A WSJ writer said yesterday that "whoever is elected to office, his freedom will be limited. Mr. Obama is out of money and McCain is out of army, so what might be assumed to be the worst impulses of each--big spender, big scrapper--will be circumscribed by reality. In Obama's case, energy will likely be diverted to other issues. Obama will raise taxes, of course, but he may also feel forced to bow to a clamours base with the non-spending items they favor: the rewriting of union law to force greater unionization of smaller shops, for instance, and a return to a "fairness doctrine" that would limit free speech on the air.
Forget about more freedom for school choice. In a recent speech to the AFT, Obama said is is "tired of hearing about vouchers and school choice". He does want to reform teacher compensation and tenure to recognize expertise. He didn't elaborate how he would compensate but one time he mentioned "pay for performance" in a speech before the AFT Union but the AFT said "forget that".
McCain supports choice and merit pay.
Recently one of my readers wrote in and said Bill Cosby supports Obama. It he does, and I haven't heard he has, he would be denying what is wrong with the way we approach poverty in America. Cosby said we can best help them is by helping them to help themselves. Many in poverty take advantage of what they are offered and move up the social and economic ladder. Other help themselves to our generosity, our pocketbooks and our personal belongings. That why at any given time, 9,000,000,000 people in the U.S. are either incarcerated or in some type of procedure that will end up with them serving time whether in local, state or federal accommodations.
Obama plans to spread the wealth whether deserving or not. Being poor and a victim of the white man qualifies the poor and middle class to a bigger chunk of money. To give more than most already do by their donations, volunteer work, free health care, free schools, libraries, etc., and not least, their compassion.
What else can "spread the wealth" mean?
Bill Cosby said Martin Luther King would be ashamed of many of his people from their attitudes, their lack of respect, their dress and mostly their failing to take advantage of the same free things offered (like public education, public libraries and parks, river, lakes and trails) to everyone in this country.
Obama excels in rhetoric. He cannot run on that fuel. Our history is littered with human experiments in political economy that have delivered far more suffering and murder than human betterment to the citizens of this country.
Dr. Vernon Smith, Nobel prize winner in 2002, commenting on Alan Reynold's "How's Obama going to raise $4.3 trillion", Oct 24, WSJ, says that "Obama's higher capital gains and income taxes will reduce savings and investment at the expense of greater future productivity. (Some freedom) A dozen countries already have ZERO taxes on capital gains (Obama will raise ours to perhaps the highest in the free world) and 8 of them score high on the Economic Freedom Index and high in gross domestic product per capita. Dr. Smith favors making all individuals savings and direct investments deductible from income for tax purposes. Then there would be no need to make any distinction between ordinary income and capital gains. By adding a negative feature to such a net consumption tax, the poor would not only receive redistribution benefit, but have an incentive to save and accumulate capital. Some poor will see this as an opportunity too help themselves."
Dr. Smith assumes that most poor people have a job and would save money. He may be to far up the academic ladder to realize most poor are not qualified to hold a job. Many can't read or refuse to work. No income other than welfare leaves no money to save and invest.
Supposedly Cicero in 55 BC wrote "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."
These words seem familiar and you should recognize them if you read my blogs. I believe I learned them from reading "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire". If elected, I hope Obama gets around to reading more history other than that preached by Rev. White, Louis Farrakand and Bill Ayers and his ex-Weatherman wife, both highly respected by the more radical left wingers of the Democrat party.
Oh, I know the same people reading this will silently criticize me for not recognizing that if you come from poverty, no legitimate father and a crack mother, how could you succeed?
Good question but we are still on the freedom question. Many won't succeed but even under the worst circumstances, our free things like a non-politicized education, free busing, free counseling, freedom of speech and religions freedom, free assembly rights, free health care, free food and clothing; even the poorest can rise above one's circumstances. Circumstances into which one is borne are still not a legitimate excuse for not even trying. If they try and fail, there is still help from many sources in this compassionate community.
Unless they are mentally hindered. There we admittedly need free reform and financial assistance for poverty level and below people but politicians like Dick Durbin are all talk and little action.
Let's hope that Obama doesn't fall in a quagmire of free social levity and forget that he got elected on a weak economy, and out of control spending Congress and the extreme dislike of the present administration. Plus a liberal Left wing leaning media supporting his liberal left wing candidacy.