Louis R. Avallone

Category: Economy

  • Seeing the Trees for the Forest

    Seeing the Trees for the Forest

    You’ve heard the saying, “Don’t miss the forest for the trees,” right? That’s when someone is trying to make the point that you shouldn’t get so caught up in the small details that you fail to understand the bigger picture. Well, in the case of this whole healthcare debacle in our country, and the shenanigans in Congress, the “bigger picture” doesn’t mean a darn thing here without getting caught up in small details, and here’s what I mean:

    I know that many think that anyone proposing the repeal of Obamacare is a heartless so-and-so, or an insensitive you-know-what. But Obamacare is already repealed – for all intents and purposes – because it’s collapsing under its own weight.

    With or without any political party approval or bipartisan support, irrespective of the mainstream media’s stance, and regardless of how many protests are organized, or members of Congress vocally express their distaste for President Trump – Obamacare care is repealing itself.

    The average health insurance premium on the individual market has soared by a staggering 75 percent – just in the past four years. 31 million Americans can’t afford the deductibles because of these rising costs, and have flat-out stopped paying the premiums. We were supposed to have saved $2,500 per year if Obamacare became law, but premium costs today are $2,000 more today than they were just in 2013, and double-digit premium increases are expected in 2018.

    The reason for this is that health insurers lost over $2 billion dollars in 2016 and rather than expand coverage, these same insurers are pulling out of the exchanges set-up by Obamacare, altogether (and just so you know, two-thirds of the exchanges have already gone out of business, too). Ironically, the exchanges were set-up so people could “shop” for insurance plans, often with the help of government subsidies.

    But for 1 out of 3 Americans today, there is no “shopping” for insurance plans, unless your idea of shopping is like when Henry Ford famously told his customers they could have any color they wanted, as long as it was black. You see, with so many health insurers leaving the marketplace, too many of us have only one choice of an insurer under Obamacare – and that means we have essentially no choice, at all.

    If you’re wondering if it could get any worse, the answer is yes. The number of insurers applying to serve the federal marketplace has dropped 38% for 2018, and it’s now reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation that just over 25,000 people in Ohio, Indiana and Nevada are at risk of having no options in the exchanges next year.

    To add even more confusion, we’re told that repealing Obamacare now will result in nearly 32 million uninsured in this country, but the Associated Press reports only around 10 million Americans are paying any Obamacare premiums, whatsoever.

    But, some will interrupt here to say: Isn’t some increase in the number of Americans with health insurance better than “nothing” at all? And, even though “Obamacare” is not perfect, isn’t it better now because you can’t be denied coverage for any reason, or be charged more based on your health status or gender, or be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions?

    Yes, theoretically, yes.

    But if 31 million Americans can’t afford the deductibles because of rising costs, and millions of others have flat-out stopped paying the premiums for the very insurance policies intended to afford them healthcare coverage, then hasn’t the care and comfort of the least among us only worsened? And all under the pretense that something is better than nothing?

    You see now why sometimes it’s better to see the trees, instead of the forest? Getting caught up in the details is not something that Congress has done in a very long time. And that explains a whole lot, doesn’t it?

  • Nothing But Net

    Nothing But Net

    Sometimes, the idea of something, and the thing itself, aren’t always the same. In other words, the idea is much rosier than the reality. For example, many people like the idea of owning a boat, rather than the reality of actually maintaining one. Many like the idea of eating healthier or exercising, but not so much the reality of changing your diet or going to the gym.

    Some might say the idea of having a NBA G League team in Shreveport is much more appealing than the reality of what it actually costs to have one. For example, College Park, GA is spending between $20 and $40 million to build an arena for the Atlanta Hawks’ G league team – and that’s funded with taxpayer dollars in a city with just 15,000 residents.

    The Washington Wizards are also building an arena for their G League team with taxpayer dollars at a whopping cost of $65 million.

    And now the City of Shreveport is considering building a $25 million arena with taxpayer dollars for a G league team owned by the New Orleans’ Pelicans. In a news release, Mayor Tyler said building this arena will be important as a “significant economic driver in job creation and attracting outside tourism for the city’s future success.”

    Many would agree with her, and may even call the arena an “investment” in our area’s future. Perhaps it is, but the University of Maryland has studied the economic impacts of professional sports franchises and stadiums and found the following to be true: “No matter what cities or geographical areas are examined, no matter what estimators are used, no matter what model specifications are used, and no matter what variables are used, articles published in peer-reviewed economics journals contain almost no evidence that professional sports franchises and facilities have a measurable economic impact on the economy.” Ouch.

    In St. Tammany Parish, they were considering building an arena for the Pelicans’ G League team too (like us), but they looked at their numbers and said, “Essentially we have $22 million in costs and $15 million in funding. Building, or retrofitting, a venue for a basketball team is unfortunately not a priority at this time.”

    Some in Shreveport feel that same way – and it’s not because they are not basketball fans, or they’re just stuck in their old ways and don’t want to do anything new. Instead, it’s a matter of economic priorities in a city where the tax base is shrinking and there are simply bigger fish to fry first, so to speak.

    But if you like fish like I do – especially fried catfish – as much as you love basketball, let’s find a way to make this G League a reality. Let’s not use taxpayer dollars to do it, though.

    Instead, let’s do it with a Kickstarter campaign. For $25 million. That’s right. And why not?

    You see, Kickstarter.com is the largest crowd-funding website in the world, where entrepreneurs have raised millions of dollars selling concepts of products – which haven’t even been created yet (like the new arena) – from thousands of supporters who want to see those concepts come to fruition.

    If Mayor Tyler uses the crowd-funding model from Kickstarter to bring her arena concept to reality, and 25,000 supporters in Caddo, Bossier, Webster, and Desoto were to purchase two (2) $500 ticket packages for the new Pelicans’ G League team (entitling you to special ticket prices, discounted gear, etc.), we will have paid for the new arena upfront, and that’s before any monies are negotiated for naming rights, sponsorships, concessions and dining, club seating and suites, or rental income throughout the year.

    Of course, many of the supporters won’t necessarily be huge basketball fans who will go to every game, but they still want to support the idea, without wanting to saddle their children and grandchildren with debt, for decades to come.

    So yes, crowd-funding (and not taxpayer-funding) of an arena is worth a shot here – from the free throw line.

    If it’s done right, it’ll be “nothing but net.”

  • Not Getting It

    Not Getting It

    Sunday morning came way too early for many in Caddo Parish on April 30. It was the day after voters rejected the property tax renewals that had been placed on the ballot. That morning, The Times in Shreveport couldn’t even bring themselves to report the election results in their printed edition. Online, this news must have still been too grim for them to report, as it was posted up with only a simple, almost curt headline, “Results uncertain, pending certification.”

    You see, the day before, there had been an election, and renewing property taxes were the only items on the ballot. And voters had said “no”, or “not so fast,” to all of them. And online, at least, the news seemed tough to bear for some.

    After all, many who had placed those tax renewals on the ballot, and supported renewing them, didn’t understand why. Caddo Parish Commissioner Patrick Jackson thought that voters “didn’t get the message,” saying “there is some misinformation that was put out, there is some more information that the parish needs to put out.”

    Parish Administrator Dr. Woody Wilson, and several commissioners felt the public had been misinformed about the property tax renewals, too. They thought the public just “didn’t get it” and that after the voters get more educated about those tax renewals, they’ll come to see it differently, next time, and vote in favor of those taxes, instead.

    But – what if the public already knows more than our government leaders think, and notices more than they realize?

    Remember in 2010, when the Democrats lost control of the House, and voters handed Democrats more losses than in more than 62 years? Many government leaders then, also, said the voters “didn’t get the message”, and that too many had been manipulated into becoming angry about the wrong issues.

    Back then, Barack Obama explained those 2010 elections as having to do with “anti-immigrant sentiment” or being “troubled” by what an Obama administration represents. Even actress Janeane Garofalo believed the voters just “didn’t get the message” in the 2010 elections, saying “this is about hating a black man in the White House.”

    And just this month, Hillary Clinton explained her election day loss last year on those voters who just “didn’t get it,” or otherwise didn’t understand the issues. “I was on the way to winning,” she said, “until the combination of Jim Comey’s letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off.”

    Obama felt the same way about Clinton’s bid for President last year. He believes that the voters just “didn’t get it” because he thinks Clinton didn’t do enough to get her message out. If only HE had been the one to articulate her message, he says, he “could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it.”

    But this “blame the voter” has happened before, though. The voters get blamed for not getting the message, or not being smart enough to know any better. In 1980, Republican rival John Anderson called candidate Ronald Reagan a sure-fire “loser,” comparing political suicide to the possibility of nominating Reagan as the Republican Party candidate for President. Even Gerald Ford labeled Reagan, “unelectable”. And Jimmy Carter was convinced that Reagan was the easiest Republican to beat.

    You see, it’s not that the Caddo Parish voters “didn’t get the message” in voting “no” to the property tax renewals, it’s that they don’t trust their parish government to spend their tax dollars wisely, or honestly. At least, not yet.

    And why should they? From spending millions to purchase the former General Motors plant (and then allowing millions of dollars worth of equipment inside to be sold off by others), to the Caddo Parish Employees Retirement System or “CPERS” (where it is reported that Commissioners received triple the amount they contributed), to the repeated requests for more revenue through multi-million dollar bond elections (even though the Commission’s reserves are almost double their annual budget), it’s not that voters “don’t get it” on these issues, or why taxes are needed in the first place.

    It’s not that, at all.

    It’s that the voters just don’t want any more of it.

  • Just Sitting There

    Just Sitting There

    You have probably heard it said that the average person uses only 10 percent of his or her potential. Some studies say that most people function with only about 2 percent of his or her mental potential. The remainder just sits there in reserve, being saved for some later time. Motivational speaker Zig Ziglar explained that this would be exactly like your parents leaving you a trust fund with $100,000 in it, but all you ever took out to spend was $2,000 and “the other $98,000 simply sat in the account, unused throughout your life.”
     
    Well, this is somewhat like our Caddo Parish government, which has more than $120 million of cash (or cash-equivalents) just sitting there, being saved for some later time. This amount is almost 200% of their total budget for 2017, at a time when most local governments across the country seldom have reserves of more than 8-10% of their annual budget.
     
    So if you have almost 200% of the amount of money you will spend in any given year, just sitting there, why in the world would you need to borrow money from us, and burden us with more debt, when we already are paying the highest property taxes in Louisiana?
     
    Well, the academic answer, from local elected officials, is that any surplus money should be kept around for emergencies, such as a flood, tornado, or man-made disaster, like a plant explosion or oil pipeline burst.
     
    But would any such disasters require $120 million in expenditures? Of course not. Consider Bossier Parish, as an example, though. They were the hardest hit from the flooding in March, 2016 and suffered $3.4 million in total losses.
     
    However, after FEMA reimburses them (FEMA reimburses 75% of costs), the net cost to Bossier Parish will only be around $900,000. That’s a lot of money, of course, but obviously a far cry from the $120 million or so that Caddo Parish has just sitting there, set aside, for such emergencies.
     
    This underscores the fact that too many of us don’t understand what local governments take in, or the extent of waste, fraud, and abuse present in the system. And frankly – there are too many elected officials counting on just that.
     
    Caddo Parish is not unique, though, in that regard. Many other local governments across the country are facing the same difficulties. Declining tax revenues, depressed property values, shrinking populations, higher costs of government services, etc.
     
    However, not all local governments take same approach. Some don’t see raising (or renewing) our taxes, or cutting services, as the only 2 options to balance their budgets. Some have chosen to lower taxes, instead. For example, in Burlington County, NJ, the county government was hemorrhaging dollars. So, they reduced their spending, and cut taxes by 13% because their goal was to “reinvent government.” The county chairman said, “We wanted to find a better way to get it done and by combining different departments and offices, we would find ways to save dollars and not duplicate tasks. We had to be more efficient.”
     
    Similarly, in Greene County, Ohio, commissioners were able to reduce the amount of property tax collected by $1.9 million because the county determined it had more than what was needed for county services. The county administrator said, “We didn’t need all those tax dollars, and we need to find a way to put them back in the community.” As one commissioner said to his constituents, “This is your money. We don’t need it, so you put it to use.”
     
    Now, when was the last time any of us heard that? Never.
     
    So, why is the only discussion around here about raising, or renewing taxes, especially when there’s $120 million just sitting there?
     
    Here’s the real answer: Our elected officials know that if they spend what they have “saved,” or don’t renew what taxes they already have, the taxpayers won’t likely vote for any new taxes, at least not anytime soon.
     
    So, it’s the “bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” analogy. And that “bird in the hand” is our tax dollars, and they aren’t letting go, and there’s certainly not any talk around here about “reinventing government” or putting tax dollars “back into the community.”
     
    None of the tax propositions on the April 29 ballot expire this year. Only 1 of them expires as early as 2019. The rest don’t expire until 2021 or 2022. What’s the rush to hold an election to renew a while bunch of taxes, on an obscure Saturday in April, where the voter turnout will be almost nil, that will cost the Parish almost $150,000 to conduct? There is no rush. Not at all.
     
    Instead, let’s give our Caddo Commission the opportunity to do for us, just what the local governments in New Jersey and Ohio have done for their constituents, and reinvent government for us, first.
     
    Will Rogers once said, that “we should be thankful that we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.” If that’s true, then maybe having some folks in our government using just 2% of their mental potential is a good thing. There’s no telling how much higher our taxes would be, if they were using anything more.
     

  • Pay Raise

    Pay Raise

    Superintendent Lamar Goree said this month that he’s been charged by the Caddo Parish School Board with looking at how to give “everyone a raise in our school system”. That’s after nearly 60 percent of Caddo Parish Schools’ were scored by the Louisiana Department of Education as ‘D’ and ‘F’.

    Shreveport Mayor Tyler says that we need to give pay raises to city employees making $80,000 a year or less “to make sure that we’re being competitive with other governmental entities.” That’s after total (government) jobs at City Hall rose last year, while the population of Shreveport continued to decline and we ranked no. 4 in the country for job losses.

    And in Washington, DC, even as he was leaving the White House, President Obama officially authorized a 2.1 percent pay raise for federal civilian employees in 2017, even though our national debt was (and is) nearly $20 trillion. Now, just this month, a House Democrat has introduced a new bill to give federal employees an across-the-board pay raise of 3.2 percent in 2018.

    So from failing schools, to declining population growth, to rising debt – our government seem to be hell-bent on incentivizing poor results – and unfortunately, with devastating accuracy.

    What’s missing in all of these calls for blanket pay raises across the country in government is not just the taxpayer money to do so, but the lack of any real progress – or interest – to develop an effective performance appraisal system of government employees that gives honest feedback, and provides meaningful differentiation between the high-achievers and those who work just hard enough not to get fired and get paid just enough money not to quit.

    Why is it that some folks just don’t get it? Unless our government has an objective employee evaluation system, to get rid of low performers, and reward high achievers, we’re just rewarding mediocrity – plain and simple.

    Yes, you can hire better people with pay raises, attract better job candidates, etc., but you have to still deal with those whom you already employ and simply are not doing the job that needs to be done.

    You see, study after study shows that retention of an organization’s best and brightest decreases, in the long run, whenever blanket pay raises occur. This is because there’s a demoralizing effect on the high achievers in any organization because they feel their efforts to go above-and-beyond aren’t recognized when those who didn’t make the effort were rewarded, nevertheless.

    And to add insult to injury, not only does your most loyal and best employees feel unappreciated, but a blanket pay raise makes it even more unlikely that these best and brightest will have any chance of receiving a pay raise themselves anytime soon, based on their own merit, because now there’s even less money available in the budget to do so, after the blanket pay raises to everyone else.

    Maybe this is why President Trump has called for a federal hiring freeze, and an end to automatic raises, and to make it easier for our federal government to fire poor performers. As the White House press secretary explained, “Some people are working two, three jobs just to get by. To see money get wasted in Washington on a job that is duplicative is insulting to the hard work that they do to pay their taxes.”

    And he’s right. If we are going to continue talking about blanket pay raises, shouldn’t we be talking about the effects of doing so, other than to one’s own bottom line? In the end, this is all about getting better, and grabbing life by the collar, gutting this out, growing ourselves, and turning our country around. Sure, the money is important, but the value of what you give is even greater, and rewarding mediocrity cost us all.

    After all, as Winston Churchill said, “We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.”

  • What Took You So Long?

    What Took You So Long?

    Psychologists call it “confirmation bias,” which is the tendency to search for, or otherwise interpret information in a way that confirms what you already believe, regardless of the facts. You may call it “rationalizing.” Others may call it “missing the forest for the trees.” I call it “denial,” and as the saying goes, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

    But do we really prefer illusion, to the truth? Many do. The truth hurts, after all, and even when we hear the truth, our defenses seemingly kick in to keep the illusion alive – and the pain away.

    So, is this why as many as 1 million women showed up in marches across the country, with not just one grievance, but many? Was the truth of the past 8 years exposed with the inauguration of President Trump, and the protests an attempt to keep the illusion alive – and the pain away?

    Some marched for equal rights for women and against sexism. For minority groups and against racism. For better jobs and higher pay. For environmental responsibility and against global warming. For peace and to end all wars.

    Yes, the conventional wisdom is that these millions of women were expressing their discontent over the election of President Trump. But discontent over what, exactly? He had only been sworn in as President for less than 24 hours before the protests began. And after all, tens of millions of women had voted for him in November. In fact, many say it was women voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan that gave President Trump the votes he needed to win the White House.

    So, what’s really going on here? I’ll tell you: we prefer illusion to truth, and the bottom line is that these women have been lied to, especially about the consequences of voting for politicians who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas. Or so-called “leaders” who are more interested in their own well-being, than in ours.

    Instead of promised good jobs for the jobless over the past 8 years, these women see 94 million Americans not even working now – the highest ever in our country’s history. In fact, by the end of 2016, the number of those filing for unemployment benefits was at its highest in more than a year.

    Instead of improving access to healthcare over the past 8 years, and making it more affordable, these women see that there are just 3 percent more Americans with health insurance today, and that the number is dropping every day. They see how many Americans simply can’t afford paying their premiums because insurance companies are raising premiums on everyone by as much as 60 percent to keep from collapsing under the Affordable Care Act.

    Instead of “healing our planet” over the past 8 years, they see that taxpayers are now shouldering more than $2.2 billion in expected loan guarantee defaults from companies like the bankrupt renewable energy company, Solyndra, and at least 36 other taxpayer-funded green energy projects that have vanished like the wind.

    And although we “ended a war” by withdrawing our combat troops from Iraq in 2011, these women see how this single decision to withdraw left the door wide open for ISIS to expand their terror around the world, killing thousands of innocent people, and terrorizing millions more.

    And instead of diversity, these woman saw Obama choose a cabinet overwhelmingly male and white, and racial tensions are higher than ever.

    In 2008, the illusion of “hope and change” sounded like the truth to these women. We were all promised, back then, that healthcare negotiations would be on C-SPAN (they weren’t) and that the budget deficit would be reduced by 50% (but it grew).

    They were promised there would be no earmarks in the $787 billion stimulus bill (but there were). We were promised the “Recovery Act” would save or create jobs (yet unemployment continued to rise to record levels). We were told “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” (we couldn’t). We were assured Obamacare would pay for itself (but it doesn’t). President Obama said, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future” (but he did and deficit spending rose to over $5.1 trillion).

    Maybe we could all agree now, at least, that when something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. But I get it, about the protestors and I’d be mad, too, if I were in their shoes, waiting on “hope and change” all these years.

    Just one question, for those who marched on January 21: What took you so long?

  • Let Freedom Ring

    Let Freedom Ring

    The 2016 campaign for president is over.

    And for millions of Americans this past election day, our country chose to let go of the past, and start anew.

    Today, it seems easier to recognize the abusive-like relationships that our country has gravitated towards, and clung to, over the past 50 years. Even though we knew better, we kept electing candidates for public office that were more interested in their welfare, than in ours. We supported one political party (or another) because they told us how much they cared, but never really helped us, at all.

    We kept accepting a watered down, blurred-line between what’s right and what’s not, just so that we might keep the peace for one more day, and be liked, rather than laughed at. It’s been more convenient to stuff our true feelings and be silent, or tolerate things that deep inside just didn’t feel right, so we might not be called names, or called into the court of public opinion.

    You see, many in abusive relationships simply don’t know what healthy relationships look like. And if you have grown up in an environment where you feel like you need permission from government to make even simple decisions, such as what doctor to use, or even how to spend your money, such as being forced to buy increasingly more expensive health insurance, then you may not recognize how unhealthy your relationship here is, in the first place.

    If you have only known relationships where you are blamed for others’ problems and unhappiness, by having your income taxed more and more, and still being accused of not doing enough, or putting enough skin in the game, then your relationship may seem normal to you. If you are belittled and trivialized for your feelings, such your concern about our border with Mexico, even though our government refuses to prosecute those here illegally, for the murderous crimes they commit – then yes, it may all seem normal to you.

    But it’s not. Not by a long shot. And if those blaming or belittling you happen to be popular, and likeable, it makes letting go of the relationship even harder, because who would take your side anyway, especially if you might be viewed as a bigot, a racist, or uncaring by speaking out?

    Maybe they call you names like “deplorables”, or humiliate you, put you down, and make fun of you in front of other people, by saying you “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people” who aren’t like you? Maybe they demean your faith, calling Catholicism “severely backward,” and “a middle ages dictatorship?”

    Maybe it’s their dishonesty or disloyalty to you that make the relationship abusive, such as Hillary Clinton using a private email server, exposing classified, national security information, and putting our families at risk, all while pretending she didn’t know what she was doing. Or how about so-called journalists who secretly championed one candidate, while smearing all the others, cheating during the debates, and still pretending to be impartial stewards of the truth?

    For others, an abusive relationship is being with someone who is consistently irresponsible and unwilling, or unable, to handle their responsibilities. Maybe that is like Secretary Clinton protecting our embassy that was burned-down, and those American killed in Benghazi? Or keeping American forces in Iraq to contain the spread of ISIS throughout the world, regardless of the popularity of doing such. Maybe it’s running up our national debt to nearly $20 trillion since 2009, even though economic growth has been the slowest in our nation’s history, and the number of people unemployed has never been higher.

    Yes, it was inevitable that this day would come. A point where we, the people, became aware that must let go of the abusive relationships of the past and realize that the pain of remaining in them, simply outweigh the desire to just keep “working it out”.

    That time for change is now.

    Today, the continued corruption from the Clintons seems less inevitable, and more intolerable. The media charade of objectivity is even less convincing now, but more contemptible than ever before.

    Career politicians seem more temporary, and the right to bear arms seems more certain. Our faith is less like something we must hide in the shadows, and more like something we can discuss in the town square.

    Our allies, like Israel, will trust again that we have their back, and Iran will never extort our nation again for $150 billion.

    It seems more likely today that genuinely affordable healthcare will be made available for more Americans than ever before, that our border will be secure, the jobs shipped overseas will return, and our laws, like our nation, will be restored to their rightful and respectful position in the world.

    And while I wrote this column several days before the November 8 election, I could be wrong about who is President-elect right now, but I don’t think I am, though.

    For whoever is being inaugurated in January, and for the reasons explained above, they will be President of a country whose voters have been changed forever by this election, for “a mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions.”

    So, let freedom ring, and may God bless America.

  • Just Listen to Me

    Just Listen to Me

    With the swearing-in of the 114th Congress last year, there are more African-Americans in the legislature than in any other period in history. And as you know, America elected its first African-American president in 2008, and then re-elected him in 2012. During this time, Eric Holder became the first African-American to hold the position of U.S. Attorney General, and then last year, Loretta Lynch became the country’s first African-American woman to serve in that role. More significantly, the number of elected officials who are African-American has risen nearly 10-fold what it was in 1970.

    And yet, there are too many in the African-American community who don’t feel heard. Maybe that’s because anyone can talk (especially a candidate asking for your vote during an election year). But not everyone can listen, or knows how to, at least.

    Is it any wonder, then, that this frustration – this anger – is expressed by protesting in the streets, staring down law enforcement, bringing traffic to a stop by standing in the middle of a freeway, or by looting businesses in our own neighborhoods and then setting them on fire? Most Americans – white or black – can understand the anger, whether it’s the seeming lack of equal opportunities or the high incarceration rates, or racial profiling – there’s plenty that needs to be cleared up. But why so much violence, and why now?

    Martin Luther King, Jr. was the pre-eminent advocate of nonviolence and one of the greatest nonviolent leaders in history. Even so, he was urged by many, during the 1950s and 60s, to use “any means necessary” to achieve the civil rights changes needed in our country. He refused. And while the protests he organized gave rise to the viability of black elected officials for the very first time in history, the connection between ordinary black voters and black elected officials, pretending to represent them, has seemingly eroded away completely.

    What other logical explanation could there be after Congress has now spent $15 trillion dollars over the past 50 years on poverty, yet the poverty rate today is virtually the same as it was in 1964? In fact, we are now spending close to $1 trillion per year on government assistance, yet 46 million Americans still live below the poverty line?

    This hardly sounds like a representative government, regardless of skin color.

    And America then elects the first African-American president 8 years ago, but almost one-half (1/2) of Americans believe today that race relations in this country are still getting worse, and that it has been the President himself who has driven us apart? Really?

    But the numbers show it too: During the past 8 years, the percentage of black Americans struggling below the poverty line has advanced, real median income among black households declined, and black food-stamp participants increased almost 60%. The number of black Americans owning their own homes has decreased, and black unemployment is twice that of white unemployment.

    Yes, there’s a lot to be frustrated about, no doubt. And we could go on and on, but you must keep in mind that government cannot “fix” all things for us, whether you are black or white. Government (however big you make it) cannot make you happy, make you feel respected or accepted, confer achievement, build your self-esteem, or eliminate life’s inevitable ups and downs.

    Yet we still need to be heard. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “[O]ur lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter,” and he was right. Violence was just never an option for him. He believed, “Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.”

    So, as we prepare to elect our next president in November, all of us would do well to remember that we must elect candidates who don’t confuse doing something with actually accomplishing something. Or talking, when we just want to be heard.

  • Can’t Get Comfortable With That

    Can’t Get Comfortable With That

    They are not “comfortable” voting for Donald Trump, they say. Ted Cruz. John Kasich. Lindsey Graham. And now more than 75 Republicans have signed a letter urging that the Republican Party spend the party’s money on helping secure the Republican majority in the Senate, and not on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

    You are not comfortable? Not comfortable? Pardon me, but I don’t give a damn about your comfort. This election isn’t just about you, or your namby-pamby “wow, I’m a big kid now” culture of “what’s in it for me”.

    How “comfortable” was the First Infantry Division when they hit the beach at Omaha, knowing they would not likely survive the German snipers firing at them, as their landing craft doors swung open, during the D-Day invasion in 1944?

    How “comfortable” is the mother or father who watches their son or daughter go off to war, not knowing exactly where they are, or if they will ever see them again? Not knowing if they are enduring heat and hunger, or surviving mortar fire and roadside bombs?

    How “comfortable” were the American soldiers in the Revolutionary War, who were merely a group of civilians fighting the most formidable and professional army in the world, not to mention the world’s greatest navy? Or how “comfortable” were those who signed our Declaration of Independence, sacrificing their own lives and property, for the belief that our rights are granted unto us by our Creator, while committing High Treason against Great Britain and their sovereign, King George the 3rd, in the process?

    If this is the type of discomfort you feel you are experiencing, perhaps you can muddle through the pain, and choose the candidate most likely to protect our Constitutional principles, because it’s what our country needs, and not just because of what you want.

    Yes, we are all grieving the loss of the America we grew up in, and the erosion of the fundamental values that provided us all with a sense of security, identity and purpose as proud Americans. No, we didn’t always agree, but at least we felt like we could make a difference.

    And now, we no longer feel in control of our own lives. Well, how “comfortable” does that make you feel?

    How “comfortable” are you that government has seemingly crept into every nook and cranny, and that we can’t choose our doctor anymore, or the curriculum being taught in our schools, or even practice our religion in some instances, without being bullied into silence. How “comfortable” are you that we can’t even recite the Pledge of Allegiance “under God” without being sued? Or that we’re paying more and more taxes each year, and that household incomes are the lowest they’ve been in 20 years, and that 94 million Americans are not even working right now – how “comfortable” does that make you feel?

    How “comfortable” are you that any human being, whether they are Secretary of State or the secretary in your office at work, would lie to a grieving mother about how and why their son lost his life, like Hillary Clinton did about Benghazi?

    Some say they still cannot vote for Trump. He doesn’t look or sound the part. Some are considering voting for a Libertarian Party candidate, or not voting at all. Some have even said that they will vote for Hillary. Admittedly, they just aren’t “comfortable” with any of the choices.

    If this describes you, please reconsider how “comfortable” you have been over the past eight (8) years because a Hillary Clinton administration will essentially be the second game in a double-header of a major league baseball game where both teams end up losing.

    She wants to raise taxes on the middle class (saying everyone should pay their “fair share”) and she will continue deficit spending and increasing our federal debt with a $275 billion federal investment in public works spending. Her national security policy will be more of the same that allowed ISIS to gain power and become the world’s most dangerous organization, and her immigration policy will simply promote more sanctuary cities where people in our country illegally can evade prosecution of our laws and conceal themselves long enough to attack our homeland, all while political correctness continues to run amuck and silence the voices of those who should be heard.

    Not everything that feels “comfortable” is what we need, and not everything that is “uncomfortable” should be avoided. In fact, if you look back at your life, the times that you are most grateful for are often those times where you were not “comfortable” because it was in those times that you became stronger. And I believe the same can be true for our country.

    Trump may not be your choice, but he’s the only choice that makes sense. It’s a catch-22 situation, for many, many, principled people. But if you protest his candidacy, you will elect Hillary, and inadvertently preserve the very conditions that gave rise to his campaign (and your objections to it), in the first place. By not voting for Trump, you actually make it less likely that other principled conservatives will ever have a shot again, at least not anytime soon, to be elected to the highest office in our land.

    By then, unfortunately, it may just be too late. And as for me, I can’t just get “comfortable” with that.

  • When It’s All About You

    When It’s All About You

    President Obama’s remarks, at the memorial service for 5 slain Dallas police officers recently, was a sad reflection of why our nation is so divided, and why it’s not only important for us to do what is right in our communities, but to do it for the right reasons – and not just because of what’s in it, for you.

    That’s because you can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him. After all, most people are really nice to those who can help them, in some way. Whether it’s your manager at work when you are asking for a raise, or your plumber when you have a burst pipe and water is running everywhere – we act differently when there’s something in it for us – even when it’s the right thing to do in the first place.

    And yes, having the POTUS attend this memorial service is both honorable and appropriate. But when the President took the opportunity at the memorial service to make a speech supporting more gun control legislation, in a room full of people hurting, with heavy hearts from the loss of these officers’ lives – it felt like the President came to Dallas more for what was in it for him – and about how a grieving community could help make the case for his political agenda.

    Unfortunately, this “what’s in it for me” culture is increasingly expected. Although the President’s remarks should have been only to express the nation’s sympathies to the grieving families and the law enforcement communities, as well as the Dallas community at-large, he took this solemn time to lobby the crowd, saying that “(w)e flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.”

    First of all, none of that is true. None of it – not to mention that the killer in Dallas was not even close to being a teenager, or an at-risk youth. Secondly, Pew Research Center conducted a survey last year and found 87 percent of U.S. teenagers had access to either a desktop or laptop computer and books are plentiful in our communities. In fact, our public schools literally hand our children books every year, not to mention there are more libraries in the U.S. than McDonald’s restaurants. So why lie to an audience, not to mention one that is grieving, just to advance an agenda?

    Well, it’s not the first time for this administration. Remember the BP oil spill, and Obama’s moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico because he said it was a matter of national security? There are 32,000 Louisiana jobs dependent on drilling, and many drilling rigs were forced to leave the Gulf of Mexico because of inactivity – and they haven’t come back. In the end, the moratorium on drilling was used to help pass new alternative energy legislation in Congress, not increase our national security.

    Remember too that Obama began withdrawing our combat troops from Iraq in 2011, and justified doing so because he said we had achieved success and “(t)he tide of war is receding.” But it wasn’t true. To the contrary, our military advisors had warned that it was too soon to leave, and that the tide of war had not, in fact, receded. In the end, though, this single decision to withdraw from Iraq left the door wide open for ISIS to flourish, and expand their terror around the world – all while Obama could now make good on his 2008 campaign promise to withdraw our combat troops and he was re-elected in 2012.

    There are other examples of this “what’s in it for me” culture, but the bottom line is that it’s rotting our country from the top down. It is no doubt what is largely responsible for the increasingly deeper divisions between blacks and white, rich and poor, conservatives and liberals, etc. over the last 8 years.

    Yes, I know our culture, and all of the advertisements within it, promote this life being all about us, and what’s in it for us: “Have it your way,”  “You deserve a break today,” or “You’re worth it.”

    But the first sentence in the book, A Purpose Driven Life, perhaps says it best: “It’s not about you”.

    And our President should be the first one in line to say so – especially at a memorial service for those who put their lives in harm’s way, so he won’t ever have to.