Category: American Values

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Louis Avallone
–
Is there a humane way to get rid of rich people in the United States? After all, considering our nation’s effective unemployment rate of 16.2%, our national debt of $14.5 trillion, our current year’s budget deficit of $1.48 trillion, the fact that the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted by 2036, and amidst declining personal income tax revenue and plummeting home values, which by the way, is also crippling state services that are dependent on both, it is the rich people that could solve our nation’s problems, if they would only contribute their fair share.

After all, as President Obama said earlier this month, “You can’t reduce the deficit to the levels that it needs to be reduced without having some revenues in the mix.” It’s just like Vice-President Biden said during the 2008 campaign, “It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.” But continued tax breaks for corporate jet owners, and as long as millionaires and billionaires like Warren Buffet pay an effective tax rate that is less than their domestic help pays, the promise of the American dream grows more faint with each passing day.

And as long as the rich enjoy this favored status, as Obama pointed out, “then that means we’ve got to cut some kids off from getting a college scholarship, that means we’ve got to stop funding certain grants for medical research, that means that food safety may be compromised, that means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden.” I mean, even here in Louisiana, our reported state deficit is more than 20 percent of the state’s general fund, prompting initiatives to reduce the number of state employee by 13 percent, and consolidating, or eliminating, state medical and family services, across the board.

Rich people should see the handwriting on the wall. A CBS News/NY Times poll showed that 72% of people favored raising taxes on the wealthy in order to reduce the deficit. In fact, there have been over 20 polls this year and, overwhelmingly, Americans support higher taxes to reduce the deficit. And that means rich people could soon be paying a lot more, especially since about 46 percent of American households are already paying no federal individual income tax at all.

Some folks say that our economic challenges to balance the budget are because our government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. But clearly we have a revenue problem. Like Obama said last month, “If we only did it with cuts, if we did not get any revenue to help close this gap between how much money’s coming in and how much money’s going out, then a lot of ordinary people would be hurt and the country as a whole would be hurt and that doesn’t make any sense. It’s not fair.”

By now, I hope you are better understanding why so many folks are talking about getting rid of the rich, even though it looks like the current administration’s policies have been effective in beginning this important work. The number of rich people is already in decline. According to IRS statistics, from 2008 to 2009, there was a reduction of millionaires of roughly 40%. Perhaps the most humane way to get rid of rich people is to keep them from becoming rich in the first place.

So, what do we do in the meantime? Well, Congress spends $10 billion per day, or $3.7 trillion per year. So, to keep the economy moving, and spreading the wealth around, including a possibility for another stimulus plan later this year, left-minded folks like us just need a plan. And right now, that plan includes increasing tax revenues so, in the words of Joe Biden, “we can take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.”

Okay, so we need to pick-up $3.7 trillion (or so) annually, to make this dream a reality. We can easily pick-up about one-half of that, if Congress imposes a 100% tax rate on all income earned above $250,000. That will keep our government running through mid-May (again, based on current spending and revenue, levels).

Then, if we can get the Fortune 500 companies to throw in, to the U.S. Treasury, their $400 billion in profits they earned last year (as patriotic corporate citizens), that will keep us going through the end of June.

Next, with a continued, sustained public relations campaign in the media, led by Warren Buffet and other billionaires, to encourage shared sacrifice by America’s 400 billionaires (with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion), Congress could effectively mandate these billionaires surrender their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry, with all proceeds collected by the federal government. With the addition of these revenues, we now can keep the government running through mid-August.

Well, that brings us to right about this time of year, and to you reading this column. If you make less than $250,000 a year, we’re going to need you to throw in a lot more money too, it looks like, after raises taxes everywhere else, we’re still about $1 trillion short to make the budget for this year.

But if we are not going to create more rich people, and if we are not going to reduce federal spending levels, the money has to come from somewhere, for everything from socialized medicine to amnesty for illegal immigrants, you know what I mean? After all, in the words of Obama, “If we aren’t willing to pay a price for our values, then we should ask ourselves whether we truly believe in them at all.”