Louis R. Avallone

Category: 2011

  • Debt Ceiling

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    You heard about this, right? President Obama was lobbed a question regarding the likelihood that social security benefits would not be paid in August, unless the federal debt limit was raised by $2.2 trillion this month. You might think that this would have been an opportune moment for him to engage the American people on principles, not politics, and in facts and figures, not fear and foolishness. Unfortunately, President Obama didn’t think so.

    Instead, even with rising unemployment and higher and higher food, gasoline, drug, medical care, and housing costs, Obama spoke directly to millions of already worried American senior citizens, many of whom are living on meager, fixed incomes. Here’s what he said about the August social security payments, which total approximately $20 billion: “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,” reminding us, as well, that “this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans’ checks, these are folks on disability, and their checks.”

    This uncertainty might be considered important information, even instructive and educational, for our nation’s president to communicate to voters in such a candid and forthright way. But there’s one issue there, though: It’s just not true. Those payments to our nation’s senior citizens (and veterans alike) will be made, even if Obama doesn’t stamp and lick the back of every check envelope before mailing.

    Although it is unconscionable that the office of the presidency of the United States would be used like a baseball bat, held over the heads of senior citizens, to intimidate Congress into raising the federal debt limit, neither the facts nor the American people support the substance, nor the spirit, of Obama’s doom and gloom.

    The fact is that the U.S. Treasury is expecting $172 billion in tax receipts next month. Based on historical data, it is unlikely that interest payments in August will exceed $35 billion. This leaves approximately $137 billion for other August bills such as Social Security, Medicare, and military salaries.

    What we don’t have enough money left over is to pay for the continued expansion of government, exemplified through Congress passing a $700 billion financial bailout of the banks, plus over $1 trillion in economic stimulus, a $1.5 trillion health care expansion, a $447 billion omnibus spending bill, and a $15 billion Medicaid bailout, not to mention a 25% rise in discretionary spending.

    You see, the legal limit on borrowing, by the federal government, is at $14.3 trillion currently. Democrats want to raise that limit to by $2.4 trillion. So, if the debt ceiling is not raised, Obama has some tough decisions to make, all in a run-up year to his re-election campaign.

    But not being able to send out social security and veterans’ benefit checks is not one of those tough decisions. In fact, President Clinton’s lawyers, in the Department of Justice, in 1995, laid out how federal agencies should operate if Congress failed to appropriate funds. Because the program doesn’t need Congress to authorize funds for Social Security each year, those benefit checks could be mailed during a government shutdown, if the federal debt limit is not raised. During the last major shutdown in 1995, the Social Security Administration mailed checks during that shutdown and it appears that the agency has the legal authority to do so again.

    Now, there are some folks, out there, that will make the case for Obama’s “non-guarantee” statement that Social Security benefit checks may not be mailed in August. They might say that he is technically correct because, in 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that workers do not have a legal right to their Social Security benefits and, therefore, benefits cannot be guaranteed where there is no legal right. While this is a debate all unto itself, the American people should be able to rely upon the spirit of what the president says, without having to read the fine print first, for exceptions and exclusions. By saying that he could not “guarantee” that Social Security checks would be mailed out in August, he unnecessarily and callously frightened millions of senior citizens; many of whom simply took their president’s words for the plain meaning he intended for them to understand.

    With the national debt at its highest point in 50 years, compared with the size of the U.S. economy, and with Americans opposing the raising of the federal debt limit by a margin of 2-to-1, we need more responsible government, not more rhetoric.

    Lyndon Johnson once told Richard Nixon, “The Presidency is like being a jackass caught in a hail storm. You’ve got to just stand there and take it.” Sure feels like it is the other way around today, as the American people seem to be the ones caught in the hailstorm. Oh my, how times have changed.

  • Less is More

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Last month, officials in Shreveport, Bossier City, and Bossier Parish had announced a ban on the sale of fireworks, through the end of June, effectively causing the seasonal vendors of fireworks to forego any selling to the public during this year’s 4th of July holiday season. Because of the dire drought conditions in our area, the ban was imposed for public safety reasons.

    The Shreveport Fire Chief delivered the news of the ban, during a press conference, all while at least twenty (20) other government officials and representatives stood behind him, apparently in a show of solidarity for the imposition of the fireworks ban.

    With this large contingency of government officials and representatives on hand, to participate in a press conference where far fewer persons could have accomplished the same objective of informing the public, many folks might find it appropriate to insert some humor here, along the lines of, “How many government officials and representatives does it take to screw in a lightbulb?”

    But this is no laughing matter. In fact, it is estimated that almost 50% of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local government is just the expense of employing the government employees (like those honorable public servants standing behind the Shreveport Fire Chief during that press conference). Is it any surprise that municipalities across the U.S. are on the verge of bankruptcy?

    So, with that said, were 20 government officials and representatives needed here, flanking the Shreveport Fire Chief’s podium? Or could those folks have applied their time more effectively in achieving the important work of the people in other matters?

    Practically speaking, it seems that only 1 representative, from the City of Shreveport, Bossier City, and Bossier Parish, would have achieved the work of 20 that were present. And by doing so, this would have represented an 85% reduction in the personnel expense of having those other important government officials and representatives standing idly by.

    But however trivial this example of inefficiency may seem, it is indicative of the billions of dollars wasted at all levels of government. Since 2007, private businesses have cut hiring and increased layoffs, but the percentage of federal employees who lost their jobs has barely changed, despite the downturn in the economy. Instead, the unemployment rate in the private sector has nearly doubled to 9.4%.

    Did you know that there are 15 federal agencies overseeing food-safety laws? Or that there are 70 programs, across 57 different federal departments and agencies, which receive more than $16 billion a year to fight illegal drug use? Or that there are at least 80 “economic development” federal programs being administered by 4 agencies, at a cost of $6.5 billion? I mean, there are 10 federal agencies that are attempting to track “teacher quality” through 82 programs. Come on, now. Seriously?

    So it’s no surprise that, with such redundancy, you need lots of folks to administer those redundant programs. As a result, in America today, there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). Almost the inverse was true in 1960. More Americans now work for the government than work in farming, forestry, construction, fishing, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined.

    And Louisiana, like so many other states, is facing huge budget shortfalls in the 2011 fiscal year. These shortfalls, and the fact that Louisiana has one of the highest percentages of government employees – 15.6% — is no coincidence; although we’re doing slightly better than Mississippi where 18.9% of the workforce is employed by state and local governments. For Louisiana’s part, we just cannot continue to afford the payroll expense of 100,000 state employees or the associated $12 billion debt in our state pension system.

    The bottom line is this: “We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we have not taxed enough,” said Ronald Reagan in 1982, “but we have a trillion dollar debt because we spend too much.” So, when folks talk about raising taxes, to support more government programs, just remember this means more government employees, and that means even greater debt and inefficiency – at the local, state and federal levels alike; debt and inefficiency that we can no longer afford the illusion of supporting.

    Will Rogers once said, “Be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.” That may be true, but with just a little effort to improve our government’s efficiency, couldn’t we just pay less for the government we have?

  • Insatiable

    Insatiable

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Recently, the Vancouver Canucks lost Game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals to the Boston Bruins. Back home in Vancouver, their distraught fans rioted, with nearly 100 people arrested and almost 150 injured, while cars were burned and an estimated 50 businesses vandalized. The total damages are expected to run into the millions of dollars. Of course, sports rioting is not new, but the recent Vancouver riot was unusual because it is usually the winning team that riots.

    The winning team riots, really? For example, when the Los Angeles Lakers captured the NBA title in 2000, its fans began vandalizing property, setting bonfires, and destroying vehicles, resulting in 11 arrests and 12 injuries. Same result occurred when the Lakers beat the Boston Celtics in the 2010 NBA finals. And after the Red Sox won the 2007 World Series, there were at least 37 arrests made as fans burned cars and threw bottles at police – and this was the winning team.

    Ridiculous, right? But this isn’t much different than the modern-day Democrat Party. Their “team” won in 2008 and their “team captain” is in White House. Yet all they have done is complain since then. In fact, only 44% of these Democrats say that the U.S. is heading down the right track, and 69% of voters, who are not affiliated with either major political party, believe that the U.S. is heading down the wrong track.

    Just this past March, for example, Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin said Obama had “failed to lead.” Just last week, former Vice President Al Gore sharply criticized Obama as lacking leadership on climate change. Hispanics too are unhappy with the President, as summarized by a Miami immigration activist who said, “Obama has the guts to deport our mothers, deport our fathers, deport our people and then come to us and say `I want your vote’? Please.”

    Democrat Sen. Kent Conrad recently described Obama’s consideration of tax cuts, to stimulate our economy, as “just misdirected.” Last week, Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg, wrote a letter to the President, saying his administration “has not shown the leadership to combat gun violence.” Even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi led Congressional Democrats last week, arguing that Obama’s timeline for bringing 33,000 U.S. troops home by next summer isn’t fast enough.

    Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. And as if that wasn’t enough, Congressional Democrats in April called Obama’s budget compromise “irresponsible,” “dangerous” and “immoral.” When one’s morality offends liberals, you know you have crossed the proverbial “line in the sand”.

    But for all of the criticism, remember that Democrats, and liberals alike, chose these policies and yet they appear miserable. There was the $787 billion government stimulus plan to start things off, followed-up by nationalized healthcare. There were opportunities to lower income taxes and reduce government regulations, as well as union controls, so that small businesses, in particular, would begin investing and hiring again. Instead, more Americans than forecast filed applications for first-time jobless benefits last week and new-home sales fell in May, as the jobless rate rose to 9.1 percent, which is the highest since December, up from 9 percent.

    And instead of choosing policies that promoted energy independence, they chose moratoriums on offshore drilling in the U.S., which was predicted to reduce long-term U.S. oil production by 27%, while increasing long-term U.S. foreign oil imports by 19 percent, not to mention the thousands of jobs lost to Louisiana alone.

    They chose redistribution of wealth policies that advertised “shovel ready” jobs, a term that the President now chuckles and grins about; as if my 5 year old just answered the question of “Did you eat all the cookies before dinner?” Still, Democrats got what they wanted, yet seem unhappy. What gives?

    There is a school of thought that liberals are generally unhappy. And unhappy is not good. According to hundreds of surveys, happy people increase our prosperity and strengthen our communities.

    According to a study by the Pew Institute, conservative Republicans are happier than conservative Democrats, and moderate/liberal Republicans are happier than liberal Democrats. In fact, there are several predictable conditions that are present in happier Americans: Faith, work, family, charity, and freedom, with the level of happiness being proportionate to the extent, which these conditions exist within us all.

    But surprisingly, political elections have little effect on our happiness, which might partly explain why the Democrats can be so unhappy. Apparently, Democrat victories in elections do not translate into happiness for Democrats.

    In fact, according to the Pew Institute study, going, as far back to 1972, conservatives are happier than liberals, even under Democrat Party control. The data indicates this to be overwhelmingly true during both the Clinton and Carter administrations. And not only that, but it turns out the age old wisdom of “money cannot buy happiness” is true here also. As it turns out, poor Republicans are happier than poor Democrats. And despite conventional wisdom that it is easier to be happier when you are wealthier, you should know that this happier Republican condition is shown to remain consistent throughout all income groups.

    Of course, unhappiness may not cause Democrats to riot in the streets, or turn over cars, or shatter the storefronts of businesses along American main streets. But Democrat policies have wreaked havoc on our nation, turning the direction of our country away from those traditional, conservative values upon which we were founded, while shattering the lives of millions who are still unemployed because of small businesses who are crushed under the weight of higher taxes, increased government regulations, and the uncertainty of them both.

    Maybe it’s just like Abraham Lincoln said: “People are just as happy as they make up their minds to be.” But then again, he was a Republican.

  • Branding

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Long ago, in a world far, far way, before status updates on Facebook or innumerable Twitter feeds, the power in “branding” an image in American society was well understood.

    In fact, 30% of the world’s 100 most valuable brands were developed before 1900.

    And these brand names can often become so recognized that they become a generic name for the product itself, such as “Band-Aid” or “Kleenex” or “Coke.” Brand names become the “personality” of the product or service, and since 75% of buying decisions are based on emotion, the personality of the brand is a powerful motivator, and can be financially lucrative, as well.

    For example, in 1988, Philip Morris purchased Kraft Foods, Inc. for six (6) times what the company was worth on paper because what they were really purchasing was the over forty (40) brand names, including Maxwell House and Oreo. But the effectiveness of branding is not limited to coffee and cookies, branding works with people too. The “Oprah” brand is worth an estimated $2.5 billion, for example.

    Similarly, some have said that presidential candidates are engaged in “branding” their candidacies, much like McDonald’s or Nike appeals to their respective target markets to sell milkshakes and shoes. But there is really something here, to this so-called “branding” of candidates.

    Consider, for example, that the Obama campaign was named Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008, edging past runner-up Apple, whose brand value is estimated at $153 billion. Seriously? A U.S. presidential campaign was lauded as a “marketer”?

    Some say this candidate “branding” is “junk politics” because it shifts a political campaign from a platform-centered, or ideas-based campaign to a candidate-centered campaign, emphasizing image over substance. Perhaps this is why Obama, for example, uses the personal pronoun “I” so repeatedly in his speeches (132 times in one recent speech alone).

    Historian Warren Susman suggests that the emphasis on image is consistent with a shift in our society from being production-oriented to being presentation-oriented. In other words, the seemingly dull values of hard work, integrity and courage, that ordinarily accompanies thrift and moderation, becomes much less important than charm and likability.

    A candidate, if effective as a “brand,” will only say and do whatever the polling data (like consumer research) indicates will be most effective to get them elected (or sell their product or service). Marketing professionals and psychologists alike have long recognized that emotional reactions can be as influential as rational ones, which explains the carefully chosen and controlled images in political campaigns.

    In essence then, branding helps us organize, and simplify, the estimated 3,000 marketing messages we receive everyday. 65% of Americans already feel overwhelmed with marketing messages and 61% feel the volume of advertising is out of control. I mean, even at the nationally televised memorial service, following the Tucson shootings last year, where Obama addressed the nation, the memorial service included a branded T-shirt for each attendee that included a logo advertising, “Together We Thrive: Tucson and America.”

    You see, the gravity of the situation involving the branding of candidates is that it masks reality because our candidates steer clear of the complicated issues, and into more marketable ones. And the longer we live in an illusion, absent the discussion of the complicated issues, the less capable we are as a nation to cope with the reality of those complicated issues.

    Branding in politics, unfortunately, oversimplifies the inconsistencies, while seemingly bringing a sense of order to our complicated world at the same time. Out of a job? Vilify the rich. Price of gas too high? Demonize the oil companies. Destruction of the planet? Blame the burning of fossil fuels. Want to reduce the size of government, increase personal accountability, and promote self-reliance? Pigeonhole those folks as compassionless, mean-spirited, right wing extremists. You see how this branding works, now?
    In reality, the candidates, and the issues, are not so neatly and succinctly packaged. Yes, reality is complicated…and often boring, and there is much more to a campaign of ideas, than of carefully choreographed images and manufactured dramas.

    But the campaign for the presidency in 2012 must not be reduced to a national branding campaign, or boy band parade. It must be about setting the course for the kind of hope and change that cannot be discussed completely in a 30-second sound bite, staged photo opportunity, or in using trite stereotypes. We cannot risk again having a president that is branded as all things to all people because, in the end, a president that becomes all things to all people becomes nothing to no one.

  • Memorial Day

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    You ever feel sometimes that something is just missing? Like it just doesn’t make good sense, but folks do it anyway? Like they are just going through the motions, and don’t know exactly why? Well, you are not alone. And consider the recent Memorial Day observance, as an example.

    Did you know that only 20% of U.S. adults say that they are very familiar with Memorial Day’s purpose? So, before we go any further, and for you other 80% percent reading here, you should know that Memorial Day is to honor those who died fighting the nation’s wars, even though you may be most familiar with Memorial Day as signaling the “unofficial” beginning of the summer vacation season each year, not to mention crazy low sale prices on everything from mattresses to mini-vans.

    Yet, while Americans do enjoy the three-day weekend that Memorial Day brings, most also understand the historical significance of liberty, and war. We understand our freedom is not free, but a gift from our soldiers. We understand that, since our nation’s founding, over 2.8 million soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in combat, or as Lincoln described it, “the last full measure of devotion.” These are the men and women, who have defended our nation’s liberty, and for whom the Memorial Day observance seeks to honor.

    But maybe the watering-down of Memorial Day began when Congress enacted the National Holiday Act of 1971, making it into a three-day weekend. This may have had the unintended consequence of making it easier for folks to be distracted from the spirit and meaning of the day. In fact, the VFW believes that this “contributed greatly to the general public’s nonchalant observance of Memorial Day.”

    And yes, still, our children know only of backyard barbecues, swimming pools, family get-togethers, and mom or dad having a day off from work on Memorial Day. They know not of socialism or pacifism, or the doctrine of achieving peace through strength. They know not of car bombings in their neighborhood markets, air raid drills, religious intolerance, limitations on what news they can read or what subjects they may study, or how they may dress or express themselves politically, or otherwise.

    They know not of these matters only because of the men and women who jeopardized their own well being to protect the countless millions of us who will likely never know them by name; nor know the last words of those who died in battle or the convictions within their own heart that allowed them to leave the safety and security of their home and family, so that so many of us can remain within ours.

    And for these men and women, it was the quality of their character that still defines our modern-day, American way of life. From brokering a peace that ended the Holocaust, to winning the cold war, and to fighting terrorists on their own soil, the sacrifices of these fallen Americans continue to preserve the American dream for generations to come.

    No, our children may not yet understand what it means to be free, but their lack of understanding is a testament to the achievements and selfless service of generations of our veterans. Our children know freedom because someone else paid the cost of admission for them (and for us). And by observing Memorial Day, as a more solemn occasion, we are less likely to dilute the significance of our freedom, nor the lives sacrificed in defense of it. In the words of Lincoln, “Any nation that does not honor its heroes, will not endure long.”

    So, as another Memorial Day passes by, let us remember that we need not wait until the last Monday in May each year, to honor those who died fighting the nation’s wars. For me, at least, it should fall on every day of the year.

  • Giving Credit

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    As we celebrated Mother’s Day earlier this month, and now look forward to celebrating Father’s Day next month, I am again reminded of how grateful I am to my parents, for their immeasurable sacrifices and tireless determination to demonstrate life’s lessons to their children through their own example, and not by mere words. Arguably, there were many life lessons that, at the time, I was none too happy to learn. Of course, years later, I would be thankful for the wisdom in their parenting, even though I may not have fully understood it at the time.

    Well, this had me thinking about hindsight, and the clarity of the rearview mirror. The killing of Osama Bin Laden, for example, is a testament to nearly a decade of American perseverance, and the advantage of our nation’s military superiority. The world is a safer place today, not only because Bin Laden is dead, but because it sends the message that, no matter how difficult the circumstances, or how long it takes, the U.S. military will prevail in defending the honor of its citizens.

    It is often said that victory has many parents. And with the success of the military mission to capture Bin Laden, dead or alive, this is certainly true here. As Obama described, on that late Sunday night television address to the nation, it was Obama who directed the mission, and he who determined that there was enough intelligence to proceed, and he who provided the “go ahead.” As he absorbed the credit for the success of the mission though, it occurred to me that this success would have been wholly impossible had the views of liberals, such as Obama, prevailed upon the nation, during much of the last decade.

    For example, Obama has described Guantanamo as “a tremendous recruiting tool for al-Qaeda,” even though it has proven to be important for gathering intelligence, and achieving the missions, like the one Obama is taking credit for now. Candidate Obama derided Bush for airborne attacks along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Yet now, Obama has increased these same attacks fivefold, compared to Bush. Then, in 2007, Senator Obama introduced a bill that would have removed all troops from Iraq by March 2008, yet President Obama must obviously see it differently today.

    Obama claims the credit for even the Democrat leadership who criticized General Petraeus during the crucial years of the war, calling him as Gen. Betray-us. Or how about Obama claiming credit for those anti-military, Democrat politicians who, in 2005, accused our military of “going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children…women…”? Or when Democrat Representative John Murtha called several Marines “murderers” in a Time magazine article in 2006? I’m sure Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid is glad that no one was listening, in 2007, when he announced that the war in Iraq was lost.

    So, after opposing almost all aspects of the War on Terror, Obama and liberals like him, throughout the nation, are enjoying the fruits of the very Republican policies that they have so persistently opposed, chastised, and sought to eliminate altogether. If they had been successful in their opposition efforts, over the past decade alone, the capture of Bin Laden would likely never occurred, nor the credit be available for them to take as their own.

    This had me thinking now. With the almost universal celebration of the capture of Bin Laden, Americans can look back and be grateful to the Republican leadership, and the Bush administration, for engaging the War of Terror, despite its unpopularity among liberals and the mainstream media alike.

    But what are some Democrat-initiated policies that Americans can look back upon and be grateful for their creation, despite any fervent opposition at the time? Like lessons from our parents, as children, that we may not have fully appreciated until years later?

    I thought about the The Great Society programs, but those were (and still are today) largely inefficient, and ineffective, to successfully wage the “war on poverty”, as declared by LBJ in 1964. Still today, nearly 40 million Americans or 13.2 percent of the population live in poverty, and the poverty rate for children is even higher. Since 1964, the U.S. has spent more than $13 trillion fighting poverty, while the bankrupt-ridden Social Security program is now paying out $29 billion more than it takes in this year.

    Then I thought about the sub-prime mortgages legislation, which was a Carter-era law that sought to encourage banks to make increasingly risky loans to borrowers who wouldn’t qualify for a mortgage under normal standards of creditworthiness. The end result, of course, is all to painful to recall: Mortgage lenders have been bankrupted, millions of sub-prime homeowners have been foreclosed on, sales of new homes has hit a 47-year low, and credit is more difficult to obtain than ever.

    But I am still back to my original question: What are some Democrat-initiated policies that Americans can look back upon and be grateful about, despite any fervent opposition at the time? Unfortunately, the list of regrettable Democrat-initiated policies seems overwhelmingly easier to identify. And that’s my point. Like children, there are far more instances where the wisdom of a parent’s conservative values has provided a steady hand and desired outcome, whereas the folly of liberal reasoning has produced the opposite, and admittedly unintended, consequences.

    Maybe it is just like Winston Churchill said, “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.” What do you think? Well, let’s run this past mom or dad first.

  • Flawed: Obama’s Rhetoric Masks Truth

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    You heard about this, right? In a town hall meeting in Reno, Nevada last month, President Obama said, “I’m rooting for everybody to get rich, but I believe that we can’t ask everybody to sacrifice and then tell the wealthiest among us, well, you can just relax and go count your money, and don’t worry about it. We’re not going to ask anything of you.”

    Well, let’s talk about that for a minute, since you brought it up. Who is the “everybody” that is being asked to “sacrifice”, and what exactly are they sacrificing? Or is this merely the trite and tired populist campaign rhetoric talking points, taken from the Democrat operations manual that was written nearly 80 years ago with the ushering in of the New Deal?

    You do know, however, that one in every two Americans do not even pay income tax, right? In fact, because of the tax cut extension passed last year, many American families, including those households making between $50,000 and $75,000 annually, will see a reduction of over $2,000 in their federal income taxes, on average. And just in case you didn’t know, the top one percent of American income earners do pay almost 40 percent of all federal income taxes, with the top five percent paying 58 percent, leaving the rest of the taxes due to be split up among the rest of us.

    Okay, so if one in every two Americans is not paying any income tax, and are not being asked to “sacrifice” in some other way, then it sounds like the “wealthiest” Americans, according to Obama, need to “pony-up” more or, in the words of Joe Biden, “get some skin in the game,” even though they already have often worked endless hours, for years, with little or no pay, to finance their small business with credit cards, loans from friends and family, and mortgages where the collateral was their own home and good name.
    But Obama just doesn’t get it. In one campaign speech after another, he refers to “rich folks” as if they are all lifetime members of a private club, where someone has to die in order for the next person on the waiting list to join or take their seat at the table. And since the conventional wisdom is that these “rich folks” keep getting richer (while the “poor folks” get poorer), it only stands to reason, as he explained in a speech last month, that those “who have benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more.”

    But, as Abraham Lincoln put it, “You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.” The implication from Obama’s comments, instead, is that those who benefit the most in our society have essentially won life’s “lottery” and have a moral debt to repay their community for their good luck. I get that. But Americans already contribute more than $300 billion a year to organized private charities, and volunteer eight billion hours annually to charitable activities, all without government involvement in redistributing anyone’s “wealth.”

    Does anyone think that the federal government can do this better than private individuals and organizations? Of course not. Take Warren Buffet, for example. He is one of the richest men in the world and routinely advocates tax increases to fund federal government spending. Yet, ironically, he is leaving most of his estate to private charities, and not the federal government.

    Obama says “we’re going to tax people making over $250,000 a year so those millionaires and billionaires will pay their fair share.” Are we listening? All we must hear is the “millionaires and billionaires” part, thinking it doesn’t affect us. But he’s talking about increasing taxes on small businesses, where most of us work, even those that earn $250,000; businesses that are responsible for over 50% of our private sector workforce, 50 % of the gross domestic product (GDP), and 90 % of net new jobs.

    These are not all “millionaires and billionaires,” but he must know that. The reason that Obama is coming after the upper-middle class here is because the “millionaires and billionaires” simply don’t have enough money. In fact, he could confiscate all the wealth from the “millionaires and billionaires,” and there still wouldn’t be enough money to cover the costs of his administration’s agenda.

    But back to the “rich folks” discussion and Obama’s image of them wearing a banker’s green visor, in a dimly lit backroom, counting their money, all while sipping a lacquer that most folks like me couldn’t pronounce. You see, to vilify the “wealthy” is to accept the flawed reasoning that this is a monolithic group, or that same people are “wealthy” from year to year. For most Americans, wealth is not static, nor a forgone conclusion that they will always be wealthy. Every year, new people will qualify in Obama’s “millionaires and billionaires” club, and every year too, folks will not earn enough to belong and lose their membership.

    So when Obama goes after the “club” with higher taxes, he is crippling the galloping American spirit of entrepreneurship, which means fewer jobs created, less ingenuity, and a dampening of the American soul. And that’s the headline here.

    Socialism may hope to make sure we all have enough, and guarantee the same outcomes. But even for Obama, it’s hard to ignore: Someone has to first create the wealth, before he can redistribute it.

  • Something to Hide?

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    When Republicans are asked who they support for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, Donald Trump is now tied with the leader, Mike Huckabee, according to a new national poll. Surprised? Well, in fact, over the past several weeks, Trump has nearly doubled his support since he announced that he may enter the presidential race. A recent national poll even found that Trump’s name recognition among voters was 85 percent, trailing just behind Palin’s name recognition of 90 percent.

    But while the Trump “brand” may provide the bright lights of the big city, and a marquee quality candidate, to a relatively bland cast of Republican candidates for president in 2012, it is perhaps his message regarding Obama’s birth certificate that has resonated the most with voters, and lent credibility to those millions of Americans who have constitutional questions about Obama’s eligibility to be president. On ABC’s The View, for example, Trump recently asked his hosts, “Why doesn’t he [Obama] show his birth certificate? There’s something on that birth certificate that he doesn’t like.”

    And Trump isn’t alone on this issue. A new poll indicates that 25% of voters believe Obama was not born in the United States, and nearly 40% of voters think that there is, at least, “cause to wonder.” After all, the U.S. Constitution clearly states that only “natural born citizens” are eligible to be president. Even MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has asked why the President has not already demanded the release of his long-form birth certificate, by adding, “if it exists, why not put it out?”

    While this seems like plain-old common sense to most Americans, the media has vilified and mocked these same folks, often referring to them as “birthers”, who have had the audacity or brazenness to merely put forward the constitutional question of whether Obama is a natural born citizen. The media has portrayed birthers as conspiracy nuts, or paranoid, delusional fringe voters, whose compulsive dislike of Obama simply defeats any rational, thought processes whatsoever. But you have those types in any large group of folks, don’t you? We have look beyond the messenger, and evaluate the merits.

    So, if you aren’t already familiar with the merits, of the constitutional questions being raised by so-called birthers, it goes like this: Obama’s long-form, or original birth certificate has not been released to the public. In fact, Obama has exercised deliberate care to keep the original birth certificate from becoming public. Nonetheless, the Hawaii State Department of Health confirms that they possess the original vital records of Obama, indicating he was born in Hawaii.

    This is important because Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…”

    There are voluminous court cases and scholarly articles, which provide detailed legal and historical analysis of the meaning of “natural born citizen”. However, it is generally agreed that 1) U.S.-born children of U.S.-citizen parents are natural born citizens and, 2) natural born citizenship is established only at birth and cannot be acquired after birth through naturalization.

    With that said then, even if Obama was born in Honolulu, the question of Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president would seem to come down to whether or not he is a “natural born” citizen. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses citizenship, but not the issue of who is considered a “natural born citizen.”

    If being a natural born citizen requires being born on American soil, and that both of your parents be U.S. citizens (which a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1874 suggests), then there are significant constitutional issues with Obama’s eligibility to be president, especially because his father was a citizen of Kenya.

    And even if Obama was born in Mombasa, some folks have said that all of these constitutional questions are pointless because he qualifies as a natural born citizen as a function of his mother’s U.S. citizenship. However, this is incorrect, based on the law in effect in 1961. The law then was that a person would be considered a “natural born citizen” if either parent was a citizen who had lived at least 10 years in the U.S., including five years after the age of 14. But because Obama was born 3 months before his mother’s 19th birthday, she was too young to confer natural born citizenship to the newborn Barrack, under the law, in effect, in 1961.

    The bottom line is this: This is not about Obama personally, nor his policies. Believe it or not, and this may come as a surprise to some, but the institution of the presidency is much larger than the politics of any man (or woman) who is its temporary custodian. Americans expect the president to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” always, not merely when it is politically favorable. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”

    Last August, Obama said, “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” Well, Mr. President, the American people simply want the truth here. And if not from you, then from whom? And if not now, then when?

  • National Identity

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Almost 15 million U.S. residents have their identities used fraudulently each year, with financial losses totaling upwards of $50 billion. And as significant as these losses may be, a more malignant identity crisis faces our nation: the erosion of our national identity.

    Following Obama’s speech to the nation last month, regarding the Libyan conflict, there has been much written regarding the difference between Obama’s rhetoric, and his genuine belief in “American exceptionalism,” often considered the foundation of our national identity. “American exceptionalism” refers to the special character of the U.S. as a free nation based on democratic ideals and personal liberties. It’s what makes us a unique nation, a nation that remains, as President Ronald Reagan once said, “a model and hope to the world.”

    “American exceptionalism” is the story of our nation’s ingenuity, perseverance, and triumph; a story of pride in the dignity, diversity, and creativity of the individual, celebrating the virtue of hard work and the unbridled hope of one’s dreams. And for you liberals out there, it’s not a story that is need of any editing, although you have tried.

    Of course, it was not that long ago that Obama tried editing the story by apologizing for America, to the European countries, by saying that “there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” Right. Our nation showed “arrogance” by sacrificing countless American lives over our nation’s history, so that other souls might live free, and without persecution?

    But you see, while “American exceptionalism” reinforces our national identity, the European countries, whose people we have so often defended, are increasingly losing theirs. Why? Well, from France to Spain to Greece, these nations are replete with worker protests, and are facing mounting financial difficulties due, in part, to unchecked immigration of unassimilated migrant workers, many who are openly hostile to their own host nation, demanding continued entitlement to unsustainable, state-funded social programs and threatening the peace and stability of the nation.

    And now, these countries are facing the erosion of their national identities. Just this past February, for example, French President Nicolas Sarkozy admitted, “We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.” British Prime Minister James Cameron said essentially the same, “(W)e have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.”

    And while America’s shores once assimilated different cultures and religions into “one nation under God.” Today the “great melting pot” in the U.S. means that traditionalists get thrown into the boiling kettle of liberal diversity. Before long, our own nation’s identity will begin to erode precipitously, just as those European countries are witnessing now for themselves.

    And similar to errors of those European countries, such as France and Great Britain, Obama’s continues to express indifference, regarding our open border with Mexico, which continues to be plagued by cartel violence, drugs, and other forms of illegal smuggling, as well as illegal immigration. In fact, the authority of state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law has been diminished under the Obama administration, as the federal government now largely abandons the prosecution of non-criminal illegal immigrants and allows them to remain in the U.S.

    Even dyed-in-the-wool liberals must see the parallels here with the European nations and the consequences of unchecked, unassimilated immigrants to one’s nation. The proverbial handwriting is on the wall.

    You see, a nation is a group of people who share a destiny, and with that destiny, an identity. The truth is that this national identity needs pride, and a sense of affection that is expressed to the exclusion of any other allegiance. Again, this is the foundation of nation building. As it erodes, so will the nation.

    In fact, the stronger the national identity, the greater pride we have in our nation. 75% of us are proud to be Americans. Compare that with only 33% of people in Germany, France, and Italy that say the same about their own country. But these are countries that are losing their national identities, while liberals in our own country are attempting to deliberately diminish our own, through so-called “political correctness.”

    But they don’t get it. America is different. We are exceptional. It’s why there is no “French” or “German” dream, but an “American” dream. Sure, our military and economic might is unrivaled. We are more religious than any other advanced democracy, we give more to charity, vote more frequently, and have faith in the power of individual souls to shape their own destiny through hard work.

    Yes, we believe that America is exceptional, but not because of what is does, but because of what it believes. In the words of Ronald Reagan, “We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth.”

  • Whiners

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Do you remember this? In July 2008, former U.S. Senator Phil Gramm, who was co-chairman of John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, said, “We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline.” Well, what followed those comments was a media hailstorm of criticism, in one report after another, all seemingly intent on using Gramm’s comments as evidence that presidential candidate John McCain was insensitive and out of touch with the American people. So powerful were these reports that, less than one week later, Gramm resigned as co-chairman of McCain’s campaign.

    Then, just earlier this month, outgoing Chicago Mayor Richard Daley (brother of Obama chief of staff Bill Daley), summarily said the same, “We have become a country of whiners,” adding that Americans can compete with any nation, if we have the confidence to take action.

    Of course, Jimmy Carter knows also about the crisis of American confidence. He said the same as well, in 1979, during his so-called “malaise” speech to the nation, calling lack of confidence as “a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will.” Amidst 21% interest rates, 13.5% inflation, the overthrowing of the Shah of Iran by Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic revolution, and 66 American hostages being held in Tehran, one voter said it this way in 1979, to President Carter: “We’ve got to stop crying and start sweating, stop talking and start walking, stop cursing and start praying. The strength we need will not come from the White House, but from every house in America.”

    Amen. Amen. Amen. But is that what we do, though? Whine? The dictionary defines “whining” as, “To complain or protest in a childish fashion.” Well, consider the following.

    The iPhone was named invention of the year in 2007 by Time magazine. It revolutionized mobile phone technology, allowing you to combine a computer, telephone, camera, clock, radio, DVD player, CD player, photo album, video conferencing, and television all into a single device that you can fit into your shirt pocket. But when some iPhones, earlier this month, didn’t quite make the transition seamless to daylight savings time, news reports quickly examined this debilitating debacle, and the whining began.
    One newspaper reporter whined how thousands of iPhone users in the U.S. were “left two hours adrift” when their phones did not transition automatically to daylight savings time. And whether you were watching KTBS or KSLA, every 30 minutes the story rotated on the morning news shows about the helpless folks, who missed church because of the glitch, or “almost” missed yoga (oh goodness).

    In fact, one woman went so far as to blame Steve Jobs for being late to work, and subsequently being fired. She whined, “If you had warned me about the glitch, I could have at least picked up a $5, battery-operated alarm clock that would have saved my job.” That’s so sad, isn’t it?

    Hey, lady…here’s one for you: Have a back-up system. Borrowing from the popular GEICO Insurance commercial, “Maybe we should chug on over to mamby-pamby land where maybe we can find some confidence for you…” And while we are there, you can trade in that tired iPhone technology for the world’s first commercial handheld cellular phone which cost $3,995 (in 1983 dollars), measuring 13” x 1-3/4” x 3-1/2” inches in dimension, boasted eight hours of standby time, took 10 hours to recharge, and an LED display and memory to store thirty “dialing locations.” Quit whining already, please.

    And maybe whining is more prevalent than we might realize. After all, as Phil Gramm had noted during his controversial remarks in 2008, “misery sells newspapers.” This is certainly true in Wisconsin, isn’t it? The average Milwaukee Public School teacher will be receiving $100,005 in compensation this year – $56,500 of that is in salary, and a whopping $43,505 is in benefits. Yet when the new governor in Wisconsin wanted to eliminate the collective bargaining rights of the unions and make public workers pay for half of their pensions and a portion of their health care, teachers whined and refused to come to work, while Democrat state legislators left the state, rather than participate in the democratic process necessary to balance their state’s budget.

    One teacher in Wisconsin explained to a reporter about how difficult it is to explain, “to an 8-and 10-year old that the governor of your state basically wants to take money away from dad and mom.” For this teacher, and his wife, who is also a teacher, they earn a household income of $137,052 annually, between the two of them.

    You understand the injustice here, right? I mean, according to a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, real median household income in the United States is $50,221, and this ranged from $69,272 in Maryland to $36,646 in Mississippi. So, it stands to reason, these Wisconsin teachers are getting the short end of the proverbial stick?

    Yes, there is a certain population of Americans that are whiners. But in our culture’s worship of the trivial, the whiners are given a platform, and their whining amplified, by the media. Most Americans, however, “do” something, they don’t merely whine. That means they do more than just “hope” something, or “blame” something. It’s what millions of us do every day when we go to work early, stay late, take a second job, go to school, volunteer at our church, participate in civic organizations, and exercise our right to vote.

    Most of us don’t whine. We recognize, instead, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, “The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” And, for you whiners, there’s not an app for that.