Rich Liberals Champion the Poor to Maintain their Privileged Lives

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 2nd, 2011

Per-Vote-Subsidy replaces Corporate and Union Money

Canada has a spoils system when it comes to public financing of political campaigns.  The big pile of public money ‘donated’ by the Canadian taxpayer is divided between the parties by vote.  The more votes a party gets, the more tax subsidies that party gets.  The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, wants to do away with these subsidies (see Harper vows to scrap per-vote subsidies by CTV.ca News Staff posted 4/1/2011 on CTV.ca).

Currently, political parties receive a $2-per-vote subsidy, but Harper has long opposed the system, which was brought in by the Liberals when corporate and union donations were banned.

He said Friday that political parties already enjoy “enormous tax advantages” and taxpayers should not have to support parties they don’t support with their votes. Harper added that the subsidy only helps to ease the way for frequent elections.

Interesting.  Unlike the United States, Canada does not allow corporations or unions donate to political parties.  And when that ban went into place, the liberals brought in the per-vote-subsidy.  It takes money to win political contests.  And when you shut down two big sources (corporations and unions), that money has to come from somewhere else.  So the liberals decided to get that money from the taxpayer.  Fair, right?  I mean, without these subsidies, political power falls to the rich.  And that’s not fair, is it?

The Liberals are the Rich trying to Buy Political Power

When they banned corporate and union donations that left private donations.  From actual people.  So I guess we would have to see how that money flowed to see whether the per-vote-subsidy is fair and serves its purpose.  To keep the rich from wielding political power over the poor (see Analysis: Fears about scrapping per-vote subsidies wildly off target by Patrick Brethour, Vancouver, posted 4/2/2011 on The Globe and Mail).

Data compiled by the website Punditsguide.ca show that funds raised by the parties largely come from small donors, in amounts that would make few Canadian households cringe…

Take the Conservative Party in 2009, which raised… an average [per person] donation of $174.60…

The story is pretty much the same with the other parties: the NDP, with an average donation of $169.11; the Bloc Quebecois, average $102.63; Green Party, $123.21; and the Liberals, with an average of $239.23, the highest of the major federal parties.

Looking at the average per-person donation, it appears the liberal donors are richer than the conservative donors.  Kind of goes against everything the liberals tell us.  That conservatives are nothing but a bunch of rich fat-cats who want to use the poor as footstools.  Either that or conservatives are just cheap bastards.

The same picture emerges when looking at the distribution of donations by size. For the Conservatives, about 10 per cent of the funds raised came from those giving between $1,000 and the maximum of $1,100; conversely, two-thirds came from those giving $400 or less. The NDP were similar, with 7 per cent coming from the highest donated amount, and 70 per cent coming from donations $400 and under. The Liberals – who have fulminated against the perils of the rich controlling the political process – were actually the party most dependent on big donations, with 35 per cent of their cash coming from donors giving between $1,000 and $1,100, while sub-$400 donors accounted for just 38 per cent of the funds the party raised.

In fact, the Liberals outperformed among big donors, raising $3.2-million to the Conservatives’ $1.7-million. The Tories made up that ground, and more, with small donors.

And what do these numbers tell you?  Liberals rely on rich people for their political donations.  Conservatives rely on the little guy, the average working person who can barely afford to donate $200.  And the big corporations and the big unions pour money into liberal political parties.  In ‘soft ways‘ these days.  In Canada.  In the United States.  All around the world.  So much money that it was hard for the little guy to fight against it.  Leaving political power in the hands of the rich.  Much like the liberals say they want to prevent with the per-vote-subsidy.  But, in fact, that’s exactly what they want to do.  Leave political power in their rich hands.

You see, the crony capitalists and the snooty rich don’t like the little guy.  They like the good life that few can enjoy.  And sometimes they need special favors from government to continue that privileged life.  Which is why they donate to liberal parties.  But when they banned ‘hard money’ donations from corporations and unions, liberals had to scramble for other financing.  Because the majority of people don’t support their views.  So they need to ‘force’ donations through these per-vote-subsidies.  For it is the only way they can continue to rule against the will of the people.

The People who Supported Obamacare get Obamacare Waivers

It’s always about the money.  Whenever you’re confused about some political debate, just ask yourself this simple question.  Where’s the money?  Take health care, for example.  The goal of Obamacare was to provide everyone with high-quality yet affordable health care insurance.  Sort of like paying for a Big Mac and getting filet mignon.  Impossible, yes, but that’s what they told us. 

Big Business and the unions were all behind it.  Everyone (employers and unions) wants to dump their health care costs.  That’s why they were anxious for that public option.  Well, they didn’t get the public option.  Not yet.  First Obamacare has to put the private insurers out of business.  Once it does that then the government can step in as the insurer of last resort and, presto, they’ll get their national health care.  But leaves a costly problem for the here and now.

To ‘pass’ CBO, they had to include some onerous requirements.  The new law forced everyone to buy insurance.  The insurers had to cover preexisting conditions.  And they forbade insurance companies to recover their full overhead expenses.  Suddenly affordable insurance was going to become unaffordable.  Or people were simply going to lose their insurance because they couldn’t afford the premiums that were necessary to comply with the requirements of Obamacare.  So many of those who supported this legislation want no part of it.  For themselves, that is.  It’s okay for us.  But not for them.  So they’re asking that the law does not apply to them.  Only us (see List of health reform waivers keeps growing by Jason Millman posted 4/2/2011 on The Hill).

The number of waivers the Obama administration has awarded for a provision of the year-old healthcare reform law grew by 128 in March.

With the new waivers, that means 1,168 businesses, insurers, unions and other organizations have received one-year exemptions from a healthcare reform provision requiring at least $750,000 in annual benefits.

Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass Obamacare to learn what was in it.  Apparently another 128 insurance plans learned what was in it this past March.  And they want out.  Like the majority of Americans.  Which really begs the question why Obamacare?  It isn’t popular.  They had to pass it quickly before anyone could read the bill.  None of the unions want it.  So why have it?  Because liberals want it.  And why do politicians want anything?  Follow the money.

The Free Market provides High Quality and Low Prices

Hillary Clinton tried to socialize our health care.  Now Obamacare is a short step from doing just that.  Because they said only government could step in and fix our health care system.  That the so-called free market had failed.  Really now?  Because that’s the one thing that has been missing from our health care system.  Market forces.  Doctors providing medical services for a fee that their patients actually pay for.  Not a third party insurance bureaucrat.  But the actual patient.  Until now, that is.  And that free market?  It works.  It’s providing a fully funded quality system that people of average means can afford (see High-end medical option prompts Medicare worries by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press, posted 4/2/2011 on the Sun Journal).

Every year, thousands of people make a deal with their doctor: I’ll pay you a fixed annual fee, whether or not I need your services, and in return you’ll see me the day I call, remember who I am and what ails me, and give me your undivided attention.

But this arrangement potentially poses a big threat to Medicare and to the new world of medical care envisioned under President Barack Obama’s health overhaul.

The spread of “concierge medicine,” where doctors limit their practice to patients who pay a fee of about $1,500 a year, could drive a wedge among the insured. Eventually, people unable to afford the retainer might find themselves stuck on a lower tier, facing less time with doctors and longer waits.

People actually paying to see a doctor?  Imagine that?  Just like in the old days.  Before there was a health care crisis.  The patients are happy.  The doctors are happy.  And making a very nice living.  You can’t get much more of a win-win situation, can you?  Who could find fault with this?

The trend caught the eye of MedPAC, a commission created by Congress that advises lawmakers on Medicare and watches for problems with access. It hired consultants to investigate.

I guess the government could.  Big Brother is everywhere.  And he is looking at this free market solution.  And Big Brother is not amused.  People paying for their own medical care?  That’s a problem for those in government.  A big problem.

Several members said it appears to be fulfilling a central goal of Obama’s overhaul, enhancing the role of primary care and restoring the doctor-patient relationship.

Yet the approach envisioned under the law is different from the one-on-one attention in concierge medicine. It calls for a team strategy where the doctor is helped by nurses and physician assistants, who handle much of the contact with patients.

John Goodman, a conservative health policy expert, predicts the health care law will drive more patients to try concierge medicine. “Seniors who can pay for it will go outside the system,” he said.

MedPAC’s Hackbarth declined to be interviewed. But Berenson, a physician and policy expert, said “the fact that excellent doctors are doing this suggests we’ve got a problem.”

You see, one-on-one concierge medicine is bad because it lets doctors work freely with patients.  The government would prefer something along the current lines.  You treat patients.  And then we’ll think about paying you.  And how much we’ll pay you.  Like in the Medicare program now.  That way you’re our bitch.  But if you work outside the system, you and your patients will be free.  And we don’t like that.  Why?  Follow the money.

Follow the Money for the Money Never Lies

Politics is always about the money.  Always has been.  Always will be.  Because it takes money to gain and maintain political power.  Whether you’re running a political campaign.  Or supporting a campaign with your union dues in exchange for political favors (such as legislation that limits competition so unions can maintain their high wage and benefit packages).

Liberals are a minority of the population.  Wherever you are.  The majority of people don’t belong to a union or work for the government.  This majority has jobs.  They take care of their family.  And want Big Brother to leave them alone.  Union dues from a small percentage of the population can greatly influence elections, though.  They can’t donate directly.  But that money finds its way to liberals.  Liberals in the U.S. desperately need this money.  In fact, union dues have become so important to the ruling liberal elite that they created an entire new class of union-paying people.  The public sector union class.  Who has but one purpose.  To launder tax dollars from taxpayers to the Democrat Party.

The 2010 mid-term elections shook up the political establishment.  Conservative governors are fighting back against this new political class.  And the liberal left is attacking these governors.  Even President Obama sent activists to Madison, Wisconsin, to protest against Governor Walker as they voted to make their public sector workers live more like the rest of the people in Wisconsin.  This is why Obamacare is so important to the left.  Health care is 17% of GDP.  That’s a lot of money.  That’s why the public option is so important.  Why nationalized health care is so important.  Because of this money.  Liberals want this money to pass through Washington.  Where they can easily skim a little off the top for their political needs.  And to live well.  Without actually having to work.  Like that majority that pays all those taxes.

Life’s greatest question can be easiest answered by following the money.  For the money never lies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Incivility is NOT to Blame for Jared Loughner’s Arizona Shooting Rampage. But the Left still Blames It.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 14th, 2011

The Uncivil Calling the Civil Uncivil

Civility.  Civility.  Civility.  That’s all we hear.  That we must be more civil.  Too much partisanship in the country.  We need to fight less.  And work together more.  Of course, the people saying this just took a shellacking at the 2010 midterm elections.  But they sure were singing a different song before that shellacking.

Civility?  Please.  Was wishing Rush Limbaugh dead civil?  Was wishing Sarah Palin dead civil?  Was making a movie based on a ‘what if’ assassination of George W. Bush civil?  Was wishing Dick Cheney dead civil?  Was wishing Sean Hannity dead civil?  Was throwing a pie at Ann Coulter civil?  Was saying you’d have sex with Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham and Elisabeth Hasselbeck because they’re hot even though you hate them civil?  Was dropping a crucifix in a glass of urine and calling it art civil?  I could go on.  But that should suffice to make the point.

Is this truly a cry for civility?  Or simply a way to neuter the opposition’s power?  By calling political dissent uncivil?  Now that they have lost their power?  My, how things change.  Once upon time it was patriotic to debate and disagree.  Of course, that’s only when the ‘wrong people’ were in power.  Apparently.

This Nutcase came from the Left

The shooting rampage in Arizona showed the consequences of the lack of civility (i.e., when conservatives debate and disagree).  At least, so thought those on the left.  Until some of the facts started coming out.  Turns out that the shooter was more of a leftist than a rightwing radical.  That’s right, this Nutcase came from the Left.

He didn’t listen to talk radio.  Didn’t follow Sarah Palin.  Rush Limbaugh.  Sean Hannity.  Glenn Beck.  Or anyone on the Right.  In fact, one of his favorite books was the Communist Manifesto.  Which is not a conservative manifesto.  And he was a conspiracy nut.  One of his favorite films was Zeitgeist: The Movie.  A film citing conspiracy theories about Christ (He was just a myth), the 9/11 attacks, bankers manipulating the international monetary system, etc.  And these are, of course, theories held by people on the Left.  It’s pretty clear that if anyone incited Jared Loughner with vitriolic rhetoric, it was those on the left.

Doesn’t matter.  Still the cry for civility rings out.  Even though a lack of civility clearly didn’t prompt Loughner to do anything.  It was his insanity that did.  Even so, we still need to be civil.  And not debate or disagree.  With the liberal left.  Because that incivility could create a Jared Loughner.  Even though it didn’t here.

Forget the Paranoid Schizophrenia.  Focus on the Vitriolic Political Debate.

The Arizona shooter was oblivious to all the incivility around him.  It was the paranoid schizophrenia rattling around his head driving him.  Not all that vitriolic political debate that is supposedly ruining our nation.  Still, it is a time to reflect.  To step back and take a look at ourselves and say, “Hey.  We can be better.”  Or so David Brooks writes about in the New York Times (see Tree of Failure posted 1/13/2011).

But over the past few decades, people have lost a sense of their own sinfulness. Children are raised amid a chorus of applause. Politics has become less about institutional restraint and more about giving voters whatever they want at that second. Joe DiMaggio didn’t ostentatiously admire his own home runs, but now athletes routinely celebrate themselves as part of the self-branding process.

So, of course, you get narcissists who believe they or members of their party possess direct access to the truth. Of course you get people who prefer monologue to dialogue. Of course you get people who detest politics because it frustrates their ability to get 100 percent of what they want. Of course you get people who gravitate toward the like-minded and loathe their political opponents. They feel no need for balance and correction.

Brooks makes some good points.  And the Left should listen to them.  Because he’s talking about them.  When George W. Bush was president Hillary Clinton said it was patriotic to debate and disagree.  Now she says that this leads to domestic terrorism.  No doubt she and her fellow Democrats believe they alone speak the truth.  And that they have no need for balance or correction.  Because they are always right and loathe their political opponents.  Especially when they get shellacked in the midterm elections.

They’re Civil in North Korea.  And Oppressed

Holding hands and singing kum bay ya isn’t going to change anything.  Because we don’t agree.  If everyone in the country agreed it wouldn’t be the United States.  It would be North Korea.  And they’re very civil there.  Especially when it comes to the government that’s oppressing them.  But I don’t think we want that kind of civility here.

Debate is good.  Dissent is good.  It prevents the rise of tyrants.  That’s why Americans can debate and disagree.  That process has prevented the rise of tyrants.  And we shouldn’t be quick to dismiss that process.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Democrats Seek to Increase the Debt Ceiling, Republicans Prefer Spending Cuts

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 2nd, 2011

Obamacare Push the Deficit Higher than Reagan’s and Bush’s Combined

Ronald Reagan had deficits of $200 billion.  The Left said that was reckless and irresponsible.  George W. Bush averaged $800 billion deficits.  The Left said that was reckless and irresponsible.  Now Obama’s deficits approach $1,500 billion.  And the Left says, “Let’s raise the debt ceiling.”

It’s a reckless and irresponsible game Obama, Pelosi and Reid have been playing.  During the worst recession since the Great Depression they have gone on a spending orgy.  Hoping to pass as much as possible in as short of time as possible.  The goal being simple.  Get as many people as possible addicted to this new government spending.  Make it political suicide for the opposition to repeal.  Thereby giving the Democrats yet more things to frighten voters about should Republicans win elections.  That those rascally Republicans will take away those benefits they fought so hard to give them.

But they have increased spending to levels impossible to sustain.  Medicaid is bankrupting the states.  Medicare and Social Security are bankrupting the nation.  Despite this, Obama, Pelosi and Reid passed Obamacare.  This on top of stimulus spending that stimulated nothing but unions and Democratic loyalists.  They’re selling bonds and printing money to feed this orgy of spending.  In the process mortgaging our future.  And making the United States credit worthiness on par with a subprime mortgage.

The Best Way to Stop a Spending Crisis is to Stop Spending

The Left is now concerned.  They see spending is unsustainable.  With the current debt ceiling.  So they want to raise the debt ceiling (see Obama aide: Debt limit fight could be “catastrophic” by Caren Bohan posted 1/2/2011 on Reuters).

White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee accused Republicans of “playing chicken” with the nation’s financial credibility.

“This is not a game. You know, the debt ceiling … is not something to toy with,” Goolsbee told the ABC News program “This Week.” “If we hit the debt ceiling, that’s … essentially defaulting on our obligations, which is totally unprecedented in American history.”

“The impact on the economy would be catastrophic. I mean, that would be a worse financial economic crisis than anything we saw in 2008,” he said.

Interesting.  When we get ourselves in trouble by maxing out our credit cards, what do debt counselors tell us?  To solve our problem by getting another credit card so we can keep spending?  Or do they tell us to cut all of our credit cards and sell everything we own to pay our bills?

When spending gets you in trouble you stop spending.  You don’t keep spending.  It’s what we the people do.  And it’s what our government should do.  Because the nation, the states and even our cities are all having spending and debt problems.

Big Government Spending Destroys Some of our Biggest Cities

Big Government at every level is failing.  Destroying great cities in its wake (see American Cities That Are Running Out Of People by Michael B. Sauter posted 1/1/2011 on Yahoo! Finance).

New Orleans has lost more than a quarter of its population in the past 10 years as the result of Hurricane Katrina. The rest of the cities that have lost major parts of their population have seen their flagship industries, which include coal, steel, oil, and auto-related manufacturing, fall off or completely collapse.

The big losers?  Flint, Michigan.  Cleveland, Ohio.  Buffalo, N.Y.  Dayton, Ohio.  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  Rochester, N.Y.  Big, blue cities.   Big labor unions.  And big public sectors.  Is there any surprise that these cities are dying?

Targeted Tax Cuts and Incentives Don’t Stimulate

The evidence is all around us.  Government spending may get you votes in November, but it is bankrupting the nation, the states and the cities.  And you don’t fix that problem with more taxing.  And more spending.  Even liberal Democrats know this (see Goolsbee: Obama to Make ‘Tough Choices’ on Budget by Mary Lu Carnevale posted 1/2/2011 on The Wall Street Journal).

Mr. Goolsbee, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said on ABC’s “This Week” that the administration is focusing on spurring investment and improving U.S. exports and innovation to boost economic growth. And he said that steps already taken, such as cutting payroll taxes by two percentage points and giving small businesses new tax incentives, should soon provide some economic fuel.

They know that cutting taxes stimulates the economy.  They admit as much by cutting payroll taxes.  And by offering tax incentives.  But they target everything.  It’s never across the board.  Because across the board tax cuts don’t offer tit for tat.  And what good is a tax cut to a politician if it doesn’t get you something in return?

Repeal Obamacare, Forget about Raising the Debt Ceiling

Cutting taxes will stimulate the economy.  It worked for Harding.  For Kennedy.  For Reagan.  And for Bush.  Reagan doubled tax receipts with his cuts.  But he still had $200 billion deficits.  Why?  Because the Democratic Congress spent the money faster than it came in.  And they reneged on their promised spending cuts.  Lesson learned?  You have to cut spending.

There’s hope.  Thanks to the Republican ascendancy at the 2010 midterm elections.  The Republicans have the power of the purse.  And a lot of Democrats lost their seats for voting for Obamacare.  You add this up, and you can take tough words about repealing Obamacare seriously (see House to vote early on health care repeal by Jake Sherman posted 1/2/2011 on Politico Live).

Incoming House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) says the new Republican-controlled House will look to repeal Democratic health care overhaul legislation before President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address later this month.

“We have 242 Republicans,” Upton said on “Fox News Sunday.” “There will be a significant number of Democrats, I think, that will join us.”

Upton, whose committee will key in the GOP’s effort to roll back the law, said that he believes the House may be near the two-thirds majority required to override a presidential veto. Short of repeal, Upton said the House will “go after this bill piece by piece.”

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are political third rails.  Too many people are dependent on them for significant reform.  But Obamacare is a no brainer.  No one is dependent on it now.  Repealing that will be pain free.   Other than a bruised ego.  But Obama can get over that.  When he retires in 2012.

You repeal Obamacare and our debt crisis all of a sudden gets a whole lot easier to manage.  So let’s cut that credit card.  Before we build up a balance that we’ll never be able to pay off.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Calls for Dems and GOP to Cooperate, Wants to Keep Governing against the Will of the People

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 1st, 2011

Liberals Always Call for Bipartisanship when they Lose Elections

When Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats won in the 2006 midterm elections, it was the end of conservatism.  They said so.  When Obama won in 2008, he advised those across the aisle that elections have consequences (see The roots of Obama’s demise by Marc A. Thiessen posted 10/25/2010 on The Washington Post). 

The decline of the Obama presidency can be traced to a meeting at the White House just three days after the inauguration, when the new president gathered congressional leaders of both parties to discuss his proposed economic stimulus. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that “elections have consequences” and “I won.” Backed by the largest congressional majorities in decades, the president was not terribly interested in giving ground to his vanquished adversaries.

When the far left lies and tricks voters to elect them, they confuse that for a mandate.  When the truth of their policies comes out, though, they lose subsequent elections.  Then demand that Republicans work with them.  For the best interests of the American people.  Unlike Nancy Pelosi.  Or President Obama.

When liberal Democrats have the majority in Congress, bipartisanship means that Republicans should accept being the Democrats’ bitch.  When they’re out of power, it means something completely different.  That Republicans shouldn’t govern like Democrats.  Governing roughshod all over the opposition party.  Why?  “Because,” they say.  Pouting.  (They really don’t have anything better.  They just HATE not having power.)

It was Always about Growing Government, not Improving the Economy

And as the new year begins, President Obama is giving us a Bill Clinton wag of the finger (figuratively), telling us to play nice.  Which is what bullies typically do when they lost their power to bully (see Obama: Dems, GOP must cooperate in new year by Julie Pace, Associated Press, posted 1/1/2011 on Yahoo! News).

In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said Saturday that lawmakers must return to Washington next week prepared to make serious decisions about how to grow the economy in the short run and stay competitive in the future.

“I’m willing to work with anyone of either party who’s got a good idea and the commitment to see it through,” Obama said. “And we should all expect you to hold us accountable for our progress or our failure to deliver.”

Not quite the ‘thanks but no thanks’ he told the Republicans 3 days after his inauguration.  And all that talk about jobs being job one?  And that laser like focus on jobs?  It was all bull [deleted expletive].  Unemployment went up after his stimulus plan to keep unemployment under 8%.  It’s still flirting with 10% some 2 years later.  But the size of government spending exploded.  Which is what the Left wants.  It’s what they always want.  So they got what they wanted.  The only problem is that some of their supporters believed they were trying to improve the economy.

The Public Sector’s Message to the Taxpayers:  Let Them Eat Cake

The liberal left comprises approximately 20% of the population.  That’s why it’s hard for them to win elections.  Especially after they’ve exploded government spending following an election win.  And that spending is bankrupting the country.  Our states.  And our cities.

A big chunk of that spending goes to support the public sector.  Public sector unions have made public sector jobs very cushy.  No one in the private sector comes close to their wage and benefit packages.  And no one in the private sector enjoys job security like they have in the public sector.  Until now.  In Wisconsin, the Republicans are in power.  And the public sector is getting nervous (see Wisconsin State Workers Fret, as G.O.P. Takes Over by Monica Davey posted 1/1/2011 on The New York Times)

But it’s just not in Wisconsin.  Public sector unions are nervous wherever Republicans have ascended to power.  Because they worry that the good times may come to an end.  And they may have to live like the rest of us.  Some are even predicting that we may see a little European rioting here in the United States (see Topic A: What will be 2011’s biggest political surprise? by Ed Rogers posted 1/2/2011 on The Washington Post).

The biggest political surprise in 2011 may come in the form of the shock produced by public-sector labor strikes and demonstrations that could stray into civil disorder as state and local governments cut budgets. Government workers could be laid off by the thousands, and millions of the beneficiaries of government-supplied salaries, pensions and benefits could see reductions in pay and program allowances they have been told to expect.

The same kind of protests that have rocked Paris, London and Rome could erupt in California, New York and Illinois.

When European Socialism cuts back on pensions, college tuition assistance, health care, etc., the beneficiaries of European Socialism burn cities.  And this anarchy may be coming to a city near you.

The schism between the governed and those governing could become greater than ever as the government tries to protect itself for its own sake and not for the public good. The millions of Americans who have lost jobs or face increasing economic uncertainty resent the relative posterity and security that government now provides for itself. President Obama will say he is for more “stimulus,” but even the money-making printing presses in Washington are at their limits.

It’s a master-slave mentality.  The masters are the public sector.  The slaves are the taxpayers.  And the masters have lost touch with reality.  They laugh at the poor suffering masses struggling to pay their taxes.  When advised of the taxpayer’s plight what do they say?  “Let them eat cake.”  (A reference to what Marie Antoinette reportedly said during the French Revolution.  While the upper classes had food, the lower classes were to be satisfied with oven scrapings.)

Pennsylvania Liquor Stores a Microcosm of Public Sectors Everywhere

Of course, the poor, suffering taxpayers would probably not be in such a foul mood if it wasn’t for the value they were getting for those high taxes.  That public sector sucks.  As any enterprise without competition does.  Why give a damn about what you’re doing if you’re the only caterer in town?

In Pennsylvania, you can only buy wine and liquor in a government store.  And the service stinks to high heaven.  The good people of Pennsylvania want to privatize their booze.  But the public sector union oppose privatization (see A Push to Privatize Pennsylvania Liquor Stores by Julie Pace, Associated Press, posted 12/31/2010 on The New York Times).

Like prisoners in the gulag, consumers here can only fantasize about buying their wine and liquor in a competitive free market. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has run the liquor stores for eight decades, a relic of the post-Prohibition era, when government thought controlling the sale of alcohol would limit consumption.

The legislature has consistently dismissed talk of privatizing the system, mainly because of opposition from the union representing the store workers and from groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and conservative teetotalers, all influential in the state.

And what’s the recourse for an angry people?

“This is insane!” said Bill Conrad, 68, a retired electrical engineer. “People are going to New York and Jersey” to buy alcohol.

And there it is.  Competition makes everything better.  Should you be lucky enough to live close to the state border.  Where I live, I can go to most any party store, some drugstores, even some supermarkets.  And you know what?  I can go to anyone and buy whatever I want whenever I want.  Private stores have competition so they have an incentive to keep their shelves stocked.  And their doors open for customers.

If you want to get an idea about how Obamacare will be, you can look at the liquor stores in Pennsylvania.  That’s what happens when the governments tries to run anything.

The Taxpayers Message to the Public Sector Employees:  Get a Job

The Democrats took a shellacking at the 2010 midterm elections.  The people have rejected their Big Government liberal agenda.  And they know it.  So they’re now trying to shame the Republicans into working with them to keep their Big Government dreams alive.  It’s either that or they have to figure out a way to get rid of those pesky elections.

But the public sector is bankrupting the country.  And the people paying the taxes to support that public sector are saying enough is enough.  They don’t like making sacrifices in their own life so others in government can live a better life.  Especially when they have to settle for such rotten service from the public sector they’re paying more and more to fund.

Their message to these pampered public sector employees?  The same parents have been telling their kids for ages.  Get a job.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The 2010 Census Confirms the Consensus that Liberalism has Failed

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 19th, 2010

America is a Center-Right Country

The people voted against liberalism in the 2010 Midterm elections.  And they’ve been voting against it since 2000.  With their residency.  They’ve been moving out of the blue states.  And into the red (see New population count may complicate Obama 2012 bid by Charles Babington, Associated Press, posted 12/19/2010 on My Way).

The population continues to shift from Democratic-leaning Rust Belt states to Republican-leaning Sun Belt states, a trend the Census Bureau will detail in its once-a-decade report to the president. Political clout shifts, too, because the nation must reapportion the 435 House districts to make them roughly equal in population, based on the latest census figures.

People are moving out of the big welfare states.  They have rejected tax and spend.  They have rejected Big Government.  And they have rejected Big Union.  At least based on the states where they’re moving to. 

The biggest gainer will be Texas, a GOP-dominated state expected to gain up to four new House seats, for a total of 36. The chief losers – New York and Ohio, each projected by nongovernment analysts to lose two seats – were carried by Obama in 2008 and are typical of states in the Northeast and Midwest that are declining in political influence.

Out of the blue.  And into the red.  As one would expect in a center-right country.

Running away from Liberalism

So the people are literally running away from liberalism.  Why?  Because blue states are expensive to live in.  Especially on a pension (see The 10 Worst States for Retirees by Robert Powell, MarketWatch, posted 12/19/2010 on Yahoo! Finance).

Plenty of folks are aware of the best states for retirees. But what are the 10 worst states in which to spend your golden years?

Among them are states with the biggest financial problems.

Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin joined California as the 10 most troubled states, according to Pew’s analysis.

Of note, TopRetirements.com’s Brady suggested that retirees and would-be retirees might want to avoid states in fiscal peril because these locales might be expected to face decreasing services and increasing taxation.

And winning an honorable mention is New York.

New York wasn’t mentioned as being in fiscal trouble by the Pew Center, but it does have “very high taxes, including property taxes.” In fact, Brady said New York has the second-highest tax burden and fifth-highest per capita property taxes. Plus, he said, the Empire State has a “dysfunctional state legislature.” As if that wasn’t bad enough, it’s terrifically expensive to live in New York.

Surprisingly, people don’t want to pay high taxes.  No matter how generous the government is to other people with their money.  And big governmental payrolls and pensions are growing to be a bigger and bigger problem.

As for Rhode Island, Brady said it’s probably the worst-off state in the Northeast from a financial viewpoint. It also has high taxes, though he noted that the state does boast some great places to live.

New Jersey, according to Brady’s analysis, has the highest property taxes in the U.S., as well as the highest total tax burden of any state, as reported in a 2008 Tax Foundation report. Plus, New Jersey has serious pension-funding issues, Brady noted. States with the greatest tax burdens after New Jersey were New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Hawaii, California, Ohio, Vermont, Wisconsin and Rhode Island, joined by the District of Columbia.

America is a center-right country with smatterings of blue on the West Coast, the Midwest and New England.

New England had two other states on Brady’s list of worst places for retirees: Massachusetts, which has high taxes including high property taxes and a very high cost of living, and Connecticut, which has the third-highest tax burden of any state as well as high property taxes.

Nevada reelected Harry Reid.  Even though his state is in the toilet. 

Ironically, the 10th-worst place to retire is the one state where it’s easy to find a cheap place to live: Nevada. As many know, Nevada is presently the home-foreclosure capital of the world. In fact, the Silver State continues to lead the nation in terms of foreclosure filings per household, with one filing for every 79 homes, according to RealtyTrac. Yes, the state is having financial problems, but the good news for retirees living there or contemplating a move there is that it doesn’t have an income tax — at least not yet.

No income tax…yet.  When you have out of control spending to fund large government payrolls and pensions, you will run out of money.  And when they do, governments don’t cut spending.  They raise taxes.  So get ready for it Nevada.  Income taxes are coming.

Federalism Kept Big Government Small.  For Awhile.

I don’t know how many more ways we can say it.  We don’t like paying high taxes.  And we don’t like paying high taxes to help other people live better lives than we do.  We’ve said it at the mid-term elections.  And we’ve been saying it since the 2000 census.

This was the genius behind federalism.  It kept Big Government small.  If a state taxed and spent and regulated our lives too much, we could move to another state.  But with the growth of the federal government, we soon won’t have that option anymore.  For when the federal government oversteps its bounds and taxes and spends to support ever larger government payrolls and pensions, and they control our pensions (Social Security) and our health care (Obamacare), where are we going to move to in protest?  China?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

 

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Closer Look at the Obama-GOP Tax Deal Seems to Favor Obama

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 11th, 2010

The Left May Get more Deficit Spending while Making it Look Like the Right’s Fault

As details emerge, the Obama-GOP tax deal to extend the Bush tax cuts just gets worse.  There’s a whole lot of stimulus/deficit spending in that deal.  Not quite in keeping with the spirit of 2010 when the nation rejected deficit spending in a grand way.  But now it’s as if that ‘shellacking’ never happened.

There’s a lot of debate.  Some filibustering.  And a whole lot of theatre.  The far Left is acting like Obama betrayed them worse than an adulterous spouse.  While the Right appears to have already forgotten who won the midterm elections.  Because, according to Charles Krauthammer, who’s very smart, the Right caved and the Left won but are too dumb to even know (see Swindle of the Year by Charles Krauthammer posted 12/10/2010 on The National Review Online).

Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 — and House Democrats don’t have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years — which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?

If Obama had asked for a second stimulus directly, he would have been laughed out of town. Stimulus I was so reviled that the Democrats banished the word from their lexicon throughout the 2010 campaign. And yet, despite a very weak post-election hand, Obama got the Republicans to offer to increase spending and cut taxes by $990 billion over two years — $630 billion of it above and beyond extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Business as usual.  After a repudiation of business as usual.  This reminds me of the movie Patton

Just before Patton was relieved of Third Army, he had an angry phone call with General Beetle Smith, Eisenhower’s chief of staff.  Patton wasn’t a fan of the Russians.  He thought we would fight them sooner or later.  He wanted it to be sooner, when we had the army in Europe to do it.  He said if SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces) didn’t have the guts to do it, he did.  He could get us into a war with those ‘sons of bitches’ and make it look like their fault.  Good movie.  But, alas, Patton was relieved of command soon thereafter.  He would later die from complications from a car accident.

Now Obama doesn’t remind me of Patton in the least.  For Patton was a good leader.  But it looks like Obama is going to get his deficit spending.  And he’s going to make it look like the Republicans’ fault.

If at First You don’t Succeed, Lie, Lie Again

So much for the hope and change to change the previous hope and change that changed little as hoped in Washington. 

We elected Obama because the Republicans had lost their way.  And because of the abysmal job Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al have been doing, the American people have given the Republicans a second chance.  And what do they do?  Even before they officially take power in the House of Representatives?  They’re already caving.  I guess old habits are just hard to break.

Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, tea-party, this-time-we’re-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.

And he gets all this in return for what? For a mere two-year postponement of a mere 4.6-point increase in marginal tax rates for upper incomes. And an estate-tax rate of 35 percent — it jumps insanely from zero to 55 percent on Jan. 1 — that is somewhat lower than what the Democrats wanted.

And, of course, another 13 months of unemployment benefits.  Exactly what is the liberal Left bitching about?  The only downside appears to be a 2 year delay in raising the top marginal tax rates by 4.6%.  And only confiscating a third of dead people’s wealth instead of half of it.  What a bunch of whiny cry babies.

Obama’s public exasperation with this infantile leftism is both perfectly understandable and politically adept. It is his way back to at least the appearance of centrist moderation. The only way he will get a second look from the independents who elected him in 2008 — and who abandoned the Democrats in 2010 — is by changing the prevailing (and correct) perception that he is a man of the Left.

The Left knows that they must lie to win elections.  And that’s what Obama is doing now.  He’s going to run for reelection in 2012.  It’s time to say he’s a centrist again.  Do they not see this?  Or is this all part of a great lie?  Just more theatre?

The Era of Big Government is Over?

The 2008 Democrat primary elections were pretty nasty.  Obama and Hillary Clinton took off the gloves at times.  The Clintons did not like this little usurper.  Obama.  For it was Hillary’s turn.  When she conceded to Obama, she and Bill announced their support for the Democrat candidate.  But there was a simmering hatred below the surface.

Obama offered Hillary Secretary of State as a consolation prize.  Partly to assuage the Clinton machine.  And partly for that reason given in The Godfather: Part II.  Keep your friends close.  And your enemies closer.  (That’s actually from the Sun-tzu’s The Art of War but I doubt Obama would have ever read that, what with it being a military book.)  To prevent a possible 2012 primary challenge from Hillary.

Now either it’s more theatre, or an attempt to hit his liberal base upside the head, but Obama called on the big dog.  Bill Clinton.  The man whose wife Obama dissed during the primary election and denied her her place in history.  And he supports the Obama-GOP deal (see Bill’s Back: Clinton commands stage at White House by Ben Feller, AP White House Correspondent, posted 12/10/2010 on Yahoo! Finance).

Clinton comfortably outlined how the pending package of tax cuts, business incentives and unemployment benefits would boost the economy — even though it included tax help for the wealthy that Obama had to swallow.

“There’s never a perfect bipartisan bill in the eyes of a partisan,” Clinton said. “But I really believe this will be a significant net-plus for the country.”

When he finished his pitch, Clinton played the role of humble guy, saying, “So, for whatever it’s worth, that’s what I think.”

“It’s worth a lot,” Obama insisted

Clinton was once right where Obama is.  Even worse.  He lost both houses of Congress after his first midterm elections because he went too left, too.  Then he moved to the center.  And, with the help of Dick Morris (then Democrat strategist), and a Republican Congress that checked his spending, he got reelected.  Is this a sign that Obama will follow Clinton’s lead?

Perhaps.  But Obama is a whole lot more arrogant than Clinton.  It just may not be in his nature to be politically expedient.  I mean, it just may not be in Obama’s DNA to say the era of Big Government is over.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama: Too Liberal for the Country; not Liberal enough for his Base

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 10th, 2010

Obama the Bridge Burner

In business, and in life in general, it is wise not to burn your bridges.  It pays to hold your tongue.  Unleashing a verbal tirade may feel good at the moment but it doesn’t make you look good.  It makes it difficult to salvage anything good out of a bad situation.  And more times than not burning a bridge will come back to haunt you.  For today’s enemy may be tomorrow’s ally.

President Obama is a smart man.  He may be pompous and arrogant, but he understands politics.  And when it comes to bridges, one would expect that he’d be prudent.  During the recent debate over extending the Bush tax cuts, however, he hasn’t.  Instead, his approach has been to basically say ‘flame on’ to friend and foe alike (see From Audacity to Animosity by Peggy Noonan posted 12/9/2010 on The Wall Street Journal).

President Obama was supposed to be announcing an important compromise, as he put it, on tax policy. Normally a president, having agreed with the opposition on something big, would go through certain expected motions. He would laud the specific virtues of the plan, show graciousness toward the negotiators on the other side—graciousness implies that you won—and refer respectfully to potential critics as people who’ll surely come around once they are fully exposed to the deep merits of the plan.

Instead Mr. Obama said, essentially, that he hates the deal he just agreed to, hates the people he made the deal with, and hates even more the people who’ll criticize it. His statement was startling in the breadth of its animosity. Republicans are “hostage takers” who worship a “holy grail” of “tax cuts for the wealthy.” “That seems to be their central economic doctrine.”

As for the left, they ignore his accomplishments and are always looking for “weakness and compromise.” They are “sanctimonious,” “purist,” and just want to “feel good about” themselves. In a difficult world, they cling to their “ideal positions” and constant charges of “betrayals.”

Waaa!  Waaa!  Waaa!  I hate you.  I hate you all.  I’m taking my legislation and going home.

The leader of the free world has spoken.

Dropping the ‘F’ Bomb on the President

And just how angry are those in his base?  Pretty darn angry (see Profanity, Anger Spill Over in House Democratic Caucus Meeting by Anna Palmer posted 12/9/2010 on Roll Call).

The frustration with President Barack Obama over his tax cut compromise was palpable and even profane at Thursday’s House Democratic Caucus meeting.

One unidentified lawmaker went so far as to mutter “f— the president” while Rep. Shelley Berkley was defending the package the president negotiated with Republicans. Berkley confirmed the incident, although she declined to name the specific lawmaker.

Not quite the ‘You lie‘ uttered by South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson during Obama’s 2009 health care speech to the House.  Actually, “f— the president” seems a bit worse.  That’s some pretty strong language.  In fact, it would probably be harder to find stronger language. 

Dropping the ‘f’ bomb on the president.  I doubt a Republican ever said that about Ronald Reagan.  Then again, members of Reagan’s party respected him.

Closing Gitmo was a Slam Dunk

This is the problem when you try to govern to the wishes of 20% of the population.  Pleasing this 20% just pisses off the other 80%.  And then the 80% votes against you at the midterm election.

Poor 20%.  And things don’t look like they’re going to get better any time soon (see House acts to block closing of Gitmo by Stephen Dinan posted 12/8/2010 on The Washington Times).

Congress on Wednesday signaled it won’t close the prison at Guantanamo Bay or allow any of its suspected terrorist detainees to be transferred to the U.S., dealing what is likely the final blow to President Obama’s campaign pledge to shutter the facility in Cuba.

Closing Gitmo was a slam dunk.  So what happened? 

Well, no nations wanted to take the prisoners.  The American people weren’t all that keen on trying them in the U.S. legal system.  And releasing them wasn’t a good idea because many just became terrorists again (see Gitmo Recidivism Rate Soars by Thomas Joscelyn posted 12/7/2010 on The Weekly Standard).  It turns out that Gitmo was a pretty darn good place to leave these bad guys after all.  Obama no doubt rues that campaign promise.

Obama Fails to Deliver Amnesty for Illegal Aliens, Too.

But that ain’t his only failed campaign promise.  There was going to be immigration reform.  Or, rather, amnesty for illegal aliens to increase Democrat voter turnout.  But this appears to be stalling, too.  And this in a lame duck congress that his party still controls (see Democrats delay action on young immigrants bill by Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press, posted 12/9/2010 on Yahoo! News).

The Senate moved Thursday to delay a politically charged showdown vote on legislation carving out a path to legal status for foreign-born youngsters brought to this country illegally, putting off but probably not preventing the measure’s demise.

Facing GOP objections, Democrats put aside the so-called Dream Act and said they’d try again to advance it before year’s end. They’re short of the 60 votes needed to do so, however, and critics in both parties quickly said they won’t change their minds in the waning days of the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Some days it’s just not good to be a liberal Democrat trying to govern against the will of the American people.

Damned if he Does; Damned if he Doesn’t

And some days it’s just not good to be stuck with a Barack Obama (from Noonan above).

The Democrats’ problem is that most of them know that the person who would emerge, who would challenge Mr. Obama from the left, would never, could never, win the 2012 general election. He’d lose badly and take the party with him. Democratic professionals know the mood of the country. Challenging Mr. Obama from the left would mean definitely losing the presidency, as opposed to probably losing the presidency.

That’s the problem with lying to win elections.  The truth eventually comes out.  And it has.  The moderates and independents have long since learned that Obama is no moderate.  But if he wants to remain president, he’ll have to learn how to become one pretty darn fast.  And lose what’s left of his liberal base in the process.

Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Stupid Republicans Help Smart Democrats Lose Elections

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 22nd, 2010

Figures don’t Lie, but Liars Figure

Is a 70 degree Fahrenheit a warm day?  Or a cold day?  It depends on your perspective.  If you’re from Norilsk, Russia, you’d probably say it’s warm.  If you’re from Al’Azizyah, Libya, you’d probably say it’s cold.  70 degree Fahrenheit is a fact.  But it means different things to different people.  And neither the Russian nor the Libyan is wrong.  Weather is relative.

The Republicans won control of the House of Representatives, a majority of the state governorships and a majority of the state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections (see Election 2010 posted on The New York Times for election results).  Some say this is a rejection of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda.  Some say the Democrats lost so much because the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda did not go far enough.

Interesting, huh?  The same data reviewed by different people who then reach such different conclusions.  Are the election results as relative as the weather?  Or is Mark Twain closer to the truth?  “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” 

Old, Stupid White Men Vote Republican?

There is a political divide across the country.  You can see it when you look at the election map.  The nation is mostly red.  With some blue on the coasts.  And around the big cities in between.  I look at that and I have an idea why it looks like that.  The Washington Post, on the other hand, has a different interpretation (see Political divide between coasts and Midwest deepening, midterm election analysis shows by T.W. Farnam, Washington Post Staff Writer, posted 11/21/2010 on The Washington Post).

The Republican Party’s big gains in the House came largely from districts that were older, less diverse and less educated than the nation as a whole. Democrats kept their big majorities in the cities.

Translation?  Old, stupid white men vote Republican.  I see it differently.  What are big cities full of?  Poor people.  And welfare.  Big city governments.  With big union pay and benefits.  Big bureaucracies that employ the unemployable and increase the costs of doing business.  Big universities.  University professors.  University students.  Art museums.  Theatres.  A liberal and libertine party atmosphere (which draws the young).  Teen pregnancy.  Abortions.  STDs.  Drug addicts.  Prostitutes.  Etc.

The Obama coalition remained intact. Democrats remained strong in areas with the party’s core of minorities and higher-educated whites. But movement of white working-class voters away from the party is a concern for Democrats, especially because of President Obama’s traditional weakness with those voters.

Higher-educated whites?  Yeah, right.  A lot of those degrees are from the big universities in the big cities.  Women’s studies.  Art History.  Philosophy.  American Studies.  English Lit.  Communications.  Poetry.  And, of course, Law.  Very popular with the anti-business crowd.  And, as it turns out, very unpopular with actual businesses. 

Higher educated, perhaps.  But an education that has little market value.  So they end up working for a nonprofit dependent on government funding.  Or work as another piece of deadwood in a bloated government bureaucracy.  Or file frivolous lawsuits and are dependent on government NOT to reform tort law.

“There’s definitely been a hardening of Democratic support along the coasts since 1994,” said James Gimpel, a political scientist at the University of Maryland.

New York City, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles.  Coastal cities.  Homes of the uber liberal.  Here they sip their lattes and look down their noses at flyover country. They’re only 20% of the population.  But when you concentrate 20% of the population in these small geographical areas, those areas will have liberal majorities.  While at the same time if you pull that 20% out of the rest of the country, that big geographical area they call flyover country is left conservative.

The Poor, Unemployable and Irresponsible Vote Democrat

It’s not that Republicans are old, stupid white men.  Democrats have lost so much of the country because they and their agenda don’t appeal to people who have jobs.  So who do they appeal to?  The poor, unemployable and irresponsible.  And lawyers.  Who all tend to be anti-business.  Like the Democrat Party.

Saying the reason why you lose elections is because the electorate is stupid is figuring with facts.  The facts say otherwise.  Besides, when the young is a strong demographic for you, you kind of lose that argument.  Young people are uneducated and inexperienced.  Young people fill our Colleges.  And they’re going there not because they’re smart.  They’re there going to get ‘smart’.

Meanwhile, the higher educated liberals often have those useless degrees.  Because they care about people, not profits.  So they don’t do anything so coarse as to get a degree that might help a business earn a profit.  Instead, they’ll subsist off of government funding.  Or by suing businesses for unearned wealth.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tax and Spend and Raise Your Taxes: The Ultra-Left Liberal Agenda

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 7th, 2010

Fiscal Extortion Responsibility:  Approve Our Millage to Raise Your Taxes or Else

Whenever the government wants to raise your taxes, they use fear.  What does the typical family in suburbia hear?  “If the city doesn’t get this millage approved, the city will have no choice but to lay off police officers and fire fighters.”  It’s never, “If we don’t get this millage approved, the city will have to cut pay and benefits of our bloated and overpaid city bureaucracy.  Or lay off some of the deadwood.”  No.  It’s always the cops and the fire fighters.  Because it’s more scary.  Mothers worry about the safety of their children.  And will do anything for them.  Even pay more taxes.  If it was anyone else talking like this, we’d call it extortion.  But when our government shakes us down for protection money, they call it fiscal responsibility.

The federal government works much in the same way.  Of course, there are no federal police officers or fire fighters protecting our communities day in and day out.  So they go for the jugular.  That third rail.  Social Security.  When the White House and Capitol Hill were staring each other off into a government shutdown in the 1990s, what did Bill Clinton do?  He threatened Social Security (see GOP to Use Debt Cap to Push Spending Cuts by Damian Paletta posted on The Wall Street Journal).

Eventually, the debt ceiling was raised, but only after a brief government shutdown and warnings from the Clinton administration that the government might temporarily stop mailing Social Security checks.

One thing not on the table was lawmaker pay and benefits.  Little old ladies would lose their Social Security checks before they would ever let that happen.  Fast forward to today.  Federal deficits and the debt have never been higher.  In the discussion of spending cuts, that discussion included the other third rail of politics.  Lawmaker pay and benefits.  There’s talk now about cutting their pay.  Of course, that will never happen.  Even though they could afford it (see Boehner under fire: First cut should be lawmakers’ salaries by Jordy Yager posted on The Hill).

Boehner is slated to receive a $30,100 pay increase next year when he becomes Speaker of the House. His annual salary will be $223,500. The base pay for House and Senate lawmakers is $174,000, while majority and minority leaders each make $193,400 per year.

And this doesn’t include any of their benefits or graft.  How does this make you feel?  These are the people that are bankrupting our country.  Destroying our jobs with their anti-business policies.  And forcing us to get by on less.  While they live the good life.  Yes, let’s cut their pay.  If we slash it by $100,000, they’d still be making more than the majority of their constituents.  Something just wrong with that.  Our servants living better than us.

President Obama:  Typical Tax and Spend Liberal Who Hates Tax Cuts

With the loss of the House in the 2010 midterm elections, President Obama’s FDR/LBJ spending has hit a snag.  Nancy Pelosi is not there to rubberstamp his ultra-left liberal agenda.  In fact, the new House leadership is talking about repealing some of that ultra-left liberal legislation to reduce that projected annual deficit of $4,125 billion (see Barack Obama Outspends George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan Combined from this same website). 

Front and center in this debate are the George W. Bush tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of this year.  And all of a sudden, President Obama is concerned about deficit spending (see Obama calls for compromise, won’t budge on tax cuts by Kevin Cullum posted on The Hill).

“At a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans,” the president said. “We’d be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children.”

Oh, he’s concerned now.  He wasn’t with his bailouts to help fund union pensions.  Or the biggest explosion in federal spending ever.  The trillion dollar+ per annum Obamacare.  But he’s being a little devious here.  Earlier, he said that $700 billion cost of the Bush tax cuts was over ten years (see the above link to this same website).  That comes to $70 billion annually.  Compared that to his projected $4,125 billion annual deficit and he loses all credibility.  He doesn’t care about $4,125 billion in deficit spending but will put his foot down about a paltry annual $70 billion in tax savings.  Why?  He’s a tax and spend liberal.  Any spending (other than defense) is okay.  But any tax cut is simply irresponsible.

We Rejected Obama’s Ultra-Left Liberal Agenda on Tuesday

The message on Tuesday was that the people have rejected Obama’s ultra-left liberal agenda.  America is a center-right country.  That center-right is made up of conservatives, moderates and independents.  Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al, belong to that far left minority called liberal.  The clear message is that the 80% rejected the 20%.  Of course, Obama sees it differently. 

The president said that the “message was clear” from voters on Election Day, and that he was also “frustrated” by the sluggish pace of economic recovery. “You’re fed up with partisan politics and want results,” Obama said. “I do too.”

No, we’re not upset that Democrats and Republicans weren’t working together.  We were upset that the liberal Democrats used their majority in Congress to govern against the will of the people.  That is the true message.  It wasn’t the partisanship that bothered us.  It was the lack of it to stop the far-left liberal agenda that did.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Message of the 2010 Midterm Elections: The ‘Teenaged’ Voted for Maturity?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 6th, 2010

Two Americas:  The Silly and the Sensible

Well, the 2010 midterm elections have come and gone.  And everyone has had their say about what they meant.  Few agree.  At least, few on different sides of the aisle agree.  Two interesting columns show the thought on these two sides.  The two Americas.  One sensible.  The other silly.  You decide which is which.

Graydon Carter, editor for Vanity Fair opines in Man Up, America!

What do you call an electorate that seems prone to acting out irrationally, is full of inchoate rage, and is constantly throwing fits and tantrums? You call it teenaged.

Meanwhile, Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal (see Americans Vote for Maturity):

‘The people have spoken, the bastards.” That would be how Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill are feeling. The last two years of their leadership have been rebuffed. The question for the Democratic Party: Was it worth it? Was it worth following the president and the speaker in their mad pursuit of liberal legislation that the country would not, could not, like? And what will you do now? Which path will you take?

So one says the electorate is stupid, immature and churlish.  The other says the electorate is mature, sober and discerning.  One says the voters are idiots.  The other says that they are thoughtful.  One is a sore loser.  The other an objective realist.  One silly.  The other, sensible.

Conservatives, Moderates and Independents Exasperate the Liberal Elite

To make it clear, this is what the liberal elite think conservatives, moderates and independents are.  Too stupid to know what’s good for them.  It is just so exasperating that 80% of the electorate has the right to vote.  Like the children they are, they should be seen and not heard.  While those better than them tell them how they should live their lives.

Noonan further points out the folly of the silly by pointing out their negative ads.

Two small points on the election’s atmospherics that carry implications for the future. The first is that negative ads became boring, unpersuasive. Forty years ago they were new, exciting in a sort of prurient way. Now voters take for granted that politicians are no good, and such ads are just more polluted water going over the waterfall. The biggest long-term loser: liberalism. If all pols are sleazoid crooks, then why would people want to give them more governmental power to order our lives? The implicit message of two generations of negative ads: Vote conservative, limit the reach of the thieves.

For smart people, liberals are pretty dumb.

Ranaldo Magnus Earned his Rendezvous with Destiny

Too many people want to be politicians for the wrong reasons.  They want to be career politicians.  To be part of the ruling elite.  The American aristocracy.  For special privilege.  And because of this, a lot of inexperienced and unqualified people are in Washington.  President Obama perhaps being one of the most unqualified and inexperienced ever to hold elected office.  (Come on, be honest.  What qualifications and experience did he have?  Not as much as Sarah Palin.  And the Left ridiculed her.)

Ranaldo Magnus, on the other hand, did it the old fashioned way.  He earned it.  His rendezvous with destiny.  As Noonan points out so well:

Ronald Reagan was an artist who willed himself into leadership as president of a major American labor union (Screen Actors Guild, seven terms, 1947-59.) He led that union successfully through major upheavals (the Hollywood communist wars, labor-management struggles); discovered and honed his ability to speak persuasively by talking to workers on the line at General Electric for eight years; was elected to and completed two full terms as governor of California; challenged and almost unseated an incumbent president of his own party; and went on to popularize modern conservative political philosophy without the help of a conservative infrastructure. Then he was elected president.

And what did President Obama do?  A partial term as U.S. senator.  Before that?  Community organizer.  A pretty sparse resume.

We Need More Like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington Entering Public Service

Whatever irrationality there was that swept Obama and his Democrats into power is gone.  The grownups spoke this past Tuesday.  And they voted for maturity.  Let’s hope the grownups build on this.  And from them another Ronald Reagan earns his or her rendezvous with destiny.  Again, from Noonan:

Here is an old tradition badly in need of return: You have to earn your way into politics. You should go have a life, build a string of accomplishments, then enter public service. And you need actual talent: You have to be able to bring people in and along. You can’t just bully them, you can’t just assert and taunt, you have to be able to persuade.

This is the true American tradition.  Benjamin Franklin.  George Washington.  The two grand old men of the Founding.  These men were in the autumn of their years when they entered public service.  Old but wise.  Experienced.  With real-world talent.  Masters of persuasion.  Everything that Obama and his Democrats are not.  We need these wise and experienced.  To answer the call of service.  After having a life and a string of accomplishments.  The question is, are they out there?  Yes.  They are.  As we saw this past Tuesday.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries