Louis R. Avallone

Author: liz

  • Right Direction?

    Right Direction?

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Folks, we need to talk. Despite a U.S. economy that continues to stagnate, or declining consumer spending, or plummeting home prices, or record unemployment, or declining wages, not to mention the unraveling of national security resulting from illegal immigration to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, there are still 1 in 3 of us, as likely U.S. voters, who believe the country is moving in the right direction, according to a recent poll. Seriously? I mean, by all objective, measurable standards, how can seemingly responsible and rational adults still muster the motivation to pretend that the country is moving in the right direction, even as the proverbial “wheels” are coming off?

    Some might explain this by pointing out a lack of political awareness among Americans these days. For example, only 2 in 10 Americans know there are 100 Senators in the U.S. Senate, and only 4 in 10 of us know there are 3 branches of government (and also can name each of them). Plus 53% of Americans don’t know the name of the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court or, for that matter, can even name a single member of the highest court in the land. And a National Geographic poll revealed that 6 in 10 people, aged 18 to 24, could not find Iraq on a map.

    But here we have one of the most critical, nation-altering elections upon us, just a little more than 7 months from now and, if the polling data is correct, nearly 1 in 3 likely U.S. voters seemingly want to double-down on this administration’s policies and programs, rooted in socialism, that empirically have failed, time after time, throughout history.

    Maybe it’s true, in the words of George Bernard Shaw, perhaps “(d)emocracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve”. Well, my fellow Americans, we deserve better.

    And it starts at home, around our kitchen tables with our families, and talking about the issues. Now, these are issues that aren’t glamorous to talk about and won’t necessarily make you the most popular guy or gal in the class. They probably won’t be subjects of conversation on Entertainment Tonight, but these are issues, for all Americans, to not merely talk about, but to understand.

    After all, the next generation of Americans are in great need of our voices of reason, our common sense, knowledge of history, and they need our protection now, more than ever, from those whose vision for America includes less liberty, not more…from those who prefer government control and management of people’s lives, rather than the freedom to choose and a desire to be left alone. And yes, this is the slippery slope we’re on.

    Do these folks (who think that the country is moving in the right direction) realize the historical evidence that governments will always find a need for the money they collect (or borrow, from future generations), and that collecting money from some people, in order to “do good” for another group of people, is the most inefficient method of spending money? Or that such spending may not “do good” at all?

    And since you brought it up, I’ll give you an example. Deficit spending during the Obama administration has been nearly $5.17 trillion, including $787 billion in “stimulus” spending to “save” jobs. The results have been record unemployment, and those looking for a job for more than six months make up 40% of the unemployed (which is the highest level since 1948). If you include those who have simply stopped looking for work, this makes the actual unemployment rate almost 20%, despite trillions of “stimulus” spending.

    And I’ll give you another example. Our nation will spend $953 billion on welfare programs this year (up by 42% since Obama took office). Still, we still have record levels of poverty—46 million are classified as living in poverty—the highest number since 1959.

    And why is this? Why is more and more money, towards stimulating the economy, or moving people from welfare to work, failing? One reason is because, again, spending someone else’s money on someone else is the least efficient way to spend any money, for the value you receive. Yet, in 2012, local, state, and federal governments will spend $6.3 trillion dollars in this very way, on services and bureaucracy (and we wonder why our local and state governments are nearly bankrupt as well).

    So do these folks (who like the direction our country is heading), understand that a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither? Or that fairness is not achieved by having someone else, or the government, decide for you, what is fair? Or that liberty means equality of opportunity, not equality of results?

    We may be headed in the wrong direction, but in the words of Zig Ziglar, “There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.” So whether you’re Republican, Democrat, or none of the above, let history be our guide, and liberty light our path. In the words of Ronald Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” And that goes for the 1 out of 3 that still thinks we’re headed in the right direction. We should probably make them a copy of our map.

  • Warning Labels

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    We’ve all seen those seemingly ridiculous warning labels, on so many products these days, that you wonder what’s more embarrassing: That such warning labels are necessary at all, because of the sheer half-wittedness of some folks, or that the folks writing those warning labels are just plain pretentious and pompous towards everyone else?

    For example, you know the cardboard sunshield that folks use, to keep the sun off the dashboard in the car? It has a warning label: “Do not drive with sunshield in place.” Really? Or how about on a toner cartridge for a laser printer: “Do Not Eat Toner.” Is that really necessary to point out? Then there’s the warning label on most hair dryers that says, “Do not use in shower.” Or, one of my favorites, “If you do not understand, or cannot read all directions, cautions and warnings, do not use this product.”

    And just last month, you may have seen a Doritos commercial that aired during the Superbowl, featuring a spry grandma launching a baby, through the air and into a tree house, to snatch a bag of Doritos, using a slingshot contraption. As this baby is being hurled through the air, the good folks at Frito-Lay thought we needed reminding not to try this ourselves (despite our obvious inclination). So, they added the fine print, “Do Not Attempt.”

    Of course, this got me thinking about other activities, especially ones that seem obviously dangerous and insidious, that ought to have a warning label also, but presently do not. Take socialism for example. Atop each piece of government legislation, that expands wasteful government spending, there ought to be the disclaimer or warning label: “The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”

    Such a disclaimer or warning would be sufficient for those who have figured out that a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. Or that governments will always find a need for the money they take (or borrow, from future generations).

    Such a disclaimer or warning is satisfactory for those who appreciate the notion that taking money from some people, in order to “do good” for another group of people, is the most inefficient form of spending money that exists, and may not “do good” at all.

    These are the same people who understand that you generally cannot achieve good ends through bad means. They understand the unconscionable incompetence of evaluating government policies and programs by their intentions, rather than by their results.

    These are the folks that understand that fairness is not achieved by having someone else, or the government, decide for you, what is fair, and that liberty means equality of opportunity, not equality of results.

    And yet, despite these folks, our country finds itself subjected to the aftermath of a Democrat Party, and a President, that recklessly and repeatedly ignored the “warning labels”; doggedly doubling-down on policies and programs, that are rooted in socialism, and that empirically have failed, time after time, throughout history.

    After all, deficit spending during the Obama administration has been nearly $5.17 trillion, including $787 billion in “stimulus” spending to “save” jobs. The results have been record unemployment, staying above eight percent for the longest period since the end of World War II. But if you count those that have not searched for a job in the past four weeks, or those working part-time, but would prefer full-time work, the unemployment rate is almost 15%. The long-term employed—those unemployed who have been looking for a job for more than six months—make up 40% of the unemployed now (which is the highest level since 1948, when such data began to be collected).

    Despite the intentions of this deficit spending, and despite Obama’s 2011 budget to increase spending on welfare programs to $953 billion (up by 42% since he took office), we still have record levels of poverty— 46 million are classified as living in poverty— the highest number since 1959 when the census began tracking this number in 1959.
    The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines socialism as “a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.” This is the precipice at which we find our nation in 2012, amidst policies and programs which redistributes goods and pay through the expansion of government spending, and all promoted by an administration that requires those that work the hardest to be satisfied with the rewards equivalent to those who don’t work hard at all. The difference, in the words of Winston Churchill, is that “(t)he inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
    Just ask Spain about misery. Their unemployment is at 22.9%. Ask Greece too, whose joblessness is at 19.2%. Yet this president is following their template for the same, failed policies that even Japan has used unsuccessfully for the last decade: Printing money, raising taxes, increasing regulations, adding to the debt and deficit, and providing endless bailouts.

    This is serious business. No, we don’t need a government sponsored advertising campaign to explain the fallacies of socialism to our children; we can handle that fine as parents (although a warning label for those promoting socialism would sometimes help). Just remember this, in the words of Ronald Reagan: “Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don’t need it and hell where they already have it.”

  • Repeating History

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    The Berlin Wall was constructed in 1961 to provide a physical barrier between East and West Berlin. That’s the textbook explanation, but there was a greater, underlying purpose. The eventual fall of the Berlin Wall seems to foreshadow the predictable failure of government policies that, despite their stated and noble intentions, trample upon the innate dignity of human liberty.

    Let me explain: As you may know, before 1961 (and after World War II), Berlin had been divided into a Soviet occupational zone and a joint U.S., France, and Great Britain occupational zone. In fact, during the 1950s, nearly 3.5 million people from East Berlin escaped communist repression into West Berlin, where they could travel into West Germany and other Western European countries. West Germans, by contrast to East Germans, were being led by a chancellor committed to a broad vision of democracy, capitalism, and anti-Communism. Understandably, West Germans enjoyed higher living standards and freedoms, in a growing economy, compared to their East German neighbors who were chained to a stagnating economy and deteriorating living standards – ruled by a socialist-led government, controlled by the Soviet Union.

    Along with its other controlled communist states of Eastern and Central Europe, the Soviet Union claimed that the Berlin Wall was necessary to protect East Germans from those who seek to prevent the “will of the people” in building a socialist state in East Germany. This was hogwash, obviously, as even before the Berlin Wall was erected, 3.5 million East Germans crossed the border from East Berlin into West Berlin.

    Nonetheless, the East Germans started with 96 miles of barbed wire fence in 1961. Then, the next year, a second fence was built, parallel to the first, but about 100 yards further in. Despite this formidable discouragement, more East Germans continued escaping into West Berlin. So, to stem the continuing tide of defectors, the East German government chose to add a concrete wall in 1965, and yet another one in 1975, complete with reinforced mesh fencing, signal fencing, anti-vehicle trenches, barbed wire, over 300 watchtowers, and thirty bunkers.

    And still yet, after all that, almost 30 years later, the Berlin Wall fell. Despite the formidable, and often fatal, man-made obstacles at the Wall, those yearning for liberty simply concluded that the consequences of failing to escape were greatly outweighed by the consequences of failing to try. This is why communist states fail: They underestimate the basic human craving for individual freedom.

    So, are there any parallels to be drawn between our nation’s current political and economic environment? You bet there are, and as it is often said, if we do not heed the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat it. You and I cannot let that happen.

    Consider the official explanation provided by the communists in 1961, for justifying the Berlin Wall: It was to protect the “will of the people” in building a socialist state in East Germany. Again, this was hogwash. In fact, the only “will of the people” here was to escape socialism altogether.

    But think about our own nation, for a moment: Some people might say that the seemingly complicit cooperation, between our mainstream media and those promoting socialist ideology, is intended to do exactly in our nation, what the communists’ stated purpose was for building the Wall begin with: Protect the “will of the people” in building a socialist state.

    Trouble is, like in East Germany, it’s not the “will of people” in the U.S. to build a socialist state. And yet, our government continues to build walls to separate us from those certain, unalienable rights for which we have been endowed by our Creator.

    These rights are under attack from those who support government policies that promote the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes, or restrictions on the freedom of religion, through the imposition on churches to provide contraception. Or by supporting socialized medicine and allowing the government to ration your healthcare, or continuing the expansion of government by mortgaging our country to foreign nations, for generations of Americans to come.

    Those in power in our nation today are gradually and silently building a “wall” between our fellow citizens and our unalienable rights. In fact, it’s the only way to give Socialism a chance.

    But there’s no need for that. No need for experimentation. The outcome is certain…as history has taught us over and over and over: Josef Stalin in the Soviet Union; Pol Pot in Kmehr Rouge; Adolph Hitler in Germany; Leonid Brezhnev in the Soviet Union; Fidel Castro in Cuba; Mao Zedong in China; Kim Il Sung in North Korea; Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam…the list can go on and on.

    The Berlin Wall was built because the socialist system in East Germany discouraged the more productive members of their society. This is because socialism values equality over freedom and the best and brightest fled East Germany, taking their skills, their capital, and future generations with them.

    Are we building the Berlin Wall in America, in order to give Socialism a chance? If we are, and if Germany was any indication, where then, will our best and brightest flee, in the meantime? “Tear down this wall, Mr. Obama,” ought to be the refrain. If you and those who share your beliefs won’t tear it down, rest assured, if history is any indication, that the indomitable human yearning for individual freedom will eventually do it for you.

  • Likeability

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Will Rogers is reported to have said, “I never met a man I didn’t like.” While this is a most admirable quality, and healthy expectation in our relationships with one another, what priority do we place on “likability” when voting for a president?

    Turns out, it’s almost at the top of the list. Historically, voters don’t elect presidents they don’t find very “likable”, despite a candidate’s obvious qualities of competency for the job, such as honesty, leadership, management skills, and moral integrity. For example, when you hear someone say that a particular candidate “looks presidential,” it’s most likely because of that candidate’s “likability” (and not because of their competency to be president).

    In fact, the late political consultant Lee Atwater pointed out that Americans insist on a minimum level of likability in their president. Despite a U.S. economy that continues to stagnate, declining consumer spending, plummeting home prices, record unemployment, and declining wages, not to mention the unraveling of national security resulting from illegal immigration to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, it seems that “likability” may still be the full measure of a candidate, in today’s modern political arena.

    Not sure about that? Well, let’s look at history: In 1984, Ronald Reagan overwhelmed Walter Mondale in likability, 42% to 26%. Reagan won 49 states, in that election. In 1992, Bill Clinton defeated Bush 41 as president, and guess what? Clinton’s likability was 49% to Bush’s 32%. Four years later, Clinton trounced Bob Dole, for all intents and purposes. Here again, the winner’s likability is more than coincidental: Clinton’s likability was 62% to Dole’s 27%.

    In 2000, Bush 43 narrowly won the election, but in terms of likability, the competition wasn’t really close: Bush’s likability was 50%, compared to Al Gore’s 43%. Predictably, in 2004, Bush bested John Kerry in likability, 44% to 36%.

    Then, in 2008, Obama walloped John McCain in likability, 65% to 28%.

    This brings us full circle to 2012. Even if only 25% of Americans strongly approve of Obama’s job performance, as recent tracking polls indicate, his likability still remains high: as much as 80 percent in an Associated Press poll last fall.

    Contrast this with a CNN poll, from last month, where Romney was considered likable by only 30% of Republican voters, compared to 15% for Gingrich, 10% for Ron Paul and 5% for Rick Santorum. And this was a poll of Republicans only!

    Consider, more importantly, that Romney’s likability among all adults, regardless of party affiliation, is at all-time low: 25%, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll in January. Worse yet, a recent Fox News poll, taken last month, reflects Gingrich’s unfavorability at 56%.

    And even though this “likability” discussion sounds like we’re merely stating the obvious, I don’t think everyone gets it. And most surprisingly, it’s Gingrich that may be in denial.
    For example, in a CNN interview recently, Gingrich commented on Obama, saying, “He’s likeable. I would never beat Obama in a personality contest…but the presidency is not about likeability. The presidency is about are you capable of doing the job?”

    Speaker Gingrich, I’m not so sure about that. Yes, the presidency should be about one’s competency to do the job, but selecting a president is also one of the most personal choices we make in our democracy. As a result, it’s also an emotional one, not purely logical, but a blend of both.

    Yes, we want to “like” our president. Which candidate would I like to have over most for dinner with my family? Who would I most like to have a beer with? For better or worse, America’s answers to those questions, which are questions of likability, may likely foretell the future, regarding the November election, if history is any indication.

    I mean, as Americans, we watch an average of 4.5 hours of television each day, not to mention the time spent watching online videos, and videos on mobile devices. Could it be that most Americans are, subconsciously, evaluating a candidate’s likability based on how they might appear in high definition, or being streamed over the Internet to our iPhones and iPads for the next four years?

    Do most Americans prefer to watch Obama sing Al Green’s, “Let’s Stay to Together”, or Romney’s a-capella singing of “The National Anthem”? Having heard both, I’m inclined to go with Al Green on this one.

    But while “liking” our president is important, and hearing him sing “Let’s Stay Together”, or watching him walk around Hawaii in shorts and a t-shirt helps us identify with him, “liking” him must not be most important. This election, in particular, is too important to mess around with the psychology of a candidate’s likability. Instead, we should focus on “liking” their abilities, their accomplishments, and their potential to perform the job needed, so desperately now, for our nation.

    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.” If the cost of likability in our president is the achievement of nothing, then what are we doing pretending to elect a leader in the first place?

  • Fashion Police

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    A FASHION POLICE STATE

    You’ve heard about this, right? Caddo Parish District 3 Commissioner Michael Williams wants to pass an ordinance in Caddo Parish to prohibit the wearing of pajama pants in public. Apparently, he was offended during a recent shopping trip to his neighborhood grocery store, wherein a group of young men, wearing pajama pants and house shoes, but apparently not any undergarments, were revealing more of themselves than Commissioner Williams, and several elderly patrons, cared to see.

    And even though Caddo Parish Sherriff Steve Prator commented that such an ordinance would be “difficult to enforce as it’s described”, and despite the ordinance being blatantly unconstitutional, I’m with Commissioner Williams in saying that we ought to preserve a minimum amount of decorum in our community. From baggy pants, to wearing pants below the waist, too many folks just aren’t willing to put forth the amount of effort, or time, that is required to dress appropriately.

    Some might say what Commissioner Williams is touching upon is the concept of a negative halo effect: when you look sloppy, you therefore think sloppy, feel sloppy, and act sloppy. This decline, or lowering of standards, simply makes it easier to no longer find the need to look nice, act nice, or be nice. It becomes more comfortable then, and acceptable, to simply ascribe to the lowest common denominator.

    Indeed, what are folks aspiring to become when their clothing style is inspired by the beltless pants worn by prison inmates? I mean, there are countless prison inmates who would scarcely identify entering prison as one of life’s goals, or whom they themselves would not make different choices if they had the opportunity to do it all over again.

    And yes, it’s disrespectful too, and in some cases, it’s indecent. It’s unconscionable that some folks are so unconcerned – so disconnected from reality – that they don’t realize how their “freedom of expression” might affect the most impressionable and vulnerable in our society – our children. As Bill Cosby commented several years ago, “Are you not paying attention people, with their hat on backwards, pants down around the crack…people putting their clothes on backwards…isn’t that a sign of something going on wrong?”

    But can we legislate politeness? Or respectfulness? How about style, or manners? No, we cannot legislate the lessons that should be taught in the home – first and foremost – around a dinner table. It’s inappropriate for government, and just plain unconstitutional as well. Proposed ordinances like the pajamas prohibition are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. There are countless U.S. Supreme Court cases that support this conclusion.

    Still, there are many communities, including Shreveport, who continue to pass unconstitutional ordinances, such as prohibiting the wearing of pants below the waist (which expose the skin or undergarments). So, why pass these ordinances if they are unconstitutional?

    Well, too often politicians pass laws that they know are unconstitutional (they’ll leave it up to the courts to decide). Sometimes this is done to pander to the demands of voters, or to help themselves or their cronies, or all of the above.

    Sometimes their intentions are sincere, and less insidious. Nevertheless, the result is often the same: Millions of taxpayer dollars are spent defending unconstitutional laws, not to mention the enforcement cost by local law officials. Worst of all, many of these bad laws are never challenged in the courts because of the deep financial resources needed by the citizens in order to do so.

    The bottom line is that the arguable decline of standards in society is merely symptomatic of decades of liberal political pandering to the virtue of tolerance. It portrays conservatives as closed-minded and judgmental, on a variety of social issues, when we ought to be having a “come to Jesus” dialogue about what’s right and working, and what’s not and broken, in our communities.

    You see, maybe tolerance isn’t all what it’s cracked up to be. Here’s what I mean: John F. Kennedy said that, “Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one’s own beliefs.” Others have written that, “Tolerance is another word for indifference.” Even Ghandi said that, “Tolerance implies a gratuitous assumption of the inferiority of other faiths to one’s own”.

    Is it tolerant to ban prayer in the school, or protect abortion as a fundamental right? Of course not. You see, liberals view tolerance as less about respect, or letting people do whatever they want, and more about political correctness and control, all at the expense of common sense and liberty.

    Now, we may have a generation of Americans who believe that merely having the “right” to do “something” is somehow the moral equivalent of having permission to do it. That’s just not the case.

    In fact, our modern-day society is tolerant of some behavior when we should actually be condemning it. Too many take the view that no singular point of view on moral and religious issues is objectively correct for every person. That may be fair to say, but society cannot abandon its tried and true standards altogether, just for the sake of “tolerance” and nothing more.

    And this bring us back to why Commissioner Williams wants to propose an ordinance to establish the very standards that parenting should have established to begin with. He agrees that the “real power is parenting power”, and that starts at home.

    That’s where we’ll begin our journey, to restore the responsible society Commissioner Williams is longing for. So, let’s get dressed, packed, and get going. Just pull up your pants first, please.

  • New Outlook

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Before we start, let me wish you and yours a Happy New Year! You know, there is hardly a “Happy New Year’s” greeting, in some form or fashion, that doesn’t include a wish for good health, great wealth, and much happiness (but not necessarily in that order, of course).

    And even though folks have been extending such well wishes to one another on January 1, stretching back to Julius Caesar in 46 B.C., there seems to be a somewhat nefarious, or otherwise detestable quality – this year, in particular – in wishing others “great wealth” in the coming new year.

    After all, considering the Obama administration’s sustained condemnation of those with “great wealth,” it seems then that wishing “great wealth” upon others is wholly incompatible with well wishes of “good health” and “much happiness” in the coming new year.

    Why? Well, according to Obama (and the Democrats in Washington), those with “great wealth” are greedy and selfish. With their chauffeured limousines, mansions, and private jets, Obama believes those with “great wealth” don’t contribute their fair share. After all, he alleges, this is because those with “great wealth” often pay an effective tax rate that is less than even their domestic help pay. For example, Obama says, “A teacher or a nurse or a construction worker making $50,000 a year shouldn’t pay higher tax rates than somebody making $50 million.”

    Okay. We all get that. But of course, this is a dishonest debate because the majority of those with “great wealth” are not those with chauffeured limousines, mansions, and private jets…nor are they making $50 million a year. Instead, they are small business owners, struggling to make payroll, complying with increasing government regulations, higher income taxes, and working longer and longer hours to make ends meet.

    Obama knows that. He also knows that the top 50 percent of American income earners pay almost 97 percent of all federal income taxes collected. Obama also knows that, generally speaking, raising income taxes does not necessarily affect those with “great wealth” because often they can make money through other means, such as from dividends and capital gains, which are not considered “income” and not subject to the higher income taxes he touts, as part of his populist, almost seething class-envy campaign being waged in our nation today.

    To put this in perspective, I propose that we steer clear of unwittingly contributing towards this class-envy campaign by substituting the word “productive” (or some variation of it) whenever liberals use the words “wealth” or “wealthy,” or “rich,” in a sentence…and then letting all of our friends know to do the same.

    When Obama proposes that the “the rich” should “pay their fair share” in higher taxes, just translate those words into, “the productive” should “pay their fair share.”
    When Obama asks, “(D)o we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country?” Translate that into “…tax breaks for the most productive Americans in our country.” When he says, “Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments — wealthier than ever before,” translate that into, “Those at the very top grew more productive from their incomes and their investments – more productive than ever before.” I mean, if we referred to the “rich” as “productive”, it puts “great wealth” into a different perspective…and this is more accurate, by and large, don’t you think?

    Some readers may be asking, “What’s my point?” What’s with all the translating? My point is simply this:
    The men and women who earn a paycheck, or those who own businesses and earn a profit…these are the great majority of productive members of our society. They should not be vilified because they may have more than others. Some of these same folks may acquire “great wealth,” but these are the folks that build a nation; who often have failed more than they succeeded; who understand, in the words of Vince Lombardi, that “it’s not whether you get knocked down, it’s whether you get back up.”

    And these are the folks who would earn a paycheck, or make a profit, or gain “great wealth” no matter where they started, or how many times they failed and started over. They embody the unassailable American spirit…and yet Obama (and liberals alike) are suffocating that spirit today by demonizing the end result of their productivity – wealth.
    People like Henry Ford who failed and went broke five times before he succeeded. Or Thomas Edison whose teachers said he was “too stupid to learn anything” and who was fired from his first two jobs for being “non-productive.” Or Walt Disney who was fired by a newspaper editor because “he lacked imagination and had no good ideas” and later even went bankrupt.

    These folks acquired “great wealth”, but this was only in some proportion to their “great productivity”. Is America not better as a result of Ford’s, Edison’s, and Disney’s “great productivity”?

    So you see, Obama’s 2012 campaign for re-election is more about the “productive” versus the “non-productive” in our nation (and not the trite, populist struggle of “rich” versus the “poor”). He won’t couch it that way, but I will.

    This is why I believe we need to do some translating of our own – and putting into perspective that you often cannot separate “great wealth” from “great productivity”…the very productivity that been a source of great blessings for our nation over 200 years now.

    So, with all of that said, again, I wish you good health, great “productivity”, and much happiness in 2012. Sounds better that way maybe…what do you think?

  • Equally Shabby

    Equally Shabby

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    We are precipitously running out of other people’s money, and there are simply not enough millionaires to fund the deficit between our income and expenses, or to employ those who are unemployed, or preserve even a semblance of a free market economy.

    And yet our nation’s leaders continue to falsely presuppose, whether by their own education or ignorance, that government can somehow guarantee economic equality, or fairness, even though even a cursory study of history, particularly the rise and fall of socialist and communist states, would plainly prove otherwise. In the words of the late economist, Milton Friedman, “A society that puts equality…ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.” After all, who in government will decide what is fair, or equal? If liberty is embodied in the creed, “all men are created equal,” does that likewise mean that we shall all be kept equal?

    Is equality being “equally shabby,” as a 1930s social worker gushed about the virtues of Soviet Russia? Is there liberty in a nation where its citizens are allowed to build only a “modest” savings, as President Obama proclaimed in a speech just last week? Does he decide what is a “modest” savings for each one of us? If so, is there liberty in being “equally modest”?

    But still, there are folks in Washington who continue to urge us all to “get some skin in the game”, and to offer a “shared sacrifice” so that the promise to “make work pay again” can be fulfilled, as if there is some universal, mystically agreed upon threshold amount of pay that will create nirvana for a nation. These are the same folks, during the last presidential election that urged, “It’s time to be patriotic…time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

    But this has not worked. Nor has it ever. Are these folks purposely promoting empirically failed philosophies of economy and liberty, or are they ridiculously ignorant or corrupt? Have they not studied economics? Are they such poor students of history that they do not see that in almost every instance where government intervenes to provide financial advantages or disadvantages to this group, or that group, that it distorts, or otherwise perverts the free enterprise system? Have they not realized the human suffering that inevitably results when markets are forced to correct themselves because the government has simply run out of other people’s money to prop up the unsustainable?

    Consider this: Congress spends $10 billion per day, or $3.7 trillion per year. So, to keep the economy moving, Congress must continue expropriating more and more private capital. But you see, Congress does not have a revenue crisis – it has a spending crisis. As the late economist Milton Friedman explained, “The true burden on taxpayers today is government spending.”

    And he is right. In fact, government spending in 2011 currently amounts to over 175 percent of all government revenue, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. This means we are spending $3.77 trillion this year, while our income is only $2.15 trillion.

    This is the fallacy of focusing on revenue, and the immorality of inciting class warfare to achieve political power, yet this is also the intentional, disingenuous, and unconscionable political strategy of Obama for the 2012 election. The class warfare rhetoric, or the notion to increase taxes on the “fortunate” is offered as a means to save our nation from economic peril, just as Karl Marx also believed.

    But it is a false premise because there’s not enough of other people’s money to save us. No, this rhetoric is not about the greater welfare of the American people, or ensuring the strength of our nation for generations to come…this is about power, and a socialist ideology that has only demonstrated its own shortcomings, and historical failings, rather than preserving the very principles of a free market economy which, historically, provide the best and most sustainable opportunities to lift people out of poverty, or provide jobs for those who need them.

    So every time you read, or hear, folks talking about the rich getting richer, or the poor getting poorer, or how folks need to contribute their fair share, please remember, and share with others the following:

    Congress can’t expropriate enough private capital to “float the boat”. This is even if, on January 1, Congress imposes a 100% tax rate on all income earned above $250,000. By doing this, there will only be enough revenue to fund government’s spending through mid-May.

    If Congress went further, and then confiscated 100% of the profits, earned last year, from all of the Fortune 500 companies, this would generate only enough income to “keep the lights on” in the government through the end of June.

    And even if you “stepped up” the raising of revenue by confiscating all of the stocks and bonds, the businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry, of every American billionaire, our government could only continue cutting checks for another 6-7 weeks, or through mid-August or so. We’re still a $1 trillion short to make it to the end of the year.

    So? Now what? Seriously. What now? After government has expropriated most all private capital, and redistributed it with spending programs that exceed our income by 175%, and after Americans have spent their “modest” savings that Obama had so gratuitously allowed them to earn, what do we do now?

    New, temporary government programs to “get this economy going again”? Maybe we can “make work pay” again, somehow? I mean, who knows? Maybe there are new ways to make folks contribute their “fair share,” even after we become “equally shabby.”

  • Be of Good Cheer

    Be of Good Cheer

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    It is supposed to be the most wonderful time of the year…with the kids jingle belling and everyone telling you to be of good cheer. But for many Americans, this year, that may be a tall order. 75% of Americans think our nation is heading in the wrong direction. Consumer debt is rising, as 32% of Americans owe more money today than they did a year ago. 43% of Americans say that they have even put off medical procedures to save money. And more than ever before, Americans say that their home is worth less than what they owe on it.

    There are 14 million Americans who are actively seeking employment, but remain regrettably unemployed, not to mention the almost 6 million Americans who will lose their long-term unemployment benefits by the end of the year. Not exactly the best times for chestnuts roasting by an open fire. Or for Jack Frost to be nipping at your nose.

    But you see, for these unemployed Americans, it is hardly important to them to hear the sophomoric chit-chat over which Republican candidate for president speaks most eloquently, or to even watch the President’s political gamesmanship of inciting class warfare by promising more record deficit spending, through the expansion of government and redistribution of wealth.

    No, you see, many Americans are simply in a funk. It’s because a job is more than just income. More than just what we do to pay the bills. There is a human devastation from joblessness that the politicians, pundits, and bureaucrats just don’t get; nor does the mainstream media, who rather keep “score” of the insignificant.

    Before terrorism, or the devaluation of our currency, or the rising national debt, or even free trade agreements that send American jobs overseas, it is hopelessness that stalks the land as our nation’s most formidable threat to peace and security. It is the loss of control for folks to earn a living and take care of their families. And it’s time for the folks who peddle helplessness and blame to step out of our way.

    It is literally a matter of life and death. A research study of 20 million people recently found that unemployment increases the risk of premature mortality by almost 65%. And a CNN study concluded that people who lose their jobs are 83 percent more likely to develop stress-induced conditions, such as diabetes, arthritis and depression. And as the unemployment rate worsens, the divorce rates rise, marriage rates decline, and children perform more poorly in school. These are children that are more likely, during these times, to experience homelessness, be abused, dropout of school, and live in poverty as adults. This is the human consequence of all those that trade on despair…and it’s shameful.

    It doesn’t have to be this way. But you have to believe. If you can visualize success, you are likely to gain it. No, America is not perfect, but the sun is hardly setting on America. In the words of Dale Carnegie, “Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.” This is the essence of the Americans spirit and we won’t despair, because for so many of us, it’s still morning in America.

    Even Walt Disney had to declare bankruptcy, just before he left for Hollywood and came up with a cartoon mouse that changed the world. Milton Hershey actually declared bankruptcy after four initial tries at starting a candy company. No one else (except for Mick and Adrian) really thought that Rocky could beat Apollo. But he did.

    All of us just need to be reminded that we have the power within ourselves, much more often than not; to solve our own problems…we just need the government and the “do-nothing” political power-hungry folks to get out of our way.

    Just like in the movie the Wizard of Oz: Dorothy, Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion didn’t need to realize the potential of government (or rather, Oz). All these characters needed to do was realize their own potential and manifest it. As Glinda the Good Witch explained so simply to Dorothy, “You’ve always had the power to go back to Kansas.”

    See, she always had the power, within herself. Just like Scarecrow, to whom Oz presented a diploma, who already had just as much brains as those who graduated from the most prestigious universities. Or Tin Man, who was already as sentimental as any man could be. Or Lion who was already courageous, but just didn’t know it yet.

    Courage is in overcoming our fear, not in being fearless about our future. Most challenges in life seem far more insurmountable than they actually are, like melting the formidable Wicked Witch with a pail of plain water.

    So, with all of that said during this holiday season, and for whatever or whomever your “Wicked Witch” may be today, have faith and stay the course…and pray. Be of good cheer. After all, more often than not, “somewhere over the rainbow” is already right in your own backyard (sometimes we just don’t know it yet).

  • Common Sense: It Ain’t So Common

    Common Sense: It Ain’t So Common

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Herman Cain traveled across the country recently on his “Common Sense Soluations” bus tour. Ron Paul says he will work to implement “common sense” reforms. When Sarah Palin decided not to run for president in 2012, she attributed the decision to the accomplishments of “common sense” conservatives and independents. Former presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty was described as having a “common sense” conservative voice. Michelle Bachman said government needs to have some “common sense.”

    Mike Huckaby even wrote a book about bringing “common sense” back to America. Vice President Hubert Humphrey labeled himself as a liberal with “common sense.” Even President Obama said it was “common sense” to raise taxes to reduce the national debt. And there are literally dozens of blogs with the phrase “common sense” embedded somewhere in their name, with both conservatives and liberals claiming the moniker as being integrally woven and indelibly identified with their own point of view.

    If we go back a couple hundred years or so, Thomas Jefferson said, “I can never fear that things will go far wrong where common sense has fair play.” Ralph Waldo Emerson, commented that, “Nothing astonishes people so much as common sense and plain dealing.”

    Well, it seems that “common sense” is experiencing a resurgence in popularity these days, as political candidates and pundits push and shove one another out of the way to stand next to “common sense” and claim to be its longtime, long-lost best friend.

    But what is “common sense?” Going to the dictionary, it is defined as “sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.” More simply, some have said “common sense” is sound and prudent judgment, with an awareness to not repeat the same mistake twice.

    Generally, then, our possession of “common sense” is a favorable characteristic of our being. For example, we pretty much only refer to someone as either having “common sense” (which almost always is in a complimentary tone) or not having common sense (when we are just referring to someone as a nitwit).

    Of course, some folks will argue that “common sense” is neither common nor sensible. Will Rogers said, “Common sense ain’t common.” But the word “common” implies that a belief is held by a large number of people. Of course, just because a belief is popular, doesn’t mean it’s sensible, especially if such knowledge or belief is beyond our own actual experience, many would say.

    But can’t “common sense” be learned, even without the actual “experience” part? Absolutely. But it has to be first taught. How many times have you heard grown-ups say, “My momma always told me, ‘If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all’.” Or, “My grandma always said, ‘When life hands you lemons make lemonade.’” Or, “If you fall down pick your self back up,” because “you have to walk before you can run.” After all, “If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it?” Or how about, “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch,” and “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

    The real question is this: Are we, as Americans, teaching our own children these fundamental and necessary lessons of life today that we may have once ignored as narrow and old-fashioned thinking as children ourselves? The bottom line may be that no matter how educated, sophisticated or technologically advanced we become as a society, eventually, we all return to those truisms of life that we learned as children, as a way to organize the chaos in our lives and make the best decisions possible.

    So, as our good friend “common sense” rises in popularity and gets passed around from one candidate to another, be reminded that our common sense is only one generation away from extinction (in the spirit of Ronald Reagan’s famous saying on freedom).

    Remember also that to learn (or teach) common sense is not like crossing a finish line or scoring a goal. It is a perpetual objective that we must remain vigilant to pursue and to store up for future generations of Americans. After all, as one philosopher put it, “Common sense is the most widely shared commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is supplied with it.”

  • Misleading Electorate

    Misleading Electorate

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    There is something special about the written word. After all, Moses came back down from Mount Sinai with the commandments WRITTEN down on two tablets of stone. Before that, of course, there were cave paintings and hieroglyphics etched on pyramid walls. All through human history, the written word has just always had a sense of permanent importance. Maybe it is because, for many hundreds of thousands of years, man hunted and had to read and interpret animal track imprints, over virtually any terrain, if he were to survive.

    And if your home was like mine the week before last month’s election, you had lots of opportunities to sit at your kitchen table and “interpret” numerous political “imprints” that were in being made in the form of campaign mailers (or postcards). These were those mail pieces that promoted (or purportedly exposed) this candidate, or that candidate, and were sent to you from that political party, or this political action committee, or directly from the candidates themselves.

    Some claims seemed silly. Some seemed to be sheer desperation. Some seemed just mean…and those are the ones that got me all stirred up. Here’s an example of why:

    You have heard the saying that, “All is fair in love and war,” right? Some might say that the same might apply to politics, but I say absolutely not. The origin of that saying, “All is fair in love and war” is the notion that there are no rules; that when you are in love or waging war, you are allowed to be deceitful in order to get what you want. But this is not right, and it is wholly unacceptable for candidates seeking elected office because they are seeking the very trust of the electorate to represent their concerns with consistent integrity, and honor.

    So when I received a postcard in the mail from Barrow Peacock’s opponent in the race for Senate District 37, I was disappointed. She mailed out a postcard to voters in the district, which stated that Barrow was “open minded” on abortion. Her source was Barrow’s candidate interview with the Shreveport Times. If you do the research, you’ll find that not only did Barrow NEVER state that he was “open minded” on abortion, but Barrow’s countless television commercials, for weeks, have plainly stated that he is PRO-life.

    Even though Barrow’s opponent in that race, and her campaign team, must have viewed these same television commercials wherein Barrow stated that he was PRO-life, they still chose to create, design, print, and mail a postcard to the electorate, stating as fact, what they knew to be untrue about Barrow.

    If we have learned anything from recent history, we know that often how a candidate conducts themselves in their campaign for office is an indicator of how they will conduct themselves when they are IN office. This is why genuine change in our local, state, and federal government begins with the consideration of the character of the candidates, instead of their initial popularity.

    But this point seems no longer to be wishful thinking for our democracy. In fact, this point of a candidate’s character (or qualifications) “trumping” their initial popularity is well illustrated from Obama’s approval index (as reported by Rasmussen Reports). For example, in January 2009, 65% of the American voters approved of Obama, as his initial popularity was riding high. Today, almost the inverse is true: 55% disapprove of him as President, and his popularity is relegated now to riding on the backs of the 16% of likely American voters who say the country is heading in the right direction. Note to self: Being the popular choice isn’t always the best choice.

    Of course, misleading the electorate is not limited to campaign “push cards” or mail pieces, and sometimes it doesn’t matter what political party you belong to either.

    Even the Shreveport Times reported on the Sunday before the election, in error, that one of Craig Smith’s campaign talking points was false, regarding the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Department budget doubling to $31 million over the past 10 years, while total arrests have largely remained the same. I do support our Sheriff, and if you do the research, you will find that the Sheriff’s budget has, in fact, doubled in the past 10 years, according to the Louisiana Legislative Auditor’s Office. Even the Sheriff’s own data reflects total arrests have remained the same over the past 10 years. Maybe there is good reason for that, but again, let the candidates explain their positions, free from false suggestions, made deliberately, or negligently, by either the candidates or reporters themselves.

    I understand, of course, that running for political office is not for the faint of heart or thin-skinned. But the electorate should know the facts about how all candidates for public office are expected to vote on the issues. That’s tough enough to analyze on a good day. But when a candidate or reporter begins introducing deception and distraction, intentional or otherwise, that’s just not right, no matter what people say about the whole “all’s fair in love and war” malarkey.