Louis R. Avallone

Category: 2012

  • Can’t Have it Both Ways

    Can’t Have it Both Ways

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    To “have one’s cake and eat it too” is a popular figure of speech, intended to illustrate, of course, the futility of consuming a thing, while attempting to still preserve it. Or, to express it another way, “you can’t have it both ways”. Of course, that still doesn’t keep some folks from trying, but some folks might ought to let Mary Landrieu know that she may have eaten the last piece of that proverbial “cake” in Louisiana. Here’s what I mean:
    The oil and gas industry contributes nearly $70 billion to our state’s economy, and funds almost 14% of the state’s budget through royalties and other fees. It directly, or indirectly, supports nearly 320,000 jobs throughout the state.

    But the industry, and the thousands of Louisiana families whose livelihoods depends upon it, continue to suffer at the hands of an Obama administration intent on crippling our state’s economy, by making the oil and gas industry ineligible for the same federal tax incentives available to every other industry, and by increasing regulations through the EPA, effectively reducing drilling altogether. After all, according to Obama, why worry about an oil and gas industry that’s making record profits – especially when they’re not paying their “fair” share, right?

    Considering the oil and gas industry’s importance to our state’s economy, not to mention our national security, it is undeniably difficult to reconcile Mary Landrieu’s tireless campaigning for the re-election of President Obama while, at the same time, she laments his promises of increasing energy taxes on the oil and gas industry, as well as the White House’s de facto moratorium on drilling and exploration. She is willing to accept nearly $3 million in campaign contributions from this same “price-gouging” industry, even as her own “guy” (Obama) says she either needs to “stand with big oil companies”, or she “can stand with the American people.”

    And even if all of those contradictions weren’t enough, Mary Landrieu continues her religious support of the same Democrat Party that almost unanimously voted, in the U.S. Senate, to increase taxes on the oil and gas industry, not to mention her endorsement of the White House who literally holds Louisiana’s prosperity in the balance. In fact, Mary Landrieu is so committed to the Democrat Party that she votes along party lines almost 85% of the time.

    And to add insult to injury, and despite Louisiana’s conservative values, and the fact that 58% of Louisianans voted Republican in the November election, Mary Landrieu still finds it representative of her constituents for her to campaign for a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate in Virginia, explaining her support by writing, “We can’t let the Republican Party win control of the Senate.” Really?

    And now, with Democrats controlling both the Senate and the White House, the American Petroleum Institute is running commercials throughout the state, to encourage Senator Landrieu to stand for her constituents, and against the looming federal tax increases, and new regulations within the oil and gas industry, which are supported by the same Democrat Party, and White House, for whom Senator Landrieu so relentlessly campaigned.

    If Senator Landrieu “knows that jobs killing energy taxes hurt Louisiana’s economy”, as those television commercials explain, then why would she have worked so hard to elect a President who doesn’t seem to understand that raising taxes on the oil industry will lead to less oil on the market, leading to higher oil prices, and ultimately, higher gasoline prices for consumers, which then raises the cost of almost everything else, from chicken to cheese?

    If Senator Landrieu was “fighting for jobs”, why would she stand with a Democrat Party whose war on “big oil” extends well beyond federal tax increases, but will decrease “big oil” profits, as well? This won’t lead to more jobs, but it will decimate the pension funds and investment income of nearly 39 million senior citizens, not to mention the 76 million baby boomers approaching retirement, whose savings include mutual funds largely dependent on “big oil” profitability.

    Senator Landrieu isn’t much of a fiscal conservative, as she obviously revealed in 2003 when she said, “I think the whole trickle-down (economy) is hogwash…(w)e tried that and it didn’t work”. But I think she knows differently, deep down. It may just be more politics for her, than is practical for us, considering our state’s precarious position in this war on “big oil.”

    The problem is that Louisiana politics has moved on. The “every man a king” Democrat, or politicians that say one thing among their constituents, and another when they are back in Washington, is a tired, worn out template which is indicative of a politician more interested in the next election, than the next generation. And the fact that Senator Landrieu is the last Democrat in a statewide office is evidence of just how far Louisiana politics has moved on.

    Louisiana needs a U.S. Senator that stands with them 100% of the time, not with the White House, or the Democrat Party talking points. You can’t have it both ways. It’s like it says in the Bible, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other.” Senator Landrieu is a good and decent person, but the people of Louisiana deserve her undivided service; representative of our good values and irrespective of good politics – or even good “cake.”

  • Debate Not Hate

    Debate Not Hate

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    As this election season draws to a close, there are some who might say that America today is more polarized than at any time in its history. And this goes behind the mere partisan disagreements, or bickering, regarding taxes, healthcare, immigration, education, or even more fundamentally, the role of government itself.

    Although many Americans are divided on the issues today, the fact is…they always have been. Going back to the election of 1824, no President has ever been elected with more than about 60 percent of the American people’s support. It is expected (and encouraged) that Americans will disagree on what candidate should occupy the highest office in the land, but that alone doesn’t necessarily mean that America is polarized, or polarizing, which is altogether more sinister to our union.

    I’ll explain. You see, the polarization of America is defined by the extent to which public opinion is divided into the extremes, which is often encouraged by factions, within a political party, in order to gain dominance in their respective party. The casualties, unfortunately, are the moderate voices, which often lose power and influence, as a consequence.

    But unlike simple partisanship, polarization is more akin to when a candidate for public office is thought of as dishonest or evil, or when a candidates’ ideology is thought wholly wrong, while another’s ideology is considered free of error altogether. In other words, polarization is bad because it doesn’t allow compromise, whatsoever.
    And depending on when you are reading this column (before or after this November’s election), and whichever side of the aisle you may sit, or stand, it is more important than ever that Americans return to a healthy partisanship, at least, on the issues, not polarization; and come together as one nation, under God, and indivisible.
    How? Well, we can start, I think, with identifying some issues that we can all agree upon, that represent the best of America: The Bill of Rights. Hot dogs. Apple pies. Navy SEALS. Seinfeld (yadda yadda yadda). Steve Jobs. Disneyworld. Girl Scout cookies. Movie theater, buttered popcorn. Can we also agree that, sooner or later, the Monday after the Super Bowl must become a national holiday? Elvis. Free elections. Peanut M & Ms. Fresh, hot donuts.

    And while these are important issues on which we can all reach some consensus, there’s one more issue that requires our consensus as well, whether Democrat or Republican. It’s an issue that stands out as one of the fastest growing priorities in our nation today, with nearly 69% of Americans now calling it a “top priority”: It’s the federal budget deficit.

    It is so important, in fact, that the president of the Pew Research Center has said “In my years of polling, there has never been an issue such as the deficit on which there has been such a consensus among the public about its importance.” One problem is that the same percentage of the public who call this issue a “top priority”, are neither willing to reduce spending nor raise taxes to address the issue.

    So, what’s at stake? Well, our federal debt is near $16 trillion now, and by the time you finish reading this column, the U.S. debt will have grown by approximately $4.4 million. It’s difficult to gain perspective on the crisis, when the numbers become so large. Folks sometimes use analogies to illustrate the dilemma, such as by saying that if you were to spend a dollar every second, it would take you 32,000 years to spend $1 trillion (or a mere one-sixteenth of the debt).

    Others explain it by comparing the federal government’s finances to your own household budget. If you manage your finances, like Congress manages the federal government’s, then your expenses, for example, would be $38,200, with a household income of only $21,700. And then, to add to the irresponsibility, you will charge $16,500 this year, to your credit card, on which you already have an outstanding balance of $142,710. Crazy, right? But that’s what we’re doing every year.

    The national debt is a ticking time bomb. Many economists agree that there will be a point where the interest payments alone will make the debt unsustainable. And per the Congressional Budget Office, the consequences of unchecked government debt will be reduced income and living standards for all of us, and fewer government programs, and higher marginal tax rates.

    This debt will cause inflation, and that will decrease the dollar’s purchasing power, making everything more expensive, from milk to medicine, not to mention the losses that will be sustained by pension and mutual funds, which are already substantial investors in federal debt.

    This is, in part, why Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff said last year that, “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt…”

    And that’s why, whether you are a Donkey or an Elephant, we must all find a way to solve this federal budget deficit, by electing statesmen concerned for the next generation, and not politicians concerned only for the next election.

    Thomas Jefferson said that, “The greatest good we can do our country is to heal its party divisions and make them one people.” Abraham Lincoln explained that, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. We must not remain a divided America; it encourages our enemies and weakens our courage. Now, who wants some apple pie?

  • Debate of Ideas

    Debate of Ideas

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Poll after poll, before the first Presidential debate on October 3, was all concluding the same: Obama would win the debates. In fact, just 2 days before the first debate, an ABC News/Washington Post national poll indicated that 55% of likely voters agreed that Obama would win that first debate, with only 31% saying that Romney would be victorious.

    But like Rocky Balboa, who almost always was told he didn’t have a chance, and shouldn’t bother, Romney came out swinging…and never looked back. He ignored the critics, and the polls, and left Obama looking dazed, and confused.

    MSNBC host Chris Matthews explained Obama’s stunned appearance, “He had his head down, he was enduring the debate rather than fighting it.” Faithful Obama supporters like comedian Bill Maher even said Obama “looked tired” and “had trouble getting his answers out.”

    Obama would remain up against the ropes all night during that debate. Some say his poor performance was because he was tired, but some say it was his planned strategy – to make himself the underdog. Al Gore even suggested that the mile-high altitude in Denver may have had some effect on his seemingly diminished fighting spirit and general sluggishness to counterpunch Romney. Even Romney himself felt compelled to note Obama’s confusion during the debate, saying, “I have no idea what you’re talking about.”

    But the criticism of Obama on his debate performance is really out of place. It’s not that he was not “on his game” or didn’t have that “eye of the tiger”, but rather his sluggishness and uncertainty, during the debate, was merely a reflection of the paralysis our nation is enduring under his policies, from the economy to national security.

    You see, despite the explanations and excuses, Obama’s performance (or lack thereof) was less about Obama’s debate acumen, and more about the simple truth that you can’t make chicken soup from chicken poop.

    I mean, what did folks expect from Obama during that debate, in the eleventh hour of his presidency? A miraculous makeover of the ill effects of his administration’s policies? That’s a tough one, considering his own vice-president recently confessed that the last 4 years of failed Democrat policies have “buried” the middle class. And that his administration is peddling an economic recovery that is the weakest since World War II; in an economy where household incomes have fallen 8.2% since he took office.

    Plus, there are now 23 million Americans who are unemployed (or underemployed), and of that total, 6.7 million have completely given up looking, but still want a job. Of course, you know that unemployment has been above 8% now for 43 straight months (and among African-Americans, the unemployment rate is even higher – 14.4%).

    So, how do you credibly defend your own policies in a debate of ideas, when your results are so abysmal? What do you do when there’s an additional $6 trillion in new national debt since you took office?

    What can you say to the American people when you are blocking a Canadian pipeline and choking the fossil fuels industry, all while the price of gasoline has nearly doubled under your watch?

    What debate maneuver would dress up the idea of accelerating the bankruptcy of the Medicare program, by raiding $716 billion from it and funding Obamacare instead?

    President John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” And the same is true here.

    You see, persuasiveness and platitudes make for entertaining political fodder, but they don’t change the facts. Animated stump speeches don’t help the 50% of college graduates this year who can’t find work. “Words” don’t provide the 47 million Americans on food stamps the means to move from poverty, to prosperity.

    Theoretical discussions about how our foreign policy “should” work doesn’t reduce the threat from a nuclear Iran or North Korea, nor from terrorist attacks against our embassies, or the murdering of Americans overseas.

    This is why the criticism of Obama’s debate performance is out of place. It’s not about his energy level, or enthusiasm. Nor was it his grasp of the issues, recall of the facts, or the lack of a teleprompter.

    It’s simply this: His policies are indefensible. And without a record to run on, and unless the American people will accept his “intentions” alone, to do good (once again), how much better could anyone have expected him to perform in a debate of ideas; especially when the only ones he has had, have turned out so poorly?

  • Distracted Voting

    Distracted Voting

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    It is estimated that 400,000 people annually are injured in motor vehicle accidents involving a distracted driver. In fact, distracted driving is estimated to kill over 3,000 people each year. And according to the federal government, distracted driving is “any activity that could divert a person’s attention away from the primary task of driving,” such as texting, grooming, reading, etc. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called distracted driving a “national epidemic”.

    Well, there’s another growing national epidemic, and it’s estimated to have caused 23 million Americans to become unemployed and produce the lowest level of homeownership in United States’ history. It’s linked to declining household incomes, and the devaluation of the U.S. dollar, which has lost more than 83 percent of its value since 1970. It’s an epidemic that increases the national debt by $2 million every minute, and is associated with decreased national security. The epidemic? Distracted voting.

    Distracted voting is any activity that could divert a person’s attention away from the primary task of being an informed voter, knowledgeable of the facts, and aware of the issues. I’ll share with you a couple of examples.

    On the same day that demonstrators attacked the U.S. embassies in Yemen and Egypt, and killed the U.S. ambassador in Libya, and on the same day that demonstrators tore down the American flag at our embassy there, and replaced it with a black flag with Islamic text, our President still went ahead with his campaign appearances and fundraising in Las Vegas, all while a cheering, exuberant crowd welcomed him, almost as if nothing more significant had happened that day.

    Instead of considering the significance of the terrorist attacks on our embassies, or the loss of life, or the continuing vigilance needed to protect Americans, both here at home, and abroad, Obama instead spoke that night in Las Vegas about how our nation is divided between the rich and the poor, even though the incomes of nearly all Americans have increased sevenfold (after adjusting for inflation), over the last century. He talked about how he needed to raise taxes and redistribute wealth to make this country great again, even though millions of Americans already made this country great – many coming to this country with little more than the clothes on their backs, and yet they still built the world’s largest economy (and without an $850 billion stimulus).

    No, instead of that Las Vegas crowd wondering how the war on terrorism might be waged going forward, we instead are told of the Republicans “war” on women, because contraceptives might no longer be free. The Democrats portray Mitt Romney as a greater threat to women than the Taliban, meanwhile there are “real” wars on women being waged in the Middle East, where they are often and unjustly imprisoned, and tortured. In some countries, women can’t drive or vote, while in other countries, women are not allowed to work, or be educated after the age of 8.

    The attentive voter will know, however, that there is no “war” on women in this country. In fact, for every two men who will receive a B.A. degree this year, three women will do the same.

    Women now make-up a majority of the workforce and more than half of all are managers. In fact, a growing number of women are now out-earning their male counterparts and, as that trend continues, there will be a majority of working women who are out-earning their male counterparts.

    But is there really any big surprise why we have so many distracted voters in our nation? After all, with so many diversions to captivate our attention and occupy our minds, often with nonsense, it’s difficult to come home – pause – and give thoughtful consideration to nuclear proliferation. Or to the national security threat from our nation’s open borders. Or to the terminal consequences of increasing the national debt.

    It’s just not a priority when the children have their homework to finish, baths to take, and you have to balance the checkbook.

    Democrats in Washington are hoping it’s easier to process it all into easy campaign rhetoric: Rich versus poor. Men versus women. Citizens versus immigrants. Tolerance or appeasement versus peace through strength. Mitt Romney’s tax returns versus how much his wife paid for her blouse.

    Distracted voting is an epidemic in our nation. Did you know that only 2 in 10 Americans know that there are 100 Senators in the U.S. Senate? Or that only 4 in 10 of us know that there are 3 branches of government (and also can name each of them)? Or that 53% of Americans don’t know who is the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court or, for that matter; even name a single member of the highest court in the land? Or that a National Geographic poll revealed that 6 in 10 people, aged 18 to 24, could not find Iraq on a map?

    There’s something we can all do about distracted voting, though. Get informed, and get the facts. After all, it’s like Obama told us all last year that, “We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.” And he’s right. The problem is – it’s the Democrats in Washington doing the distracting – and they’re offering free admission to the circus, for everyone willing to listen.

  • Tell Me Lies

    Tell Me Lies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • American Spirit

    American Spirit

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    HITTING THE ROAD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Forward?

    Forward?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Obamacare

    Obamacare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Flawed

    Flawed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Principles and Politics

    Principles and Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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