budget amount.
This happens because the scorer of the cost of government, the Congressional Budget Office, uses a technique called baseline budgeting. Because of a 1974 law, all funding for discretionary programs must inflate itself to keep up with the times so all programs increase year to year by a formulaic percentage. This works great when revenues are steadily increasing. But when the economy retracts, no correction in government spending is made to correlate. Any talk of spending cuts is only against mandated increases.
So going back to that hypothetical agency....if a "cut" of 2% was proposed to its funding, the net result would be a budget that had actually increased in real dollars by $29 million. This goes on across the entire federal government.
A legislative solution has been proposed to change the CBO's technique to a zero-baseline formula, one where any changes to a program's funding must be explicit and outright. One where a cut is actually a cut. Anyone serious about solving our deficit crisis should be in favor of this legislation.
Bridges & Hoes
Last week, the President stood below a 48 year old bridge and told the American people his new stimulus jobs bill would fix all of the structurally deficient bridges that his previous jobs stimulus bill did not get around to fixing. In order to pay for it, the "rich" have to pay their "fair share".
Also last week, a Democratic candidate for Senate spent time lecturing America on how no one gets rich without "the rest of us" paying for their roads and security from "marauding bands" as if these "factory owners" paid nothing into this system themselves. No mention is made, however, to the fact that not one dollar in taxes would be collected without first a business being created and generating income subject to taxation.
A concerted effort is being made to demonize those that maintain and create wealth in this country. The President is repeatedly calling for a fairer system, although no one is clear on exactly what that means. He says he is a "warrior" for those who feel a billionaire should pay a higher income tax rate than his secretary, never mind the fact that he already does.
Some on the Left have a semblance of economic reality, however, and disagree with the plan. Former President Bill Clinton says although he's one of the rich and willing to pay more, the plan won't work. In addition to knowing that taxing everyone making in excess of one million 100% of their income will not fund the deficits we have, maybe President Clinton is more cognizant of the impact of Ms. Warren's views, should they be translated into actual policy.
According to the famed Harvard professor and aspiring Senator, people who generate their wealth on the backs of others should be commended (but really condescended) and are more than entitled to keep their "hunk" of the wealth created. But the rest should be contributed to the common good. Of course, this is exactly how our system currently functions. What is left unsaid is just how big that "hunk" should be.
Perhaps one can apply this idea towards funding President Obama's newstimulus jobs bill. Mr. Clinton, whom has made considerable wealth for himself as a result of a long career in politics, would not have sold near the amount of books, made near the number of paid speaking engagements nor secured the many other lucrative opportunities gained from having been President of the United States.
Using Ms. Warren's logic, perhaps Mr. Clinton's income and foundation endowment as a result of these endeavors could be considered property of the State and Mr. Clinton granted a "living" stipend as a person of public importance. Wouldn't this be a strong down payment on President Obama's new plan? And why stop there? Ms. Warren has been featured prominently in liberal activist Michael Moore's revenue-generating propaganda. Since Mr. Moore has received an inordinately large income as a result of misguided souls overpaying to listen to his filth in movie theaters, perhaps Mr. Moore owes the country beyond his current tax bill.
Recently President Obama joked that the firstjobs stimulus funded projects were not quite as shovel-ready as he originally advertised. Nothing has changed this time around. It appears they are only ready for hoes.
Also last week, a Democratic candidate for Senate spent time lecturing America on how no one gets rich without "the rest of us" paying for their roads and security from "marauding bands" as if these "factory owners" paid nothing into this system themselves. No mention is made, however, to the fact that not one dollar in taxes would be collected without first a business being created and generating income subject to taxation.
A concerted effort is being made to demonize those that maintain and create wealth in this country. The President is repeatedly calling for a fairer system, although no one is clear on exactly what that means. He says he is a "warrior" for those who feel a billionaire should pay a higher income tax rate than his secretary, never mind the fact that he already does.
Some on the Left have a semblance of economic reality, however, and disagree with the plan. Former President Bill Clinton says although he's one of the rich and willing to pay more, the plan won't work. In addition to knowing that taxing everyone making in excess of one million 100% of their income will not fund the deficits we have, maybe President Clinton is more cognizant of the impact of Ms. Warren's views, should they be translated into actual policy.
According to the famed Harvard professor and aspiring Senator, people who generate their wealth on the backs of others should be commended (but really condescended) and are more than entitled to keep their "hunk" of the wealth created. But the rest should be contributed to the common good. Of course, this is exactly how our system currently functions. What is left unsaid is just how big that "hunk" should be.
Perhaps one can apply this idea towards funding President Obama's new
Using Ms. Warren's logic, perhaps Mr. Clinton's income and foundation endowment as a result of these endeavors could be considered property of the State and Mr. Clinton granted a "living" stipend as a person of public importance. Wouldn't this be a strong down payment on President Obama's new plan? And why stop there? Ms. Warren has been featured prominently in liberal activist Michael Moore's revenue-generating propaganda. Since Mr. Moore has received an inordinately large income as a result of misguided souls overpaying to listen to his filth in movie theaters, perhaps Mr. Moore owes the country beyond his current tax bill.
Recently President Obama joked that the first
[scandal] Gate
The drama produced by the coverage and sweeping scope of the resulting aftermath of the break-in at the Washington D.C. Watergate Hotel compelled the Nation for years throughout the mid 1970s. The pop-culture obsession with the unfolding political thriller spawned a generation of eager investigative journalists and an entrepreneurial spirit ready to develop a more efficient means of providing more.
Over the last 35 or so years, scandal after scandal has been suffixed with the term Gate. Throwing this simple word after anything will quickly evoke images of fraud and wrongdoing. It will typically also increase ratings and newspaper sales.....or page views.
In recent months, a number of scandals with far-reaching implications have been slowly bubbling up in news reports. The order of importance can be debated but from illegally facilitating the transfer of automatic weapons to foreign drug cartels intending homicide....pressuring and manipulating Congressional testimony in favor of preferential federal regulatory review for companies led by large political donors....and streamlining federal oversight of taxpayer "loans" to bankrupt companies with these exclusive relationships, the current Administration occupying our Executive branch is challenging to become the #1 proprietor of scandal, perhaps surpassing Congressional social media practices.
Curiously, none of these Executive transgressions has yet to be ascribed the dubious honor of making the Gate list in public discourse. I would like to propose a new term to add to this collection. One that encompasses all of these emerging head-shakers....and the disgraces sure to have a whistle blown soon. This term can become the new Gate that permeates the public consciousness and perception of a fraudulent mistake.
ObamaGate pretty well sums it up, I think.
Over the last 35 or so years, scandal after scandal has been suffixed with the term Gate. Throwing this simple word after anything will quickly evoke images of fraud and wrongdoing. It will typically also increase ratings and newspaper sales.....or page views.
In recent months, a number of scandals with far-reaching implications have been slowly bubbling up in news reports. The order of importance can be debated but from illegally facilitating the transfer of automatic weapons to foreign drug cartels intending homicide....pressuring and manipulating Congressional testimony in favor of preferential federal regulatory review for companies led by large political donors....and streamlining federal oversight of taxpayer "loans" to bankrupt companies with these exclusive relationships, the current Administration occupying our Executive branch is challenging to become the #1 proprietor of scandal, perhaps surpassing Congressional social media practices.
Curiously, none of these Executive transgressions has yet to be ascribed the dubious honor of making the Gate list in public discourse. I would like to propose a new term to add to this collection. One that encompasses all of these emerging head-shakers....and the disgraces sure to have a whistle blown soon. This term can become the new Gate that permeates the public consciousness and perception of a fraudulent mistake.
ObamaGate pretty well sums it up, I think.
Aliens in charge?
Recently the Speaker of the House suggested although he maintained a cordial relationship with the President, it was as if the two came from different worlds. A guy who won the Nobel prize for re-explaining economies of scale suggested an alien invasion was just the economic stimulus the country needed to turn our woes around.
Not all is lost in this growing inter-galactic conflict panic, however. An optimistic outlook has been offered theorizing a natural and organic purge of these potential alien invaders: American Exceptionalism.
Maybe there is something to all of this.
Not all is lost in this growing inter-galactic conflict panic, however. An optimistic outlook has been offered theorizing a natural and organic purge of these potential alien invaders: American Exceptionalism.
Maybe there is something to all of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)