Louis R. Avallone

Category: Economy

  • Debate of Ideas

    Debate of Ideas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Distracted Voting

    Distracted Voting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tell Me Lies

    Tell Me Lies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • American Spirit

    American Spirit

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    HITTING THE ROAD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Forward?

    Forward?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Principles and Politics

    Principles and Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Saving Our Eco-system

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Our ecosystem is fragile. It can be as small as a drop of water or as large as our entire planet. In fact, the earth is an interconnection of many diverse and interdependent ecosystems that make up the whole. They form the basics of life, such as water, food and shelter. If our ecosystems are not protected, our planet cannot survive. In the rainforest, for example, merely losing one species of animal or plant can cause the loss of the entire rainforest and all its inhabitants.

    This is often referred to as the “keystone species” concept because of the disproportionately large effect that a particular species has in its environment. This concept was developed in the late 1960s when it was discovered that the absence of starfish in the ocean ecosystem caused the remaining species in the area to compete with each other for limited resources. Within a year of the starfish’s removal from the study area, species diversity decreased from 15 to 8.

    Another example is how sea otters control sea urchin populations. Sea urchins feed on kelp forests, and without sea otters feeding on sea urchins; there would not be enough kelp forests, which are used as a habitat for a variety of other species.

    Or take the American alligator, once thought to be an undesirable nuisance. It was then hunted without limit, to the point of extinction. But with the absence of the alligator, there was a population explosion of gar, the alligator’s favorite food. Gar enjoyed eating all the game fish that people enjoyed catching, so then the fish population declined significantly. Once the alligator population was allowed to grow, so did the game fish, and the ecological balance was restored.

    You see, entrepreneurs, and the American entrepreneurial spirit, much like the American alligators, are being hunted in our country, without limit, to the point of extinction. They are facing what scientists call “ecological extinction”, which is “the reduction of a species to such low abundance that, although it is still present in the community, it no longer interacts significantly with other species.”

    This “ecological extinction” of entrepreneurs, and the American entrepreneurial spirit, is a natural result of historically high pollution levels that our country is experiencing, politically. These pollutants, such as class warfare, higher taxes, and increased government regulations, are toxic emissions in our environment.

    Unfortunately, these pollutants do not naturally decompose, and their continued emission can only result in irreversible, functional damage to our ecosystem, crippling job creation by discouraging capital investments, while encouraging lower productivity (and thus lower wages) by penalizing higher wages (through higher taxes).

    And if you are not sure if the policies of this White House is purposefully seeking the “ecological extinction” of entrepreneurs, and the American entrepreneurial spirit, by making the environment inhospitable to their economic survival, consider the following:

    As of April 1, America now has the highest, jobs-killing corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. And did you know this administration has instituted 106 new regulatory rules that have added an estimated $46 billion per year in new costs for businesses?

    Were you aware that by blocking the Keystone pipeline, and through choking off oil production under federal leases, that Obama has effectively, on his own accord, blocked nearly two million barrels per day of North American crude oil from being injected into the American economy, all as gas prices are reaching historically high levels?

    Do you know that Obama wants to effectively double the tax rate on income from capital gains from the current 15% rate? This would reduce the incentive for domestic investment, but increase the incentive to move jobs and capital overseas.

    These are a few important examples of why we need to preserve our ecosystem, and protect endangered species, like entrepreneurs, and the American entrepreneurial spirit, that are on the verge of extinction. It’s a different ecosystem that we’re protecting here…an ECO-nomic system, but the fundamental principles work the same as they do in nature.

    Entrepreneurs, and the American entrepreneurial spirit, serve as a spark plug in our nation’s economic engine. They birth new ideas, like the iPhone, and start new companies. And that’s important because firms less than five years old have driven virtually all-new job growth in the U.S.

    New firms, on the average, create three million jobs a year, and because of our growing population, we need three million brand new jobs every year, if everyone else is to keep their job, period.

    So, when you discourage entrepreneurs from starting new companies, and thereby eliminate the breeding ground for the majority of these new jobs in the first place, we have an appalling, environmental disaster on our hands. If we don’t have new companies being created, we don’t create new wealth. Without new wealth, the country grows poorer.

    We must act, before it’s too late. If we delay in removing the toxins of class warfare, higher taxes, and increased government regulations, then replenishing the population numbers of entrepreneurs could take decades. And if they become ecologically extinct, what species will replace them in our ECO-system? From where will those three million new jobs needed each year come from? (For you liberals, the answer is not “from the public sector”).

    Yes, “going green” is now more important than ever. So, give a hoot. Don’t pollute. And save the entrepreneur. Our nation’s livelihood literally depends on it.

  • Justice for All

    Justice for All

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Most Americans are just plain dizzy from the “spinning” of the issues that this White House has unashamedly engaged in for almost four years now: Deficit spending is an “investment”; a tax increase is considered “revenue;” and rising gasoline prices are blamed on foreign nations, all while we restrict access and delay permitting for oil and gas exploration right here at home. Policy failures? Well, from illegal immigration to historically high deficit spending, these are blamed on “obstructionist” Republicans, even though this White House had “supermajorities” in the House and Senate for its first two years and was able to pass anything they wanted without the need for a single Republican vote. Historically high unemployment and anemic economic growth even after $1 trillion in stimulus spending? This only persists because this administration “didn’t know how bad it was” when they came into office.

    Didn’t you know also that extending unemployment benefits beyond 99 weeks is necessary because it “creates jobs” faster than practically any other program? Or that Congress needed to first pass the 2,700-page “Obamacare” bill affecting one-sixth of our nation’s economy in order to find out what was actually “in the bill” (instead of reading the bill first)? I could go on and on, but I’m pretty sure even Democrats understand the picture by now.

    So last week, when the U.S. Supreme Court justices began hearing the administration’s legal arguments defending the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, I was inspired, encouraged, reassured about our nation of laws … and a sense of order. And why not? Article 3 of our glorious U.S. Constitution was engaged, alive and well. The actions of both the president and Congress were being checked for constitutionality, exactly as Article 3 of the Constitution intended and as our founding fathers envisioned. There was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was inquiring about fundamental matters of liberty, specifically the notion of “changing the relationship of the individual to the government” through a mandate to purchase health insurance.

    There was Chief Justice John Roberts, who inquired if Congress could mandate folks to purchase health insurance under its power to regulate interstate commerce and its call to solve national economic problems? Then could Congress also mandate folks to purchase mobile phones under that same power since having a mobile phone would improve your access to 911 emergency medical services?

    Then there was Justice Antonin Scalia who wondered aloud if Congress can force you to buy health insurance, could Congress also require individuals to buy vegetables such as broccoli? And even though nearly two-thirds of Americans recently polled could not name even one member of the U.S. Supreme Court, we witnessed last week the miracle of our U.S. Constitution in action, perhaps during the Court’s most publicized hearings in preparation for perhaps one of its most sweeping decisions since it was first organized in 1790. As the arbiter of our nation’s most challenging legal matters, it was just refreshing to hear the audio comments from one of the three branches of our government, where a majority of the members therein were informed, prepared and presented well- reasoned comments and criticisms, thus effectively fulfilling its constitutional duty to provide a check on both the executive and legislative branches.

    Dale Carnegie once said, “Neither you nor I nor Einstein nor the Supreme Court of the United States is brilliant enough to reach an intelligent decision on any problem without first getting the facts.” And the facts are plain enough to all of us reading here today: We’re possibly going to cede the health-care industry to the federal government. These are the same folks who are operating a Social Security trust fund that will go broke in 2041, a Medicare program that will be insolvent in 2020 and a bankrupt U.S. Post Office that lost $2 billion last year alone, not to mention the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And why do this? To address about 10 percent of all Americans who need financial assistance for health insurance. A recent poll indicated that 54 percent of uninsured Americans are between the ages of 18 and 34 and many of them voluntarily choose to forgo coverage. In fact, it has been estimated that nearly one-fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, while one- quarter is eligible for public coverage. Only the remaining 56 percent need financial assistance.

    Of course, this administration may likely “win” politically for their intentions to affect health care, regardless of whether the Court decides the individual mandate in Obamacare is constitutional or not. “Perception is reality,” right? Or, in the words of Emerson, “People only see what they are prepared to see.” Still, last week’s hearings were a gloriously refreshing reprieve (however short-lived), from the predictably partisan, uninformed, divisive and misleading national debate that seemingly rewards short- sightedness and sacrifices liberty for the immediate, political gratification of today … even if such means “spinning” completely out of control.

  • Right Direction?

    Right Direction?

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Folks, we need to talk. Despite a U.S. economy that continues to stagnate, or declining consumer spending, or plummeting home prices, or record unemployment, or declining wages, not to mention the unraveling of national security resulting from illegal immigration to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, there are still 1 in 3 of us, as likely U.S. voters, who believe the country is moving in the right direction, according to a recent poll. Seriously? I mean, by all objective, measurable standards, how can seemingly responsible and rational adults still muster the motivation to pretend that the country is moving in the right direction, even as the proverbial “wheels” are coming off?

    Some might explain this by pointing out a lack of political awareness among Americans these days. For example, only 2 in 10 Americans know there are 100 Senators in the U.S. Senate, and only 4 in 10 of us know there are 3 branches of government (and also can name each of them). Plus 53% of Americans don’t know the name of the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court or, for that matter, can even name a single member of the highest court in the land. And a National Geographic poll revealed that 6 in 10 people, aged 18 to 24, could not find Iraq on a map.

    But here we have one of the most critical, nation-altering elections upon us, just a little more than 7 months from now and, if the polling data is correct, nearly 1 in 3 likely U.S. voters seemingly want to double-down on this administration’s policies and programs, rooted in socialism, that empirically have failed, time after time, throughout history.

    Maybe it’s true, in the words of George Bernard Shaw, perhaps “(d)emocracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve”. Well, my fellow Americans, we deserve better.

    And it starts at home, around our kitchen tables with our families, and talking about the issues. Now, these are issues that aren’t glamorous to talk about and won’t necessarily make you the most popular guy or gal in the class. They probably won’t be subjects of conversation on Entertainment Tonight, but these are issues, for all Americans, to not merely talk about, but to understand.

    After all, the next generation of Americans are in great need of our voices of reason, our common sense, knowledge of history, and they need our protection now, more than ever, from those whose vision for America includes less liberty, not more…from those who prefer government control and management of people’s lives, rather than the freedom to choose and a desire to be left alone. And yes, this is the slippery slope we’re on.

    Do these folks (who think that the country is moving in the right direction) realize the historical evidence that governments will always find a need for the money they collect (or borrow, from future generations), and that collecting money from some people, in order to “do good” for another group of people, is the most inefficient method of spending money? Or that such spending may not “do good” at all?

    And since you brought it up, I’ll give you an example. Deficit spending during the Obama administration has been nearly $5.17 trillion, including $787 billion in “stimulus” spending to “save” jobs. The results have been record unemployment, and those looking for a job for more than six months make up 40% of the unemployed (which is the highest level since 1948). If you include those who have simply stopped looking for work, this makes the actual unemployment rate almost 20%, despite trillions of “stimulus” spending.

    And I’ll give you another example. Our nation will spend $953 billion on welfare programs this year (up by 42% since Obama took office). Still, we still have record levels of poverty—46 million are classified as living in poverty—the highest number since 1959.

    And why is this? Why is more and more money, towards stimulating the economy, or moving people from welfare to work, failing? One reason is because, again, spending someone else’s money on someone else is the least efficient way to spend any money, for the value you receive. Yet, in 2012, local, state, and federal governments will spend $6.3 trillion dollars in this very way, on services and bureaucracy (and we wonder why our local and state governments are nearly bankrupt as well).

    So do these folks (who like the direction our country is heading), understand that a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither? Or that fairness is not achieved by having someone else, or the government, decide for you, what is fair? Or that liberty means equality of opportunity, not equality of results?

    We may be headed in the wrong direction, but in the words of Zig Ziglar, “There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.” So whether you’re Republican, Democrat, or none of the above, let history be our guide, and liberty light our path. In the words of Ronald Reagan: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” And that goes for the 1 out of 3 that still thinks we’re headed in the right direction. We should probably make them a copy of our map.

  • Warning Labels

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    We’ve all seen those seemingly ridiculous warning labels, on so many products these days, that you wonder what’s more embarrassing: That such warning labels are necessary at all, because of the sheer half-wittedness of some folks, or that the folks writing those warning labels are just plain pretentious and pompous towards everyone else?

    For example, you know the cardboard sunshield that folks use, to keep the sun off the dashboard in the car? It has a warning label: “Do not drive with sunshield in place.” Really? Or how about on a toner cartridge for a laser printer: “Do Not Eat Toner.” Is that really necessary to point out? Then there’s the warning label on most hair dryers that says, “Do not use in shower.” Or, one of my favorites, “If you do not understand, or cannot read all directions, cautions and warnings, do not use this product.”

    And just last month, you may have seen a Doritos commercial that aired during the Superbowl, featuring a spry grandma launching a baby, through the air and into a tree house, to snatch a bag of Doritos, using a slingshot contraption. As this baby is being hurled through the air, the good folks at Frito-Lay thought we needed reminding not to try this ourselves (despite our obvious inclination). So, they added the fine print, “Do Not Attempt.”

    Of course, this got me thinking about other activities, especially ones that seem obviously dangerous and insidious, that ought to have a warning label also, but presently do not. Take socialism for example. Atop each piece of government legislation, that expands wasteful government spending, there ought to be the disclaimer or warning label: “The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”

    Such a disclaimer or warning would be sufficient for those who have figured out that a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. Or that governments will always find a need for the money they take (or borrow, from future generations).

    Such a disclaimer or warning is satisfactory for those who appreciate the notion that taking money from some people, in order to “do good” for another group of people, is the most inefficient form of spending money that exists, and may not “do good” at all.

    These are the same people who understand that you generally cannot achieve good ends through bad means. They understand the unconscionable incompetence of evaluating government policies and programs by their intentions, rather than by their results.

    These are the folks that understand that fairness is not achieved by having someone else, or the government, decide for you, what is fair, and that liberty means equality of opportunity, not equality of results.

    And yet, despite these folks, our country finds itself subjected to the aftermath of a Democrat Party, and a President, that recklessly and repeatedly ignored the “warning labels”; doggedly doubling-down on policies and programs, that are rooted in socialism, and that empirically have failed, time after time, throughout history.

    After all, deficit spending during the Obama administration has been nearly $5.17 trillion, including $787 billion in “stimulus” spending to “save” jobs. The results have been record unemployment, staying above eight percent for the longest period since the end of World War II. But if you count those that have not searched for a job in the past four weeks, or those working part-time, but would prefer full-time work, the unemployment rate is almost 15%. The long-term employed—those unemployed who have been looking for a job for more than six months—make up 40% of the unemployed now (which is the highest level since 1948, when such data began to be collected).

    Despite the intentions of this deficit spending, and despite Obama’s 2011 budget to increase spending on welfare programs to $953 billion (up by 42% since he took office), we still have record levels of poverty— 46 million are classified as living in poverty— the highest number since 1959 when the census began tracking this number in 1959.
    The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines socialism as “a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.” This is the precipice at which we find our nation in 2012, amidst policies and programs which redistributes goods and pay through the expansion of government spending, and all promoted by an administration that requires those that work the hardest to be satisfied with the rewards equivalent to those who don’t work hard at all. The difference, in the words of Winston Churchill, is that “(t)he inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
    Just ask Spain about misery. Their unemployment is at 22.9%. Ask Greece too, whose joblessness is at 19.2%. Yet this president is following their template for the same, failed policies that even Japan has used unsuccessfully for the last decade: Printing money, raising taxes, increasing regulations, adding to the debt and deficit, and providing endless bailouts.

    This is serious business. No, we don’t need a government sponsored advertising campaign to explain the fallacies of socialism to our children; we can handle that fine as parents (although a warning label for those promoting socialism would sometimes help). Just remember this, in the words of Ronald Reagan: “Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don’t need it and hell where they already have it.”