In this NY Post article, details come to light about the return of Bill Clinton and DPRK's former hostages, Euna Lee and Laura Ling. Entertainment mogul Steve Bing, notable for 'Get Carter,' 'The Polar Express' and 'Beowulf,' lent his Boeing 737 for the journey, costing him $200,000 in fuel alone; he also enlisted the help of his Hollywood PR firm, Rogers & Cowan, to setup "Hangar 25 at Bob Hope International Airport in Burbank" with "three press risers to accommodate more than 100 media and TV crews, and contracted an in-house photographer to capture the event."
Now, the event itself, the return of two captured American hostages, was remarkable and noteworthy, however something is rotten in the State of Denmark. I can't help but think that the Democrats need some sort of grand distraction from their failing foreign and domestic policies, and this "Wag the Dog" sort of Hollywood PR / Hollywood Entertainment Mogul orchestrating the grandiose return, complete with weeping family members and former President Clinton and Vice President Gore hugging each other, is just the sort of thing that distracts most Americans. It was completely an orchestrated Kodak moment.
-----
In this video, courtesy of Real Clear Politics, one can hear Nancy Pelosi talking about Protesters "carrying Swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care." Now, if it were true that these Protesters were carrying Swastikas and the like, does she have any corroborative witnesses? Otherwise, I believe this is another bold faced lie, an outright farcical assertion meant to detract from legitimate debate about an issue that will affect every American. Let's not forget that 5/6 of America has health insurance, and if we're worried that this Obamacare is going to screw up our health insurance, you better be sure we're going to voice our concerns; and when taken in light with previous comments from Obama about Universal / Single Payer Health Care, we have a legitimate grievance that this road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Nancy Pelosi is a twit, and when this National Health Insurance boondoggle collapses, so should her speakership. Americans are finally speaking loud and clear, we don't like Socialism! Will the Democrats listen??
-----
In this Washington Post article, author Philip Kennicott discusses the recent poster found in Los Angeles depicting Obama in a Joker-esque comparison to the recent Joker portrayed by Heath Ledger, with the word "socialism" beneath its depiction. Now, most people would understand this to be a mockery of the "Hope" poster that permeated any and all coverage of Obama during the Presidential Primary. Unfortunately for douche bag author Philip Kennicott, the only thing he's able to see is his self-projected racist ideals.
He actually stated, "By using the 'urban' makeup of the Heath Ledger Joker, instead of the urbane makeup of the Jack Nicholson character, the poster connects Obama to something many of his detractors fear but can't openly discuss. He is black and he is identified with the inner city, a source of political instability in the 1960s and '70s, and a lingering bogeyman in political consciousness despite falling crime rates." In addition to being a racist, this douche bag author has a short term memory problem too. In case he didn't recall, Obama is half-white. Obama was partly raised in Indonesia. Obama was afterwards raised by both his white grandparents in Hawaii. [enter sarcasm] Of course when Americans think of ghetto urban black men, we think of Honolulu... not. This country won't recover from Slavery, Jim Crow, etc. until people stop finding racism in everything; and we most definitely will not recover as long as others are projecting outward their inner racist ideals.
-----
In this Dallas News article, "Texas Sen. John Cornyn, accusing the White House of compiling an 'enemies list,' has asked President Barack Obama to stop an effort to collect 'fishy' information Americans see about a health care overhaul." This was in response to the White House official website http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ which asked that "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
In the former DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik), aka East Germany, the most effective means of gathering information via the Stasi, was the use of 2.5% of its civilian population. Does anyone see any parallels here? The informants in the DDR were used to root out the 'class enemy.' Those who didn't agree with the benevolent State were arrested, falsely accused of crimes they didn't commit, imprisoned, re-educated, etc. President Obama is on the record advocating a Civilian Force equal to or greater than our military. The path we're walking down is a dangerous one. Fascism, or as defined by Mussolini who wrote Facismo Manifesto, corporatism, is already alive in this country. Think about red light cameras, speed cameras, etc. Any time a corporation merges with the State to enforce State Law, it's part of a fascist regime. I'm not saying that Obama is a Fascist, but...
-----
In this Columbus Dispatch article, ambivalence of the law has run amok again, in this case, involving a police officer. A "Gahanna police officer pleaded guilty this morning to speeding charges after he was ticketed last month for traveling almost 150 miles per hour on a motorcycle." Not only was he caught eight days previously, he was also warned via phone call to his superiors. Granted there are good cops, but there are bad cops too.
This brings up this morning when I was on the train. Now most people probably won't agree with my conclusion regarding this story, but nonetheless, I was taking the Metrolink Gold Line from Union Station to Pasadena for work. The LA County Sheriffs routinely get on the train and ask for proof of fare. This morning the cop got on, did his routine, then talked to a nearby passenger. The man asked why the cops were on, and the cop said to check proof of fare but also to provide safety. Fair enough, however he elaborated and stated that they're responsible for making the trains safe. Now, I don't disagree that police presence provides safety, but the police aren't around 100% of the time. No person is going to commit a crime either if they know the police are on board. The reason crime is committed is because a person believes chance is on their side and they therefore won't get caught.
Robert A. Heinlein is famous for the phrase, "An armed society is a polite society." If we stopped to think about our Constitution, it was written to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." Liberty is really freedom, and the freedom we fought the British for was the fact that we were "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." When we read the Bill of Rights, the first talks about Speech, Assembly, Petition, Religion, Press, etc. The Second talks about the Right to keep and bear Arms, and that Right shall not be infringed.
We fought the British because of the transgressions of King George against our Life, Liberty and Happiness. We were not afforded the right to have a standing Army for protection, therefore we hand no means to secure our Life. We paid taxes, and taxes are a confiscation of our wealth by a government body for some other purpose. Our wealth is an accumulation of our blood, sweat and tears; we earned it and therefore have the freedom to spend it. We were not afforded representation in his Legislature, therefore we had no input regarding how our taxes were spent which was an usurpation of our Happiness.
Now back to the cop in the train. This man's job is paid for by our tax dollars. This man believes it's his job to make us safe. Who I ask, secures our Right to Life in this instance? The cop does. Who should secure our Right to Life period? We the People should. The quickest deterrent to a crime in progress is the brandishing of a weapon, in this day and age, it's the gun. Would criminals rob if 90% of society were armed? They would have better odds in Vegas than robbing an unarmed Citizen if true. Ask yourself the next time a crime occurs if it could have been prevented by an involved party had they exercised their 2nd Amendment Right. Ask yourself how necessary is it to pay cops six figures a year (with overtime and 100% pension at 50) to secure any of our Rights. Or does it make more sense that they change the focus of police to solving crimes. If a criminal's two thoughts are they can get away with the crime and they won't be caught, making either one more difficult eliminates the possibility of crime taking place.
Now back to the first cop, just think of him next time you get a speeding ticket. Then think about the rest of these paragraphs when you think about whether his job is that necessary when he's encroaching on your Life, Liberty and Happiness.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
I'm open minded, I just don't want to hear what you have to say
In this article by Beth Shayne, a "Conservative kiosk " selling bumper stickers in Concord Mills mall in Concord, North Carolina, will have its lease expire at the end of July without an option to renew because of a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer.
In the letter to the editor, the author hypocritically stated, "It’s hard to stay open-minded when such uncivilized and outdated ideas are endorsed on a daily basis. It’s 2009; please, let’s at least try to put this type of bigotry to an end." I love the display of ignorance and hypocrisy in this entire statement. First, one has to try and stay open-minded? Really, I thought being open minded was a permanent mindset, one either is or isn't. Second, is the author of the letter open minded when they're driven to write an attack in their newspaper because the ideas were contrary to the ones s/he believes in? The author has a right to disagree by not buying the bumper stickers, or even better, opening a kiosk that supports their ideas and let the free market dictate the outcome.
Let's take this a step further. In the second sentence from the referenced quote, the adjective "bigotry" was used. In this case, it was used a pejorative, a word meant to have a belittling effect. I've talked about this before, but when Liberals don't agree with you, they revert to using pejoratives when they run out of arguments. So if they don't agree with you on illegal immigration for example, they'll revert to calling you a racist, bigot, xenophobe, etc. in order to belittle you and your stance on the issue. In this case, the author of the letter to the editor didn't agree with the bumper stickers, so s/he threw out the pejorative bigotry. By definition, bigotry is "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." So really, the kiosk owner is a bigot but the author of the letter isn't?
It's really a financial loss for Concord Mills mall in this entire debacle. Based on the fact that the kiosk owner was able to pay rent for six months since opening, he must have been at least breaking even if not making a profit. Though it doesn't surprise me when I read the owner of the mall was an Obama / Democrat supporter, it does surprise me when Liberals talk about how "open minded" or "tolerant" they are. After all, they are the authors of Laws that ban speech they deem offensive, or as they deceitfully call it, "Hate Speech," contrary of course to our First Amendment Right to speech without government reprisal.
In the letter to the editor, the author hypocritically stated, "It’s hard to stay open-minded when such uncivilized and outdated ideas are endorsed on a daily basis. It’s 2009; please, let’s at least try to put this type of bigotry to an end." I love the display of ignorance and hypocrisy in this entire statement. First, one has to try and stay open-minded? Really, I thought being open minded was a permanent mindset, one either is or isn't. Second, is the author of the letter open minded when they're driven to write an attack in their newspaper because the ideas were contrary to the ones s/he believes in? The author has a right to disagree by not buying the bumper stickers, or even better, opening a kiosk that supports their ideas and let the free market dictate the outcome.
Let's take this a step further. In the second sentence from the referenced quote, the adjective "bigotry" was used. In this case, it was used a pejorative, a word meant to have a belittling effect. I've talked about this before, but when Liberals don't agree with you, they revert to using pejoratives when they run out of arguments. So if they don't agree with you on illegal immigration for example, they'll revert to calling you a racist, bigot, xenophobe, etc. in order to belittle you and your stance on the issue. In this case, the author of the letter to the editor didn't agree with the bumper stickers, so s/he threw out the pejorative bigotry. By definition, bigotry is "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." So really, the kiosk owner is a bigot but the author of the letter isn't?
It's really a financial loss for Concord Mills mall in this entire debacle. Based on the fact that the kiosk owner was able to pay rent for six months since opening, he must have been at least breaking even if not making a profit. Though it doesn't surprise me when I read the owner of the mall was an Obama / Democrat supporter, it does surprise me when Liberals talk about how "open minded" or "tolerant" they are. After all, they are the authors of Laws that ban speech they deem offensive, or as they deceitfully call it, "Hate Speech," contrary of course to our First Amendment Right to speech without government reprisal.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Exploiting Race
In this Breitbart video, CA Sen. Barbara Boxer disputes the views of Black Chamber of Commerce CEO Harry Alford on the issue of Clean Energy (specifically the "American Clean Energy and Security Act") by citing an NAACP resolution on Clean Energy.
The CEO is offended by this and Barbara Boxer displays repeatedly why she doesn't get it. The best analogy I can think of is citing the NAACP during a discussion on theism with the CEO of a black Christian group. Is it really a minority advocacy group's area of expertise in either case? No. When it comes to jobs and job creation, the Chamber of Commerce is the group whose testimony should carry weight during a discussion. When it comes to Civil Rights, fighting discrimination based on ethnicity, race, National origin, etc., the group whose testimony should carry weight would be the NAACP.
The whole idea we should even advocate for our race/ethnicity to begin with is sickening. No one in America would tolerate a White Congressional Caucus or National Association for the Advancement of Whites (NAAW) or a White Chamber of Commerce. In fact, I think the real acronym for NAAW is KKK. This idea that we need advocacy groups, or ethnic/racial Congressional Caucuses, only serves the interests of those groups against the interests of the excluded. When one advocates for whites, they advocate against non-whites.
This is a problem perpetrated by Progressives like Barbara Boxer. They don't see the harm in these organizations, so long as they're minority organizations. This supporting and advocating of ethnic/racial based politics stems from Leftists having been on the wrong side of history, beginning with the fight against Slavery (Republican Party platform under Lincoln) and through Affirmative Action, which promotes one not for the content of their character but for the color of their skin (antithesis of MLK Jr.). Boxer is up for re-election in November 2010. I think it's about time she gets the boot and the beginning of the end for Progressives begins. American Exceptionalism will never return so long as Progressives like Boxer, Reid, Pelosi and Obama control American Policy.
The CEO is offended by this and Barbara Boxer displays repeatedly why she doesn't get it. The best analogy I can think of is citing the NAACP during a discussion on theism with the CEO of a black Christian group. Is it really a minority advocacy group's area of expertise in either case? No. When it comes to jobs and job creation, the Chamber of Commerce is the group whose testimony should carry weight during a discussion. When it comes to Civil Rights, fighting discrimination based on ethnicity, race, National origin, etc., the group whose testimony should carry weight would be the NAACP.
The whole idea we should even advocate for our race/ethnicity to begin with is sickening. No one in America would tolerate a White Congressional Caucus or National Association for the Advancement of Whites (NAAW) or a White Chamber of Commerce. In fact, I think the real acronym for NAAW is KKK. This idea that we need advocacy groups, or ethnic/racial Congressional Caucuses, only serves the interests of those groups against the interests of the excluded. When one advocates for whites, they advocate against non-whites.
This is a problem perpetrated by Progressives like Barbara Boxer. They don't see the harm in these organizations, so long as they're minority organizations. This supporting and advocating of ethnic/racial based politics stems from Leftists having been on the wrong side of history, beginning with the fight against Slavery (Republican Party platform under Lincoln) and through Affirmative Action, which promotes one not for the content of their character but for the color of their skin (antithesis of MLK Jr.). Boxer is up for re-election in November 2010. I think it's about time she gets the boot and the beginning of the end for Progressives begins. American Exceptionalism will never return so long as Progressives like Boxer, Reid, Pelosi and Obama control American Policy.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
For the Common Good
In AP News, Reuters and Bloomberg: it's come to light that House Democrats plan on partially paying for National Health Insurance by imposing a 5.4% Income Tax Surcharge on households making $1 million (read Individuals making $500,000); but the progressive Tax begins at households making $280,000 (read Individuals making $140,000).
So how many households will be affected by this Tax Surcharge? According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Top 10% of Income Earners, or 11.4 million families, earned $259,000 based on 2001 data. Adjusting for inflation, assuming 3%, these families will earn over $328,000 in 2009 which guarantees that at least 11.4 million families will pay this progressive 5.4% Income Tax Surcharge.
So how many people will be helped by these 11.4 million families? According to the aforementioned Bloomberg article, by 2019, 37 million uninsured will have insurance, and 17 million will still not have insurance (half of which are estimated to be illegal immigrants).
There are other caveats to this plan including: 2.5% Income Tax penalty on workers who decline having insurance, "up to the average cost of a health insurance plan" and 8% Employer penalty for not providing health insurance.
In this Bloomberg article, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel state that this Legislation will pass on a partisan basis if need be however Pres. Obama would like the Legislation to be bipartisan. The rest of us know that it doesn't matter if Republicans sign on to this Legislation or not; it's going to pass, just like the $787 billion Stimulus bill and just like the $410 billion Omnibus bill.
Of course, National Health Insurance is predicated on the Progressive ideal that government should tax us for the common good. Your right to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness does not give you the right to accumulate wealth if you can sacrifice just a little bit to help others. Let's make no mistake about this, the right to pursue Happiness means the right to work hard and accumulate wealth, and to have the Liberty to spend your money how you see fit; whether that's being a Scrooge or being Mother Theresa. If our Rights come from God, then only God can take them away. If our Rights come from benevolent Political elitists (Progressives like Pelosi, Reid and Obama), then our Rights will be dictated to us. If you disagree, what's your argument against this usurpation of our right to Life, Liberty and Happiness?
You can read in the Denver Post how, "Thousands of low-income Coloradans reliant on public assistance could get a free cellphone under a plan before the state Public Utilities Commission." "The money — more than $800 million in subsidies were paid last year for low-income phone service across the country — comes from the Universal Service Fund, a tax on all telephone lines. Of that amount, Coloradans received nearly $3.2 million in low-income subsidies."
How about this Reuters article, "Obama mulls rental option for some homeowners." "U.S. government officials are weighing a plan that would let borrowers who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments avoid eviction by renting their homes instead." "Officials are also considering whether the government should make mortgage payments on behalf of borrowers who cannot keep up with their home loans, tapping an unused portion of a $50 billion housing aid kitty."
Since when was it our obligation to provide for other's happiness? Since when was it responsible, hard working Americans responsibility to provide poor people with cell phones or to pay their neighbor's mortgage or subsidize their rent? This redistribution of wealth is not only in most cases petty, it's immoral. Where do we draw the line?
So how many households will be affected by this Tax Surcharge? According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Top 10% of Income Earners, or 11.4 million families, earned $259,000 based on 2001 data. Adjusting for inflation, assuming 3%, these families will earn over $328,000 in 2009 which guarantees that at least 11.4 million families will pay this progressive 5.4% Income Tax Surcharge.
So how many people will be helped by these 11.4 million families? According to the aforementioned Bloomberg article, by 2019, 37 million uninsured will have insurance, and 17 million will still not have insurance (half of which are estimated to be illegal immigrants).
There are other caveats to this plan including: 2.5% Income Tax penalty on workers who decline having insurance, "up to the average cost of a health insurance plan" and 8% Employer penalty for not providing health insurance.
In this Bloomberg article, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel state that this Legislation will pass on a partisan basis if need be however Pres. Obama would like the Legislation to be bipartisan. The rest of us know that it doesn't matter if Republicans sign on to this Legislation or not; it's going to pass, just like the $787 billion Stimulus bill and just like the $410 billion Omnibus bill.
Of course, National Health Insurance is predicated on the Progressive ideal that government should tax us for the common good. Your right to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness does not give you the right to accumulate wealth if you can sacrifice just a little bit to help others. Let's make no mistake about this, the right to pursue Happiness means the right to work hard and accumulate wealth, and to have the Liberty to spend your money how you see fit; whether that's being a Scrooge or being Mother Theresa. If our Rights come from God, then only God can take them away. If our Rights come from benevolent Political elitists (Progressives like Pelosi, Reid and Obama), then our Rights will be dictated to us. If you disagree, what's your argument against this usurpation of our right to Life, Liberty and Happiness?
You can read in the Denver Post how, "Thousands of low-income Coloradans reliant on public assistance could get a free cellphone under a plan before the state Public Utilities Commission." "The money — more than $800 million in subsidies were paid last year for low-income phone service across the country — comes from the Universal Service Fund, a tax on all telephone lines. Of that amount, Coloradans received nearly $3.2 million in low-income subsidies."
How about this Reuters article, "Obama mulls rental option for some homeowners." "U.S. government officials are weighing a plan that would let borrowers who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments avoid eviction by renting their homes instead." "Officials are also considering whether the government should make mortgage payments on behalf of borrowers who cannot keep up with their home loans, tapping an unused portion of a $50 billion housing aid kitty."
Since when was it our obligation to provide for other's happiness? Since when was it responsible, hard working Americans responsibility to provide poor people with cell phones or to pay their neighbor's mortgage or subsidize their rent? This redistribution of wealth is not only in most cases petty, it's immoral. Where do we draw the line?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama Health Care-Not
So, Obama wants to spend $1 Trillion over the next ten years to provide Health Care for 16 million uninsured Americans. Nevermind that this number isn't set in stone, and is a fraction of what the actual cost will be, but for argument's sake, we'll use it. Here are the numbers broken down, $1 Trillion divided by 16 million is $62,500 per person over a ten year period. Hmm... I have Kaiser, and I pay about $350 a month, which is a total of $4,200 per year. Using 4% (average projected growth rate for Health Care Costs), after ten years, the total cost of Health Insurance for me will be $50,426. If the Federal Government paid for these people to have my Health Insurance plan, after ten years the cost would be $807 Billion. For some reason, can't put my finger on it, I almost believe it would be better if the Federal Government just bought these people a Health Insurance plan.
This does not even take into account that family plans cost less per person than individual plans. This does not take into account that if the Federal Government just purchased Health Insurance for the uninsured, 3.8 million more uninsured would get coverage than the proposed 16 million. Knowing that the insured burden the cost of the uninsured, this does not take into account the realized savings that would occur for people that pay for their own insurance. Hence, making Health Care more affordable. These are just a few of the financial considerations that come to mind.
We all know how efficient the DMV, AmTrak, Social Security Administration, Post Office, etc. are. Oh wait, they're not. It's okay though, 60% of Americans pay Federal Income Taxes; the other 40% are too poor to, but they'll be the ones receiving this benefit at public largesse and won't trouble themselves with whatever future price tag that comes with it. I ponder the thought that the Democrat Party is buying the Public. Hmm... at least 40% of them, and there are enough useful idiots in the other 60% to help ensure Democrat dominance in future elections. If only the milquetoast Republicans could make the argument that this is a theft of Liberty. Oh, forgot, under Bush they created Prescription Drug Coverage for Seniors. Shall we say cheers to the proposed Obama Health Care-Not Plan?
This does not even take into account that family plans cost less per person than individual plans. This does not take into account that if the Federal Government just purchased Health Insurance for the uninsured, 3.8 million more uninsured would get coverage than the proposed 16 million. Knowing that the insured burden the cost of the uninsured, this does not take into account the realized savings that would occur for people that pay for their own insurance. Hence, making Health Care more affordable. These are just a few of the financial considerations that come to mind.
We all know how efficient the DMV, AmTrak, Social Security Administration, Post Office, etc. are. Oh wait, they're not. It's okay though, 60% of Americans pay Federal Income Taxes; the other 40% are too poor to, but they'll be the ones receiving this benefit at public largesse and won't trouble themselves with whatever future price tag that comes with it. I ponder the thought that the Democrat Party is buying the Public. Hmm... at least 40% of them, and there are enough useful idiots in the other 60% to help ensure Democrat dominance in future elections. If only the milquetoast Republicans could make the argument that this is a theft of Liberty. Oh, forgot, under Bush they created Prescription Drug Coverage for Seniors. Shall we say cheers to the proposed Obama Health Care-Not Plan?
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Enough is enough
In this Bloomberg article, "California Democrats Seek Tax Boost as Battle Looms," the title says it all. California Voters rejected the May Ballot initiatives seeking to raise taxes to close the $24 Billion deficit. What were Obama's words, oh yeah, 'I won, so I'm gonna trump you on that." Well, California Voters won and we're going to trump you on that. No new taxes. No raising taxes. Now cut the damn budget. We understand the consequences.
However, I have a proposal. Let's not go through the budget and cut program's budgets in order to keep all current programs. Let's ask ourselves, what do we really need from our State. We pay gas taxes for infrastructure projects. We pay CA State Disability Insurance (Income Tax) in case we get injured on the job. We pay Sales Taxes, soon to be 9.75% in LA County. Some of the money is retained by the State, the other portion is distributed to local and county municipalities for their general budgets. We pay property taxes to pay for public education. What do students need most in order to be educated? Books and teachers. Special, expensive programs or technology should be put on the back burner until revenues increase enough in order to provide for these non-essential expenditures. On and on the process goes.
When the revenues are spent on these essential services, and there's no funding left for projects such as paying five years of welfare benefits to single mothers taking education classes, that's too bad. When our prison system has to cut theatre classes, stop maintaining tennis courts, lose cable TV, that's too damn bad. Our State Legislatures need to provide us with a list of essential priorities and continue to fund those priorities as usual. The non-essential programs have to go until the Economic situation improves to the point we can begin to fund them again. Will our State be worse off without these non-essential programs, absolutely not. It's inexcusable as well to withhold county and local municipality revenues when the State isn't mature enough to control its spending.
One last thing, if our State made itself more competitive by lowering Income Taxes and Sales Taxes; businesses and rich individuals (aka people with disposable income) will move here and help create jobs, thus boost our sagging economy. As long as Politicians' focus is to hose the productive segment of Society for the benefit of the not-so-productive segment of Society; the productive segment will vanish.
However, I have a proposal. Let's not go through the budget and cut program's budgets in order to keep all current programs. Let's ask ourselves, what do we really need from our State. We pay gas taxes for infrastructure projects. We pay CA State Disability Insurance (Income Tax) in case we get injured on the job. We pay Sales Taxes, soon to be 9.75% in LA County. Some of the money is retained by the State, the other portion is distributed to local and county municipalities for their general budgets. We pay property taxes to pay for public education. What do students need most in order to be educated? Books and teachers. Special, expensive programs or technology should be put on the back burner until revenues increase enough in order to provide for these non-essential expenditures. On and on the process goes.
When the revenues are spent on these essential services, and there's no funding left for projects such as paying five years of welfare benefits to single mothers taking education classes, that's too bad. When our prison system has to cut theatre classes, stop maintaining tennis courts, lose cable TV, that's too damn bad. Our State Legislatures need to provide us with a list of essential priorities and continue to fund those priorities as usual. The non-essential programs have to go until the Economic situation improves to the point we can begin to fund them again. Will our State be worse off without these non-essential programs, absolutely not. It's inexcusable as well to withhold county and local municipality revenues when the State isn't mature enough to control its spending.
One last thing, if our State made itself more competitive by lowering Income Taxes and Sales Taxes; businesses and rich individuals (aka people with disposable income) will move here and help create jobs, thus boost our sagging economy. As long as Politicians' focus is to hose the productive segment of Society for the benefit of the not-so-productive segment of Society; the productive segment will vanish.
Herr Charles "Joseph Göbbels" Gibson
I wrote my two US Senators and my US House of Representative the following:
"'Prescription for America' by Charlie Gibson will be hosted on June 24, 2009 in the Blue Room of the White House. It's my understanding that this will be a one-sided debate about National Health Care in America. As a Capitalist, I'm opposed to any Socialist remedy that taxes one segment of our Society to provide a benefit for another segment of Society. It's becoming blatantly apparent that Network News and most Cable News Networks are Propaganda Organs for the Obama Administration. I encourage you to stand up for a debate on ideas and end this ridiculous media circus; or is it that Charlie Gibson is the Joseph Goebbels of this Administration?"
Joseph Goebbels was a German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 (wikipedia). Though Charlie Gibson is not a Cabinet Member or Politician, he serves the Administration by promoting its cause. In this case, National Health Care. It's not just unfair that this is a propaganda piece for the Administration, it's disingenuous on the issue of rectifying our Health Care system. The Obama Administration has not only defined the problem, it's proposed the only acceptable cure. The solution isn't a ghastly new Federal Bureaucracy such as what Obama proposes either. However, how are we going to have a genuine debate over this issue when a major Network News channel is acting like the mouthpiece for this Administration? Goebbels and Hitler believed that if you told a big enough lie, the public would believe it through public credulity. National Health Care is that lie.
"'Prescription for America' by Charlie Gibson will be hosted on June 24, 2009 in the Blue Room of the White House. It's my understanding that this will be a one-sided debate about National Health Care in America. As a Capitalist, I'm opposed to any Socialist remedy that taxes one segment of our Society to provide a benefit for another segment of Society. It's becoming blatantly apparent that Network News and most Cable News Networks are Propaganda Organs for the Obama Administration. I encourage you to stand up for a debate on ideas and end this ridiculous media circus; or is it that Charlie Gibson is the Joseph Goebbels of this Administration?"
Joseph Goebbels was a German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 (wikipedia). Though Charlie Gibson is not a Cabinet Member or Politician, he serves the Administration by promoting its cause. In this case, National Health Care. It's not just unfair that this is a propaganda piece for the Administration, it's disingenuous on the issue of rectifying our Health Care system. The Obama Administration has not only defined the problem, it's proposed the only acceptable cure. The solution isn't a ghastly new Federal Bureaucracy such as what Obama proposes either. However, how are we going to have a genuine debate over this issue when a major Network News channel is acting like the mouthpiece for this Administration? Goebbels and Hitler believed that if you told a big enough lie, the public would believe it through public credulity. National Health Care is that lie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)