Right to Work States vs Forced Unionization States
State by State Differences: In the United States, we have Right to Work States and Forced Unionization States. Approximately 50% of the states are in each category. With Right to
Work States, people have a right to work anywhere in that state without beng forced to join a union/pay union dues. For Forced Unionization States - if a company in one of these states is unionized, you must join the union, or you won't be able to work for that company. Each state has laws specifically relating to this "right to work" union issue.
Constitutonalality of forced unionization states? For Forced Unionization States, have to say that the concept of requiring people to join a union as a prerequisite for obtaining a job at a unionized company doesn't sound like something our founding fathers would have approved of. While I realize that there have been all sorts of Congressional Legislative/judicial rulings on this, am of the belief that the current laws on this matter, are more related to judicial activism/liberal politicians than it is due to anything that is in (or reasonably can be inferred to be in) the constitution of the United States. Note: If you'd like to read my article on Judicial Activism/Construtionism, it's available under in my blog (see "onemanandhisview", title = Supreme Court - Activism vs. Construtionsm).
Advantages of Right to Work States: Aside from not compelling people to join unions/pay union dues, businesses in Right to Work States can typically put themselves in a more competitive position domestically and interationally due to the decreased power of unions in regards to the negotiation of pay, leave, benefit package, and hirings/firings. This increased viability of businesses in Right to Work States benefits not just the owners of the business, but also the employees of that business. Comment: While the concept of unionization in general is fine, union members, and specifically union management, need to keep in mind that excessive demands, that make the companies/industries that their union members work for uncompetitive, is totally counterproductive - i.e., not in the best interests of, the union members that they are representing. NOTE: If you'd like to read more on union competitiveness, go to "Unions - Competitiveness and Intimidation Tactics" at "onemanandhisview".
Public Unions and the Democratic Party: The practice of public unions donating a substantial portion of their union dues to the Democratic Party, who then - if elected, grant pay, leave, and benefit packages that are favorable to the unions, is unseemly at best. It certainly gives the appearance of impropriety - a conflict of interest for the elected Democratic politicians who, once elected, are supposed to be exercising the judicious use of taxpayer dollars, and not "paying back" those that helped them get elected. NOTE: Take a look at the current budget situation in California if you want to see where this "pay back" gone way awry can lead you.
Unions and the Federal Government: In the federal government, public unions are not allowed to bargain for pay and benefits. They are only allowed to bargain/negotiate over conditions of employment - employee safety and working conditions.
Recommendations:
1. State Public Employee Unions: To avoid conflicts of interest as much as possible, public unions in our states should be modeled after the federal public unions - bargaining yes - but not for pay and benefits.
2. Treating people differently in different states: Consider it highly improper for people in one state to be treated differently than people in another state in regard to something as critical to their very livelihood as employment. Am hopeful that eventually all fifty states will become right to work states - either through state by state legislative action, or by having forced unionization declared unconsitutional in a Supreme Court decision devoid of judicial activism.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
Free Weightlifting routine, Free Swimming Instructions, and Another warning on Smoking
Free Weightlifting routine:
I've been very successful recently with my new weightlifting routine, so I decided that since I already have a blog (a political blog) set up, I might as well incorporate a separate blog article on weightlifting within my overall blog.
Anyway, I am 58 years old. I've been weightlifting since I went away to college at age 18. Have used free weights, universal gyms, natutilus equiment, and for the last 12 years, a bowflex.
Have always lifted in cycles, would see improving lifting performances for a while, then would inevitably cycle into declining lifting performances. Typically the overall range (high/low lifts) would remain the same - year after year - up until this last year.
About a year ago I started doing a new weightlifting routine that has worked wonders - particularly considering the fact that I've had my bowflex for 12 yrs, and had stayed within my high/low range for that entire time. As soon as I started the new routine, I started gradually improving - and I don't have high/low ranges anymore either. In fact, I'm always near my peak levels these days. I'm between 15 and 25 percent stonger in every single exercise - again, particularly impressive considering the fact that I'm comparing the performances of my 58 year old self with the performances of my 46 year old self.
My routine involves incorporating a cardiovascular workout with my weightlifting routine. I try to do all the exercises with only 30 seconds rest between sets - that's where the cardio part of this workout comes from. NOTE: This 30 second thing is much easier to accomplish with a bowflex, nautilus or universal gym. With free weights, it's a bit harder to change the weights within the 30 second window.
Here's what I do: I do four sets for each exercise. The first set is a warm up (8 reps) - typically about 1/2 of the weight that I will eventually use for my heaviest set. The second set (8 reps) is typically about 75% of the weight I'll use on the heaviest set. The third set is my heaviest set. I try to get 8 reps. If I succeed, the next workout, I'll move the weight up 5 or 10 lbs. If I don't get at least 6 reps, I'll move the weight down 5 or 10 lbs the next workout. The fourth set, I look at it as my overload set - I pick a weight that I feel I can do 6 to 8 reps, and lift to failure.
My upper body exercises include (and in this precise order):
Bench Press, Rowing, Shrugs, Military Press, Flyes, Rear Lateral Raises, Lateral Raises, Dips, Chins, Triceps Extension, Curls.
I seldom do my upper body routine and my lower body routine on the same day.
My style for my lower body workout is the same as my upper body workout.
My lower body exercises include (and in this precise order): Leg Press, Leg Curls, Leg Extensions, Knee Lifts (I put the bowflex strap on my foot and raise my knee - one leg at a time of course), Toe Raises, Back Exercise (whatever back exercise you desire). I complete my workout by standing on each leg for one minute (am told this is really good for balance). NOTE: This routine is shorter than my upper body workout, and I typically hit the elliptical at the end of the workout for some extra workout time.
I'll put in a little disclaimer - if you haven't been exercising in the recent past, are over 30, or are in poor health, you should see a doctor before starting any exercise program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Swimming Instructions:
When I was young, I was afraid of the water. My mother sent me to swimming classes, but they proved unsuccesful in teaching me to overcome my fear/learn how to swim. Finally, when I was 8 years old, when we were at the beach - I taught myself. Here's how I did it:
I went 20 or 30 yards down the beach - so I could practice out of the view of family members. NOTE: Didn't want to put my swimming incompetence on display.
I got in water that was approximately waste high - deep enough so that I could do what needed to be done, but not so deep that my fear of the water would come into a significant degree of play.
The next thing I did was I dunked myself - over and over again. I gradually started holding my breath and instead of coming up immediately, held my breath for 10, 15 or 20 seconds. Eventually started opening my eyes too.
Once I started feeling comfortable (safe) with the above, I started laying down (on my stomach) in the water, and holding my breath - over and over, keeping my eyes open - 10 to 20 seconds each time.
Once I started feeling comfortable (safe) with the above, I started laying in the water, and with my eyes open, kicking my feet - 10 to 20 seconds each time.
For my next step, I started moving my arms (still kicking my feet) - continuing to keep my head under water (eyes open) - 10 to 20 seconds each time.
For my next step - I started doing the above with my head slightly out of the water - 10 to 20 seconds each time. Of course, since I wasn't holding my breath at this point, I could have gone a lot longer than 10 to 20 seconds - I was just getting used to swimming with my head out of the water.
By the end of the day, I could swim, and wasn't afraid of the water anymore. NOTE: Over time, I became more proficient at swimming (i.e., I considerably improved my swimming style).
When I was in college, I did a freestyle swim of two miles in the school pool. These days, every summer we take a vacation at Myrtle Beach. Each day, I do a one mile swim in the ocean (a might more difficult feat than a one mile swim in a pool). NOTE: Frankly, if I had calm, warm water, and no tides, think I could swim a really long way if I had to.
Final comment: Am a firm believer that a with just a decent degree of physical fitness, that anyone can learn to swim. The important thing is that a person needs to be confident/able to relax (no fear) in the water. If you or a family member haven't learned to swim yet, I recommend the above approach.
Hey - learning to swim might just save your - or a family member's life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Warning on Smoking:
Including my parents - my parents generation totaled six children. The two of the six that were smokers, have already passed on. The other four are all still doing fine, with two of them now being in their nineties.
Just about every time I leave the house, I see someone sitting or standing outside smoking. When I see them it always occurs to me that I really ought to go over and say something....... not that they would likely listen, it's just that, since I consider myself to be a decent human being, I really ought to at least give it a shot.
I'd tell them that - you really don't want to do that - my father was a smoker and he died of lung cancer, and it really wasn't pretty. He was barely able to talk, he had trouble breathing, walking around became very difficult - and at the end impossible without assistance, and he was unable to take care of himself in pretty much every way possible. Each week got worse - both in his suffering and in the decline of his physical capabilities. It really wasn't pretty.
I also had an uncle - a smoker who got cancer. He ended up wasting away to nothing. When I say "wasting away to nothing" - I mean that literally - I didn't even recognize him at the funeral, even though I'd seen him just 2 or 3 months earlier.
It's not just that they died earlier than they should have (as evidenced by the longevity of their siblings), they died in a terrible way - they suffered tremendously. They certainly didn't go the way most of us would like to - old, and fairly healthy to the end.
I urge you, please reconsider what you are doing to yourselves, and if that isn't enough of a reason for you to stop, consider what you will end up putting your families through as they are forced to watch their loved one fall apart in front of their very eyes.
Free Weighlifting Routine
Free Swimming Lessons
Another Warning on Smoking
Free Weightlifting routine:
I've been very successful recently with my new weightlifting routine, so I decided that since I already have a blog (a political blog) set up, I might as well incorporate a separate blog article on weightlifting within my overall blog.
Anyway, I am 58 years old. I've been weightlifting since I went away to college at age 18. Have used free weights, universal gyms, natutilus equiment, and for the last 12 years, a bowflex.
Have always lifted in cycles, would see improving lifting performances for a while, then would inevitably cycle into declining lifting performances. Typically the overall range (high/low lifts) would remain the same - year after year - up until this last year.
About a year ago I started doing a new weightlifting routine that has worked wonders - particularly considering the fact that I've had my bowflex for 12 yrs, and had stayed within my high/low range for that entire time. As soon as I started the new routine, I started gradually improving - and I don't have high/low ranges anymore either. In fact, I'm always near my peak levels these days. I'm between 15 and 25 percent stonger in every single exercise - again, particularly impressive considering the fact that I'm comparing the performances of my 58 year old self with the performances of my 46 year old self.
My routine involves incorporating a cardiovascular workout with my weightlifting routine. I try to do all the exercises with only 30 seconds rest between sets - that's where the cardio part of this workout comes from. NOTE: This 30 second thing is much easier to accomplish with a bowflex, nautilus or universal gym. With free weights, it's a bit harder to change the weights within the 30 second window.
Here's what I do: I do four sets for each exercise. The first set is a warm up (8 reps) - typically about 1/2 of the weight that I will eventually use for my heaviest set. The second set (8 reps) is typically about 75% of the weight I'll use on the heaviest set. The third set is my heaviest set. I try to get 8 reps. If I succeed, the next workout, I'll move the weight up 5 or 10 lbs. If I don't get at least 6 reps, I'll move the weight down 5 or 10 lbs the next workout. The fourth set, I look at it as my overload set - I pick a weight that I feel I can do 6 to 8 reps, and lift to failure.
My upper body exercises include (and in this precise order):
Bench Press, Rowing, Shrugs, Military Press, Flyes, Rear Lateral Raises, Lateral Raises, Dips, Chins, Triceps Extension, Curls.
I seldom do my upper body routine and my lower body routine on the same day.
My style for my lower body workout is the same as my upper body workout.
My lower body exercises include (and in this precise order): Leg Press, Leg Curls, Leg Extensions, Knee Lifts (I put the bowflex strap on my foot and raise my knee - one leg at a time of course), Toe Raises, Back Exercise (whatever back exercise you desire). I complete my workout by standing on each leg for one minute (am told this is really good for balance). NOTE: This routine is shorter than my upper body workout, and I typically hit the elliptical at the end of the workout for some extra workout time.
I'll put in a little disclaimer - if you haven't been exercising in the recent past, are over 30, or are in poor health, you should see a doctor before starting any exercise program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Swimming Instructions:
When I was young, I was afraid of the water. My mother sent me to swimming classes, but they proved unsuccesful in teaching me to overcome my fear/learn how to swim. Finally, when I was 8 years old, when we were at the beach - I taught myself. Here's how I did it:
I went 20 or 30 yards down the beach - so I could practice out of the view of family members. NOTE: Didn't want to put my swimming incompetence on display.
I got in water that was approximately waste high - deep enough so that I could do what needed to be done, but not so deep that my fear of the water would come into a significant degree of play.
The next thing I did was I dunked myself - over and over again. I gradually started holding my breath and instead of coming up immediately, held my breath for 10, 15 or 20 seconds. Eventually started opening my eyes too.
Once I started feeling comfortable (safe) with the above, I started laying down (on my stomach) in the water, and holding my breath - over and over, keeping my eyes open - 10 to 20 seconds each time.
Once I started feeling comfortable (safe) with the above, I started laying in the water, and with my eyes open, kicking my feet - 10 to 20 seconds each time.
For my next step, I started moving my arms (still kicking my feet) - continuing to keep my head under water (eyes open) - 10 to 20 seconds each time.
For my next step - I started doing the above with my head slightly out of the water - 10 to 20 seconds each time. Of course, since I wasn't holding my breath at this point, I could have gone a lot longer than 10 to 20 seconds - I was just getting used to swimming with my head out of the water.
By the end of the day, I could swim, and wasn't afraid of the water anymore. NOTE: Over time, I became more proficient at swimming (i.e., I considerably improved my swimming style).
When I was in college, I did a freestyle swim of two miles in the school pool. These days, every summer we take a vacation at Myrtle Beach. Each day, I do a one mile swim in the ocean (a might more difficult feat than a one mile swim in a pool). NOTE: Frankly, if I had calm, warm water, and no tides, think I could swim a really long way if I had to.
Final comment: Am a firm believer that a with just a decent degree of physical fitness, that anyone can learn to swim. The important thing is that a person needs to be confident/able to relax (no fear) in the water. If you or a family member haven't learned to swim yet, I recommend the above approach.
Hey - learning to swim might just save your - or a family member's life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Warning on Smoking:
Including my parents - my parents generation totaled six children. The two of the six that were smokers, have already passed on. The other four are all still doing fine, with two of them now being in their nineties.
Just about every time I leave the house, I see someone sitting or standing outside smoking. When I see them it always occurs to me that I really ought to go over and say something....... not that they would likely listen, it's just that, since I consider myself to be a decent human being, I really ought to at least give it a shot.
I'd tell them that - you really don't want to do that - my father was a smoker and he died of lung cancer, and it really wasn't pretty. He was barely able to talk, he had trouble breathing, walking around became very difficult - and at the end impossible without assistance, and he was unable to take care of himself in pretty much every way possible. Each week got worse - both in his suffering and in the decline of his physical capabilities. It really wasn't pretty.
I also had an uncle - a smoker who got cancer. He ended up wasting away to nothing. When I say "wasting away to nothing" - I mean that literally - I didn't even recognize him at the funeral, even though I'd seen him just 2 or 3 months earlier.
It's not just that they died earlier than they should have (as evidenced by the longevity of their siblings), they died in a terrible way - they suffered tremendously. They certainly didn't go the way most of us would like to - old, and fairly healthy to the end.
I urge you, please reconsider what you are doing to yourselves, and if that isn't enough of a reason for you to stop, consider what you will end up putting your families through as they are forced to watch their loved one fall apart in front of their very eyes.
Free Weighlifting Routine
Free Swimming Lessons
Another Warning on Smoking
Democratic Proposal - Change the rules on Filibusters
Background: It currently takes 60 votes to get legislation through the Senate. Democrats are pushing to change the current "rules of the game", which would enable them to pass legislation with a mere 51% majority. While there is a certain logic to this idea, and it would facilitate "getting things done", am a firm believer in - "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". NOTE: When Republicans had the Presidency, a majority in the House, and over 51% in the Senate, we certainly didn't hear any talk from Democrats about changing the rules, and thus enabling Republicans to get legislaton passed with just a 51% Senate majority.
Tyranny of the majority: The big problem with the above proposal is that you create a scenario where the President, 51% of the House, and 51% of the Senate can make sweeping legislative changes over the protests (often vehement) of the minority. That legislation that is passed by the majority does not even have to be constitutional - but it will be implemented once the law is passed. It could easily take a year or two before the new law worked it's way to the Supreme Court and was
declared to be null and void, and in the meantime, you are stuck with this potentially illegal legislation.
Recommendaton:
a. Effective Date: If the Senate is going to implement something as drastic as the above, it should not be effective immediately, but instead, be made effective at some point in the future - like after the next Presidential election. That way each side has an equal chance of being the Party initially able to benefit from the rule change. Making it effective immediately would be just a self-serving maneuver by the Democrats to strongarm their progressive agenda into law.
b. Best to Seek Compromise: Actually, think it's best that the Senate doesn't make this change. If a legislative proposal can't get the approval of the President, the majority of the House, and 60% of the Senate, it shouldn't be implemented. Believe that it's more imporant to protect minority rights than to ram through legislation that could easily qualify as "tyranny of the majority". It's simply up to Congress and the President to do their job and come up with a compromise proposal that can get passed.
Comment: Think the real reason that we have been having so much trouble getting the compromise necessary to pass legislation is because the current President is so far left that compromise has become nearly impossible. NOTE: Certainly you didn't see this sort of logjam during the Clinton administration.
Background: It currently takes 60 votes to get legislation through the Senate. Democrats are pushing to change the current "rules of the game", which would enable them to pass legislation with a mere 51% majority. While there is a certain logic to this idea, and it would facilitate "getting things done", am a firm believer in - "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". NOTE: When Republicans had the Presidency, a majority in the House, and over 51% in the Senate, we certainly didn't hear any talk from Democrats about changing the rules, and thus enabling Republicans to get legislaton passed with just a 51% Senate majority.
Tyranny of the majority: The big problem with the above proposal is that you create a scenario where the President, 51% of the House, and 51% of the Senate can make sweeping legislative changes over the protests (often vehement) of the minority. That legislation that is passed by the majority does not even have to be constitutional - but it will be implemented once the law is passed. It could easily take a year or two before the new law worked it's way to the Supreme Court and was
declared to be null and void, and in the meantime, you are stuck with this potentially illegal legislation.
Recommendaton:
a. Effective Date: If the Senate is going to implement something as drastic as the above, it should not be effective immediately, but instead, be made effective at some point in the future - like after the next Presidential election. That way each side has an equal chance of being the Party initially able to benefit from the rule change. Making it effective immediately would be just a self-serving maneuver by the Democrats to strongarm their progressive agenda into law.
b. Best to Seek Compromise: Actually, think it's best that the Senate doesn't make this change. If a legislative proposal can't get the approval of the President, the majority of the House, and 60% of the Senate, it shouldn't be implemented. Believe that it's more imporant to protect minority rights than to ram through legislation that could easily qualify as "tyranny of the majority". It's simply up to Congress and the President to do their job and come up with a compromise proposal that can get passed.
Comment: Think the real reason that we have been having so much trouble getting the compromise necessary to pass legislation is because the current President is so far left that compromise has become nearly impossible. NOTE: Certainly you didn't see this sort of logjam during the Clinton administration.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Our Wretched Economy - Is it Due to Character and Competence Issues?
Our Country is going Bankrupt for the following Reasons:
A) Welfare/Unemployment Benefts Recipients: Many people on welfare (foodstamps/housing subsidies) and on unemployment choose to sit at home rather than go to work at the "Walmart"'s of this world. Comment: This is one of the major factors relating to our current economic woes. In order to get people off the dole, and save at least some of the billions being poured into these entitlement areas, we need to do one of the following:
a.) Directly reduce entitlement dollars: Make the pay/benefit differential between "Walmart", and welfare/unemployment greater by reducing the entitlement payments, and/or reducing the timeframes that the entitlement payments are allowable, or
b) Enforce Entitlement Rules: We need to ensure enforcement of the Clinton era requirement for people on welfare or unemployment to actually look for/accept semi-suitable employment, or
c) Supplement low wage earners by removing tax burden: As an inducement to work (vice draw entitlement dollars), set a dollar amount, below which no taxes of any amount are deducted from the pay of a wage earner
B) The Incompetent (or Punitive?) Economic Policies of Obama:
a) The Deficit: Soaring way out of hand. We stand on the precipice of becoming the next Greece - riots and all.
b) GNP: Growing at an anemic 2%/year. NOTE: During the Reagan recovery, the GNP grew at 7%/year.
c) Entitlement Programs: Changes need to be made to social security, medicare and medicaid. In the first four years of Obama's Presidency, he hasn't taken any actions to fix the long term problems inherent in our entitlement programs - and to ensure their viability into the future. Solving the entitlement problem is the most significant issue in resolving the deficit problem.
d) Unemployment: The President's actions - Obamacare and Dodd Frank, stifling (through the EPA) the utilization of our energy resources, and his general demonizing of the rich with such comments as "you didn't build that", have inevitably lead to a lack of confidence in the future, and slow/no growth (and no new jobs) through lack of investments.
e) Trend toward greater and greater dependency: Support for a lifestyle/culture of dependency - making it easier to get and stay on food stamps, extending uneployment benefits way beyond the amount of time originally intended, contribute/lead to a culture of dependency and sadly restore the state of affairs that existed prior to Bill Clinton's signing of the Welfare Reform Act which helped alleviate this situation back in the 1990's. While having people become/remain dependent garners the Democratic Party votes, it breeds a culture of hopelessness and despair, and helps keep people in a downtrodden (unemployed) state.
While all of the above would have been fixed under a Romney Presidency, under Obama, the deficit will continue to snowball, we will be downgraded by lending agencies, and we will continue to march down the path to becoming the new Greece - riots and all. I suspect it will take us a generation to recover - much as it took West Germany a generation (or more) to recover from WW2.
Unamerican Thinking: Some would argue that our current sad economic state of affairs is intentional, that Obama has been sabotaging our economic recovery due to his deep seated hatred for this country - that the words "Great Satan" proclaimed by such luminaries as Ahmadinejad does not echo hollow on his ears. Consider the following:
Birds of a Feather: You're typically known by the company you keep:
Reverand Wright: Otherwise known as, Mr. "Not God Bless America, God Damn America". Obama sat in his church for 20 years, and he called him his mentor. Listen to Obama's June 2007 speech at Hampton University (available on Youtube), where the "Great Uniter" praises Wright, and spouts class warfare, sounding like either a devisive panderer or a racist. Relevant comment: I certainly would not have sat in a church headed by a "man of God" espousing white supremacy views for 20 minutes much less 20 years.
Michelle Obama: On Feb 18, 2008 Michelle Obama said that for “the first time” in her adult life,” she was proud of America, as she spoke during a rally to support her husband’s first presidential bid. Sounds an awful lot like a black American with a really big chip on their shoulder.
Bill Ayers: The person from whose living room Obama's first political campaign was launched. Ayers is the former fugitive of the law, and leader of the Weather Underground, which was an American radical left organization whose goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the violent overthrow of the US government.
Marshall Davis: Through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path.
Federal Security Clearance: Was a DOD manager for most of my thirty year career. Based on my knowledge of background checks that are required to get security clearances, Obama - based on who he has associated with (see above), could not have gotten a secret security clearnance much less a top secret security clearance.................. This is the guy we have running our country?
Redistribution of Wealth: Obama's favorite tactic (other than demonizing Romney) was demagouging the Republicans over the issue of taxing the rich. As the self professed "champion of the middle class" he campaigned on making sure that the rich pay their "fair share". Of course, what is the "fair share"? Is the fact that the top 1% of wage earners already pay 40% of the income tax bill not enough - particularly when you consider the fact that the bottom 47% of wage earners of this country pay nothing? In fact, worse yet, these days the bottom 47% are using the ballot box to vote themselves "free stuff" from funds that they country doesn't even have. NOTE: Democrats like to say that low income earners are paying taxes - the social security tax. Wrong - the social security tax is people's contribution to their own retirement program. It is not like the income tax - the tax that pays for the running of this country.
Obama's children's book: - Within this book he states that one of his 13 inspirational characters is Sitting Bull - the Indian Chief largely responsible for the defeat of Custer at the Little Big Horn. My suspicion is that anyone who think's that Custer's Last Stand was orchestrated by a "inspirational" person has a real problem with this country, fitting right in with the left's view of our country through a dark spectrum - as an evil country that has inflicted unfair/inhumane treatment on both internal/external peoples. Specifically, that our misdoings are largely related to our evil capitalistic society's quest for resources, land and power.
Class Warfare: Obama's 2008 pitch about not red and blue states, but the United States has rung hollow. Instead of being the "great uniter", he has turned out to be the "great divider". His entire campaign was based on playing different portions of the voting populace against each other. People are more alienated and ostracised from each other than ever.
Sometimes I wonder is this guy actually the "Manchurian Candidate"?
Our Country is going Bankrupt for the following Reasons:
A) Welfare/Unemployment Benefts Recipients: Many people on welfare (foodstamps/housing subsidies) and on unemployment choose to sit at home rather than go to work at the "Walmart"'s of this world. Comment: This is one of the major factors relating to our current economic woes. In order to get people off the dole, and save at least some of the billions being poured into these entitlement areas, we need to do one of the following:
a.) Directly reduce entitlement dollars: Make the pay/benefit differential between "Walmart", and welfare/unemployment greater by reducing the entitlement payments, and/or reducing the timeframes that the entitlement payments are allowable, or
b) Enforce Entitlement Rules: We need to ensure enforcement of the Clinton era requirement for people on welfare or unemployment to actually look for/accept semi-suitable employment, or
c) Supplement low wage earners by removing tax burden: As an inducement to work (vice draw entitlement dollars), set a dollar amount, below which no taxes of any amount are deducted from the pay of a wage earner
B) The Incompetent (or Punitive?) Economic Policies of Obama:
a) The Deficit: Soaring way out of hand. We stand on the precipice of becoming the next Greece - riots and all.
b) GNP: Growing at an anemic 2%/year. NOTE: During the Reagan recovery, the GNP grew at 7%/year.
c) Entitlement Programs: Changes need to be made to social security, medicare and medicaid. In the first four years of Obama's Presidency, he hasn't taken any actions to fix the long term problems inherent in our entitlement programs - and to ensure their viability into the future. Solving the entitlement problem is the most significant issue in resolving the deficit problem.
d) Unemployment: The President's actions - Obamacare and Dodd Frank, stifling (through the EPA) the utilization of our energy resources, and his general demonizing of the rich with such comments as "you didn't build that", have inevitably lead to a lack of confidence in the future, and slow/no growth (and no new jobs) through lack of investments.
e) Trend toward greater and greater dependency: Support for a lifestyle/culture of dependency - making it easier to get and stay on food stamps, extending uneployment benefits way beyond the amount of time originally intended, contribute/lead to a culture of dependency and sadly restore the state of affairs that existed prior to Bill Clinton's signing of the Welfare Reform Act which helped alleviate this situation back in the 1990's. While having people become/remain dependent garners the Democratic Party votes, it breeds a culture of hopelessness and despair, and helps keep people in a downtrodden (unemployed) state.
While all of the above would have been fixed under a Romney Presidency, under Obama, the deficit will continue to snowball, we will be downgraded by lending agencies, and we will continue to march down the path to becoming the new Greece - riots and all. I suspect it will take us a generation to recover - much as it took West Germany a generation (or more) to recover from WW2.
Unamerican Thinking: Some would argue that our current sad economic state of affairs is intentional, that Obama has been sabotaging our economic recovery due to his deep seated hatred for this country - that the words "Great Satan" proclaimed by such luminaries as Ahmadinejad does not echo hollow on his ears. Consider the following:
Birds of a Feather: You're typically known by the company you keep:
Reverand Wright: Otherwise known as, Mr. "Not God Bless America, God Damn America". Obama sat in his church for 20 years, and he called him his mentor. Listen to Obama's June 2007 speech at Hampton University (available on Youtube), where the "Great Uniter" praises Wright, and spouts class warfare, sounding like either a devisive panderer or a racist. Relevant comment: I certainly would not have sat in a church headed by a "man of God" espousing white supremacy views for 20 minutes much less 20 years.
Michelle Obama: On Feb 18, 2008 Michelle Obama said that for “the first time” in her adult life,” she was proud of America, as she spoke during a rally to support her husband’s first presidential bid. Sounds an awful lot like a black American with a really big chip on their shoulder.
Bill Ayers: The person from whose living room Obama's first political campaign was launched. Ayers is the former fugitive of the law, and leader of the Weather Underground, which was an American radical left organization whose goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the violent overthrow of the US government.
Marshall Davis: Through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path.
Federal Security Clearance: Was a DOD manager for most of my thirty year career. Based on my knowledge of background checks that are required to get security clearances, Obama - based on who he has associated with (see above), could not have gotten a secret security clearnance much less a top secret security clearance.................. This is the guy we have running our country?
Redistribution of Wealth: Obama's favorite tactic (other than demonizing Romney) was demagouging the Republicans over the issue of taxing the rich. As the self professed "champion of the middle class" he campaigned on making sure that the rich pay their "fair share". Of course, what is the "fair share"? Is the fact that the top 1% of wage earners already pay 40% of the income tax bill not enough - particularly when you consider the fact that the bottom 47% of wage earners of this country pay nothing? In fact, worse yet, these days the bottom 47% are using the ballot box to vote themselves "free stuff" from funds that they country doesn't even have. NOTE: Democrats like to say that low income earners are paying taxes - the social security tax. Wrong - the social security tax is people's contribution to their own retirement program. It is not like the income tax - the tax that pays for the running of this country.
Obama's children's book: - Within this book he states that one of his 13 inspirational characters is Sitting Bull - the Indian Chief largely responsible for the defeat of Custer at the Little Big Horn. My suspicion is that anyone who think's that Custer's Last Stand was orchestrated by a "inspirational" person has a real problem with this country, fitting right in with the left's view of our country through a dark spectrum - as an evil country that has inflicted unfair/inhumane treatment on both internal/external peoples. Specifically, that our misdoings are largely related to our evil capitalistic society's quest for resources, land and power.
Class Warfare: Obama's 2008 pitch about not red and blue states, but the United States has rung hollow. Instead of being the "great uniter", he has turned out to be the "great divider". His entire campaign was based on playing different portions of the voting populace against each other. People are more alienated and ostracised from each other than ever.
Sometimes I wonder is this guy actually the "Manchurian Candidate"?
Saturday, December 8, 2012
International Carbon and Internet Taxes
Third world countries would like nothing better than for there to be a world government. With a world government, the third world countries - via the United Nations, could vote themselves "free stuff" out of the pockets of the developed countries. A tyranny of the majority scenario would result.
Actually, this sounds a lot like what's happening within the United States these days. The non-taxpaying majority (or near majority) voting themsleves "free stuff" - at the encouragement of the Democratic Party, from the pockets of the more affluent members of our society.
Sadly, there are many from the far Left (Socialists/Marxists) in this country who are supportive of these United Nations imposed taxes. These taxes fit right into their desired worldwide redistributiion of the wealth scenario - rich nations to poor nations, that they consider to be so legitimate/righteous.
We need to ensure that Obama and his far Left allies do not sign a treaty giving the United Nations the authority to tax us, or we will shortly find that we have lost control of our own destiny. If once the United Nations ever gained this authority over us, we will find it very difficult to ever undo.
Third world countries would like nothing better than for there to be a world government. With a world government, the third world countries - via the United Nations, could vote themselves "free stuff" out of the pockets of the developed countries. A tyranny of the majority scenario would result.
Actually, this sounds a lot like what's happening within the United States these days. The non-taxpaying majority (or near majority) voting themsleves "free stuff" - at the encouragement of the Democratic Party, from the pockets of the more affluent members of our society.
Sadly, there are many from the far Left (Socialists/Marxists) in this country who are supportive of these United Nations imposed taxes. These taxes fit right into their desired worldwide redistributiion of the wealth scenario - rich nations to poor nations, that they consider to be so legitimate/righteous.
We need to ensure that Obama and his far Left allies do not sign a treaty giving the United Nations the authority to tax us, or we will shortly find that we have lost control of our own destiny. If once the United Nations ever gained this authority over us, we will find it very difficult to ever undo.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
President Obama and the Economy - "All the Wrong Moves"
The Road to Financial Ruin:
Under Obama, instead of "hope and change" there will be "no hope" because there will be "no change". Our deficit is spiraling out of control, our GDP growth rate is anemic, and our unemployment rate is stagnant (and far worse than it appears because of the millions who have abandoned the work force out of a sense of hopelessness and despair).
The Deficit: Our government/the press isn't taking our 16 trillion dollar debt seriously enough. If we don't do something about this in the very near term, our country is going to go right down the tubes - just like Greece - riots and all. You would think you'd be hearing the politicans/press screaming about this from the rafters, but you hardly hear anything, and even when you do, it's seldom with any real sense of urgency.
The best comparison I can think of for this situation, is a snowball rolling down a hill - getting bigger and bigger, and rolling faster and faster. Pretty soon, it's pretty much unstoppable. Like the snowball, as our deficit gets bigger, it grows, not only by the yearly increase in the deficit, but by the ever growing interest on the deficit. Pretty soon, it's so far out of hand - that you can barely cover the interest on the debt, much less pay the deficit down any.
Entitlements: Changes need to be made to social security, medicare and medicaid. In the first four years of Obama's Presidency, he hasn't taken any actions to fix the long term problems inherent in our entitlement programs to ensure their viability into the future. Solving the entitlement problem is the most significant issue in resolving the deficit problem.
GDP Growth: Under Obama, with a GDP growth rate of approximately 2%, we are experiencing the weakest recovery since the Great Depression. NOTE: During the Reagan years we hit a GDP growth rate of 7%.
Unemployment: Unemployment is holding at around 8%.
Most of the new jobs in the United States are created in small businesses. In order to create these jobs, we need the upper class (the rich) to invest in new or existing small businesses, and for the middle/lower class to be able to get loans and use it to create small businesses.
For the rich, they need to feel that there is a probability of making a profit, without which, they will not invest. For the middle/lower class, they need to be able to obtain loans to start their new businesses, and, again, to feel that there is propability of success. The likelihood of the rich, or the middle/lower class, investing is diminished if there is uncertainty. One factor of uncertainty is "Obamacare". A cost driver requiring businesses to either provide health care, pay a penalty, or make employees work part time. Another uncertainty would be the administration's proposed increase in the current income tax rate for the upper class. A third uncertainty, possible capital gains tax increases - which would lower the profit potential (while the risk of losing money on the new investment remains constant) also decreases the likelihood of investment. Uncertainty is not an inducement for investment.
For the middle/lower classes, they need to be able to get a loan to start their new business. Excessive banking regulations (Dodd/Frank) that inhibits, or prevents, the ability of people to get loans hurt job growth. We need to make sure that reasonable business ventures "get a shot" at being created and becoming a success.
Attitude and expectations play an extremely important role in job growth. Investors need to feel optimistic about the future - that their possible fiscal venture has a reasonable chance of success. Our goal needs to be to do everything we can to make the climate favorable for investment, business creation, and job growth. Without this investment, these businesses will simply not get built, and therefore the new jobs won't be forthcoming. For, in new startups, they "did build that".
Government's role: Before retiring I was a Comptroller of a organization with approximately 800 employees, and $400M/year in revenue. I sort of liken overhead costs at our organization with the function of the federal government. With the federal government being the overhead to the private sector. The federal govt has numerous vital functions - national defense, the courts, providing for the safety net, social security, etc. However, in general, believe that overhead at an activity and the role of the federal govt are basically the same - provide for vital functions for the organization/country at the lowest possible cost.
When I say provide vital functions - this does not in any way include make work projects just to get people off the unemployment roles. This also does not mean farming out monies for the Solyndra's of this world - or for PBS for that matter. Vital means vital. If it isn't absolutely necessary, you don't do it. We need government to be as small as it can be. Keeping costs down will help with the deficit, and free up taxpayer monies for taxpayer usage. We need to grow the private sector (which will help even more with the deficit), not the government sector. Growing the government sector just increases our debt.
I sort of like M. Romney's statement at the last debate, if it isn't worth borrowing money from China to pay for, it isn't worth doing.
Resource Utilization: "The United States has largest energy reserves on Earth, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service" ( see - http://www.humanevents.com/2009/11/02/us-tops-in-energy-resources/).
Even a hardened progressive such as Walter Russell Mead was forced to admit the obvious (see http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/sectors/item/12355-america%E2%80%99s-exploding-energy-reserves-are-also-exploding-myths):
We simply need to make ourselves energy independent. We need to be rid ourselves of our dependancy on countries that we are not friends with (middle east countries/Venuzeula). We have huge supplies of energy (coal, gas, oil) within this country. Now, with our new recovery techniques (such as fracking), it's time to garner and utilize this energy.
We should provide grants to state of the art research centers/colleges, and aggresively pursue research into nuclear fusion. Prizes could be offered that even someone working out of their garage could win. NOTE: If we could figure out nuclear fusion, we could solve the world's energy problems AND curtail greenhouse gas emissions.
We should discontinue providing funds to the Solyndra's of the world. This just throws money (money that we don't even have) down the proverbial black hole. A Solyndra is not competitive with the same sort of companies where cheap labor resides (like in China), and, even more importantly, they are not competitive with less the expensive fossil fuel utilization. The government should not be picking winners and losers between businesses.
The energy is out there, and countries will garner and use it. Energy is what makes the world run, and there is simply and ever growing need for it. If Obama is truly concerned about greenhouse emissions and their adverse effect on our planet, he should want the country that is in the best position to garner these resources in as climate friendly of a manner as possible to be the one doing so - and that would be us - certainly not a Russia, a China, a Saudi Arabia, a Venezuela, or a Brazil. Rather than being a "climate savior", which I suspect is how he thinks of himself, failure to garner and use our energy reserves is actually a disservice (I aliken it to planetary treason on Obama's part) to the long term viability of this planet.
The future looks bright - as long as President Obama and his overzealous EPA henchman don't ruin this opportunity for all of us. The man who said - "under my plan, electricity costs would necessarily skyrocket" ( if you want to see this 2008 Obama conversation do an internet search on - "Obama energy costs skyrocket"), and who stopped the Keystone Pipeline cold can't be trusted to do what is right for the American people on this issue.
Consolidation: Recently moved to the Pittsburgh area. Was kind of shocked at the real estate tax rates for same (at least as compared to where I lived before). Anyway, was looking at a Pittsburgh county map, and noticed that there were in excess of 50 townships (or they might call them bureaus).
Started thinking about the above. It's no wonder that taxes are so high - rather than consolidating, you have 50+ of everything - political officials, township bldgs, police bldgs, administrative support personnel, utility bills, school districts, etc, etc, etc. Have to believe that if states (I'm assuming that the Pittsburgh area is not unique in this situation) would consolidate to the maximum extent possible, huge savings would be garnered for the taxpayers of the Pittsburgh area (and other cities, townships and counties across the U. S.). Probably the most logical consolidation level would be at the city level, or in absence of a big city, at the county level. Township governments should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Most people don't even know who their local township officials are.
Actually, I'd be shocked it Pittsburgh couldn't reduce taxes by at least 50% if they were to consolidate. Realize that such a proposition would be fought tooth and nail by all the political officials/the govt employees in the Pittsburgh area as consolidation would obviously be a real negative for them. But - it's what's best for the taxpayers............ Monies could be spent on what people wanted rather than on unnecessary duplication of effort.
We don't need over 50 sets of peoples doing exactly the same kinds of things. Consolidation could lead to massive tax cuts. Also, the long term burden for states and localities would be reduced - less employees = less retirement costs (pensions and health care costs) NOTE: You can attrition the personnel down, rather than have massive personnel cuts.
Consolidation should also be practived wthin the federal government to the maximum extent posible. The BRAC closings done by the Department of Defense in the 1980s and 1990s are perfect examples.
Too big to fail:
We need to fix this situation. Nothing should be too big to fail. If a bank is so big that we (the United States) can't afford to let it fail because of its probable adverse affects on the economy, it needs to be broken up. NOTE: An example of breaking up companies is Teddy Roosevlt back in the early 1900s. Believe they called it trustbusting.
Once the "too big to fail" banks are broken up, banks will know that a bail-out is no longer an option, and they will exercise due discretion in their business transactions.
Indeed, the housing bubble that caused "The Great Recession" was related to overvalued housing prices and bad mortgages - and not George Bush/Corporate greed - as Democrats are prone to say. The over valued housing prices set us up for a fall, but it was the bad mortages - a plan pushed by our federal government since the Clinton administration that forced banks to make loans to people who would not normally qualify for home loans that caused the recession. While getting people in their own homes is a laudable goal, getting people who can't afford their mortgage payments in a home was a recipe for disaster, and is what caused the recession. Some Democrats like to blame the practice of bundling of mortgages as one of the main causes of the recession. Untrue, bundling good mortages is not a problem, and would never cause a problem, it's the bundling of bad mortgages that created a mess.
Unions: Unionization in general is fine, but union members, and specifically union management, need to keep in mind that excessive demands, that make the companies/industries that their union members work for uncompetitive, is totally counterproductive - i.e., not in the best interests of, the union members that they are representing. On a totally related aside, kneejerk support by Democrats of unreasonable union demans is NOT in the best long term interests of anyone.
All of the above was fixable, and would have been under a Mitt Romney Presidency.
Sadly, under Obama, the deficit will continue to snowball, we will be downgraded by lending agencies, and we will continue to march down the path to becoming the new Greece. I suspect it will take us a generation to recover - much as it took West Germany a generation (or more) to recover from WW2.
The Road to Financial Ruin:
Under Obama, instead of "hope and change" there will be "no hope" because there will be "no change". Our deficit is spiraling out of control, our GDP growth rate is anemic, and our unemployment rate is stagnant (and far worse than it appears because of the millions who have abandoned the work force out of a sense of hopelessness and despair).
The Deficit: Our government/the press isn't taking our 16 trillion dollar debt seriously enough. If we don't do something about this in the very near term, our country is going to go right down the tubes - just like Greece - riots and all. You would think you'd be hearing the politicans/press screaming about this from the rafters, but you hardly hear anything, and even when you do, it's seldom with any real sense of urgency.
The best comparison I can think of for this situation, is a snowball rolling down a hill - getting bigger and bigger, and rolling faster and faster. Pretty soon, it's pretty much unstoppable. Like the snowball, as our deficit gets bigger, it grows, not only by the yearly increase in the deficit, but by the ever growing interest on the deficit. Pretty soon, it's so far out of hand - that you can barely cover the interest on the debt, much less pay the deficit down any.
Entitlements: Changes need to be made to social security, medicare and medicaid. In the first four years of Obama's Presidency, he hasn't taken any actions to fix the long term problems inherent in our entitlement programs to ensure their viability into the future. Solving the entitlement problem is the most significant issue in resolving the deficit problem.
GDP Growth: Under Obama, with a GDP growth rate of approximately 2%, we are experiencing the weakest recovery since the Great Depression. NOTE: During the Reagan years we hit a GDP growth rate of 7%.
Unemployment: Unemployment is holding at around 8%.
Most of the new jobs in the United States are created in small businesses. In order to create these jobs, we need the upper class (the rich) to invest in new or existing small businesses, and for the middle/lower class to be able to get loans and use it to create small businesses.
For the rich, they need to feel that there is a probability of making a profit, without which, they will not invest. For the middle/lower class, they need to be able to obtain loans to start their new businesses, and, again, to feel that there is propability of success. The likelihood of the rich, or the middle/lower class, investing is diminished if there is uncertainty. One factor of uncertainty is "Obamacare". A cost driver requiring businesses to either provide health care, pay a penalty, or make employees work part time. Another uncertainty would be the administration's proposed increase in the current income tax rate for the upper class. A third uncertainty, possible capital gains tax increases - which would lower the profit potential (while the risk of losing money on the new investment remains constant) also decreases the likelihood of investment. Uncertainty is not an inducement for investment.
For the middle/lower classes, they need to be able to get a loan to start their new business. Excessive banking regulations (Dodd/Frank) that inhibits, or prevents, the ability of people to get loans hurt job growth. We need to make sure that reasonable business ventures "get a shot" at being created and becoming a success.
Attitude and expectations play an extremely important role in job growth. Investors need to feel optimistic about the future - that their possible fiscal venture has a reasonable chance of success. Our goal needs to be to do everything we can to make the climate favorable for investment, business creation, and job growth. Without this investment, these businesses will simply not get built, and therefore the new jobs won't be forthcoming. For, in new startups, they "did build that".
Government's role: Before retiring I was a Comptroller of a organization with approximately 800 employees, and $400M/year in revenue. I sort of liken overhead costs at our organization with the function of the federal government. With the federal government being the overhead to the private sector. The federal govt has numerous vital functions - national defense, the courts, providing for the safety net, social security, etc. However, in general, believe that overhead at an activity and the role of the federal govt are basically the same - provide for vital functions for the organization/country at the lowest possible cost.
When I say provide vital functions - this does not in any way include make work projects just to get people off the unemployment roles. This also does not mean farming out monies for the Solyndra's of this world - or for PBS for that matter. Vital means vital. If it isn't absolutely necessary, you don't do it. We need government to be as small as it can be. Keeping costs down will help with the deficit, and free up taxpayer monies for taxpayer usage. We need to grow the private sector (which will help even more with the deficit), not the government sector. Growing the government sector just increases our debt.
I sort of like M. Romney's statement at the last debate, if it isn't worth borrowing money from China to pay for, it isn't worth doing.
Resource Utilization: "The United States has largest energy reserves on Earth, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service" ( see - http://www.humanevents.com/2009/11/02/us-tops-in-energy-resources/).
Even a hardened progressive such as Walter Russell Mead was forced to admit the obvious (see http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/sectors/item/12355-america%E2%80%99s-exploding-energy-reserves-are-also-exploding-myths):
"If the energy revolution now taking shape lives up to its full potential, we are headed into a new century in which the location of the world’s energy resources and the structure of the world’s energy trade support American affluence at home and power abroad….
The energy bonanza changes the American outlook far more dramatically than most people yet realize. This is a Big One, a game changer, and it will likely be a major factor in propelling the United States to the next (and still unknown) stage of development — towards the next incarnation of the American Dream".
We need to fully utilize our natural resources - coal, oil, natural gas. We need to build additional nuclear power plants. We need to try to figure out a way to get nuclear fusion to work. We need to approve the Keystone pipeline. NOTE: The above actions will have the very important side beneifit of creating at least 1 million new jobs. We simply need to make ourselves energy independent. We need to be rid ourselves of our dependancy on countries that we are not friends with (middle east countries/Venuzeula). We have huge supplies of energy (coal, gas, oil) within this country. Now, with our new recovery techniques (such as fracking), it's time to garner and utilize this energy.
We should provide grants to state of the art research centers/colleges, and aggresively pursue research into nuclear fusion. Prizes could be offered that even someone working out of their garage could win. NOTE: If we could figure out nuclear fusion, we could solve the world's energy problems AND curtail greenhouse gas emissions.
We should discontinue providing funds to the Solyndra's of the world. This just throws money (money that we don't even have) down the proverbial black hole. A Solyndra is not competitive with the same sort of companies where cheap labor resides (like in China), and, even more importantly, they are not competitive with less the expensive fossil fuel utilization. The government should not be picking winners and losers between businesses.
The energy is out there, and countries will garner and use it. Energy is what makes the world run, and there is simply and ever growing need for it. If Obama is truly concerned about greenhouse emissions and their adverse effect on our planet, he should want the country that is in the best position to garner these resources in as climate friendly of a manner as possible to be the one doing so - and that would be us - certainly not a Russia, a China, a Saudi Arabia, a Venezuela, or a Brazil. Rather than being a "climate savior", which I suspect is how he thinks of himself, failure to garner and use our energy reserves is actually a disservice (I aliken it to planetary treason on Obama's part) to the long term viability of this planet.
The future looks bright - as long as President Obama and his overzealous EPA henchman don't ruin this opportunity for all of us. The man who said - "under my plan, electricity costs would necessarily skyrocket" ( if you want to see this 2008 Obama conversation do an internet search on - "Obama energy costs skyrocket"), and who stopped the Keystone Pipeline cold can't be trusted to do what is right for the American people on this issue.
Consolidation: Recently moved to the Pittsburgh area. Was kind of shocked at the real estate tax rates for same (at least as compared to where I lived before). Anyway, was looking at a Pittsburgh county map, and noticed that there were in excess of 50 townships (or they might call them bureaus).
Started thinking about the above. It's no wonder that taxes are so high - rather than consolidating, you have 50+ of everything - political officials, township bldgs, police bldgs, administrative support personnel, utility bills, school districts, etc, etc, etc. Have to believe that if states (I'm assuming that the Pittsburgh area is not unique in this situation) would consolidate to the maximum extent possible, huge savings would be garnered for the taxpayers of the Pittsburgh area (and other cities, townships and counties across the U. S.). Probably the most logical consolidation level would be at the city level, or in absence of a big city, at the county level. Township governments should be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Most people don't even know who their local township officials are.
Actually, I'd be shocked it Pittsburgh couldn't reduce taxes by at least 50% if they were to consolidate. Realize that such a proposition would be fought tooth and nail by all the political officials/the govt employees in the Pittsburgh area as consolidation would obviously be a real negative for them. But - it's what's best for the taxpayers............ Monies could be spent on what people wanted rather than on unnecessary duplication of effort.
We don't need over 50 sets of peoples doing exactly the same kinds of things. Consolidation could lead to massive tax cuts. Also, the long term burden for states and localities would be reduced - less employees = less retirement costs (pensions and health care costs) NOTE: You can attrition the personnel down, rather than have massive personnel cuts.
Consolidation should also be practived wthin the federal government to the maximum extent posible. The BRAC closings done by the Department of Defense in the 1980s and 1990s are perfect examples.
Too big to fail:
We need to fix this situation. Nothing should be too big to fail. If a bank is so big that we (the United States) can't afford to let it fail because of its probable adverse affects on the economy, it needs to be broken up. NOTE: An example of breaking up companies is Teddy Roosevlt back in the early 1900s. Believe they called it trustbusting.
Once the "too big to fail" banks are broken up, banks will know that a bail-out is no longer an option, and they will exercise due discretion in their business transactions.
Indeed, the housing bubble that caused "The Great Recession" was related to overvalued housing prices and bad mortgages - and not George Bush/Corporate greed - as Democrats are prone to say. The over valued housing prices set us up for a fall, but it was the bad mortages - a plan pushed by our federal government since the Clinton administration that forced banks to make loans to people who would not normally qualify for home loans that caused the recession. While getting people in their own homes is a laudable goal, getting people who can't afford their mortgage payments in a home was a recipe for disaster, and is what caused the recession. Some Democrats like to blame the practice of bundling of mortgages as one of the main causes of the recession. Untrue, bundling good mortages is not a problem, and would never cause a problem, it's the bundling of bad mortgages that created a mess.
Unions: Unionization in general is fine, but union members, and specifically union management, need to keep in mind that excessive demands, that make the companies/industries that their union members work for uncompetitive, is totally counterproductive - i.e., not in the best interests of, the union members that they are representing. On a totally related aside, kneejerk support by Democrats of unreasonable union demans is NOT in the best long term interests of anyone.
All of the above was fixable, and would have been under a Mitt Romney Presidency.
Sadly, under Obama, the deficit will continue to snowball, we will be downgraded by lending agencies, and we will continue to march down the path to becoming the new Greece. I suspect it will take us a generation to recover - much as it took West Germany a generation (or more) to recover from WW2.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Believe the following article by Mychal Massie is a fantastic summation of why so many Americans are dissatisfied with our President:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.
Mychal Massie - Why I do not like the Obama's:
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.
And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.
It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood... Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.
Mychal Massie - Why I do not like the Obama's:
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.
And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.
It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood... Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)