John Stossel says it with so much more eloquence ('Good News: The World gets Better', RealClearPolitics.com, July 25, 2007) than I, but I have been saying for years that we are victims of our own success. The deer-in-the-headlights response to this statement generally prods me to continue... Were it not for our capitalist system, and the ability to earn obscene profits, people would not have the time to divert to social causes.
Whether it is the environment, poverty, homelessness, or even anti-capitalist protestations, Americans have the luxury to pursue their convictions because of a free market economy and adherence to the rule of law. We live better than any society has ever lived, anywhere; and we take it for granted.
Those living in 'poverty' in America, typically enjoy decent housing with indoor plumbing, electricity, modern appliances, TV with cable, and often a car. This is somewhat better than the upper middle class in places like Indonesia, Africa, most of China, and even large parts of South America; and better than the affluent in many countries.
We have become the most compassionate and giving society on the earth because we could afford to; and we can afford to because we have it really good!
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Pa State Budget...
In regard to Brad Bumstead’s article (‘State staffers return to work’, Tribune-Review, Tuesday, July 10, 2007), I have several questions. Not of Brad, nice piece of work there, but of the residents of PA.
We must understand that the furloughs were for show, another ‘Fast Eddie’ sideshow trick designed to garner support for his budget. But in performing the lay-offs, Rendell designated 25,000 state employees as ‘non-essential.’ If these jobs are not essential to run the Commonwealth, why are the taxpayers of PA forced to pay their salaries and benefits?? Why not open these positions to private industry; where competitive forces could increase efficiency and provide unfettered tax revenue back to the state?
The other question concerns the Governors’ demand of tax credits for movie producers who film in PA. Huh? Is this not akin to an admission that the current tax rates are too high? If our representatives are continuously handing out tax breaks to bring business into the state, doesn’t it follow that the discounted rate would both bring in new, and retain existing business??
Just a thought.
We must understand that the furloughs were for show, another ‘Fast Eddie’ sideshow trick designed to garner support for his budget. But in performing the lay-offs, Rendell designated 25,000 state employees as ‘non-essential.’ If these jobs are not essential to run the Commonwealth, why are the taxpayers of PA forced to pay their salaries and benefits?? Why not open these positions to private industry; where competitive forces could increase efficiency and provide unfettered tax revenue back to the state?
The other question concerns the Governors’ demand of tax credits for movie producers who film in PA. Huh? Is this not akin to an admission that the current tax rates are too high? If our representatives are continuously handing out tax breaks to bring business into the state, doesn’t it follow that the discounted rate would both bring in new, and retain existing business??
Just a thought.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Taxes...
In regard to Jeremy Boren's article ('Lower Hill panel might find cues elsewhere in Pens' arena talks', Tribune-Review, Friday, April 27, 2007 ) -- When are the citizens of western PA going to realize the truth in the old adage: 'If you build it, they will come'? I'm not talking about the arena, rather your communities. Highly confiscatory taxes and burdensome regulations drive dollars (read: jobs) out and keep them away. How many times do you need to see infusions of public cash into 'depressed' areas fail, to realize wealth redistribution schemes never work. What does work is true (read: non-Rendell) tax and regulation reform, providing a business-friendly environment. Need Proof? - check out the 5 fastest growing states in the US; Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Florida, and Utah; what do they have in common? According to the Tax Foundation; lower and simpler systems of tax and regulation. Those states are growing because their business-friendly systems attract companies and employees (read: people, like all those our area has lost). Wake up WPA! A politician's ability to bring tax dollars (read: monies that should never have been taken) BACK into his/her district is not a reason to celebrate; it is just simply poor governance.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
An open letter to America
“I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, and wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?” – George W Bush.
Remember the Iraq war? It was a defining event in recent political history. It was a sweeping military victory that removed a despicable tyrant, followed by a year long struggle against vicious insurgents. The insurgents were holding out hope that their vicious actions would divide and weaken America, but that was not to be. Elected representatives of this glorious republic stood together and showed the terrorists what strength was! Oh, sure, not everyone agreed with the war, many did not; but they never let that division show to the enemy. The elected representatives debated policy and disagreed with each other; but kept these derisions within the walls of the people’s house, which is prudent. The Islamofascist insurgents and terrorists, who respect strength and power above all else, soon came to realize that America was not to be toyed with. They gave up their insurgency years ago, reconciled their sectarian differences, and are securely building the democratic state of Iraq. All this in four years – fully seven years quicker than we did! Amazing!
Wait a tick!! That’s not how it happened!
The real truth about Iraq is that it could have been like that. Unfortunately for thousands of America’s bravest and most honorable citizens, their service pay included a stab in the back from their elected representatives.
You see, we live in a well designed representative republic, not a democracy. Our forebears understood that democracies can lead down a path to socialism and tyranny, so they designed this representative system. In this system, we the people select volunteers from among our ranks to LEAD us. Those selected are to spend their time making the difficult decisions necessary to keep us safe and secure, maintain our liberties, and ensure that our rights are not violated (in other words LEAD). They may often need to act against the perceived communal interest; for blowing with the political wind, or governing by opinion poll are the worst forms of democracy! Those elected must also understand that they represent all of the people within their district; not just those that voted for them. Likewise, they cumulatively represent the United States of America; not just those on one side of the aisle, but ALL of them.
When America does anything, we do it as a country. When we send navy assets to airlift food and people in Indonesia, after the tsunami; WE do that. When we lower tax rates to stimulate the economy and create jobs; WE ALL benefit (I know what you are going to say, but the average American family pays $2600 less now). When America goes to war, WE ALL go to war.
So, when American leaders publicly speak out against the war, its policies, or the actions of our troops, it is detrimental on several levels. First and foremost, these actions have an adverse affect on the morale of troops prosecuting the war. Troops certainly look to their leaders for guidance; but also need to have a sense that the orders they follow are right and just. Conflicting messages about the fairness of their mission confuses the soldiers; making them a less effective force. And a political defeat, pulled from the jaws of victory, could do long term damage to the military’s esprit de corps – something that could take a years to rebuild. Second, these actions and words bolster the resolve of our enemy. The sub-human ‘insurgents’ in Iraq, and their supporters, understand only strength and power, so our enemies see internal quarreling and partisan attacks as signs of weakness. This perceived weakness strengthens their resolve to continue attacking and killing; thinking that the American steadfastness will weaken and we will pull out. So, when you hear "There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. (Murtha, May 19, 2006)” from John Murtha; it translates into another month of violence and hundreds dead. All of the talk about deadlines, timelines and dates for withdrawal infuse our enemies with confidence that their plan will work; if only they can keep up the violence.
We need to stand strong and united, as one America, against this enemy. This is not George Bush’s war; it is our war, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha, Hillary Clinton, New York Times, Washington Post, and me. It is OUR responsibility to ensure victory; and public dissent, partisan quarreling, and political maneuvering is NOT the way to get it done!
Remember the Iraq war? It was a defining event in recent political history. It was a sweeping military victory that removed a despicable tyrant, followed by a year long struggle against vicious insurgents. The insurgents were holding out hope that their vicious actions would divide and weaken America, but that was not to be. Elected representatives of this glorious republic stood together and showed the terrorists what strength was! Oh, sure, not everyone agreed with the war, many did not; but they never let that division show to the enemy. The elected representatives debated policy and disagreed with each other; but kept these derisions within the walls of the people’s house, which is prudent. The Islamofascist insurgents and terrorists, who respect strength and power above all else, soon came to realize that America was not to be toyed with. They gave up their insurgency years ago, reconciled their sectarian differences, and are securely building the democratic state of Iraq. All this in four years – fully seven years quicker than we did! Amazing!
Wait a tick!! That’s not how it happened!
The real truth about Iraq is that it could have been like that. Unfortunately for thousands of America’s bravest and most honorable citizens, their service pay included a stab in the back from their elected representatives.
You see, we live in a well designed representative republic, not a democracy. Our forebears understood that democracies can lead down a path to socialism and tyranny, so they designed this representative system. In this system, we the people select volunteers from among our ranks to LEAD us. Those selected are to spend their time making the difficult decisions necessary to keep us safe and secure, maintain our liberties, and ensure that our rights are not violated (in other words LEAD). They may often need to act against the perceived communal interest; for blowing with the political wind, or governing by opinion poll are the worst forms of democracy! Those elected must also understand that they represent all of the people within their district; not just those that voted for them. Likewise, they cumulatively represent the United States of America; not just those on one side of the aisle, but ALL of them.
When America does anything, we do it as a country. When we send navy assets to airlift food and people in Indonesia, after the tsunami; WE do that. When we lower tax rates to stimulate the economy and create jobs; WE ALL benefit (I know what you are going to say, but the average American family pays $2600 less now). When America goes to war, WE ALL go to war.
So, when American leaders publicly speak out against the war, its policies, or the actions of our troops, it is detrimental on several levels. First and foremost, these actions have an adverse affect on the morale of troops prosecuting the war. Troops certainly look to their leaders for guidance; but also need to have a sense that the orders they follow are right and just. Conflicting messages about the fairness of their mission confuses the soldiers; making them a less effective force. And a political defeat, pulled from the jaws of victory, could do long term damage to the military’s esprit de corps – something that could take a years to rebuild. Second, these actions and words bolster the resolve of our enemy. The sub-human ‘insurgents’ in Iraq, and their supporters, understand only strength and power, so our enemies see internal quarreling and partisan attacks as signs of weakness. This perceived weakness strengthens their resolve to continue attacking and killing; thinking that the American steadfastness will weaken and we will pull out. So, when you hear "There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. (Murtha, May 19, 2006)” from John Murtha; it translates into another month of violence and hundreds dead. All of the talk about deadlines, timelines and dates for withdrawal infuse our enemies with confidence that their plan will work; if only they can keep up the violence.
We need to stand strong and united, as one America, against this enemy. This is not George Bush’s war; it is our war, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha, Hillary Clinton, New York Times, Washington Post, and me. It is OUR responsibility to ensure victory; and public dissent, partisan quarreling, and political maneuvering is NOT the way to get it done!
Thursday, November 09, 2006
We Won!
It seems to me that this election was the most anti-one-party in recent history. The republicans had a platform in 1994, and most of the people voted for it. This year, the democrats had no such platform; and the leadership virtually disappeared during the last two weeks beforehand (except John Kerry, bless his heart!).
Considering that most conservative ballot initiatives and referendums passed with flying colors; and most of the dems that wrested control of seats from republicans were hand-picked conservatives; this election seems to have been completely anti-republican! With nothing else to distract them, voters cast their ballots for the next best thing. Apparently, all in an effort to smack-down the current GOP-ers -- and boy did they ever deserve it!
Hopefully, these new conservative democrats will stand up to their wacked-out-liberal-psycho leadership, and maintain the current conservative slant in the house. The senate was already lost.
Considering that most conservative ballot initiatives and referendums passed with flying colors; and most of the dems that wrested control of seats from republicans were hand-picked conservatives; this election seems to have been completely anti-republican! With nothing else to distract them, voters cast their ballots for the next best thing. Apparently, all in an effort to smack-down the current GOP-ers -- and boy did they ever deserve it!
Hopefully, these new conservative democrats will stand up to their wacked-out-liberal-psycho leadership, and maintain the current conservative slant in the house. The senate was already lost.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Election Season!
Here we go again, its election season!
Great, that means I can’t watch TV for 3 or 4 weeks without getting punch-drunk on idiocy.
The ads I see on TV appear to be produced with the expectation of the viewer’s political ignorance. ‘Santorum votes with George Bush 98% of the time’ one ad spouts. Why is Bush voting; and what is he voting for? He is the president, he doesn’t vote, he signs!
‘Casey was against the pay raise, but he still signed the checks’ intones another ad. Well, of course he did; it’s his job! The state treasurer has to pay for things the house buys!
Then there is Melissa Hart, touchingly wishing her opponent would stop the negative campaigning; all the while the RNC posts ads that slam the same opponent.
The fact that these ads seem to expect the viewer to be stupid is pitiful – The fact that they work is pathetic!!
Great, that means I can’t watch TV for 3 or 4 weeks without getting punch-drunk on idiocy.
The ads I see on TV appear to be produced with the expectation of the viewer’s political ignorance. ‘Santorum votes with George Bush 98% of the time’ one ad spouts. Why is Bush voting; and what is he voting for? He is the president, he doesn’t vote, he signs!
‘Casey was against the pay raise, but he still signed the checks’ intones another ad. Well, of course he did; it’s his job! The state treasurer has to pay for things the house buys!
Then there is Melissa Hart, touchingly wishing her opponent would stop the negative campaigning; all the while the RNC posts ads that slam the same opponent.
The fact that these ads seem to expect the viewer to be stupid is pitiful – The fact that they work is pathetic!!
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Update to Ban-on-the-Smoking-Ban
This Tribune-Review article quotes Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato as stsing "I'm still convinced, now as ever, that (a smoking ban) should be done at the state level,...But I'm also a realist, and with a 14 to 1 vote, this would become law regardless of what I do." You are supposed to make executive decisions based on principles, Dan, not wind-blown opinion or what others might do!!
In exchange for his support, CE Dan asked the council to consider five ammendments. These include exemptions for small bars and taverns, fundraising activities of volunteer groups, and property edjacent to health-care facilities, dropping the 15 foot rule, and a requirement to evaluate the impact on small businesses within one year.
Heck, Dan, that's just about the whole piece of legislation. Either you are for a smoking ban, or you are not!
Pick a side!!
In exchange for his support, CE Dan asked the council to consider five ammendments. These include exemptions for small bars and taverns, fundraising activities of volunteer groups, and property edjacent to health-care facilities, dropping the 15 foot rule, and a requirement to evaluate the impact on small businesses within one year.
Heck, Dan, that's just about the whole piece of legislation. Either you are for a smoking ban, or you are not!
Pick a side!!
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
DDT to Global Warming
John Stossel's piece on realclearpolitics should be enough said on the subject.
The same folks who enabled the deaths of close to a trillion (yes, that is a t), by using baseless junk science and political hysteria to ban DDT; are now doing it with global warming.
Don't settle for it.
The same folks who enabled the deaths of close to a trillion (yes, that is a t), by using baseless junk science and political hysteria to ban DDT; are now doing it with global warming.
Don't settle for it.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Ban on the smoking ban??
Welcome to the Allegheny County, wherein lies the erstwhile city of Pittsburgh, PA
Last week, the county council (a largely unnecessary legislative body) passed a county-wide ban on smoking in workplaces. Opposition from restaurants and bars was brushed aside by dissing their argument – which was that the ban would create an unfair advantage to restaurants and bars outside of the county, where no such ban exists (or probably ever will in SWPA).
This week, the county executive (love the business friendly title? Don’t be fooled) is threatening to veto the ban. It seems that the State Senate just amended the fledgling gambling law to ALLOW smoking in state casinos. The executive’s argument – the casinos would enjoy an unfair advantage over the other bars and restaurants in the county (as if the slot machines do not already provide said advantage)!!
County government needs to get its story straight – either the ban creates an unfair advantage, or it doesn’t!!
Last week, the county council (a largely unnecessary legislative body) passed a county-wide ban on smoking in workplaces. Opposition from restaurants and bars was brushed aside by dissing their argument – which was that the ban would create an unfair advantage to restaurants and bars outside of the county, where no such ban exists (or probably ever will in SWPA).
This week, the county executive (love the business friendly title? Don’t be fooled) is threatening to veto the ban. It seems that the State Senate just amended the fledgling gambling law to ALLOW smoking in state casinos. The executive’s argument – the casinos would enjoy an unfair advantage over the other bars and restaurants in the county (as if the slot machines do not already provide said advantage)!!
County government needs to get its story straight – either the ban creates an unfair advantage, or it doesn’t!!
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Term Limits
The Congress of the United States should be subjected to term limits!
There, I've said it -- out loud.
Why would I embrace an idea I've been arguing against my whole life? Shouldn't the people of this great country be allowed to hire whoever they want to represent them?
Let me think...
When we combine voter apathy with gerrymandered districts and incumbant protection rules, it becomes difficult to embrace any other solution. Longevity in office breeds power; and with it, slinking along in the shadows, corruption.
Most of those in positions of seniority in both the House and Senate have been there for 20+ years. Our founding fathers would turn over in their graves at this notion. As stated in Federalist 52: "As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured".
What Madison and Hamilton meant here, is that the House of Representatives would be more at the mercy of the people with short terms. This lends itself to the idea that the elected would be seeking re-election more often; and therefore would need to please the represented. This however, is written within the context of the House being the only generally elected body of the legislature, and before rules that have created a huge advantage for the officeholder.
If Mssr.s Hamilton and Madison got a good look into the future; at the rules and policies which now affect member's selection; they would be aghast. Strong incumbent perks, advertising budgets, and party money make it almost impossible for the average concerned citizen to have a shot.
These factors put the framer's idea of participatory government in jeapardy. Since it is highly unlikely that the members themselves will change the rules to nullify their competitive advantage; I see no other option than term limits. Pressure, through grassroots campaigns and petitions, on the legislatures, might force reform. Either way, we win. A reformed or term-limited system is certeinly more desireable then the current system.
There, I've said it -- out loud.
Why would I embrace an idea I've been arguing against my whole life? Shouldn't the people of this great country be allowed to hire whoever they want to represent them?
Let me think...
When we combine voter apathy with gerrymandered districts and incumbant protection rules, it becomes difficult to embrace any other solution. Longevity in office breeds power; and with it, slinking along in the shadows, corruption.
Most of those in positions of seniority in both the House and Senate have been there for 20+ years. Our founding fathers would turn over in their graves at this notion. As stated in Federalist 52: "As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured".
What Madison and Hamilton meant here, is that the House of Representatives would be more at the mercy of the people with short terms. This lends itself to the idea that the elected would be seeking re-election more often; and therefore would need to please the represented. This however, is written within the context of the House being the only generally elected body of the legislature, and before rules that have created a huge advantage for the officeholder.
If Mssr.s Hamilton and Madison got a good look into the future; at the rules and policies which now affect member's selection; they would be aghast. Strong incumbent perks, advertising budgets, and party money make it almost impossible for the average concerned citizen to have a shot.
These factors put the framer's idea of participatory government in jeapardy. Since it is highly unlikely that the members themselves will change the rules to nullify their competitive advantage; I see no other option than term limits. Pressure, through grassroots campaigns and petitions, on the legislatures, might force reform. Either way, we win. A reformed or term-limited system is certeinly more desireable then the current system.
Muhammad's innovations
This appears to be the difference between the Islamic world and the west.
A world leader, who denigrated Jesus, or even John, would be thought ill of; perhaps called on it in the press. You certainly would not see a group of Episcopalians burning that leader in effigy in Times Square!
Why? The Christian West actually practices tolerance. Plus, we spend much time doing something they don't -- working at our jobs! We can do that because we are not slaves to a murderous, blood-thirsty ideology keeping us trapped in the seventh century.
BTW, wasn’t it Muhammad who said that true believers should spread the faith by the sword, if necessary?
Hmmm.....
Friday, September 15, 2006
PA Supreme Court architect of their own pay raise?
Wow,
I thought last year's middle-of-the-night-unconstitutional pay raise by the pa legislature was bad. I was mildly surprised when the legislators themselves shot it down in November. Now this: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06258/722069-85.stm. It appears that the act of rescinding the pay raise (act 72) was challenged by several Philadelphia lawyers; and the supreme court upheld one provision of the act. You guessed it; the one that would have rescinded the Judicial Payraises! Now 1045 judges in the state get back pay adjustments to Nov 16th, 2005!
Select * from PA_State_Govt where morals = 'true';
no rows returned.
I thought last year's middle-of-the-night-unconstitutional pay raise by the pa legislature was bad. I was mildly surprised when the legislators themselves shot it down in November. Now this: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06258/722069-85.stm. It appears that the act of rescinding the pay raise (act 72) was challenged by several Philadelphia lawyers; and the supreme court upheld one provision of the act. You guessed it; the one that would have rescinded the Judicial Payraises! Now 1045 judges in the state get back pay adjustments to Nov 16th, 2005!
Select * from PA_State_Govt where morals = 'true';
no rows returned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)