I could start with a list of all the unionized companies that left Peoria, companies that paid a living wage, but the list would be too long. There were many reasons but the major reason was the militant attitude of the unions.
Our new president has made the unions many promises and will make every attempt to push through legislation that will further deplete the federal budget. The most overlooked fear is legislation that increases union power and what it will do to the selling price of the product produced. I do not believe the average union worker understands, that union workers will pay more the items they purchase. Companies such as Walmart, still non-unionized where many union workers and union supporters do their buying.
Also, what it will do to companies that can move production overseas. There has been enough outsourcing for manufacturers to now know who are the relatively stable countries for outsourcing.
Boeing, in order to cut costs, outsourced some products to the wrong countries and factories. They have paid a price through delays and quality. In their new contract with the union they will do less outsourcing which will mean higher costs of their completed product. But as the union gains more power in the work place, companies will be forced to outsource more, or move all manufacturing out of the United States and cut back on hiring and expansion.
What happened in Peoria was that almost all the manufacturing of product left town with one major survivor, Caterpillar. Even Caterpillar who had a workforce of over 35,000 not too many decades ago is now down to less than half that size. Thankfully, Caterpillar does much outsourcing locally which benefits the overall communities.
What should worry Caterpillar and other unionized companies is that we now have an administration in D.C pledged to spread the wealth and bring up the earnings of the middle class by granting greater power to the unions. The more it costs a company to make profits for the stockholders, the more these companies will need to raise the price of their products.
I don't think the average worker fully understands the system. I believe the average worker feels that instead of raising the price of the product, the company should reduce the salaries and bonuses of administration. Most agree that the era of excess salaries, golden parachutes and excessive bonuses are over for those companies that seek governmental bailout money. But, while these dollars that will be saved are sizable, they will not offset the the drain on revenues for rising workplace salaries, health plans and pensions. Thus the costs of goods can only go up for all buyers; union or not.
Fortunately, the demand for health care, services and facilities have been a major asset in offsetting the loss of industry in Peoria. We are expanding rapidly to become the major health provider within 150 mile radius.
After President Obama picks his cabinet he will need to turn quickly to all the special interests on his dance card. It will be interesting to see he (they) set as most desirable to dance with first and I predict it will be the unions, especially the UAW and the teacher unions; first, the tort attorneys, second, the radical environmentalists third, the welfare people fourth, alternate energy and then the middle class and the stacking of the courts with left leaning liberal Democrats.
These are just a few that will get their requests honored on the special interest scene while he attempts to unravel the mess that was smoldering for years and erupted into a Pompeii on September 14.
We should all be concerned that what happened to businesses that produced a product in Peoria doesn't happen to the whole country and we become a country with a static number of big businesses and service providers and our major growth will be in importing.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Obama's Campaign Promises
I like this definition of a defeated politician: The candidate who never has to explain why he (she)is unable to keep his (her)campaign promises".
In didn't take the unions long to call in their "chips" for the massive support they gave Obama. "Labor Wants Obama to Take on Big Fight", by Kris Maher in the WSJ today. Labor wants fast action on the Employee Free Choice Act which is anything but free, to pass this before businesses have more time to organize to fight this disastrous proposed new law.
Quoting Mr. Maher and Kara Scannell, who also contributed t this column, "Both sides say the legislation would lead to increased unionization. Unions say that would lift wages and help the middle class, while businesses say it could increase costs and eventually lead to widespread layoffs.
The bill would give unions--rather than companies under the current law--the choice of having workers vote for a union by signing cards instead of through a secret-ballot election. Cardsigning is preferred by unions because it can be done without an employer's knowledge. With secret-ballot elections, companies typically have months to mount an opposition.
The bill also authorizes an arbitrator to impose a first contract if a union fails to reach agreement with a company by 120 days following the union's formation. Under current law, which the union dislikes immensely, if the two sides don't reach a contract withing a year, the union typically loses it's right to be the exclusive bargaining agent for the workers,"
Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of the Weekly Standard and co-host of the "Beltway Boys" on Fox News Channel. (No Fox will not fade out of political power, watch and see)"An even more telling reflection of labor's new power in Washington is lockstep Democrat support for card check which is overwhelmingly unpopular with the American public. But as a lavish funder of the Democrat Party and the biggest source of manpower in Democrat campaigns, labor expects union leaders to vote for it anyway. And the unions care a lot more about the issue than the public does.
But Obama and Pelosi pledged to be more bi-partisan.
No one in Washington believed her and no one should.
Some say its the economy that is diminishing workers and retirees nest eggs but let's not kid ourselves, like the little girl who told a friend's little girl that "now that we have a black president her family would no longer need to work".
In didn't take the unions long to call in their "chips" for the massive support they gave Obama. "Labor Wants Obama to Take on Big Fight", by Kris Maher in the WSJ today. Labor wants fast action on the Employee Free Choice Act which is anything but free, to pass this before businesses have more time to organize to fight this disastrous proposed new law.
Quoting Mr. Maher and Kara Scannell, who also contributed t this column, "Both sides say the legislation would lead to increased unionization. Unions say that would lift wages and help the middle class, while businesses say it could increase costs and eventually lead to widespread layoffs.
The bill would give unions--rather than companies under the current law--the choice of having workers vote for a union by signing cards instead of through a secret-ballot election. Cardsigning is preferred by unions because it can be done without an employer's knowledge. With secret-ballot elections, companies typically have months to mount an opposition.
The bill also authorizes an arbitrator to impose a first contract if a union fails to reach agreement with a company by 120 days following the union's formation. Under current law, which the union dislikes immensely, if the two sides don't reach a contract withing a year, the union typically loses it's right to be the exclusive bargaining agent for the workers,"
Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of the Weekly Standard and co-host of the "Beltway Boys" on Fox News Channel. (No Fox will not fade out of political power, watch and see)"An even more telling reflection of labor's new power in Washington is lockstep Democrat support for card check which is overwhelmingly unpopular with the American public. But as a lavish funder of the Democrat Party and the biggest source of manpower in Democrat campaigns, labor expects union leaders to vote for it anyway. And the unions care a lot more about the issue than the public does.
But Obama and Pelosi pledged to be more bi-partisan.
No one in Washington believed her and no one should.
Some say its the economy that is diminishing workers and retirees nest eggs but let's not kid ourselves, like the little girl who told a friend's little girl that "now that we have a black president her family would no longer need to work".
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Obama - Not My President
This us the title of a blog I wrote on May 8, 2008. I had 80% more visits to my site over the last 2 days. Many of them were looking up my May 8 blog.
Some of you may wish to read it by accessing my sidebar archives.
Some of you may wish to read it by accessing my sidebar archives.
Peoria Riverfront Museum Mailer
This is the email I sent to Superintendent Hinton today. I have great concern that if the Museum funding project appears on a referendum this spring, the community will not have all the financial facts on yearly operating costs and revenues. Nor will the voter know what will happen if the operating costs are not covered by revenues. The year old operating budget I have states that $30 some thousand would be set aside yearly for fund raising.
If 10% of students were charged only, say $2, and 35 thousand students visited yearly, revenues for these 10 percent would only yield $70,000 toward a year old projection of $4.1 yearly operating costs.
Ken, You once told me that if the newly expanded zoo charged more than $2 per kid for a District #150 school visit that the district would not be able to afford busing your students in due to financials considerations.. I read your testimonial in the Peoria Riverfront Museum mailer today. My question is again, that if the museum is built, how much would you be willing to pay per student per visit?
How many District #150 kids attended Lakeview last academic year and what was the charge per student? If, as you state, 35,000 students in Peoria County are potential visitors; that would make up almost 10% of the total visitors (360,000) per year projected), so it is imperative that I as a county board member get a fair appraisal of the museum's projected operating budget.
I will appreciate your reply.
Merle
If 10% of students were charged only, say $2, and 35 thousand students visited yearly, revenues for these 10 percent would only yield $70,000 toward a year old projection of $4.1 yearly operating costs.
Ken, You once told me that if the newly expanded zoo charged more than $2 per kid for a District #150 school visit that the district would not be able to afford busing your students in due to financials considerations.. I read your testimonial in the Peoria Riverfront Museum mailer today. My question is again, that if the museum is built, how much would you be willing to pay per student per visit?
How many District #150 kids attended Lakeview last academic year and what was the charge per student? If, as you state, 35,000 students in Peoria County are potential visitors; that would make up almost 10% of the total visitors (360,000) per year projected), so it is imperative that I as a county board member get a fair appraisal of the museum's projected operating budget.
I will appreciate your reply.
Merle
Rahm Emanuel - A New Deal for the New Economy
Commenting on Obama's first cabinet job offer to Emanuel please refer my blog of 3/20/08 or the WSJ 3/19/08 edition p. A19. Emanuel was once the lead architect for Hillary Clinton's ill conceived Hillary-Care. Emanuel should send the believers of less government is good government into a panic. This man from Chicago believes in his world there is no inconvenience in life that more and larger government can't ameliorate.
Quoting Lawrence Donaldson from Comfort Texas, "The problem with Democrat Emanuel proposals is that they substitute government wisdom for individual choosing. Yes, sometimes individuals make decisions that turn out badly. Surely he doesn't think government is immune, does he? Impudent individuals turn out to relatively limited to the damage they do to the national well-being. Impudent ideas of the federal government possess the potential to do enormous harm". (Think the sub-prime mess fueled by the Democrats aiding and abetting the downfall of Freddie and Fannie and the mess in the financial markets that are dragging this country into an abyss.
Please don't tell me more government regulation would have prevented the mess we are in. We have enough regulations of the financial industry to fill 10 drawers of storage. But what good were these regulations when the Democrats and some Republicans wouldn't enforce them?
Professor Lee H. Igel, PHD New York University said to "Watch Out, Emanuel wants to take care of you. When it comes to conserving and strengthening what we call the middle class, no reasonable person would argue against "a new social; contract for America's worker that includes quality education and health care, the development of more efficient and effective technologies, and favorable savings and retirement plans. But if there is to be such a contract, it had better be the one that is an ALTERNATE to the idea that 'We the people can have it only by negotiating with our government'".
Emanuel a free market man? No way. A union shill and protectionist? Pull up his history as a Chicago political hack. If this is Obama's idea of how he he going to be an "across the aisle president", buckle up for a more rapid ride to a "Big Brother" who will take care of all middle class needs.
Quoting Lawrence Donaldson from Comfort Texas, "The problem with Democrat Emanuel proposals is that they substitute government wisdom for individual choosing. Yes, sometimes individuals make decisions that turn out badly. Surely he doesn't think government is immune, does he? Impudent individuals turn out to relatively limited to the damage they do to the national well-being. Impudent ideas of the federal government possess the potential to do enormous harm". (Think the sub-prime mess fueled by the Democrats aiding and abetting the downfall of Freddie and Fannie and the mess in the financial markets that are dragging this country into an abyss.
Please don't tell me more government regulation would have prevented the mess we are in. We have enough regulations of the financial industry to fill 10 drawers of storage. But what good were these regulations when the Democrats and some Republicans wouldn't enforce them?
Professor Lee H. Igel, PHD New York University said to "Watch Out, Emanuel wants to take care of you. When it comes to conserving and strengthening what we call the middle class, no reasonable person would argue against "a new social; contract for America's worker that includes quality education and health care, the development of more efficient and effective technologies, and favorable savings and retirement plans. But if there is to be such a contract, it had better be the one that is an ALTERNATE to the idea that 'We the people can have it only by negotiating with our government'".
Emanuel a free market man? No way. A union shill and protectionist? Pull up his history as a Chicago political hack. If this is Obama's idea of how he he going to be an "across the aisle president", buckle up for a more rapid ride to a "Big Brother" who will take care of all middle class needs.
Quote of the week - Barney Frank
In 2003, Frank said, "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing."
Expect this new Congress to do plenty of "rolling of\the dice" with your money.
Expect this new Congress to do plenty of "rolling of\the dice" with your money.
No Confidence in Congrees
Harry Golub, former chairman and CEO of American Express writes in the WSJ today. He says, "He's worried and pessimistic about the prospects for our financial markets and our economy, members both Democrats and Republicans of Congress, will continue to meddle in matters beyond their knowledge.
He says the bubble burst was inevitable. Housing prices rise and fall and this time when they fell they caught people buying homes on speculation, never having ever lived in them; many bought them without them having any verification of their capacity to repay; some did so fraudulently; and other had "no skin" in the game (known as a down payment)or with negatively amortized mortgages. Imagine if I sold you $10,000 worth of stock with no money down, a low interest rate for the next five years, and you could walk away at any time with my only recourse being to take back the the stock. Of course I wouldn't worry because I securitized the loan and sold it to Fannie or some other financial organization. That's exactly, in substance, what people did.
Why did institutions make these bad loans? They were poor at judging risks and encouraged by Congress and regulators to make these loans, at the same time Congress was encouraging Fannie and Freddie to to buy these loans".
The unfortunate people who saved up and made a downpayment on houses that were overpriced because of the stupidity, many uneducated, greedy financial institutions,
speculators and Congress, mainly Democrats like Dodd, Frank, Schumer and Rangel, were now stuck with these homes whose value was becoming less than the mortgage.
Barnes asks "How can we tell if Congress begins to understand its role in causing the problem and what it must do to help solve it? Here are some signs:
If Congress passes a stimulus package that simply give people money--like this year's $168 million stimulus, which was mostly rebates--they don't get it. Rebates will not stimulate the economy and will not solve the underlying problem.
If Congress tries to "help" the people who cannot afford the house they are in, be assured that we are wasting money and delaying the recovery. (Banks can decide better whether to foreclose or make a deal far better than government entity).
If Congress forces the Treasury to provide cheap equity to companies that are solvent, or automobile companies because of debt owed unions in a politically motivated spending, all of us will suffer a long and deep recession.
If Congress raises marginal tax rates and erects trade barriers, and makes it easier for unions to organize without secret ballots through "card check" legislation, then the recession will be longer and deeper.
It is my belief that comparisons between the current crisis and the Great Depression are generally overblown. However, if Congress does indeed do these things and meddles where it shouldn't we could find ourselves back in the 30's."
We'll see.
He says the bubble burst was inevitable. Housing prices rise and fall and this time when they fell they caught people buying homes on speculation, never having ever lived in them; many bought them without them having any verification of their capacity to repay; some did so fraudulently; and other had "no skin" in the game (known as a down payment)or with negatively amortized mortgages. Imagine if I sold you $10,000 worth of stock with no money down, a low interest rate for the next five years, and you could walk away at any time with my only recourse being to take back the the stock. Of course I wouldn't worry because I securitized the loan and sold it to Fannie or some other financial organization. That's exactly, in substance, what people did.
Why did institutions make these bad loans? They were poor at judging risks and encouraged by Congress and regulators to make these loans, at the same time Congress was encouraging Fannie and Freddie to to buy these loans".
The unfortunate people who saved up and made a downpayment on houses that were overpriced because of the stupidity, many uneducated, greedy financial institutions,
speculators and Congress, mainly Democrats like Dodd, Frank, Schumer and Rangel, were now stuck with these homes whose value was becoming less than the mortgage.
Barnes asks "How can we tell if Congress begins to understand its role in causing the problem and what it must do to help solve it? Here are some signs:
If Congress passes a stimulus package that simply give people money--like this year's $168 million stimulus, which was mostly rebates--they don't get it. Rebates will not stimulate the economy and will not solve the underlying problem.
If Congress tries to "help" the people who cannot afford the house they are in, be assured that we are wasting money and delaying the recovery. (Banks can decide better whether to foreclose or make a deal far better than government entity).
If Congress forces the Treasury to provide cheap equity to companies that are solvent, or automobile companies because of debt owed unions in a politically motivated spending, all of us will suffer a long and deep recession.
If Congress raises marginal tax rates and erects trade barriers, and makes it easier for unions to organize without secret ballots through "card check" legislation, then the recession will be longer and deeper.
It is my belief that comparisons between the current crisis and the Great Depression are generally overblown. However, if Congress does indeed do these things and meddles where it shouldn't we could find ourselves back in the 30's."
We'll see.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Staying Home Tonight
Thanks, Darin, Joan and Aaron, for inviting me to your victory celebrations tonight. I believe you will win your important posts tonight. But I'm going to stay home and watch the results coming in and listening to the political pundits. I'll stay up late if your races are still open and knock out a blog or two. I'll be praying that I am wrong in predicting a win for Obama.
Good luck and if you are elected, pay attention to recent Republican history. There is a lot to learn but most of it is simple; stay in touch with the common people and don't spend more than you take in.
Judge Ellen Huvelle also said, "So much of what happened in Washington,(and Springfield, I'll add) stretches the envelope, skirts the spirit of the law and lives in loopholes". To Aaron, I'll add, Aaron, before you scratch someone elses back to get them to scratch your back, make sure of what you are supporting. Support earmarks that are considered "community priorities that benefit all the people, not just what your financial supporters think is good for all the rest of us".
Good luck and if you are elected, pay attention to recent Republican history. There is a lot to learn but most of it is simple; stay in touch with the common people and don't spend more than you take in.
Judge Ellen Huvelle also said, "So much of what happened in Washington,(and Springfield, I'll add) stretches the envelope, skirts the spirit of the law and lives in loopholes". To Aaron, I'll add, Aaron, before you scratch someone elses back to get them to scratch your back, make sure of what you are supporting. Support earmarks that are considered "community priorities that benefit all the people, not just what your financial supporters think is good for all the rest of us".
Market Boost
Caterpillar, Deere and Archer-Daniels all rose more than $3 a share as the overall market jumped over 300 points. It was many an analyst prediction that the rapid descent of the marker in the past few weeks was based on an Obama win. I wouldn't predict what the market will do after Obama's win tonight. It could continue upward, buyers hoping that Obama will be persuaded by his handlers that tax increases would not be a good idea right now. Also, his position of spending more federal dollars on infrastructure and alternate fuels, the market may continue to gain back more of it's ridiculous panic based losses.
Much will depend on what Obama says the day or two AFTER his victory speech.
I am prepared for an all Democrat administration. The thought of some of the people who will be gloating tonight or tomorrow, is repulsive to me, Pelosi, Dodd, Reed, Rangel, Waters; politicians who helped put us in the sub-prime mess, Ayers; let's just say "all the radical left". Then there is Rashid Khalidi, Chavez, the Castro brothers, what's his name from Iran, the Saudi monarchy, ACORN leadership, the Tort Bar, Farrakand, and one of the absolute worst, George Soros.
And the radical environmentals will shift into overdrive to protect the "tree frogs".
I can't overlook the liberal left media who crowned the "Messiah" early and ridiculed McCain for his age and Palin as just a cheerleing housewife.
And 85% of Hollywood, all the jealous feminists, the hierarchy of all the teachers' union, Al Gore and John Kerry, most all the professors at the University of Chicago and Harvard, all the terrorists and that terrorist caveman; Usama Bin Laden.
The Republicans can look back at why they fell so far out of favor. And my advice to my Republican friends? Be realistic in your assessments.
Something good has always come out of a change of a political regime. But as federal Judge Ellen Huvelle said as she sentenced Jack Abramoff with an additional 48 months, more than prosecutors had recommended, that was the good, now the bad, "The true victims are members of the public who lost their trust in government".
Not that anybody cares, but I bought 10M more shares in an alternate energy company today. Up $.40. We will see.
Much will depend on what Obama says the day or two AFTER his victory speech.
I am prepared for an all Democrat administration. The thought of some of the people who will be gloating tonight or tomorrow, is repulsive to me, Pelosi, Dodd, Reed, Rangel, Waters; politicians who helped put us in the sub-prime mess, Ayers; let's just say "all the radical left". Then there is Rashid Khalidi, Chavez, the Castro brothers, what's his name from Iran, the Saudi monarchy, ACORN leadership, the Tort Bar, Farrakand, and one of the absolute worst, George Soros.
And the radical environmentals will shift into overdrive to protect the "tree frogs".
I can't overlook the liberal left media who crowned the "Messiah" early and ridiculed McCain for his age and Palin as just a cheerleing housewife.
And 85% of Hollywood, all the jealous feminists, the hierarchy of all the teachers' union, Al Gore and John Kerry, most all the professors at the University of Chicago and Harvard, all the terrorists and that terrorist caveman; Usama Bin Laden.
The Republicans can look back at why they fell so far out of favor. And my advice to my Republican friends? Be realistic in your assessments.
Something good has always come out of a change of a political regime. But as federal Judge Ellen Huvelle said as she sentenced Jack Abramoff with an additional 48 months, more than prosecutors had recommended, that was the good, now the bad, "The true victims are members of the public who lost their trust in government".
Not that anybody cares, but I bought 10M more shares in an alternate energy company today. Up $.40. We will see.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
New Presidents Freedom of Action
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.
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.
Bill Cosby - Did he Endorse Obama?
No, Adam Bee, I never did see where Bill Cosby a black man publicly endorsed Obama and said he would vote for him. If I missed it, send me place and date so I can confirm it on this site . His view and Obama's views on "victimization" are quite different. You should know; you claim to be an intellect.
JSEB Endorsement of Obama for President
There was never any doubt for those who read the details of what the JSEB printed. I'm sure it was an "agonizing" decision of Obama over McCain. As I've written and I believe the JSEB agrees, we could have made better choices for both parties. I agree there is no "limited government" candidate in this era of undisciplined and damaging spending.
That McCain's proposals run up more red ink than Obama's; the JSEB says by double or more, you're talking trillions. "Neither one is fiscally responsible", says David Walker of the Government Accountability Office, an organization which has never been able to even slightly slow down the spending by Congress, even in the last two years.
McCain's proposal of a 300 billion bailout to some homeowners somewhat mirrors what the Democrats are proposing now. Only, McCain meant to buy up delinquent payment homes from those who could afford to keep on making payments and keeping up their property values; and whose properties had move value than the mortgage, while making on time payments as opposed for forfeiture and eviction. No handing it out to the people Obama and Acorn are talking about; the ones who hardly have any or no equity in their homes but still fulfill Obama's dream of everyone owning their own home, afford it or not, and emulating FDR's, "a chicken in every pot". The later I can sympathize with, the former, I cannot.
Drill, baby, drill was like Obama's 57 state "slip". Many of the people who will vote for Obama never understood his slip because they do not know there are only 50 states in the United States, but there are 57 Islamic states. Some slip. As to drilling more in the U.S., the radical environmentalists, all who will be supporting Obama, have held up progress by filing one lawsuit after another on every new pursuit of energy dependence move in this country, making every effort to turn this country backwards similar to the land of the original inhabitants, pristine and peaceful. (How can they support subsidized windmills?)
With the Democrats in charge, oil will come back at higher prices than $140 a barrel because alternate energy now and in the forseeable future will make up or makes up only single digits percentage of world wide energy production. And Government incentives to alternate fuel will greatly increase under Obama if he fulfills his promise to people like Boone Pickens, who has billions invested in alternate energy. Obama says that the U.S. will be independent of Mideast oil within 10 years. That's 2019, mark your calendars.
The JSEB says they don't see Obama as a bogeyman, a "bogeyman" is a racial slur. What others see is what has been verified by the conservative press and ignored by the left leaning media. We hear of Obama's "closer than he admits" relationships with unsavory people. We see the Arabs hoping he will win because he is a "Muslim brother" (their statements, not mine). We see Obama's wife, who after all these years of reaping the benefits of a free American society and now holding a $350,000 job with an entity that is given millions in government subsidies, she has only within the last few years, felt like an American.
We see Obama denying he believes like his preacher, Obama, after 20 years of listening to this man, the man who married the Obama's, Obama denying his relationship with Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers, now turned radical professor, his radical community organizing in Chicago with Ayers as a mentor, including his relationships with corrupt ACORN, his connections with foreign despots, his elitism while claiming to be more compassionate than the McCain's. We see an Obama as a slick orator with limited leadership experience, a man who will appoint judges who make decisions based on empathy. He will thank ACORN by granting them more government funds and he will welcome extremist Michael Moore, Bill Ayers, and the nut from Iran to the White House bedrooms. He will cut funding to our friend, the country of Columbia and increase it to Columbia University and the University of Chicago and all its tentacles; both hotbeds of left leaning liberal professors, and he will propose eventually considerably reduce funds to Israel.
We see a man who is sincere about one thing out of all the many promises he is making; he will "spread the wealth" and his compassion will know no bonds. Illegals will be accepted as citizens as long as they have been here a while. They will have higher education benefits, same as citizens, drivers licences and illegals who come to America to have their babies will be always welcomed as full citizens.
Not mentioned by the JSEB is Obama's sincere statements that he will appoint judges who interpret the constitution they way they wish, meaning that emotions and feelings such as "empathy trumps guilt" and these judicial decisions will override all other considerations.
The JSEB say we voters can change this in two years.
Sure, we can. Not unless the liberal left leaning press all lose their jobs.
The JSEB believes that current conditions will cause an Obama or McCain to cut back on deficit spending and reduce taxes. McCain will reduce taxes on businesses to encourage more private spending and more jobs. Obama plans to shift the spending to more compassionate social spending and government funded infrastructure building neither adding to the GDP. And quickly add more taxes on the profits of the rich to make the U.S. leader in corporate taxation in all the free world.
And the JSEB notes that McCain puts politics first when he picked a woman as his running mate. If she was a homely woman and a good Democrat like the JSEB endorsed for Illinois State governor in 1994, the so called year of the woman, so popular that I forgot her name, would have been more acceptable than just a popular, nice looking, exuberant, common sense State Governor and a family person.
Always thinking of press "copy" the JSEB concludes, "It never hurts to have a guy from Illinois in the White House".
Well, warts and all, I endorse McCain and Palin over an avowed left leaning socialist and his running mate who is a "been around too long old party hack".
But both candidates are wrong in continuing to build a fence separating the U.S. from Mexico. There are better ways, see my previous blogs. And McCain is going to have a tough time reducing the size of our bloated government which he promises to do while Obama promises to expand it. McCain needs to press for reduced spending. Cutting back on earmarks is not that much money and very difficult to determine what is an earmark. Example, is the funding from the highway bill to build a new parking garage for the possible Peoria museum, an earmark? Don't think you'd have a museum supporter saying it's an earmark.
And what if Schock brought back no "earmarks" from D.C.? Would he get reelected?
That McCain's proposals run up more red ink than Obama's; the JSEB says by double or more, you're talking trillions. "Neither one is fiscally responsible", says David Walker of the Government Accountability Office, an organization which has never been able to even slightly slow down the spending by Congress, even in the last two years.
McCain's proposal of a 300 billion bailout to some homeowners somewhat mirrors what the Democrats are proposing now. Only, McCain meant to buy up delinquent payment homes from those who could afford to keep on making payments and keeping up their property values; and whose properties had move value than the mortgage, while making on time payments as opposed for forfeiture and eviction. No handing it out to the people Obama and Acorn are talking about; the ones who hardly have any or no equity in their homes but still fulfill Obama's dream of everyone owning their own home, afford it or not, and emulating FDR's, "a chicken in every pot". The later I can sympathize with, the former, I cannot.
Drill, baby, drill was like Obama's 57 state "slip". Many of the people who will vote for Obama never understood his slip because they do not know there are only 50 states in the United States, but there are 57 Islamic states. Some slip. As to drilling more in the U.S., the radical environmentalists, all who will be supporting Obama, have held up progress by filing one lawsuit after another on every new pursuit of energy dependence move in this country, making every effort to turn this country backwards similar to the land of the original inhabitants, pristine and peaceful. (How can they support subsidized windmills?)
With the Democrats in charge, oil will come back at higher prices than $140 a barrel because alternate energy now and in the forseeable future will make up or makes up only single digits percentage of world wide energy production. And Government incentives to alternate fuel will greatly increase under Obama if he fulfills his promise to people like Boone Pickens, who has billions invested in alternate energy. Obama says that the U.S. will be independent of Mideast oil within 10 years. That's 2019, mark your calendars.
The JSEB says they don't see Obama as a bogeyman, a "bogeyman" is a racial slur. What others see is what has been verified by the conservative press and ignored by the left leaning media. We hear of Obama's "closer than he admits" relationships with unsavory people. We see the Arabs hoping he will win because he is a "Muslim brother" (their statements, not mine). We see Obama's wife, who after all these years of reaping the benefits of a free American society and now holding a $350,000 job with an entity that is given millions in government subsidies, she has only within the last few years, felt like an American.
We see Obama denying he believes like his preacher, Obama, after 20 years of listening to this man, the man who married the Obama's, Obama denying his relationship with Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers, now turned radical professor, his radical community organizing in Chicago with Ayers as a mentor, including his relationships with corrupt ACORN, his connections with foreign despots, his elitism while claiming to be more compassionate than the McCain's. We see an Obama as a slick orator with limited leadership experience, a man who will appoint judges who make decisions based on empathy. He will thank ACORN by granting them more government funds and he will welcome extremist Michael Moore, Bill Ayers, and the nut from Iran to the White House bedrooms. He will cut funding to our friend, the country of Columbia and increase it to Columbia University and the University of Chicago and all its tentacles; both hotbeds of left leaning liberal professors, and he will propose eventually considerably reduce funds to Israel.
We see a man who is sincere about one thing out of all the many promises he is making; he will "spread the wealth" and his compassion will know no bonds. Illegals will be accepted as citizens as long as they have been here a while. They will have higher education benefits, same as citizens, drivers licences and illegals who come to America to have their babies will be always welcomed as full citizens.
Not mentioned by the JSEB is Obama's sincere statements that he will appoint judges who interpret the constitution they way they wish, meaning that emotions and feelings such as "empathy trumps guilt" and these judicial decisions will override all other considerations.
The JSEB say we voters can change this in two years.
Sure, we can. Not unless the liberal left leaning press all lose their jobs.
The JSEB believes that current conditions will cause an Obama or McCain to cut back on deficit spending and reduce taxes. McCain will reduce taxes on businesses to encourage more private spending and more jobs. Obama plans to shift the spending to more compassionate social spending and government funded infrastructure building neither adding to the GDP. And quickly add more taxes on the profits of the rich to make the U.S. leader in corporate taxation in all the free world.
And the JSEB notes that McCain puts politics first when he picked a woman as his running mate. If she was a homely woman and a good Democrat like the JSEB endorsed for Illinois State governor in 1994, the so called year of the woman, so popular that I forgot her name, would have been more acceptable than just a popular, nice looking, exuberant, common sense State Governor and a family person.
Always thinking of press "copy" the JSEB concludes, "It never hurts to have a guy from Illinois in the White House".
Well, warts and all, I endorse McCain and Palin over an avowed left leaning socialist and his running mate who is a "been around too long old party hack".
But both candidates are wrong in continuing to build a fence separating the U.S. from Mexico. There are better ways, see my previous blogs. And McCain is going to have a tough time reducing the size of our bloated government which he promises to do while Obama promises to expand it. McCain needs to press for reduced spending. Cutting back on earmarks is not that much money and very difficult to determine what is an earmark. Example, is the funding from the highway bill to build a new parking garage for the possible Peoria museum, an earmark? Don't think you'd have a museum supporter saying it's an earmark.
And what if Schock brought back no "earmarks" from D.C.? Would he get reelected?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)