Louis R. Avallone

Category: 2011

  • Dangerous Precedent

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Oil has risen to over $100 a barrel now. It is estimated that an additional $10 – 20 increase, in the per-barrel price of imported crude oil, will translate into an additional 100,000 jobs lost in the U.S. in 2011. And while there is political unrest in Egypt and Libya, even higher oil prices are certain to result if the demonstrations spread to the Persian Gulf or to Nigeria and Algeria.

    Closer to home, however, the news is also discouraging. Foreclosures are supposed to increase by 20 percent this year, over 2010, with prices expected to bottom out as well in the housing market.

    And according to Gallup, when the “underemployed Americans”, or those that have part-time jobs (but really want full-time jobs), are factored into the unemployment numbers, then the unemployment rate climbs to 19.3 percent of the American workforce.

    Meanwhile, the Chinese are manipulating their currency to keep its value low by constantly increasing the overall supply of their currency and thereby exporting more “cheap” goods to the U.S.; even while tens of thousands of factories and millions of jobs are moving to China. Still, Obama continued to fondly mention China many times during his recent State of the Union address. China now even makes more beer than the U.S. does.

    Then there is our border with Mexico, which continues to be plagued by cartel violence, drugs, and other forms of illegal smuggling, as well as illegal immigration. The Obama administration has even diminished the authority of state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law, while at the same time abandoning the prosecution of non-criminal illegal immigrants and allowing them to remain in the United States.

    It’s easy to go on and on here about several other challenges facing our nation, and the impending difficulties, requiring our nation’s full attention, in the proverbial pursuit of a more perfect union. We should be seeking consensus on solutions, not divisions. After all, only 27% of likely U.S. voters now say the country is heading in the right direction. And only 25% of the nation’s voters “strongly approve” of the way that President Obama is performing his role as president.

    So, if you were Obama, at this point, what do you do to unite a nation? Do you take definitive, even unpopular efforts within your own political party, to address unemployment, inflation, immigration, the rising national debt, political instability in the Middle East, or the rising nuclear threat from Iraq and North Korea? Or do you choose to initiate a significantly controversial policy reversal, without much explanation at all to the nation, on an issue that tends to polarize Americans, rather than unite them?

    Obama chose the latter, in spite of the already turbulent times in which we live. What did he do? He announced that he and his attorney general have decided that the Department of Justice will stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which passed in 1996 with overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress and was signed by President Clinton. So, he substituted the rule of law, with the rule of Obama.

    You heard about this right? Attorney General Holder said that the president had decided that the law, after 15 years, was not defensible. A court of law did not decide, nor Congress. Instead, Obama decided the law.

    Regardless of your political orientation regarding DOMA, the main issue here is that we are a “nation of laws”, as so famously was written by John Adams. And even though Senate records show that the Department of Justice, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, has told Congress before that it was not defending an act of Congress (13 times in the past six years), here’s the big question: What other laws will this president, or future presidents decide to declare that its administration won’t defend? After all, the president’s Article II duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” admittedly must include laws with which the president (or his political party) disagrees.

    What if the next Republican president decided that the Department of Justice would stop defending constitutional claims against Roe v. Wade? Or to invalidate Obama-care? If Obama continues to ask the Department of Justice to “stand down” in the defense of laws, passed by Congress, but with which he disagrees, it sets a dangerous precedent. In the future, winning the presidency may wield increased power in deciding what legislation to defend (and sustain), and what legislation will receive “end of life counseling” instead, thereby increasing Executive branch power at the expense of Congress’s power. Makes good sense? Well, not so much.

    John Adams’ ideal was that America was a “nation of laws, not of men.” This has been the bedrock of our nation’s longevity. But maybe Obama’s decision regarding DOMA is part of his self-described political strategy of “we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” If that is the case, unfortunately, our beloved nation has become a nation of men…not of laws.

  • Denial

    Denial

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    You heard about that didn’t you? Oprah Winfrey commented last week that the critics of the President should show “a certain level of respect” to him? After all, she said, “…everybody has a learning curve, and I feel that the reason why I was willing to step out for him was because I believed in his integrity and I believed in his heart.”

    Really? Well, her “stepping out for him” during the 2008 campaign is an understatement. In fact, The New York Times referred to Oprah’s 2008 campaign rally in Des Moines as “the largest spectacle of the campaign cycle.” In fact, she then believed in Obama’s heart so deeply that she said, “For the very first time in my life, I feel compelled to stand up and to speak out for the man who I believe has a new vision for America.” She even called him, “the one.”

    So, what’s really going on here? You see, Oprah sees how Obama’s “heart” has pushed through a $1 billion “stimulus” spending bill and yet the economy has still shed more than two million jobs since doing so. She reads that unemployment has risen to 9.8%, and that it doesn’t even include those discouraged workers who have given up looking entirely, not to mention the 60.8 million Americans still dependent on the government for their daily housing, food, and health care. She hears the reports of one million home foreclosures in just 2010, even as sales of new homes hit a 47-year low.

    She sees how Obama’s “heart” proposed a 2012 budget that reduces community development funding and home assistance programs, affecting mostly minorities, who are twice as likely to live in poverty as the rest of the population. She sees how Obama’s “heart” also now proposes almost $1 trillion in new taxes, over the course of the next 10 years, most of which are tax increases on individuals, while still adding over $26 trillion in new debt in the long run.

    Oprah watches as Obama’s “heart” bows to President Hu Jintau of China and nearly genuflects at the feet of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. She hears when his “heart” also led him to apologize for our country, to the European countries, by saying that “there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive,” despite the countless American lives sacrificed, so that others might live free, and without persecution.

    So when Oprah tells us to essentially give a break to “the one,” she may just be in denial. And she is not alone. You see, denial is a defense mechanism, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, despite the overwhelming evidence.

    From her recent comments, she is using many of the mechanisms of denial. Like so many supporters of the President, she minimizes the reality of the facts, but more importantly, she rationalizes it all away by explaining that “…everyone has a learning curve.” And because she may actually be experiencing feelings of embarrassment, remorse, and guilt from her “over-the-top” campaign endorsement, considering the direction of our country, she seems to minimize much of any responsibility simply by explaining she believed in his “heart”; everything else, she seems to say, she never bargained for.

    But perhaps more than anyone, Oprah knows that it takes more than “heart” or “wishful thinking” to be successful.

    After all, Oprah is the embodiment of the American dream, and her success is the result of hard work, dedication, and an unbridled entrepreneurial spirit to overcome whatever obstacles may lie ahead. Born to a pair of impoverished teenage parents in the South, and later raised in an inner city Milwaukee neighborhood, Oprah landed a job in radio while still in high school and began co-anchoring the local evening news at the age of 19. Later, she would be told by an assistant news director in New York City that her “hair’s too thick, nose is too wide, and chin’s too big.” Still, she went on to syndicate the Oprah Winfrey Show, the highest-rated program of its kind in history, has been ranked as the greatest black philanthropist in American history, and became the richest African American of the 20th century.

    Oprah knows that “respect” is earned and that success is more than “wishful thinking” or puling on one’s “heart” strings. She’s just in denial. And in the words of Mark Twain, “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.”

  • Investing Wisely

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Investment. Obama used this word 13 times in his State of the Union address last month, when proposing new programs in information technology, clean energy, and science research. In January 2009, in his first address to a joint session of Congress, he used the word “invest” many times also, to urge significant expansion of programs in areas like “energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy…”, he said. And he even used the word “investment” 15 times during the February 2009 signing ceremony of his nearly $1 billion stimulus package.

    Of course, the dictionary defines “investment” as, “the outlay of money usually for income or profit.” But for at least the past 20 years, “investment” is what Democrats say when they want to spend more of your money. In fact, Bill Clinton used the word nearly 24 times during his 1993 State of the Union address (coincidentally, just before the Republican Party gained a majority of seats in the House for the first time since 1954).

    So, when Obama uses the word “investment,” translate that to “government spending.” And when he says “reinvestment,” translate that to “government redistribution.” Whatever the word selection, and however polished the delivery, or clever the refrain, it remains inescapable that you simply cannot make chicken soup out of chicken poop.

    For substantially all of the “investment” our government has made, allegedly on our behalf, and with our monies, chicken poop is about all there is to show for it. For example, Congress passed a nearly $1 billion “stimulus” spending bill in February 2009 and the economy has still shed more than two million jobs since. Unemployment has risen to 9.8%, and that doesn’t even include those discouraged workers who have given up looking entirely.

    Our government has invested billions of federal dollars in education, for over 40 years, and test scores have barely budged. Taxpayer funds were invested in mortgage backed securities through Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac, resulting in the collapse of the housing market in 2006, and that “investment” has continued to pay “dividends” to the tax pay payers, in the form of one million foreclosures in just 2010, when sales of new homes hit a 47-year low.

    Now, Obama wants government to step up its subsidy “investment” of alternative energy, even though we have been doing so since the 1970s. Want to know what the return will be, on our government’s investment in a “green” economy? Call up Spain, which has greenest economy in all of Europe. They call it an “investment” there too. They also have 20% unemployment and their government’s own report found that Spain’s “green economy” program cost their country at least 2.2 jobs for every job “created” by the state. Makes no sense.

    The truth is that government “investment” is most always about expanding the size of government, and its influence, instead of the expenditure of money for income or profit. In fact, municipalities all over the U.S. are on the verge of bankruptcy. Half of the states’ pension funds are expected to run out of money by 2025.
    California’s pension shortfall, for example, is greater than the gross domestic product of Saudi Arabia, oil production and all.

    Yet these state and local governments continue to borrow money to fund their inefficient (and non-existent return on investment) operations – $2.4 trillion borrowed as of mid-2010, up 35% from five years ago.

    It is estimated that state and local government debt is nearly 10 times the national debt. Yet Obama tells our nation that prosperity can be attained by more government spending, even as the national debt grows to 70% of our gross domestic product (from 40% in 2008).

    Large, federal spending projects, such as manufacturing solar shingles and building high-speed rail lines, merely create temporary, unsustainable jobs only, because the object of such spending projects is of dubious consumer value to begin with. The private sector can create permanent jobs by allowing the market to determine the investments in new businesses and technologies.

    Government investments are not, in fact, investments. From the debt levels of our federal, state, and local governments, to rising unemployment, despite billions of dollars of stimulus, it is all incontrovertible evidence that government spending is rarely so prudent as to result in an income, or profit, of any kind. In the words of Ronald Reagan, it is as simple as recognizing, from history, that “outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.” That’s simply the truth, and for all of you unconvinced, taxing and spending liberals, the “truth” is a secure investment, with limited potential to lose “principal,” or loss of purchasing power due to inflation, and there are no surrender charges or maturity dates. Maybe that’s an “investment” this administration ought to look into.

  • Shielding From Folly

    January 26, 2011

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    As humans, we have a natural tendency to want to create order from chaos, buy perhaps sometimes, there’s no neat truth to be had. Nineteen people were shot, six of them fatally, during an open meeting U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was holding with members of her constituency in a supermarket parking lot Jan. 8 in Tucson, Ariz. The shooter was a 22-year-old student.

    In 1999, it was at Columbine High School where two senior students opened ␣re on their classmates, killing 12 students and one teacher, injuring 21 others. Then there was the killing spree at Virginia Tech in 2007 in which a student killed 32 people, making it the deadliest college shooting attack in our nation’s history. And just last September, a student fired several shots from an AK-47 assault rifle inside a library at the University of Texas and then killed himself.

    And while violence is not limited to a particular demographic and the impact of mental illness in our society must not be minimized, all of these terrible events were committed by people in their teens or early twenties whose desperation and hopelessness seemed palpable. These are folks who considered themselves victims and felt helpless and hopeless amidst a world that seems filled with setbacks, bad breaks and mean-spirited behavior from others.

    It doesn’t have to be that way, though, and that’s the message to be had here. The irony is that without those setbacks, bad breaks and mean-spirited behavior from others, it’s difficult to acquire the mature coping skills necessary to empower one’s self and be filled with hopefulness, not despair.

    Maybe there’s not a neat truth to be had here, but society seemingly has established a standard where it is more important to make children (and adults alike) feel good about themselves than to teach self-discipline, self-control, perseverance and dedication. While important, self-esteem alone does not lead to success in life.

    Instead, we seemingly encourage children to believe the accolades for those who only try should be equal to those who actually achieve.

    But that’s just not real.

    Pressure and competition cannot be wished away. And the longer that it is, the more unprepared we all are for whatever challenges that are ahead. It is often said, “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.”

    For example, without diminishing their academic accomplishment, how many valedictorians does it take to be No. 1? At Jesuit High School in New Orleans, there were 10 valedictorians recognized at graduation last year. At Avoyelles High School in Moreauville, there were four valedictorians saluted. At Stratford High School just outside of Houston, there were 30 valedictorians. In fact, the dean of admission at Harvard University recently revealed he had heard of high schools with more than 100 valedictorians. Now, many schools are abandoning the recognition of valedictorian altogether because of how it makes the other students feel.

    Many schools also won’t even post the honor roll any longer because of how it makes those students feel who do not qualify to be on the honor roll. In fact, some schools now have created the “effort honor roll.” This is the honor roll for students who want feel good about not making the honor roll. Of course, how about field day at your school? Everyone gets a ribbon, just for participating, right? And every child participating on a sports team seems to get a trophy, merely for participating. Yes, providing young children with rewards for participation is needed, but the trophies themselves should be saved for actual achievement, shouldn’t they?

    This all leads us back to the desperation and hopelessness so many seem to feel in our society. If we shield our children from competition of life, how can they possibly best learn coping skills? How can we teach the concept of improving their performance, if they are shielded from the realities of their efforts?

    There is no benefit to preparing any generation of Americans without the experience or lessons learned from competition. It does not minimize anyone’s humanity to suggest some folks work harder than others or that some are smarter than others. Some people are talented in math and sciences, while others are successfully athletic or social. We are all different with various gifts and abilities, and we have and will develop them at different paces.

    But when everyone can jointly claim first place, the honor becomes meaningless. Perhaps it is this sense of meaninglessness, that is so pervasive in our society, that helps foster the desperation and hopelessness that may sometimes lead to acts of violence or more often abandoning great dreams yet unfulfilled.

    Remember, in the words of Theodore Roosevelt, “The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena … who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”