Louis R. Avallone

Category: 2013

  • The Big Picture

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Some people might say we have bigger fish to fry. Others might say first things first or that we’re making a mountain out of a molehill. But when you see that the Japanese people, for the first time, are now buying more adult diapers, than baby diapers, there’s cause for concern – and not just here at home. I’ll explain.

    Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard challenges to both the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, and California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages. The Cliff’s notes version of the issue before the justices is whether or not the federal government has the authority to regulate marriage, in lieu of the states, considering the “historic commitment of marriage, and of questions of the rights of children, to the states.”

    In fact, this deference to the states, regarding marriage, stretches back to the American colonies, which officially required marriages to be registered. In the old country, though, all that was needed were public announcements in church to notify family, friends, and neighbors of one’s matrimony. In colonial times, getting the word out in this manner became more difficult, considering the growth of the colonies, and some historians believe that marriage licenses developed, as a result.

    Of course, there is much debate regarding why government is in the marriage business at all. Matters of romance, love, friendship, and even sacred bonds, can all be achieved without government entanglements. But a marriage license from the state also profoundly simplifies the legal complexities of couples, on matters from property and finances, to children, inheritance, and medical care. In order for the government to get out of the marriage business, it would have to stop giving special legal standing to spouses.
    But that’s another discussion altogether. Here’s what I think we are missing, when we are talking about government regulation of marriage: A marriage license is not the state’s approval or sanctioning of the morality of one’s matrimonial union, whether it be to another man or woman, or whether it be your first or fifth marriage. After all, 50% of marriages now end in divorce, and the chances of a first marriage lasting more than 10 years is less than 1%, for all sorts of reasons, with infidelity being at the top of the list.

    With that said, the government’s real interest in regulating matrimony was that it wanted folks to get married, and then make babies. There’s a couple of important policy reasons that this still makes sense, especially today:

    First, the erosion of marriage and family over the past 50 years has created all sorts of problems. In 1964, only 7% of American-born children were born to unwed parents. Today, that number is 46%. This is important for society because a child born out of wedlock is seven times more likely to be poor, than a child raised by married parents. Did you know that welfare spending is the fastest-growing part of government, and that it has outpaced that of Social Security, Medicare, education, and defense? Under the Obama Administration, the Food Stamp Program has nearly doubled and welfare spending is projected at $10.3 trillion. In short, society is better when folks are married with kids: 70% of poor families have unwed parents, and 80% of long-term child poverty occurs in these families, as well. This creates generational dependence on government.

    Secondly, government needs folks getting married and children because the birthrate in the U.S. has fallen to record lows. In fact, it’s the lowest it’s been since 1920. There are many reasons for declining birth rates, such as folks delaying family formation (as discussed above), and running from religion (worship attendance is precipitously declining). However, unless the trend is reversed, we will soon be headed over the “demographic cliff” because our birth rate (1.9 births per woman) is below the replacement rate needed (2.1 births per woman) to just maintain our population level.

    This means a shrinking population which will get older much faster, and that means the economy shifts to healthcare, and away from consumption and innovation. To add insult to injury, there won’t be enough workers to pay for retirees (Social Security will be depleted by 2033) and our military strength will decline because there won’t be enough folks to enlist.

    Consider Japan, as an example of when the fertility rate persistently remains below the replacement rate. Over the past 20 years, Japan’s annual rate of economic growth has averaged a mere 1%, its population has already shrunk by a million people since 2008, and more than half of the country has been categorized as “depopulated marginal land.” We don’t want to be Japan, do we?

    Of course not. So, while marriage may mean romance, love, and friendship to you, the government interest in promoting the general welfare of its citizenry should be in making babies in marriages that the public does not support. Does that include same-sex marriages, which could adopt the nearly 37,000 children in the U.S. who will be conceived this year by in vitro fertilization, or the 50,000 children will be given for adoption by biological parents?

    Well, the Supreme Court may soon answer that question. But in the meantime, let’s not miss the opportunity to have a discussion about what really matters in our country – and not miss the forest for the trees.

  • Hard Work

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Thomas Jefferson once said, “I’m a greater believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it.” And he should know about hard work. Jefferson was America’s first secretary of state, our second vice president, and our nation’s third president. He drafted our Declaration of Independence, and successfully negotiated the Louisiana Purchase, which nearly doubled our young country’s size.

    Indeed, then, if hard work is the cornerstone to acquiring “luck”, our country’s luck may be running out, especially if the folks in Washington continue to ignore that each one of us is responsible for our own individual prosperity and happiness. It’s called “the American dream”, and no one who has climbed that ladder – or pulled themselves back up when they have fallen – credits government spending and cradle-to-grave entitlements for their achievements.

    This doesn’t keep liberals from peddling this prospect, though, and they seem to be making their case very well. A recent Pew Research poll indicates that almost a majority of Americans believe “the rich” are rich mainly because they know the right people or are born into wealth, rather than because of their own hard work, ambition, or education.

    In fact, an economics professor, from Cornell University, wrote in the New York Times recently “talent and hard work are neither necessary nor sufficient for economic success.” Really?

    And around the world, this sentiment appears to be growing. In eight of 21 countries, recently surveyed, fewer than half of the citizens believe hard work is a guarantee of success for most people.

    You understand what we’re up against here, right? The virtue of hard work is in decline, and that’s not good. Of the 2.7 million people who dropped out of the labor force altogether last year, did you know that about 2.2 million of them say they’re not interested in finding a job anyway?

    And why not? Some of them are retiring. After all, baby boomers are retiring now at the rate of 10,000 per day. Other folks may be going back to school, instead of work. And then there’s growing numbers of people sitting around doing nothing.

    What liberals don’t understand is that most people don’t want just a handout – because a job is more than just income. More than just what we do to pay the bills. A loss of a job is the loss of control for folks to earn a living and take care of their families.

    Hard work is not just the physical effort alone, but it represents who we are as a country, and it is how we have defined ourselves to the world.

    Handouts don’t reduce poverty or put a nation back to work. In fact, they provide only the illusion of economic benefit, considering that even after billions of dollars spent in Great Society programs since 1964, the poverty rate is actually higher today, than it was then.

    Too many folks in Washington either don’t get it, or they care more about their next election than the next generation.

    Nonetheless, it’s hard work that will put our nation back on the path it started upon, a path that was forged by thrift, integrity, and self-reliance. A path filled with those who believe “a penny saved is a penny earned”, and understand that “opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work”.

    Now, this may all be too old-fashioned thinking, for our modern day leaders in Washington to grasp. Old-fashioned or not, history repeats itself, and in the words of Winston Churchill, “The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.”

    And so here’s what I see, in any direction I look: Each one of us is responsible for our own individual prosperity and happiness – not government. Period. It starts there, and ends there.

    Yes, you and I can see plainly where we need to lead the nation. The liberals in Washington only see where they need to lead their next re-election campaign. But that’s okay. We’ve got something on our side that they don’t: hard work. And a little “luck”.

  • Challenging Times

    Challenging Times

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    One of Thomas Jefferson’s “Canons of Conduct” urges us to, “Always take things by their smooth handle.”His intended meaning in saying so was that there is both a respectful and thoughtful manner for us to deal with one another, despite the inherent – and expected – differences of opinion between us. And while the folks in Washington never want to let a crisis to go to waste, they definitely—and deliberately – missed grabbing the smooth handle on this one. In fact, they grabbed it by the sharp end, and now we’re definitely going to need stitches.

    And while not everything in life has a smooth handle, the news that officials at Barksdale Air Force Base have canceled the annual Defenders of Liberty Open House and Air Show is another example of a government that cannot successfully manage its own affairs, yet nonetheless increasingly urges you to allow them to micromanage yours.
    The air show attracts as many as 300,000 visitors to our area each year, not to mention its use as a valuable recruitment opportunity for folks looking to join the military as career. Before 9/11, the only other cancellation was 60 years prior – in 1942.

    You see, the air show is more than just a “show”; it’s part of our community, and our shared traditions. To watch those fighter jets streak across the sky, and hear the thunderous roar of their engines – whether you were driving along Youree Drive or working in your backyard – these were the sights and sounds on a warm and sunny weekend afternoon that assured you that all was still right in the world (or at least that our country’s best men and women were fighting to make it that way).

    There is a cost of approximately $250,000 to organize the air show, but the admission and parking for the air show were always offered free of charge by the base. And even though Col. Andrew Gebara, 2nd Bomb Wing commander explained the cancellation by saying, “These are challenging times,” I believe that there are literally thousands of residents in this area that would gladly support the air show by paying admission, out-of-pocket. It would not be merely for the entertainment value either, but to honor those Americans who have sacrificed their lives for liberty, and for those soldiers who continue to guard it every day.

    We’re told that the “sequestration” is the reason for the cancellation of the air show at BAFB, as well as the cancellation of White House tours. It’s also the explanation why The Department of Homeland Security released thousands of illegal aliens from prisons to save money. It’s why the Federal Aviation Administration says it is planning to cut back on the number of air traffic controllers.

    It’s the reason that the National Park Service plans to close visitor centers, open park road later, and furlough park police. It’s why some federal courts may have to suspend civil jury trials in September, and why the administration explains that every FBI employee, including special agents, will be furloughed for almost three weeks by the end of September.

    But it doesn’t have to be this way, especially when our federal government wastes annually far more than the $85 billion in automatic federal spending cuts that are being blamed for those furloughs, closings, etc.

    Examples of waste? Well, where do we start? It is estimated that taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on the Obama family last year, on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertainment (by comparison, British taxpayers spent $57.8 million on the Royal family). In fact, just the four (4) Hawaiian vacations, taken by the Obama’s, have cost taxpayers over $20 million, including operating Air Force One at a rate of $179,750 per hour, for the nineteen (19) hour roundtrip journey from Washington, D.C. to Hawaii.
    Considering this cost, you might think this administration would show some solidarity with the nation, particularly because so many Americans are out of work, and choose instead to vacation at Camp David, or a nearby resort, where vacations could be arranged for a mere pittance, compared to the cost of getting to Hawaii. Just sends the wrong message, when our nation is borrowing so much money to just pay the interest on its bills.

    The bottom of line is this: The cancellation of the BAFB air show is an example of a giant ruse being imposed upon our nation. When our federal government is already wasting at least $72 billion in improper payments every year to healthcare providers, and when we are already spending $25 billion every year just maintaining unused or vacant federal property, and when there’s $2.7 billion in fraud within the food-stamp program, there’s just no need for Obama to threaten laying off teachers, or scaring senior citizens of an impending flu epidemic, or warning of higher cancer rates, or even cancel our air show, because federal spending has been cut this year by just 2.4% of the federal government’s annual budget.

    The answer, my friend, is for this administration to employ common sense tactics first and last, not scare tactics.

    Yes, there’s definitely a “smooth handle” here. Those folks in Washington just need to get a grip.

  • Translation

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Do you remember Charlie Brown’s teacher in the TV series, where the teacher made odd, unintelligible sounds whenever communicating with Charlie, Lucy, Linus or any of the other characters in the Peanut’s series?

    The teacher would be heard saying, “Wah wah woh wah wah wah wah,” and the children would respond with, “Yes, ma’am,” or “I understand.” The viewer at home was then left to interpret what had been said by the teacher, based on observing the kids’ reactions to the teacher’s “wah wah woh wah wah wah wah.”

    Well, this is what it is like trying to understand President Barack Obama’s rhetoric and campaign speak, especially these days.

    And many Americans are satisfied to hear “wah wah woh wah wah wah wah” anyways, without details.

    One example of this rhetoric is the Obama campaign against the $85 billion in automatic federal spending cuts that begin this month. As you may know, from the media coverage, the “sequester” is a $1.2 trillion collection of automatic federal spending cuts that will be made over the next 10 years, with these spending cuts divided evenly between the military budget and domestic spending programs.

    Although only 1 in 4 Americans report paying attention to this “sequester” debate at all, a recent Gallop Poll shoed that 57 percent of Americans have concluded that the sequestration cuts will harm the national economy, while 44 percent believe it will harm their personal financial situations. So what did Obama say when he recently commented about the sequester?

    Well, he started with scare tactics, causing unnecessary stress to our senior citizens as well as
    disheartening millions of families where a mother or father is still looking for a job in an economy where 23 million Americans are out of work.

    He said, “Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off,” and “(t)ens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care, like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings,” not to mention that cuts in federal spending “could” force reductions in food inspections, which “could” lead to outbreaks of more food-borne bacteria such as E. coli.

    And if that wasn’t enough to get your heart pumping, he ramped up his rhetoric by saying that these mandatory spending cuts will jeopardize our military readiness and “eviscerate jobs and energy and medical research.”

    Wow. I think he left out that there will be less baseball, hot dogs and apple pie for everyone too, right? So, when do the locusts arrive?

    Well, here are the facts: Even with the $85 billion in spending cuts this year, the federal government will STILL spend more in 2013 than it did in 2012. This year’s spending cuts represent only 2.4 percent of the federal government’s $3.6 trillion budget, and our federal government wastes far more than $85 billion every year – and without the Biblical calamities prophesied by Obama.

    Some examples of this waste? Well, it is estimated that the federal government makes at least $72 billion in improper payments each year and that we spend $25 billion annually just maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.

    Then there’s healthcare fraud that is estimated to cost taxpayers more than $60 billion annually, not to mention a GAO audit recently that found that the Pentagon’s weapons systems suffered from a combined $295 billion loss in cost overruns.

    With all of this said, those scare tactics employed by this White House, regarding the sequester, are collectively a disingenuous, self- serving, ideological effort to avoid shrinking government at any cost, especially when you consider that federal spending will STILL be higher in 2013 than in 2012 (even with the spending cuts) and that federal spending will continue to grow in coming years – exceeding 40 percent of the economy by 2050, and that’s even with Social Security going bankrupt by 2037.

    Notwithstanding those scare tactics and Obama’s “sky-is-falling” campaign against any spending cuts, it’s all quite hypocritical – especially from an administration whose own party, in the Democrat-controlled Senate, has not passed a budget in 1,402 days.

    And so, we wait, while this administration runs up the federal debt, now expected to be $16.2 trillion by 2016, which is $6.2 trillion more than when Obama first came into office four years ago and while they oppose any spending cuts whatsoever and however small.

    The bottom line is that Obama hasn’t redirected America from the slippery slope of financial insolvency. No, in fact, he’s brought his own sled.

    And as long as most Americans are satisfied to hear “wah wah woh wah wah wah wah” without knowing the details, it’s just going to be tough sledding for us all.

  • The Parade of Life

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    With dozens of floats and marching bands, in Mardi Gras parades throughout Shreveport and Bossier City, there’s nearly 2 million beads – over $100,000 worth of beads, plastic drink cups, stuffed animals, and other trinkets – that get tossed to nearly 400,000 parade-goers during Mardi Gras season. For many, shouting out, “Throw me something, Mister,” is all that is needed to soon have all of the iconic accouterments of the season – whether the countless beads worn around your neck or the many commemorative doubloons. Indeed, during Mardi Gras, every man is a king and every woman a queen.

    But as you all may well know, the prosperity of one’s “kingdom” during a Mardi Gras Parade is akin to the cardinal rule of real estate, “location, location, location”. So, when my family and I positioned ourselves near a “no throw area” of the parade, we learned this valuable lesson first hand. You see, there was this sign that said, “No Throw Area” at the Stoner Avenue bridge over Clyde Fant Parkway. And even though we were standing only a mere 2-3 feet from fellow parade-goers being showered with throws, in the “land of plenty”, the land behind the “No Throw Area” sign was a desolate, barren wasteland, where many folks waited and wondered why there were no throws for them.

    But if you paid attention, and saw the sign, you understood, and moved. Like others, my family simply moved a few feet north, until we had safely arrived in the “land of plenty”, on the other side of the “No Throw Area” sign. But many in the area still didn’t see the sign, and with each passing float, you could see their dashed excitement, and frustration, as they looked longingly upon the float riders, as if to say, “What about me?”

    I got to thinking about that, and about how sometimes we can all find ourselves in the “No Throw Area” in this parade we call life. I wondered why everyone didn’t move from the “No Throw Area” of the parade, and then I remembered reading that Ray Croc, the founder of McDonald’s, once said that the two (2) most important requirements for major success are: first, being in the right place at the right time, and second, doing something about it. A few folks did something about it, when they found themselves in the “No Throw Area” of the parade, and just moved, to be in the right place at the right time.

    But far more folks didn’t move at all. Maybe they didn’t see the sign, or felt that they couldn’t improve their position along the parade route. That certainly would be consistent with the sense of pessimism coming out of Washington these days; about how our position along the “parade route” of life is fixed, and that only the “lucky” receive the throws, while government is needed to right the wrongs, and redistribute the throws themselves, and making sure that all parade-goers contribute their fair share.

    But more often than not, receiving throws in life is not about luck, but about choices.

    For example, for young people, if you don’t want to be in the “no throw area” of life, then stay in school because a high school graduate, over their lifetime, generally earns twice as much as those who drop out. Additionally, male high school dropouts are 68-times more likely to go to jail, than do men who have a 4-year college education – definitely a “no throw area” there.

    Another example, if you want to keep out of the “no throw area” of life: Don’t become an unwed, teenage mother. Regardless of right or wrong, the realities are sobering: Only 50% of teenage mothers graduate from high school or receive their GED. They are 10 times more likely to live in poverty, as nearly 80% end up on welfare. Their children are more likely to be incarcerated and less likely to finish high school themselves, and the cycle just keeps spinning – definitely a “no throw area” here too.

    But in addition to the social benefits, if the large number of dropouts completed their high school education, it is estimated that the federal government would save as much as $1 trillion over a decade. These young people would be less likely to rely on government healthcare and welfare going forward, and less likely to be incarcerated. And because of the increased earning potential with a high school diploma, most will also contribute more in tax revenues, over a lifetime. Isn’t this where we really want our next generation to be?

    So, back to the parade route along Clyde Fant Parkway: You see, those fellow parade-goers, on the better side of the “no throw area” sign, were not “lucky”, nor did they have a moral obligation to share their better position along the parade route with me and my family. They planned ahead where they wanted to be, and then got to the parade route early, and waited (and waited and waited). We didn’t.

    And no, for you liberals reading this, we don’t need a government program to fix it, nor do we need to disparage those whose position along the parade route was better than ours. We have the opportunity to do it all differently next year – and we will. Now, throw me something, mister…I’m staying in the “Throw Area” this time.

  • Predicting the Future

    Predicting the Future

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    For centuries, man has sought to predict the future, whether by astrology, palm reading, tarot cards, tealeaves, or crystal balls. In more modern times, sociologists and statisticians have developed scientific methods for rationally predicting the future, through trend analysis and cyclical patterns, such as when interest rates are lower, the stock market rises, and bond prices go down (just as an example).

    It’s easy to understand why we are so fascinated by predicting the future. Comedian George Burns may have said it best, and most simply, “I look to the future because that’s where I’m going to spend the rest of my life.” It was Einstein who said he didn’t worry about the future because it comes soon enough.

    Of course, it has often been said that trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights, while looking out the back window. Incidentally, this also explains the kind of leadership coming out of Washington these days, and before long, it’s not unlikely that this foolish driving will simply get everyone stuck in the mud, on that country road, just spinning our wheels. And for those who have been stuck in the mud a time or two, spinning your wheels – only digs you in deeper.

    So, with all of that said, I am still going to share with you a method of predicting the future, regarding the path of our nation, and the leadership of those folks in Washington, for the next four (4) years. With this method, you will be able to predict the policies of this administration and amaze your friends, on a variety of important subjects, especially on those, which aren’t yet dominating our national conversation.

    Here is how you do it: Take any subject or issue, which this administration feels will advance their political agenda in Washington, and then find those instances in history where governments have instituted policies to address that same subject or issue. Now, make a list of those government policies that have failed.

    Now, by “failed”, I mean those government policies whose stated objectives were hardly achieved, and thereby the costs greatly outweighed the benefits. For example, foreign aid programs that don’t help many foreigners, increasing government spending for schools that don’t educate students very well, or welfare assistance to the poor that does not lift the poor out of poverty, etc.

    Once you have identified these “failed” policies of the past, you can now predict, with almost certainty, the position, and direction, of the Obama administration on that same issue. I’ll give you a couple of examples.

    Look at the European countries, and the results from generations of socialist government policies, nationalizing everything from banks, to automobile manufacturing, insurance, healthcare, education, and energy production. The economic competitiveness of these European countries pale in comparison to the economies of India, China, Japan, and Korea, where workers are more productive. The average German, for example, works just 1,535 hours each year or 22 percent less than the average working American.

    The Dutch and Norwegians put in even fewer hours, as do the British. In addition to this idleness, unemployment is even higher in European countries than it is in the United States.

    This makes the point, exactly, in terms of predictions: The Obama administration is following the same, failed policies of those European countries, including Greece, where entitlement, dependence on others, envy, irresponsibility, and lack of ambition have led to a lower quality of life for all, stemming from an inability to compete with more productive economies around the world.

    Here’s another example, with regards to foreign policy: Obama said, “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us” and that he would negotiate with Iran personally, saying “I’m not afraid of negotiating with anybody”. Well, history’s lesson on this foolishness is fatal. While England and France negotiated, Hitler continued to mobilize his military, and violated every agreement in the meantime.

    Iran is doing the same now, and is using negotiation to buy time for their deadly ambitions. And much like Hitler, they agree to negotiate, then violate the negotiated agreement, then refuse to negotiate, until the international community responds forcefully, and then they agree to negotiate (again). The merry-go-round starts all over.

    Still, today, our Iran foreign policy seems to be a Xerox copy of the failed attempts to deal with Germany, which led to World War II. What happened to the successfully proven foreign policy of America: peace through strength?

    Perhaps Obama’s interest in repeating failed government policies is because he believes that everyone, who has tried them before, just didn’t do them well enough. Maybe he thinks they weren’t smart enough to understand them, in the first place, but that if he tries them, he’ll get it right.

    Others say that Obama is just interested in re-making America into a European-like state. Maybe. But thus far, he seems only interested in those European policies that have failed.

    So now, at the end of this column, and unlike past centuries of mankind, you now have a reliable method of predicting the future, regarding the leadership of those folks currently in Washington. I can’t explain why they do what they do, but it reminds us all of one thing: We desperately must look to the successes of history, if we’re going to restore, anytime soon, our nation’s great future.

  • Gun Control

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    And so, there was President Obama, last week, at a press conference, surrounded by children, as he signed 23 executive orders to address gun violence, representing the most restrictive, federal gun control plan in decades.

    With the images of innocent, beautiful children, standing behind him, it calls to mind the political advice offered by Hitler, in 1925: “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

    If you are drawing any comparison here, to folks in Washington, this all sounds like crazy, extremist talking points, except when you consider monsters like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, and Pol Pot, all sought out to confiscate guns when they first assumed power. In Russia, for example, the murder rate is 4 times higher than the U.S, and that’s with an entire generation of Russians, born and raised to adulthood, without their basic and traditional rights to self-defense. It is much easier, of course, to repress a mass population, when the people’s best defenses against government soldiers are limited to pitchforks and knives.

    Regardless of Washington’s intentions, most Americans actually support some gun control measures. In fact, most believe a strict background check should be required for anyone looking to buy a gun, as well as increased restrictions on high-capacity magazines.

    There’s lots of debate over the effectiveness of such added gun control measures. Supporters of the 2nd amendment might point to a Harvard University study which concluded that, as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases. Gun advocates can also rely on the data that shows how firearms are used defensively about 2.5 million times per year (which amounts to 2,575 lives protected for every life lost to a gun), not to mention the reported 498,000 intruders frightened away, altogether, by a homeowner with a gun.
    Most everyone can acknowledge that greater gun control will not prevent a mentally unstable person, or someone just intending to do harm to others, from entering a school, or a theater, or a church, with a box cutter, pepper spray, knife, or even a bomb. Despite this, too many folks still say we need stricter gun control, and that we need to pass more, and even tougher, criminal laws, lock up the offenders, and throw away the keys.

    But we have enough laws, and the U.S. already has the highest incarceration rate in the world, yet we still don’t feel safe in our own neighborhoods, but it’s not because of law-abiding citizens owning guns.

    We feel so unsafe, though, that many Americans are willing to surrender more and more of their Constitutional rights to the federal government, including the dilution of the 2nd Amendment, and the right of self-defense, even when the cost outweighs the benefit.

    You see, the folks in Washington are peddling the politics of fear – and it’s a trap. Obama says, “If there’s even one thing that we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we have an obligation to try.” Well, if he’s talking about banning so-called “assault” weapons, then you should realize those weapons are hardly used in crimes, comparatively speaking, and in fact, they are used in only one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes, and these weapons make-up only 1.7% of all firearms in circulation.

    You see, all this fuss about so-called “assault” weapons is more symbolic. It makes for good politics, but it might be considered also, by some, as a deliberate attempt to weaken the 2nd Amendment, or as Attorney General Holder said in 1995, as a first step to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

    But we’ve got bigger issue as Americans, for both gun control advocates and gun enthusiasts alike, and it’s this: If we accept the President’s proposition that Executive Orders, mandating anything, at any time, must tried “even if one life can be saved”, and without the “inconvenience” of requiring Congressional approval first, what’s next then? Can the federal government limit the number of miles you can drive in your car each day, since traffic fatalities are obviously higher when there are more miles driven? Under Obama’s ideology, the federal government could have an obligation to try and reduce traffic fatalities, “even if one life can be saved.”

    Could the federal government limit the number of hammers sold at hardware stores because hammers were used in over 600 murders last year? An Executive Order likewise may be needed to control hammers, “even if one life can be saved”. Do you see how far off the tracks that we’re getting here, by accepting the explanation of “even if one life can be saved”? Do you see how, before long, the folks in Washington will be telling you how many times a day to brush your teeth?

    If you want a hint of what may be in store, consider this: In a 2008 primary election interview, Obama said, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” Really? Well, that’s good to know, Mr. President, because most Americans have no intention of giving them to you either.

  • Hard Workers Should Reap Rewards

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    In a shopping mall, recently, I saw a young man wearing a Nike T-shirt that said, in large bold letters, “Hard Work Pays Off.” Obviously, this was a reference to the great preparation and training athletes undertake to play their sport successfully. Michael Jordan spent his off seasons taking hundreds of jump shots a day, for example. Award-winning pitcher Roy Halladay regularly puts in a 90-minute workout before his teammates even make it to the field. Another example are Olympic gold- medalists and No. 1-ranked duo Venus and Serena Williams, who were up hitting tennis balls at 6 a.m. from the time they were 7- and 8-years- old.

    Then there’s Kobe Bryant, the leading scorer in Los Angeles Lakers history, who just wants to be remembered as a hard worker, saying, “To think of me as a person that’s overachieved, that would mean a lot to me. That means I put a lot of work in and squeezed every ounce of juice out of this orange that I could.”

    So this got me thinking about “hard work.” There’s no one out there talking about how “lucky” Bryant is to have been the NBA scoring champion (twice) or to have led his team to win the NBA championship five times. There’s no one saying he’s made enough points now, even though he has already scored more than 30,000 points in his career and is ranked in the Top 5 of all NBA players in history for scoring. Despite his success, no one would even consider suggesting it’s unfair he scores so often or that history ought to be revised so that some of his points can be redistributed to his other teammates, who arguably deserve some of those points since Kobe didn’t score all those points on the court by himself.

    The same holds true for basketball great Michael Jordan. Even though he holds the NBA records for highest career regular season scoring average (30.12 points per game) and highest career playoff scoring average (33.45 points per game) and led his team to win the NBA championship six times, no one even questions the “fairness” of so many points being scored by a single player or that he received so many awards during his career, even though there were other players on the court with him that worked hard also and would have liked to have scored lots of points and won awards just the same.

    But while it seems ridiculous to consider redistributing a player’s points at the end of a game to lower-scoring players by taking points away from folks like Kobe or Michael (who obviously have more points than they know what to do with), this is precisely what some folks in Washington are doing by raising taxes on folks that have more “points” than most. And even though “hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard,” none of that occurs to these same folks in Washington – and it may never – as long as the fallacy in raising taxes doesn’t matter to millions of voters, either.

    Can you imagine telling Kobe he needed to “get some skin in the game” right after he scored 81 points in a single game (the second-highest point total in NBA history)? Or that he needed to offer an attitude of “shared sacrifice,” so his teammates might have more opportunities to score the same amount of points that he does, even though he’s doing more than his “fair share” to make sure the team wins?

    As a coach, would you ever tell him that at a certain point he’s made enough points (like Obama said at a certain point, “You’ve made enough money.”)?

    Of course not. That’s ridiculous. But this is the essence of modern- day liberalism. It seeks to minimize the power and responsibility of the individual to affect its own success … or failure. Even an economics professor from Cornell University wrote in The New York Times recently that “talent and hard work are neither necessary nor sufficient for economic success.” You see what we’re dealing with here?

    But Michael Jordan explains his success this way: “I’ve missed more than 9,000 shots in my career. I’ve lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times, I’ve been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.”

    For Michael Jordan, success wasn’t rooted in the equality of the outcomes but rather in the equality of opportunities to fail. The folks in Washington just don’t get it – instead of incentivizing hard work, they virtually demonize it by taxing it.

    There’s a reason that hard work is at the root of success on the court or on the field whether you are Michael Jordan or Venus and Serena Williams. It’s because hard work works. Period. And you don’t have to dribble a basketball to figure out why.