In the late 16th century, European sailors visiting the island of Mauritius encountered a flightless bird called the dodo. It was said that the dodo was so stupid and so lacking in the instinct for self-preservation that it would waddle up to the sailors who easily killed them for food. By the middle of the 17th century, the dodo was extinct. Over the years, the word "dodo" has become synonymous with being dim-witted and it has only been recently that scientists and historians, examining the accounts of the bird, have determine that, contrary to popular belief, the dodo was actually a swift runner that fled into the jungle to escape their foreign human predators. In reality, it was what came along with the humans - dogs, cats, rats, and pigs - that preyed upon the birds and especially their eggs and young in their ground nests which ultimately led to the demise of the dodo.
Today there is an animal that deserves the reputation unjustly given to the dodo - the modern American liberal. The American left is constantly on the lookout for any group bent on the destruction of the United States and our way of life. Beginning with the Communist Revolution in Russia, American liberals have embraced ideologies that are antithetical to the ideals of their own country and this continued with the rise of Nazi Germany when many prominent Americans such as Joseph Kennedy Sr and Charles Lindbergh seemed to sympathize with the Nazis. The liberal fondness for all things anti-American was sustained throughout most of the late 20th century by the Cold War until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Overlapping the last ten years or so of Soviet communism, anti-American radical Islam began a rapid ascent which came to the forefront of the American psyche with the horrific events of September 11th. America was blissfully unaware that we were at war with an ideology that is wholly incompatible with our society and way of life. In hindsight, we were terribly naive as there were plenty of indicators and in fact, the radicals made their intentions known to those paying attention.
Unfortunately, American liberals, out of a sense of misplaced fairness, inexplicable national self-loathing or blind political correctness, refuse to acknowledge radical Islam for the deadly serious threat to our way of life that it is. They insist that the political right or "radical Christianity" pose the same threat to the country as radical Islam. In their minds, it makes sense to expend scarce resources to give the same level of scrutiny to an eighty-five year old woman from Iowa when she boards an airplane as it does a twenty-five year old, male, Yemeni exchange student.
These tendencies have resulted in a serious defect in the instinct for self-preservation in liberals and one that, if not corrected will lead them, if not our entire nation, down the same path to extinction as the dodo. This time around however the word "dodo" would be aptly applied.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Amazing Coincidence?
Yesterday I began listening to the audio book, "Founding Brothers" by Joseph J. Ellis which is about the subset of America's Founding Fathers - Adams (John and Abigail), Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington during my morning commute. Just as I inserted the first CD in my car stereo, I looked up and saw a bald eagle fly over the road leading into my neighborhood. An amazing coincidence? I'd like to think of it as a sign.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Gas Prices on the Rise! Surprised? You Shouldn't Be!
According to the AAA, the national average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline has risen from $2.86 less than two months ago to $3.06 today. What is going on? Traditionally, gasoline prices fall after the summer driving season and bottom out in mid-winter. Why then have prices been going up? The answer is QE II. No, not Her Majesty the Queen of England but the second round of quantitative easing undertaken by the Federal Reserve.
On November 3rd, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, announced that the Fed would begin buying long-term Treasury bonds from the government in an operation called quantitative easing in order to increase the money supply and thus spur the lagging economy. Since this was the second time the Fed was trying this, it was dubbed QE II. But where does the money to buy the bonds come from? The answer is nowhere or in other words right out of thin air! The news media sometimes refers to this as "printing money" but in reality, the Fed doesn't actually print the money it just changes the balance in its checkbook and ... poof, like magic, more money. Don't we all wish we could do that!
Wait! What does this have to do with the price of gasoline? Glad you asked! Gasoline is one of the most price sensitive commodities so the price of gasoline gives us the first signs of inflation. But how does the increase in the money supply cause inflation? Another excellent question! A rise in the general price of goods and services is what most of us understand as inflation. However, this doesn't tell the whole story because it doesn't give us the how or why. Inflation occurs when more money chases the same amount of goods and services. Therefore, the value of money decreases and consumers have to pay more for the same items.
In June of 1980, under Jimmy Carter, the misery index (unemployment rate + the rate of inflation) peaked at nearly 22 and it is currently hovering around 11. (http://www.miseryindex.us/) Will one of the legacies of this flailing presidency end up being a return to a Carter-era misery index level? With the help of this Fed and its chairman, it just might!
On November 3rd, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, announced that the Fed would begin buying long-term Treasury bonds from the government in an operation called quantitative easing in order to increase the money supply and thus spur the lagging economy. Since this was the second time the Fed was trying this, it was dubbed QE II. But where does the money to buy the bonds come from? The answer is nowhere or in other words right out of thin air! The news media sometimes refers to this as "printing money" but in reality, the Fed doesn't actually print the money it just changes the balance in its checkbook and ... poof, like magic, more money. Don't we all wish we could do that!
Wait! What does this have to do with the price of gasoline? Glad you asked! Gasoline is one of the most price sensitive commodities so the price of gasoline gives us the first signs of inflation. But how does the increase in the money supply cause inflation? Another excellent question! A rise in the general price of goods and services is what most of us understand as inflation. However, this doesn't tell the whole story because it doesn't give us the how or why. Inflation occurs when more money chases the same amount of goods and services. Therefore, the value of money decreases and consumers have to pay more for the same items.
In June of 1980, under Jimmy Carter, the misery index (unemployment rate + the rate of inflation) peaked at nearly 22 and it is currently hovering around 11. (http://www.miseryindex.us/) Will one of the legacies of this flailing presidency end up being a return to a Carter-era misery index level? With the help of this Fed and its chairman, it just might!
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Your Inheritance - Just Like Hitting the Lottery!
During an appearance on the O'Reilly Factor, Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) said that since those who inherit their parents' money did nothing to earn it, it was like hitting the lottery and they should pay estate taxes on it. This is his justification for a 35% estate tax on inheritance over $10 million. (The Democrats originally were hoping to get 55% on estates of $5 million or more.) Before I continue, let me just say that at 47, it looks like the chances of me leaving an estate of over $10 million to my kids someday aren't very good, so I really don't have a dog in this fight. However, the difference between right and wrong doesn't depend on whether or not I have a personal stake in the matter.
Although I believe it is a compelling argument, I will ignore the fact that an estate has already been taxed as income every year that it was accumulated. I'd rather focus on the contention of Representative Weiner that the children did nothing to earn the money and his unspoken implication that $10 million is more than enough money.
First, I would argue that, at least in my experience, many children help with the family business. Small businesses and farms are traditionally a family affair and kids that work after school in their parents shops, wake at 4 AM to milk the cows, or spend their college summer breaks helping run the family farm or business would certainly disagree with Mr. Weiner's opinion that they have done nothing to earn the money.
Next, I would point out that, even if the children never worked a day to help their parents build the estate, they surely paid a price in missed dance recitals, school plays, sporting events, fishing trips, family vacations, etc., that one or both of the parents had to forego in order to be successful. There is a cost associated with spending time away from one's family; one borne by both parent and child.
Lastly, I contend that, contrary to what liberals fomenting class warfare would have you believe, $10 million isn't really that much money when it comes to a family business. For example, a certain 6 acre lot that I know of in my town on a busy main road is being sold for $6 million dollars. That is a suitable size and location one would need to run a small car dealership. And the building on this particular property doesn't have the required service bays or garage space which would need to be add and would add to the cost of the facility. Then there is the matter of the inventory. 150 cars is not a huge dealership and according to the Detroit Free Press, the average new car price in 2010 was $29,217 so the inventory value alone would be more than $4 million. Without even including home value, personal property, or life insurance benefit, it is easy to see that the value of one's estate can quickly exceeded $10 million as it did in this example. With the 35% estate tax, the children would have to come up with $3.5 million dollars to pay their tax bill which will most likely mean having to sell the family business. A reasonable valuation of an estate comprised of a small family farm would produce a similar result.
I think it is clear that, once again, the liberal justification for taking your money doesn't add up. Contrary to Congressman Weiner's veiled assertion, $10 million isn't a lot of money when one considers an estate that is comprised of a family business or farm. Further, even if inheriting children never worked a day in the family business or on their family's farm - a scenario I consider highly unlikely - the time spent by parents working instead of with the family exacts a toll on their children far in excess of the price of a $2 lottery ticket. I would hope Representative Weiner's children think so too.
Although I believe it is a compelling argument, I will ignore the fact that an estate has already been taxed as income every year that it was accumulated. I'd rather focus on the contention of Representative Weiner that the children did nothing to earn the money and his unspoken implication that $10 million is more than enough money.
First, I would argue that, at least in my experience, many children help with the family business. Small businesses and farms are traditionally a family affair and kids that work after school in their parents shops, wake at 4 AM to milk the cows, or spend their college summer breaks helping run the family farm or business would certainly disagree with Mr. Weiner's opinion that they have done nothing to earn the money.
Next, I would point out that, even if the children never worked a day to help their parents build the estate, they surely paid a price in missed dance recitals, school plays, sporting events, fishing trips, family vacations, etc., that one or both of the parents had to forego in order to be successful. There is a cost associated with spending time away from one's family; one borne by both parent and child.
Lastly, I contend that, contrary to what liberals fomenting class warfare would have you believe, $10 million isn't really that much money when it comes to a family business. For example, a certain 6 acre lot that I know of in my town on a busy main road is being sold for $6 million dollars. That is a suitable size and location one would need to run a small car dealership. And the building on this particular property doesn't have the required service bays or garage space which would need to be add and would add to the cost of the facility. Then there is the matter of the inventory. 150 cars is not a huge dealership and according to the Detroit Free Press, the average new car price in 2010 was $29,217 so the inventory value alone would be more than $4 million. Without even including home value, personal property, or life insurance benefit, it is easy to see that the value of one's estate can quickly exceeded $10 million as it did in this example. With the 35% estate tax, the children would have to come up with $3.5 million dollars to pay their tax bill which will most likely mean having to sell the family business. A reasonable valuation of an estate comprised of a small family farm would produce a similar result.
I think it is clear that, once again, the liberal justification for taking your money doesn't add up. Contrary to Congressman Weiner's veiled assertion, $10 million isn't a lot of money when one considers an estate that is comprised of a family business or farm. Further, even if inheriting children never worked a day in the family business or on their family's farm - a scenario I consider highly unlikely - the time spent by parents working instead of with the family exacts a toll on their children far in excess of the price of a $2 lottery ticket. I would hope Representative Weiner's children think so too.
Monday, December 27, 2010
An Alternate Definition for Politics
The website http://www.merriam-webster.com/ gives its first definition for "POLITICS" as:
1.
a : the art or science of government
b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy
c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
I'd like to offer an alternative definition: Politics is the art or science of government interference causing events or actions to take place that ordinarily would not (and often should not) occur. This typically means programs that violate the laws of economics or science and it is parts b and c of Webster's definition that causes us so much trouble. Granted, in some very specific cases it is necessary for government to step in despite all its inherent inefficiencies because those particular services are essential but would not be provided by the free market. The national defense is perhaps the best example of a necessary government function that would not be met by the free market. On the other hand, bridges to nowhere, the pursuit of "social justice" and programs like cash for clunkers, subsidized corn-based ethanol, government support for the production of electric cars or controversial art such as the depiction of Jesus with ants crawling over him (produced with a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts) would never take place without government intervention because they have no economic, social or scientific merit. Too often, the impetus for the government involvement is to reward political contributors and special interests or to advance a certain ideology.
The liberal icon, Robert F. Kennedy, often said, "Some men see things as they are and ask why? I dream of things that never were and ask why not?" While this paraphrase of George Bernard Shaw makes for colorful oratory and great political rhetoric, its most valuable contribution is in providing a window into the mind of the political Left. It seems to indicate that it is more noble to ask the second question and implies that the dreams that never were - should be - and that government can make them happen. The problem is both questions need to be asked but most importantly, they need to asked without assuming the answer to either indicates some injustice that government should correct. It is the line of thinking that ignores the laws of economics, science and nature and assumes the answers are evidence of injustice, combined with the political reward system that has evolved among our political class that has delivered us the social, economic and governmental crisis we find ourselves in today.
Like many, I occasionally dream at night that I can fly or float and when I wake in the morning to remember I can't, I understand why. However, I don't petition Congress to pass a law against gravity.
1.
a : the art or science of government
b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy
c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
I'd like to offer an alternative definition: Politics is the art or science of government interference causing events or actions to take place that ordinarily would not (and often should not) occur. This typically means programs that violate the laws of economics or science and it is parts b and c of Webster's definition that causes us so much trouble. Granted, in some very specific cases it is necessary for government to step in despite all its inherent inefficiencies because those particular services are essential but would not be provided by the free market. The national defense is perhaps the best example of a necessary government function that would not be met by the free market. On the other hand, bridges to nowhere, the pursuit of "social justice" and programs like cash for clunkers, subsidized corn-based ethanol, government support for the production of electric cars or controversial art such as the depiction of Jesus with ants crawling over him (produced with a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts) would never take place without government intervention because they have no economic, social or scientific merit. Too often, the impetus for the government involvement is to reward political contributors and special interests or to advance a certain ideology.
The liberal icon, Robert F. Kennedy, often said, "Some men see things as they are and ask why? I dream of things that never were and ask why not?" While this paraphrase of George Bernard Shaw makes for colorful oratory and great political rhetoric, its most valuable contribution is in providing a window into the mind of the political Left. It seems to indicate that it is more noble to ask the second question and implies that the dreams that never were - should be - and that government can make them happen. The problem is both questions need to be asked but most importantly, they need to asked without assuming the answer to either indicates some injustice that government should correct. It is the line of thinking that ignores the laws of economics, science and nature and assumes the answers are evidence of injustice, combined with the political reward system that has evolved among our political class that has delivered us the social, economic and governmental crisis we find ourselves in today.
Like many, I occasionally dream at night that I can fly or float and when I wake in the morning to remember I can't, I understand why. However, I don't petition Congress to pass a law against gravity.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
More Isn't Necessarily Better
Someone once said, "When the only tool you have in your tool bag is a hammer, every job looks like a nail." And so it is with our legislators - their only tool is new law. It doesn't matter that typically there are already laws in place that have been violated, haven't been enforced, or have been ignored. From illegal immigration, to gun control, to environmental protection, to Wall St reform, when current law proves to be ineffective, obviously the solution is thousands of pages of additional legislation.
This proclivity to answer bad law with even more bad law isn't restricted to Congress. I recently heard a local Virginia State legislator discussing a law he sponsored requiring all State and local agencies to verify the immigration status of anyone before they can be hired. The gentleman (I wish I could recall his name) told WMAL talk show hosts Fred Grandy and Bryan Nehman that he had a feeling that the law was being ignored. He went on to say that when he looked into it, sure enough, not a single agency was following the law. Fortunately, he said, he was introducing a new bill that would order the agencies to follow the original law. I was astounded! Why didn't he also put them all on "double secret probation."
When Congress began ramming through legislation such as Healthcare reform and the Stimulus package which were becoming increasingly unpopular with the public, conservative Americans coined a clever turn of a phrase, "Don't just do something! Stand there!" It was meant to be witty which I believe it was but it also contained a not so subtle message - sometimes doing nothing is the right thing to do! Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for the country), the House wasn't in the "receive-mode" but they sure got the follow-on message November 2nd!
This proclivity to answer bad law with even more bad law isn't restricted to Congress. I recently heard a local Virginia State legislator discussing a law he sponsored requiring all State and local agencies to verify the immigration status of anyone before they can be hired. The gentleman (I wish I could recall his name) told WMAL talk show hosts Fred Grandy and Bryan Nehman that he had a feeling that the law was being ignored. He went on to say that when he looked into it, sure enough, not a single agency was following the law. Fortunately, he said, he was introducing a new bill that would order the agencies to follow the original law. I was astounded! Why didn't he also put them all on "double secret probation."
When Congress began ramming through legislation such as Healthcare reform and the Stimulus package which were becoming increasingly unpopular with the public, conservative Americans coined a clever turn of a phrase, "Don't just do something! Stand there!" It was meant to be witty which I believe it was but it also contained a not so subtle message - sometimes doing nothing is the right thing to do! Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for the country), the House wasn't in the "receive-mode" but they sure got the follow-on message November 2nd!
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Ideas To Help a Congress Out of Control
1. One legislative item per bill; Don't even think about a "comprehensive" anything!
2. Limit the length of a bill to "x" number of pages.
3. Bills must be written by a Representative or Senator - not staff. The Devil makes use of idle hands. What are they doing if they aren't writing or even reading bills?
4. Bills must me written by hand - reduce the temptation to write on and on with the help of technology.
5. Senators and Representatives must sign an affidavit attesting that they have read a bill (in Toto) before they can vote on it.
6. If they can't reform themselves, amend the Constitution so that Representatives are selected like a jury for a period of 2 years. If an average citizen is good enough to sit in judgement of another citizen and possible sentence them to death, certainly they are capable of writing a few laws. My guess is most Americans would be willing to take a couple years out of their normal life and make $183,000 a year.
William F. Buckley Jr once said, "I'd rather be governed by the first one hundred names in the Cambridge phonebook than the faculty of Harvard." I think he may have been on to something!
2. Limit the length of a bill to "x" number of pages.
3. Bills must be written by a Representative or Senator - not staff. The Devil makes use of idle hands. What are they doing if they aren't writing or even reading bills?
4. Bills must me written by hand - reduce the temptation to write on and on with the help of technology.
5. Senators and Representatives must sign an affidavit attesting that they have read a bill (in Toto) before they can vote on it.
6. If they can't reform themselves, amend the Constitution so that Representatives are selected like a jury for a period of 2 years. If an average citizen is good enough to sit in judgement of another citizen and possible sentence them to death, certainly they are capable of writing a few laws. My guess is most Americans would be willing to take a couple years out of their normal life and make $183,000 a year.
William F. Buckley Jr once said, "I'd rather be governed by the first one hundred names in the Cambridge phonebook than the faculty of Harvard." I think he may have been on to something!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)