Louis R. Avallone

Author: liz

  • Tell Me Lies

    Tell Me Lies

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Will Rogers once said, “If you ever injected truth into politics, you have no politics.” Unfortunately, he may be right. Of course, lies also have a devastating effect on others. Some psychologists explain that most folks lie because they believe they won’t be accepted by others – if they tell the truth about who they are. But do politicians lie because the public doesn’t want to hear the truth? Rome’s greatest orator, Marcus Cicero received this campaign advice from his brother in 64 B.C: “Candidates should say whatever the crowd of the day wants to hear.”

    But what about when a politician tells the truth, but the voters are inattentive, or hear only what they want to hear?

    Of course, it’s easier to focus on the “mistruths” of any politician. In Obama’s case: He repeatedly pledged to put the healthcare negotiations on C-SPAN (but didn’t). He promised to reduce the budget deficit by 50% by the end of his first term in office (it’s growing instead). He promised there would be no earmarks in his $787 billion stimulus bill (but there were). During the 2008 campaign, he claimed he didn’t know Jeremiah Wright was radical (even though he attended church services with Wright for 20 years).
    He promised he would have the most transparent administration (although he appointed 44 different “czars” to serve him, outside the glare of public scrutiny and Congressional approval). Then he promised that the “Recovery Act” would save or create jobs (yet unemployment has continued to rise to record levels). He said Obamacare would pay for itself (but Obamacare actually robs funding from Medicare in order to “pay for itself”, starting with $500 billion in 2013 and rising to $716 billion by 2022).
    He said the health care bill wouldn’t increase the deficit by one dime (yet it will actually add at least $340 billion to the national deficit over the next 10 years). He promised in 2009 that, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future” (but deficit spending during this administration has risen to over $5.1 trillion).

    So…what does all of this mean to the American people, like you and me? Well, in the words of Lenin, the former premier of the Soviet Union, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”. This is why it’s important for folks like you and me, in a free society, to make sure that those lies stop.

    Our work is cutout for us because some folks in Washington definitely have this lying principle down pat, and they have a head start on us. But what happens when the lie isn’t so much in the words of the politician, but in the lies we tell ourselves about the politician?

    Consider Obama, for instance. Here are some examples where he just leveled with the American people, told it like it was and opened up:
    Remember in 2008, when Obama told Joe ‘The Plumber’ that, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”? Or how about when Obama said, right before his inauguration in 2009, “Everybody is going to have to give. Everybody is going to have to have some skin in the game.” Or in 2010 when he said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money” (even though poll after poll of likely voters believe the top earners should pay less taxes, not more). Or how about when he told us, “If you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it” (which is true, even though the government’s own estimates indicate that 14 million Americans will lose their current coverage as a result of Obamacare and 17% of all doctors with a private practice said they could close within a year if their financial condition doesn’t improve). Still, it’s the truth from Obama – we can keep our doctor or health plan (if they are still in business, that is).

    And of course, just last week, explaining his business acumen in aiding General Motors, Obama explained that the federal government wasn’t through in the private sector, saying, “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry” (even though General Motors still owes the taxpayers $42 billion).

    Then last month Obama said, “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that” (instead crediting government and luck for any success of business owners). He recently pitched himself to supporters by asking, “Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” (even though history is littered with failed nations wherever such socialism, or collectivism, has been practiced).

    The point of recalling these candid truths is that Obama has leveled with us, for all intents and purposes, in what he believes: redistribution of wealth through higher taxes, a single payer system where the federal government controls your healthcare, and more centralized control of the economy, through managing other industries now, such as banking and energy.

    And even though many folks, in 2008, might not have ever expected this type of “hope” or that kind of “change, the voters will only have themselves to blame this time, in 2012, for any “buyer’s remorse” of a second term for Obama. By then, the only lies left behind will be the ones that voters have told themselves.

  • American Spirit

    American Spirit

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    HITTING THE ROAD

    The road. Most people just want to get the show on the road. That’s usually where the rubber meets the road. Of course, it has often been said that, “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there”. And the American poet Robert Frost wrote famously, “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I — I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.” But if the road to success is always under construction, maybe it will have a bigger tollbooth at the exit ramp now, if President Obama continues to have his way.

    No doubt, by now, you’ve heard Obama’s “roads and bridges” campaign speech from last month, wherein he explained that successful people owed a “toll” for traveling along the road to success. He said, “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

    Well, I’m not sure Obama understands how out of touch that thinking is with the hard-working, enterprising, and risk-taking spirit that is embodied in the American people…and the American dream. Or the notion that our country still offers equality of opportunity…and more so than any other country in recorded history.

    These folks in Washington don’t understand that “big government” is not responsible for all business successes, even though Obama’s rhetoric makes it clear, for those who are successful, that they owe “big time” to “big government”.

    Of course, “big government” can effectively close the doors to businesses, with its heavy hand, through higher (and higher) taxes, increasing regulations, and by dividing the country so that it pits the “haves” versus “the have nots”. We’ve seen the failed, predictable results of such policies, time after time: record unemployment, decreased consumer spending, plummeting home prices, and declining wages.

    In all fairness, though, we should recognize that road and bridges, in high-income economies, are dramatically more advanced, than in middle and low-income economies. In fact, literacy, agricultural yield, and health care all improve with road density, or a more advanced road infrastructure, and this is true in nations all around the world.
    Even the elder President Bush (41) acknowledged the significant, transforming value of our modern-day interstate highway system, which unites us economically, politically, and socially, as never before. President Eisenhower wrote in his memoirs that, “(i)ts impact on the American economy – the jobs it would produce in manufacturing and construction, the rural areas it would open up – was beyond calculation.

    So, yes, Mr. Obama, roads and bridges are important (although well-meaning, and intelligent folks might disagree as to whether better roads and bridges lead to growth, or if it is the other way around). Arguably, the construction of a road by itself is not capable of developing a business, even though it may be a necessary element in doing so.

    And we can also debate whether or not the so-called “successful” among us (that Obama refers to so often), need to pay more taxes, since many pay a disproportionately high level of sales, property, and income taxes to fund the construction of public roads and bridges already.

    But of much greater concern is that the POTUS believes individual success is largely a product of luck, other people, and “big government”, instead of hard work, commitment, and ingenuity.

    This is like a student who did poorly on a test in school, and then blames, the teacher, or the difficulty of the test, for their own poor performance. This nation was not founded upon a principle of luck or blame, but upon the notion that we can all influence our success. This is a work ethic that understands if any of us did poorly on a test in school, then it’s simply because we didn’t study hard enough, and nothing more.

    Obama’s attribution of all good things to luck, or “big government”, is wildly out-of-step with most all Americans. In fact, only 14 percent of Americans believe that success is more a matter of luck, yet an overwhelming 63 percent of Americans believe that hard work usually brings a better life.

    And speaking of a better life, and “moving on up”, it hard not to mention that Sherman Helmsley passed away last month. He was an accomplished actor who portrayed George Jefferson, first on All in the Family, and then later, on The Jeffersons. George Jefferson was the son of an Alabama sharecropper, whose father died when he was 10, and who worked as a custodian, while his wife, Louise, worked as a housekeeper. They moved into a “deluxe apartment in the sky”, as George’s dry cleaning business grew. George didn’t attribute all good things to luck, and he brought to life, the American spirit, that it takes “a whole lot of trying to get up that hill”. As viewers, we wanted them to get their piece of the “pie”; the American dream.

    So, I can’t help but wonder what it would be like, if Obama could make a guest appearance on The Jeffersons, given Obama’s recent commentary on small businesses, and proceeded to explain to George, who started at the bottom, that “(i)f you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
    Oh lord. Weezie, you better get back in here. This isn’t going to turn out well.

  • Forward?

    Forward?

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    The President’s slogan for his 2012 campaign is “FORWARD.” Well, I’m sure he and his handlers hope that this message might invoke thoughts of progress towards a brighter tomorrow, especially for a country where so many still see America, in the spirited words of Ronald Reagan, as that “shining city upon a hill, whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.”

    Well, my friends, “FORWARD” means something entirely different to many of us who recognize the constitutional dilution and economic morass that this administration has foisted upon freedom-loving people everywhere. If the past is any indication of the future, moving “FORWARD” with this administration’s policies means rolling “FORWARD” alright, but it’s like riding in a car, going down a hill, with no brakes, no seat belts, and no steering wheel: It’s irresponsible and insane, but most importantly, people are going to get hurt, no doubt.

    And they already have. Unemployment continues to rise. In fact, just last week, 386,000 people filed for first-time unemployment benefits, which is up 34,000 from the previous week. The number of people who have given up looking for work is at record numbers – 86 million. There are more people on food stamps than ever before in our country’s history – and federal spending in this area of the budget has more than doubled to $75 billion since 2008. And now Ernest & Young just published a study last week that estimated the economy will lose an additional 710,000 jobs, plus after-tax wages are expected to fall for workers, if the currently planned tax increases occur in 2013, which are mainly the Bush tax rates expiring, the Obamacare expansion of the Medicare tax, and increases on investment.

    These are sobering statistics that many Americans will consider thoughtfully when they go to the polls this November (but some won’t at all). With persistent federal budget deficits, rising national debt, the impending bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare, not to mention rising unemployment, Mitt Romney’s campaign is logically centered on his business experience. “I spent my life in the private sector, not in government,” he said during a debate last year, “I only spent four years as a governor. I didn’t inhale. I’m a business guy.” And some say you need to be just that kind of guy, inasmuch as the President oversees annual federal government spending of almost $3.8 billion.

    Perhaps the dominant theme of the 2012 presidential campaign is shaping up to be, in fact, “it’s the economy, stupid,” as so infamously proclaimed by Bill Clinton’s campaign team in 1992. But 20 years later, I’d suggest to you, my friend, that “it’s not just the economy” this time, and if Mitt Romney doesn’t get that, then President Obama’s re-election is almost assured.

    Why? Well, consider for moment that the strength of the economy is not equally as important to all people. This was true, of course, even in 1992, when the Clinton campaign colorfully reminded us that the election was about the economy. However, today, the disparity of the economy’s importance among voters is significantly different than it was in 1992. In fact, dependence on government – from housing, to health and welfare, to retirement and to education – has more than doubled since 1992.

    Housing assistance from the federal government is almost $60 billion today, which is double the expenditures in 1992. Medicare and Medicare costs are almost triple the costs from 1992 – today they top $408 billion. Welfare and low-income heath care assistance by the federal government is over $1 trillion today, representing a 250% rise since 1992.

    Most importantly though, the federal government spends today, more per recipient, for all federal assistance, than the per capita disposable income of all Americans, even though 50% of those recipients of federal assistance do not pay any income taxes (compared to only 30% in 1992).

    There are 91 million Americans dependent on government, which is more than a 12% increase since 1992, which is either a cause, or effect, of a labor force that is now at its smallest size since the 1980s.

    Unlike 1992, this election must not be about the economy alone – and the Obama campaign gets that. In fact, a senior campaign official explained it this way: “The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers.”

    Well, I hope he’s wrong. It was Benjamin Franklin that said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” You see, “it’s not just the economy, stupid,” because the economy is not equally as important to all people, and the disparity of its importance, among Americans, seems to be growing each year, as government dependence rises.

    This doesn’t mean that all folks on government assistance, or those who pay little or no taxes, are not the same as you and me, or do not desire to improve their lot in life through hard work, nor does it suggest that they are not equally troubled by a growing sense of entitlement in our nation, which is incompatible with self-governance; nor does it infer that these same Americans don’t recognize the lessons of history, and the countless nations who have collapsed under the weight of such waste and inefficiency.
    What this does mean is the Obama team feels there are fewer of us, this time around, who believe in such principles, and if the 2012 election is indeed about “the economy, stupid,” then there simply won’t be enough dunce caps to go around.

  • Obamacare

    Obamacare

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    It would be easy to write about the Supreme Court’s historic, unprecedented decision to extend federal power last month by sanctioning “Obamacare,” or socialized medicine, for 300 million Americans, or the Court’s determination that funding this law represents a “tax” on American citizens, and not a “penalty.” We could talk about the semantics in choosing one of those words over another, and how the Court held this law constitutional only because Congress could have identified its enforcement as a “tax” (and not a “penalty”).

    We could also discuss how Justice Roberts supposedly betrayed conservatives, and the Constitution, all in one fail swoop. We could discuss how others feel, instead, that Justice Roberts’ vote was actually helpful to conservatives, and constitutional liberties, because “Obamacare” can now be repealed by 51 (instead of 60) votes in the U.S. Senate, having now been declared strictly a “tax.”

    We could also debate here whether the Court’s decision actually strengthens individual liberties because the only “penalty” from failing to purchase “Obamacare” insurance is a tax, instead of house arrest or property forfeiture or jail time.

    And you might also express relief that the Court did not uphold the law under the Commerce Clause, because that would have given Congress almost unlimited police power to mandate and regulate all sorts of behavior, for whatever Congress might deem a public benefit (and that could be unending, of course).

    And maybe we would discuss the argument that the Court’s decision actually improves states’ rights, by declaring it unconstitutional, and a violation of the Tenth Amendment, for the federal government to withdraw Medicaid funding, or any other federal funding, for states that opt out of “Obamacare”.

    Yes, we could talk about all of these propositions regarding the Supreme Court’s decision on “Obamacare” and participate in the handwringing and worry of its consequences, but with the sound of firecrackers still ringing in our ears from celebrating our nation’s independence on July 4th, I think it’s far more important, and productive, if history is to be our guide, to simply recognize that this law will not endure.

    You see, the “Obamacare” law simply won’t succeed over time; but not because it is not well intentioned. Nor simply because Republicans in the Senate may get the 51 votes needed to repeal the law. It won’t succeed simply because good intentions are not enough and it violates one of the most important truths of life.

    Let me explain. Yes, there are undeniable truths of life. Some are pretty basic, here are a few: Every problem you have is your responsibility, regardless of who caused it. Nobody has it all figured out. People embellish everything. Those who complain the most, accomplish the least. Putting something off makes it more difficult.

    This all leads me to share with you one of the most important truths of life: There is “no free lunch” or in this case, “no free healthcare.” Nobel-prize winning economist Milton Friedman is famous for his “no free lunch” saying, and it refers to the reality that if any goods or services seem “free,” this is only because you are paying for it some other way. Or, more likely, while it may be “free” for some, there necessarily must be others that are paying the way. For example, over the next 10 years, under “Obamacare,” the American people will pay almost $1 trillion in new taxes for their “free healthcare.”

    A “free lunch” (or “free healthcare”) or expanding the federal government is all well- intentioned, no doubt, but it isn’t what it seems. Just like our nation will spend $953 billion on welfare programs this year, yet we still have record levels of poverty. Deficit spending during the Obama administration has been nearly $5.17 trillion, in part to “save” jobs, but the long-term unemployment rate is at its highest level since 1948.

    Then there’s the Social Security program that began in 1935. Legislators back then did not plan for it to be insolvent in 2037 or to start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes by 2016, but those are the facts, despite the intentions at the beginning. Nor did the Medicare program, started in 1965, include a plan for it to be insolvent by 2017. But it will be.

    The same lessons will apply to “Obamacare.” The law simply won’t succeed, but not because it is not well intentioned, or because access to healthcare isn’t part and parcel of the principle that every life is sacred. It won’t succeed because there’s no exceptions to the undeniable truth that there is “no free lunch,” and the majority of Americans see that now, more than ever in recent times. In the words of Ronald Reagan, “It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work — work with us, not over us; stand by our side, not ride on our back.” Well-intentioned legislation then, simply, is not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, enough. And that’s why “Obamacare,” as a tax or penalty, simply won’t endure, regardless of what the Supreme Court calls it.

  • Flawed

    Flawed

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Oscar Wilde surmised that, “Whenever a man does a thoroughly stupid thing, it is always from the noblest motives.” And Murphy’s Law cautions, “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

    Regardless of whether you believe it is sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity, noblest of motives, or malice, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a mannerly way to express the sheer backwards, fruitless, and shortsightedness of this White House. In fact, if you’re like me, you’re just plain, worn-out, trying to make any sense of it all.

    At the end of the day, after all of the economists have completed their examinations, after the political commentators have spun their stance, and after the academics have been argued, it may just boil down to this: Stupid is as stupid does.

    To prove that point, the President issued an Executive Order, earlier this month, that his administration will stop deporting young, illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria: They have to have graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED or served in the military, have no criminal record, be younger than 30 and have been brought to the U.S. under the age of 16, “by no fault of their own”.

    Supporters applauded the President, claiming this Executive Order will “make sure the best and brightest among us can remain with their families.” Critics, however, claim it is an unconstitutional power grab. After all, they argue, we are a nation of laws, not merely of men. And just because some folks feel the President did the “right thing” by issuing this Executive Order, those same folks ought to consider that they may not like the next one.

    Nonetheless, Executive Orders are legally binding orders given by the President. They do not require Congressional approval to take effect, but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress.

    Of course, constitutional scholars will debate the framers’ intent of the vaguely defined “executive power” provided in Article II, but Obama’s instruction this month to federal agencies to cease enforcement of current federal law can hardly be considered as ensuring that our country’s laws are “faithfully executed”. In fact, the President himself, in 2011, answering his critics who wanted amnesty for illegal immigrants, explained this: “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.”

    I suppose times are different now for Obama, because this month he did what he said he couldn’t: suspend deportations. And while many folks want to talk about the flawed process by which this federal immigration policy was enacted, through Executive Order, little attention is being given to the flawed logistics of the policy itself, even if Congress had enacted it.

    Here’s what I mean: There are 800,000 immigrants who will now have an opportunity to obtain work permits, which will give them legal status in the country, for up to two (2) years. How many companies will offer good paying jobs to illegal immigrants, with temporary work permits, knowing that next January, the legal status of these same immigrants could very well change? And if these companies did hire them now, and the next president rescinded Obama’s Executive Order, those same employers would be forced to terminate those immigrants, or be subjected to prosecution for employing illegal immigrants, right? Doesn’t make sense, does it?

    Not only that, but the entire premise of the protection against deportation, offered by the Executive Order, is predicated upon an illegal immigrant coming forward and declaring officially that one (or both) of their parents entered the country illegally. How many illegal immigrants will come forward to claim such protection, when it is unknown how the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), the principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), will use such information, under a different presidential administration? For example, would the parents then be targeted for deportation? Would the parents’ employer(s) then be notified of the parents’ ineligibility to work in the United States?

    And even if an illegal immigrant is willing to jeopardize their parents’ livelihood and make their parents a bigger target for deportation, the deferral of deportation is only effective for two (2) years before the next re-evaluation. What happens if the deferral is granted, but the illegal immigrant turns age 30 before the end of the renewal date?

    I mean, are you and I the only ones who see the flawed policy here? Is anyone still unsure about the motive of this self-serving, hollow, and ridiculous exhibition of political gamesmanship and shortsightedness, all at the unconscionable expense of these immigrants and their families?

    And to add insult to injury, this “policy” is not even new. It’s the same policy from last August when Obama announced that 300,000 deportation cases would be reviewed and non-criminals, and those illegal immigrants who posed no public safety or national security threat, would likely have their cases put “on hold” indefinitely (and that was regardless of your age, education level, or meeting any other criteria).

    No, this policy is not new. And unfortunately, neither is the politics, nor the persistent, moronic expectation of the White House that the country simply can’t tell the difference.

  • Principles and Politics

    Principles and Politics

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    My 7th grade teacher at St. Joseph’s School, Ms. Belanger, taught us an easy way to remember how to spell “principle” and I’ve never forgotten it. Actually, she taught me how to spell “principle” by distinguishing it from “principal,” with who’s spelling of “principle” is often confused (because both words sound alike, of course).

    So as journalists and pundits alike were reporting the “recall” election victory of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker last week, as a testament to the politics of principles, I couldn’t help be reminded of the importance of “principle”, but only by distinguishing it from “politics,” with which it is often confused (because both can look alike these days).

    Of course, yes, Governor Walker’s survival of his recall election does show that “politicians can win on principles,” as Senator Rand Paul commented. However, “principles” and “politics” may not even belong in the same sentence.

    Here’s what I mean: A “principle” is defined as “a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.” By contrast, “politics” is often considered “based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives.”

    So, when Governor Walker sought to curb public unions in his state (which led, ultimately, to his recall election), was he being “principled” or “political”? After threats against his life, harassment of his family, and countless protests against him, as well as enduring baseless rumors to embarrass him, not to mention the nearly 1,000,000 Wisconsin voters who signed a recall petition to remove him from office – which was almost 25% of the total votes cast in the last election for governor – was he being “principled” or “political” to continue his efforts in making Wisconsin state government fiscally sound? He stayed the course, and given the public opposition to his efforts, his intentions seem hardly rooted in the “self-serving objectives” of politics, but more rooted in “principles.”

    Similarly, some folks might ask if President Obama is “playing politics” or standing on principles, regarding a number of issues this election year. While on the campaign trail last week, for example, he urged Congress to stop interest rates on student loans from doubling at the end of June. The Republicans say he is playing politics and want him to come back to Washington, as bipartisan proposals have already been submitted to him to pay the estimated $6 billion needed to address the student loan issue.

    Others question if Obama is playing politics with the bin Laden anniversary, even though Obama still criticizes many of our nation’s policies that made bin Laden’s demise possible. Senator McCain said “Shame on Barack Obama for diminishing the memory of September 11th and the killing of Osama bin Laden by turning it into a cheap political attack ad.”

    Then others wonder if Obama is playing politics with tax reform by hyping the “Buffet rule,” which could be considered re-election politics to simply pit the 99 percent against the one percent.

    Or if he’s playing politics on gay marriage with his constantly evolving view? Or is he playing politics mandating that Catholic institutions distribute contraceptives, even when doing so infringes on the Constitutional freedom of religion? Is it playing politics with high gas prices by saying we can’t drill our way to lower gas prices, but then claiming that, under his administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years?

    Or, is Obama simply like any other politician in an election year, following the conventional wisdom of politics by promising everything to everybody? Perhaps it is no different today, as it was in 64 B.C., when Rome’s greatest orator, Marcus Cicero received this campaign advice from his brother: “Candidates should say whatever the crowd of the day wants to hear. After the election, you can explain to everyone that you would love to help them, but unfortunately circumstances beyond your control have intervened.”

    Sound familiar? Of course it does. You see, by contrast, principle-driven leaders are not concerned with over-promising or, put another way, in fooling some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time (to borrow from the words of Abraham Lincoln). They do not “play politics” with the issues, whether in an elected office, or as a leader in their company, or around the kitchen table as part of a family – they act out of principle, or a set of core values that translate into guiding principles for everything that they do.

    For the “politically-driven” leader, however, he or she is working from a set of core values that are rooted in personal needs, rather than organizational ones, where preservation of power, and control over others, to protect that power, is paramount. For the “politically-driven” leader, regular folks cannot be trusted, and the world must simply be divided into allies and enemies.

    Isn’t that the mood of Washington, these days? From religion to gender, to race and class envy, our nation has been dangerously divided into allies and enemies, perhaps more than ever before, by the leaders who are more “politically-driven” than “principle-driven”; promising everything to everyone.

    Yes, all politicians pander for support. But in the words of Margaret Thatcher, “if you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.” You see, Governor Walker’s recall election serves as a comforting reminder that the voters still “get that.” Yes, principles really do still matter – and that’s no matter how you spell it.

  • Moral Duty

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    The “pick-and-roll” is one of the oldest and most commonly used plays in basketball to get an easy basket for the offense. A “pick” is a screen, or a block, for the player with the basketball, designed to create confusion on the defense, and provide an advantage to the offense for an easy jump shot, lay-up, or slam-dunk. But despite its popularity, and its obvious intentions to increase the number of points scored, and thereby the likelihood of one’s team winning the game, there’s still hardly a commentator, or fan alike, who is calling for banning the use of the “pick-and-roll” because of its obvious advantage to one team, over another.

    But if the folks in Washington had their way, the “pick-and-roll” and the advantage of the easy shot it provides, would be history, deemed “unfair” to those teams who don’t know how to run the “pick-and-roll” at all – especially since the president reminded reporters recently that his job, as president, is “to make sure everyone has a fair shot.”
    Of course, this raises the question, what is “fair”? If we search, word for word, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, we will not find the word “fair.” The First Amendment, for example does not limit Congress from abridging the “fairness” of speech nor of the press, but the “freedom” of speech and of the press. Nor does it protect the “fair” exercise of religion, but the “free” exercise thereof.

    But therein lies the problem with folks in Washington these days. They often substitute “fairness” for “freedom.” As the economist Milton Friedman once said, “I am not in favor of fairness, I am in favor of freedom.”

    But why is that? Well, “fairness” means someone has to decide what’s fair for you, and for me. For some folks, this seems just fine, depending on their definition of “fairness.” Unfortunately, far too many of our citizens are unfamiliar with the notion that a society that puts equality before freedom will largely get neither.

    After all, fairness is not achieved by having someone else, or the government, decide for you, what is fair. Liberty means equality of opportunity – the freedom to take that shot at making that basket – not the equality of the score or a guarantee of victory.

    Good, bad, or indifferent – it just doesn’t work that way (at least not in this world).

    Now, you’ll find many examples in history, of countless countries whose politicians have squandered their nation’s resources and concentrated power in themselves, all under the guise of the high-minded principle of establishing “fairness.” The results, in those instances, have been failure at best, and bloody persecution at the worst. As more aptly expressed in 1776, by the economist Adam Smith, “I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.” Or, in other words, as Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

    So, should the pursuit of “fairness” be abandoned, then? Of course not. Establishing “fairness” means establishing rules, and the procedures for resolving disputes about those rules. That’s it. It’s not about determining the outcomes of our separate activities.

    But is that what the president means when he says his job is “to make sure everyone has a fair shot?” Does a “fair shot” mean equality of outcome?

    Well, most folks, when they talk about “fairness”, are talking about three basic concepts of “fairness”: First, there’s the “fairness” where everything is equal, across the board. Equality of outcome reigns. No one has more than another, regardless of his or her efforts, or lack thereof.

    Then there’s the concept of “fairness” as deservedness. This is, basically, the idea that you get what you deserve. The hardest working and most diligent folks should have more than the lazy and the indifferent, right?

    And the third concept of “fairness” is based on the “needs” of others. It embodies the Biblical teaching, “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” The degree of fairness, then, is determined in direct proportion to the responsibility, and compassion, that you have to your fellow man.

    Of course, while the “needs” based fairness concept is honorable, and desirable, for individuals to practice and promulgate, this is not the role of our government. In fact, such would be very different than how our Founding Fathers viewed government, which was more of a referee. Government instead has now seated itself to protect us, from ourselves, and whether we want to be protected or not, promoting “fairness” as social justice, at the expense of freedom.

    Unfortunately, this is what Democrats in Washington believe is their moral duty to establish, and this will transform our country in the process.

    The bottom line is this: When you are out there on that “basketball court of life,” take the shot. Whether you’re six-foot-four, or four-foot-nothing, take the shot. Whether you are behind the three-point line, or in-the-paint and under the basket, take the shot. In the words of Emerson, “Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” So play the game – especially when there’s inequality of outcome, and particularly when the shot is a difficult one to make. Liberals won’t get it, but that’s okay, because we understand that the “journey is the reward.”

  • Isn’t It Ironic?

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote in his phamplet “Common Sense” that “in America, the law is king.” In fact, America was born of the principle that no one is above the law, especially considering the American colonists opposition to the British monarchy. It was the monarchy’s lack of accountability to the people and its taxation without representation that sparked the American Revolution.

    Many of our nation’s founders believed that, among the “natural rights” of man, was the right of the people to overthrow their government leaders when they acted against the interests of the people. According to philosophers such as John Locke, revolution is a safeguard against tyranny.

    So what happens when government leaders suggest their own overthrow as a means to safeguard against the tyranny of the government? I am sure that sounds crazy to many of us, but that’s just what President Obama appeared to do last month, saying that the most important lesson of his presidency is that, “You can’t change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside.”

    That’s like suggesting that if you can’t open the “door” from the “inside” then breaking the “door” down from the “outside” somehow will make it better. Unfortunately, all of this “most- important-lesson” business is just a bunch of malarkey.

    For example and by contrast to Obama, men like Martin Luther King Jr. did fundamentally change Washington, and the nation, from the “inside” – working with the government, rather than seeking its overthrow, respecting the notion that America is a nation of laws whether at a sit-in at a lunch
    counter or a bus boycott.

    So the question for Obama is, “What type of ‘change’ can you only make from the outside when you are already the leader of the executive branch of the federal government and the commander-in-chief of the United States’ armed forces?” Is it a revolution against tyranny that you seek? Or the overthrow of a government that is acting against the interests of the people? The irony of the president’s comments is he has already very much changed Washington by working from the “inside” through multitudes of broad sweeping executive orders and legislative branch neutering. He already recognizes the power of being “inside” and brandishes that authority, even as the representatives of the people withhold their support to his policies.

    It’s only because he is on the “inside” that the will of people makes little difference to him. As he said recently, “(W)hen Congress refuses to act, Joe and I are going to act … and take steps on our own.”

    And as he told The New York Times again earlier this year, “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.” Even Obama’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag wrote a magazine article earlier this year, extolling the virtues of why we need less democracy.

    Well, if less democracy is the objective for these Democrats in Washington, then they must feel like a football team who is running up the score in the final minutes of the game.

    After all, in just the last few months and without compromise or Congressional approval, this administration has feverishly set about substituting the rule of law through executive orders – from immigration to welfare to birth control.

    Did you know that the Obama administration is enforcing only some of the federal immigration laws? By executive order, Obama established the “Dream Act,” even though Congress could not reach a consensus on the subject – and that was during the two years when the Democrats controlled Congress. Or how about the Department of Justice, who unilaterally decided it would no longer enforce federal laws against the use of marijuana? Or the Department of Health and Human Services gutting and invalidating the federal work requirements that were the foundation of the 1996 welfare reform law under President Bill Clinton? Then there’s the Department of Education, which is now offering waivers for the “No Child Left Behind” law in return for states adopting the Obama administration’s national education standards. Or how about the FCC that is beginning to regulate the Internet, even though a similar proposal failed to make it through Congress? Obama even bypassed the Senate confirmation process altogether to install four officials using his recess appointment powers in January.

    This is the madness of comprehending how anyone could suggest that “change” is only possible from “outside” of Washington, all while they are brandishing the authority to invalidate legislation and the rule of law by their own executive order.

    Yes, we are “a nation of laws, not of men,” as John Adams put it, and men like Martin Luther King Jr. accomplished change by respecting that principle. If the most important lesson you’ve learned is that change is only possible from outside of Washington when you wield the power of the presidency, maybe the kind of change you contemplate simply isn’t the will of the people at all.

  • Saving Our Eco-system

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Our ecosystem is fragile. It can be as small as a drop of water or as large as our entire planet. In fact, the earth is an interconnection of many diverse and interdependent ecosystems that make up the whole. They form the basics of life, such as water, food and shelter. If our ecosystems are not protected, our planet cannot survive. In the rainforest, for example, merely losing one species of animal or plant can cause the loss of the entire rainforest and all its inhabitants.

    This is often referred to as the “keystone species” concept because of the disproportionately large effect that a particular species has in its environment. This concept was developed in the late 1960s when it was discovered that the absence of starfish in the ocean ecosystem caused the remaining species in the area to compete with each other for limited resources. Within a year of the starfish’s removal from the study area, species diversity decreased from 15 to 8.

    Another example is how sea otters control sea urchin populations. Sea urchins feed on kelp forests, and without sea otters feeding on sea urchins; there would not be enough kelp forests, which are used as a habitat for a variety of other species.

    Or take the American alligator, once thought to be an undesirable nuisance. It was then hunted without limit, to the point of extinction. But with the absence of the alligator, there was a population explosion of gar, the alligator’s favorite food. Gar enjoyed eating all the game fish that people enjoyed catching, so then the fish population declined significantly. Once the alligator population was allowed to grow, so did the game fish, and the ecological balance was restored.

    You see, entrepreneurs, and the American entrepreneurial spirit, much like the American alligators, are being hunted in our country, without limit, to the point of extinction. They are facing what scientists call “ecological extinction”, which is “the reduction of a species to such low abundance that, although it is still present in the community, it no longer interacts significantly with other species.”

    This “ecological extinction” of entrepreneurs, and the American entrepreneurial spirit, is a natural result of historically high pollution levels that our country is experiencing, politically. These pollutants, such as class warfare, higher taxes, and increased government regulations, are toxic emissions in our environment.

    Unfortunately, these pollutants do not naturally decompose, and their continued emission can only result in irreversible, functional damage to our ecosystem, crippling job creation by discouraging capital investments, while encouraging lower productivity (and thus lower wages) by penalizing higher wages (through higher taxes).

    And if you are not sure if the policies of this White House is purposefully seeking the “ecological extinction” of entrepreneurs, and the American entrepreneurial spirit, by making the environment inhospitable to their economic survival, consider the following:

    As of April 1, America now has the highest, jobs-killing corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. And did you know this administration has instituted 106 new regulatory rules that have added an estimated $46 billion per year in new costs for businesses?

    Were you aware that by blocking the Keystone pipeline, and through choking off oil production under federal leases, that Obama has effectively, on his own accord, blocked nearly two million barrels per day of North American crude oil from being injected into the American economy, all as gas prices are reaching historically high levels?

    Do you know that Obama wants to effectively double the tax rate on income from capital gains from the current 15% rate? This would reduce the incentive for domestic investment, but increase the incentive to move jobs and capital overseas.

    These are a few important examples of why we need to preserve our ecosystem, and protect endangered species, like entrepreneurs, and the American entrepreneurial spirit, that are on the verge of extinction. It’s a different ecosystem that we’re protecting here…an ECO-nomic system, but the fundamental principles work the same as they do in nature.

    Entrepreneurs, and the American entrepreneurial spirit, serve as a spark plug in our nation’s economic engine. They birth new ideas, like the iPhone, and start new companies. And that’s important because firms less than five years old have driven virtually all-new job growth in the U.S.

    New firms, on the average, create three million jobs a year, and because of our growing population, we need three million brand new jobs every year, if everyone else is to keep their job, period.

    So, when you discourage entrepreneurs from starting new companies, and thereby eliminate the breeding ground for the majority of these new jobs in the first place, we have an appalling, environmental disaster on our hands. If we don’t have new companies being created, we don’t create new wealth. Without new wealth, the country grows poorer.

    We must act, before it’s too late. If we delay in removing the toxins of class warfare, higher taxes, and increased government regulations, then replenishing the population numbers of entrepreneurs could take decades. And if they become ecologically extinct, what species will replace them in our ECO-system? From where will those three million new jobs needed each year come from? (For you liberals, the answer is not “from the public sector”).

    Yes, “going green” is now more important than ever. So, give a hoot. Don’t pollute. And save the entrepreneur. Our nation’s livelihood literally depends on it.

  • Justice for All

    Justice for All

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Most Americans are just plain dizzy from the “spinning” of the issues that this White House has unashamedly engaged in for almost four years now: Deficit spending is an “investment”; a tax increase is considered “revenue;” and rising gasoline prices are blamed on foreign nations, all while we restrict access and delay permitting for oil and gas exploration right here at home. Policy failures? Well, from illegal immigration to historically high deficit spending, these are blamed on “obstructionist” Republicans, even though this White House had “supermajorities” in the House and Senate for its first two years and was able to pass anything they wanted without the need for a single Republican vote. Historically high unemployment and anemic economic growth even after $1 trillion in stimulus spending? This only persists because this administration “didn’t know how bad it was” when they came into office.

    Didn’t you know also that extending unemployment benefits beyond 99 weeks is necessary because it “creates jobs” faster than practically any other program? Or that Congress needed to first pass the 2,700-page “Obamacare” bill affecting one-sixth of our nation’s economy in order to find out what was actually “in the bill” (instead of reading the bill first)? I could go on and on, but I’m pretty sure even Democrats understand the picture by now.

    So last week, when the U.S. Supreme Court justices began hearing the administration’s legal arguments defending the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, I was inspired, encouraged, reassured about our nation of laws … and a sense of order. And why not? Article 3 of our glorious U.S. Constitution was engaged, alive and well. The actions of both the president and Congress were being checked for constitutionality, exactly as Article 3 of the Constitution intended and as our founding fathers envisioned. There was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was inquiring about fundamental matters of liberty, specifically the notion of “changing the relationship of the individual to the government” through a mandate to purchase health insurance.

    There was Chief Justice John Roberts, who inquired if Congress could mandate folks to purchase health insurance under its power to regulate interstate commerce and its call to solve national economic problems? Then could Congress also mandate folks to purchase mobile phones under that same power since having a mobile phone would improve your access to 911 emergency medical services?

    Then there was Justice Antonin Scalia who wondered aloud if Congress can force you to buy health insurance, could Congress also require individuals to buy vegetables such as broccoli? And even though nearly two-thirds of Americans recently polled could not name even one member of the U.S. Supreme Court, we witnessed last week the miracle of our U.S. Constitution in action, perhaps during the Court’s most publicized hearings in preparation for perhaps one of its most sweeping decisions since it was first organized in 1790. As the arbiter of our nation’s most challenging legal matters, it was just refreshing to hear the audio comments from one of the three branches of our government, where a majority of the members therein were informed, prepared and presented well- reasoned comments and criticisms, thus effectively fulfilling its constitutional duty to provide a check on both the executive and legislative branches.

    Dale Carnegie once said, “Neither you nor I nor Einstein nor the Supreme Court of the United States is brilliant enough to reach an intelligent decision on any problem without first getting the facts.” And the facts are plain enough to all of us reading here today: We’re possibly going to cede the health-care industry to the federal government. These are the same folks who are operating a Social Security trust fund that will go broke in 2041, a Medicare program that will be insolvent in 2020 and a bankrupt U.S. Post Office that lost $2 billion last year alone, not to mention the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And why do this? To address about 10 percent of all Americans who need financial assistance for health insurance. A recent poll indicated that 54 percent of uninsured Americans are between the ages of 18 and 34 and many of them voluntarily choose to forgo coverage. In fact, it has been estimated that nearly one-fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, while one- quarter is eligible for public coverage. Only the remaining 56 percent need financial assistance.

    Of course, this administration may likely “win” politically for their intentions to affect health care, regardless of whether the Court decides the individual mandate in Obamacare is constitutional or not. “Perception is reality,” right? Or, in the words of Emerson, “People only see what they are prepared to see.” Still, last week’s hearings were a gloriously refreshing reprieve (however short-lived), from the predictably partisan, uninformed, divisive and misleading national debate that seemingly rewards short- sightedness and sacrifices liberty for the immediate, political gratification of today … even if such means “spinning” completely out of control.