Louis R. Avallone

Category: Economy

  • New Outlook

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Before we start, let me wish you and yours a Happy New Year! You know, there is hardly a “Happy New Year’s” greeting, in some form or fashion, that doesn’t include a wish for good health, great wealth, and much happiness (but not necessarily in that order, of course).

    And even though folks have been extending such well wishes to one another on January 1, stretching back to Julius Caesar in 46 B.C., there seems to be a somewhat nefarious, or otherwise detestable quality – this year, in particular – in wishing others “great wealth” in the coming new year.

    After all, considering the Obama administration’s sustained condemnation of those with “great wealth,” it seems then that wishing “great wealth” upon others is wholly incompatible with well wishes of “good health” and “much happiness” in the coming new year.

    Why? Well, according to Obama (and the Democrats in Washington), those with “great wealth” are greedy and selfish. With their chauffeured limousines, mansions, and private jets, Obama believes those with “great wealth” don’t contribute their fair share. After all, he alleges, this is because those with “great wealth” often pay an effective tax rate that is less than even their domestic help pay. For example, Obama says, “A teacher or a nurse or a construction worker making $50,000 a year shouldn’t pay higher tax rates than somebody making $50 million.”

    Okay. We all get that. But of course, this is a dishonest debate because the majority of those with “great wealth” are not those with chauffeured limousines, mansions, and private jets…nor are they making $50 million a year. Instead, they are small business owners, struggling to make payroll, complying with increasing government regulations, higher income taxes, and working longer and longer hours to make ends meet.

    Obama knows that. He also knows that the top 50 percent of American income earners pay almost 97 percent of all federal income taxes collected. Obama also knows that, generally speaking, raising income taxes does not necessarily affect those with “great wealth” because often they can make money through other means, such as from dividends and capital gains, which are not considered “income” and not subject to the higher income taxes he touts, as part of his populist, almost seething class-envy campaign being waged in our nation today.

    To put this in perspective, I propose that we steer clear of unwittingly contributing towards this class-envy campaign by substituting the word “productive” (or some variation of it) whenever liberals use the words “wealth” or “wealthy,” or “rich,” in a sentence…and then letting all of our friends know to do the same.

    When Obama proposes that the “the rich” should “pay their fair share” in higher taxes, just translate those words into, “the productive” should “pay their fair share.”
    When Obama asks, “(D)o we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country?” Translate that into “…tax breaks for the most productive Americans in our country.” When he says, “Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments — wealthier than ever before,” translate that into, “Those at the very top grew more productive from their incomes and their investments – more productive than ever before.” I mean, if we referred to the “rich” as “productive”, it puts “great wealth” into a different perspective…and this is more accurate, by and large, don’t you think?

    Some readers may be asking, “What’s my point?” What’s with all the translating? My point is simply this:
    The men and women who earn a paycheck, or those who own businesses and earn a profit…these are the great majority of productive members of our society. They should not be vilified because they may have more than others. Some of these same folks may acquire “great wealth,” but these are the folks that build a nation; who often have failed more than they succeeded; who understand, in the words of Vince Lombardi, that “it’s not whether you get knocked down, it’s whether you get back up.”

    And these are the folks who would earn a paycheck, or make a profit, or gain “great wealth” no matter where they started, or how many times they failed and started over. They embody the unassailable American spirit…and yet Obama (and liberals alike) are suffocating that spirit today by demonizing the end result of their productivity – wealth.
    People like Henry Ford who failed and went broke five times before he succeeded. Or Thomas Edison whose teachers said he was “too stupid to learn anything” and who was fired from his first two jobs for being “non-productive.” Or Walt Disney who was fired by a newspaper editor because “he lacked imagination and had no good ideas” and later even went bankrupt.

    These folks acquired “great wealth”, but this was only in some proportion to their “great productivity”. Is America not better as a result of Ford’s, Edison’s, and Disney’s “great productivity”?

    So you see, Obama’s 2012 campaign for re-election is more about the “productive” versus the “non-productive” in our nation (and not the trite, populist struggle of “rich” versus the “poor”). He won’t couch it that way, but I will.

    This is why I believe we need to do some translating of our own – and putting into perspective that you often cannot separate “great wealth” from “great productivity”…the very productivity that been a source of great blessings for our nation over 200 years now.

    So, with all of that said, again, I wish you good health, great “productivity”, and much happiness in 2012. Sounds better that way maybe…what do you think?

  • Equally Shabby

    Equally Shabby

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    We are precipitously running out of other people’s money, and there are simply not enough millionaires to fund the deficit between our income and expenses, or to employ those who are unemployed, or preserve even a semblance of a free market economy.

    And yet our nation’s leaders continue to falsely presuppose, whether by their own education or ignorance, that government can somehow guarantee economic equality, or fairness, even though even a cursory study of history, particularly the rise and fall of socialist and communist states, would plainly prove otherwise. In the words of the late economist, Milton Friedman, “A society that puts equality…ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.” After all, who in government will decide what is fair, or equal? If liberty is embodied in the creed, “all men are created equal,” does that likewise mean that we shall all be kept equal?

    Is equality being “equally shabby,” as a 1930s social worker gushed about the virtues of Soviet Russia? Is there liberty in a nation where its citizens are allowed to build only a “modest” savings, as President Obama proclaimed in a speech just last week? Does he decide what is a “modest” savings for each one of us? If so, is there liberty in being “equally modest”?

    But still, there are folks in Washington who continue to urge us all to “get some skin in the game”, and to offer a “shared sacrifice” so that the promise to “make work pay again” can be fulfilled, as if there is some universal, mystically agreed upon threshold amount of pay that will create nirvana for a nation. These are the same folks, during the last presidential election that urged, “It’s time to be patriotic…time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

    But this has not worked. Nor has it ever. Are these folks purposely promoting empirically failed philosophies of economy and liberty, or are they ridiculously ignorant or corrupt? Have they not studied economics? Are they such poor students of history that they do not see that in almost every instance where government intervenes to provide financial advantages or disadvantages to this group, or that group, that it distorts, or otherwise perverts the free enterprise system? Have they not realized the human suffering that inevitably results when markets are forced to correct themselves because the government has simply run out of other people’s money to prop up the unsustainable?

    Consider this: Congress spends $10 billion per day, or $3.7 trillion per year. So, to keep the economy moving, Congress must continue expropriating more and more private capital. But you see, Congress does not have a revenue crisis – it has a spending crisis. As the late economist Milton Friedman explained, “The true burden on taxpayers today is government spending.”

    And he is right. In fact, government spending in 2011 currently amounts to over 175 percent of all government revenue, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. This means we are spending $3.77 trillion this year, while our income is only $2.15 trillion.

    This is the fallacy of focusing on revenue, and the immorality of inciting class warfare to achieve political power, yet this is also the intentional, disingenuous, and unconscionable political strategy of Obama for the 2012 election. The class warfare rhetoric, or the notion to increase taxes on the “fortunate” is offered as a means to save our nation from economic peril, just as Karl Marx also believed.

    But it is a false premise because there’s not enough of other people’s money to save us. No, this rhetoric is not about the greater welfare of the American people, or ensuring the strength of our nation for generations to come…this is about power, and a socialist ideology that has only demonstrated its own shortcomings, and historical failings, rather than preserving the very principles of a free market economy which, historically, provide the best and most sustainable opportunities to lift people out of poverty, or provide jobs for those who need them.

    So every time you read, or hear, folks talking about the rich getting richer, or the poor getting poorer, or how folks need to contribute their fair share, please remember, and share with others the following:

    Congress can’t expropriate enough private capital to “float the boat”. This is even if, on January 1, Congress imposes a 100% tax rate on all income earned above $250,000. By doing this, there will only be enough revenue to fund government’s spending through mid-May.

    If Congress went further, and then confiscated 100% of the profits, earned last year, from all of the Fortune 500 companies, this would generate only enough income to “keep the lights on” in the government through the end of June.

    And even if you “stepped up” the raising of revenue by confiscating all of the stocks and bonds, the businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry, of every American billionaire, our government could only continue cutting checks for another 6-7 weeks, or through mid-August or so. We’re still a $1 trillion short to make it to the end of the year.

    So? Now what? Seriously. What now? After government has expropriated most all private capital, and redistributed it with spending programs that exceed our income by 175%, and after Americans have spent their “modest” savings that Obama had so gratuitously allowed them to earn, what do we do now?

    New, temporary government programs to “get this economy going again”? Maybe we can “make work pay” again, somehow? I mean, who knows? Maybe there are new ways to make folks contribute their “fair share,” even after we become “equally shabby.”

  • Be of Good Cheer

    Be of Good Cheer

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    It is supposed to be the most wonderful time of the year…with the kids jingle belling and everyone telling you to be of good cheer. But for many Americans, this year, that may be a tall order. 75% of Americans think our nation is heading in the wrong direction. Consumer debt is rising, as 32% of Americans owe more money today than they did a year ago. 43% of Americans say that they have even put off medical procedures to save money. And more than ever before, Americans say that their home is worth less than what they owe on it.

    There are 14 million Americans who are actively seeking employment, but remain regrettably unemployed, not to mention the almost 6 million Americans who will lose their long-term unemployment benefits by the end of the year. Not exactly the best times for chestnuts roasting by an open fire. Or for Jack Frost to be nipping at your nose.

    But you see, for these unemployed Americans, it is hardly important to them to hear the sophomoric chit-chat over which Republican candidate for president speaks most eloquently, or to even watch the President’s political gamesmanship of inciting class warfare by promising more record deficit spending, through the expansion of government and redistribution of wealth.

    No, you see, many Americans are simply in a funk. It’s because a job is more than just income. More than just what we do to pay the bills. There is a human devastation from joblessness that the politicians, pundits, and bureaucrats just don’t get; nor does the mainstream media, who rather keep “score” of the insignificant.

    Before terrorism, or the devaluation of our currency, or the rising national debt, or even free trade agreements that send American jobs overseas, it is hopelessness that stalks the land as our nation’s most formidable threat to peace and security. It is the loss of control for folks to earn a living and take care of their families. And it’s time for the folks who peddle helplessness and blame to step out of our way.

    It is literally a matter of life and death. A research study of 20 million people recently found that unemployment increases the risk of premature mortality by almost 65%. And a CNN study concluded that people who lose their jobs are 83 percent more likely to develop stress-induced conditions, such as diabetes, arthritis and depression. And as the unemployment rate worsens, the divorce rates rise, marriage rates decline, and children perform more poorly in school. These are children that are more likely, during these times, to experience homelessness, be abused, dropout of school, and live in poverty as adults. This is the human consequence of all those that trade on despair…and it’s shameful.

    It doesn’t have to be this way. But you have to believe. If you can visualize success, you are likely to gain it. No, America is not perfect, but the sun is hardly setting on America. In the words of Dale Carnegie, “Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.” This is the essence of the Americans spirit and we won’t despair, because for so many of us, it’s still morning in America.

    Even Walt Disney had to declare bankruptcy, just before he left for Hollywood and came up with a cartoon mouse that changed the world. Milton Hershey actually declared bankruptcy after four initial tries at starting a candy company. No one else (except for Mick and Adrian) really thought that Rocky could beat Apollo. But he did.

    All of us just need to be reminded that we have the power within ourselves, much more often than not; to solve our own problems…we just need the government and the “do-nothing” political power-hungry folks to get out of our way.

    Just like in the movie the Wizard of Oz: Dorothy, Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion didn’t need to realize the potential of government (or rather, Oz). All these characters needed to do was realize their own potential and manifest it. As Glinda the Good Witch explained so simply to Dorothy, “You’ve always had the power to go back to Kansas.”

    See, she always had the power, within herself. Just like Scarecrow, to whom Oz presented a diploma, who already had just as much brains as those who graduated from the most prestigious universities. Or Tin Man, who was already as sentimental as any man could be. Or Lion who was already courageous, but just didn’t know it yet.

    Courage is in overcoming our fear, not in being fearless about our future. Most challenges in life seem far more insurmountable than they actually are, like melting the formidable Wicked Witch with a pail of plain water.

    So, with all of that said during this holiday season, and for whatever or whomever your “Wicked Witch” may be today, have faith and stay the course…and pray. Be of good cheer. After all, more often than not, “somewhere over the rainbow” is already right in your own backyard (sometimes we just don’t know it yet).

  • Common Sense: It Ain’t So Common

    Common Sense: It Ain’t So Common

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Lucky Strike

    Lucky Strike

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    There’s the cereal “Lucky Charms.” Then there’s Frank Sinatra’s signature song, “Luck Be a Lady.” In downtown New Orleans, you can enjoy a “Lucky Dog” hot dog. Of course, most everyone has a lucky number and is looking for a lucky break, or to get on a lucky streak. Sometimes we all feel lucky. Other times it’s just tough luck. Sometimes we luck into something else. Or make a lucky guess. And thank our lucky stars. There’s the luck of the Irish, of course. There’s dumb luck. And potluck. Often folks will have beginner’s luck.

    And these days, the folks in Washington are talking more and more about luck also – and how to generate millions of dollars in revenue by taxing the so-called “lucky” for their success that was apparently brought on by chance, rather than through their own choices. Remember Democrat Minority Leader Dick Gephardt? He said that the successful ones were merely the “winners of life’s lottery” and “have a moral obligation to share their good fortune.”

    Of course, this “share the wealth” ideology is by no means an original thought, nor is it a successful one, historically speaking. Just ask the people of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania, and the USSR. They all rejected such Marxist ideology in the latter part of the last century and chose, instead, a transition toward private property rights and a free market, capitalist system.

    But the Obama administration doesn’t understand why, apparently. They continue recycling (and campaigning on) such failed ideology; stirring up discontent by promising relief from the very misery that was created by the administration’s failed, Marxist-like policies to begin with.

    But Obama couches it all very cleverly, so you have to listen carefully. He says, “It’s a basic reflection of our belief that those who benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more.” After all, his call for higher taxes simply “asks the most fortunate among us to pay their fair share, just like everybody else.” Apparently Obama forgets that one in every two Americans do not even pay income tax, and that the top 50 percent of American income earners pay almost 97 percent of all federal income taxes collected.

    But you know, these facts, and the historical evidence of failed ideologies, all just seem to get in the way of the campaign politics of rich versus poor, or rather, fortunate versus unfortunate.

    Now the word “fortunate” is defined in the dictionary as “deriving good from an unexpected source.” Some might call this “luck.” But whatever you call it, if this administration thinks that you are either “fortunate” or “lucky,” they want a piece of the action.

    And since Obama is using the word “fortunate” so frequently these days, this got me thinking about how often do folks experience some financial windfall from an unexpected source. A lottery ticket would be an unexpected source, I think, considering how unexpected winning would be with the odds as high as one in 3,838,380.

    But what about deriving good from an expected source? Is that “fortunate”? Or something else? Take a diamond mine, for example. Let’s say we all board a bus, early one morning, headed for the Craters of Diamonds State Park in Arkansas. When we arrive, we’ll have lots of choices. Some folks may choose to go directly into the diamond field and start mining. Others may head to the snack shop for refreshments, or go to the gift shop, water park, or tour the exhibits inside the visitor’s center.

    Some in our group will mine for diamonds all day long, despite the heat and messiness. Others may mine for a while, and some may not mine at all. The park ranger will tell us that finding diamonds usually depends on how much time you spend searching or how hard you want to work. But if you were one of the ones that mined for diamonds all day long, should you be forced to share your diamonds with the folks who spent the much of the hot day in the air-conditioned comfort of the snack shop, eating corn dogs and cooling off on the “slip-n-slide” at the water park?

    That doesn’t seem fair, even though we know that sharing with others is a Christian principle, and not an imposition. But I believe it’s like President Kennedy said, “Americans need a helping hand, not a hand out.” So, if the guy, who spent much of the day eating corn dogs, lacks the skills to dig for diamonds, I’ll teach him. If he lacks the tools to dig with, I’ll let him borrow mine.

    But the bottom line is that there is nothing “lucky” or “fortunate” about the guy, or gal, who steadily mined in the diamond field all day long, enduring the heat, wiping the sweat from their brow, and straining their muscles until they were sore, all while forgoing the snack shop, or the other more comfortable and leisurely attractions at the park.

    I say that the guy, or gal, who unearthed any diamonds in that field, is neither “fortunate” nor “lucky.” The unearthed diamonds were predictable products of their hard work. As Thomas Jefferson said, “I am a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it.” Americans will always contribute their fair share to pay for our federal government. Let’s just not do it all on the backs of the “lucky” ones, or we’re likely to end up with no “luck” at all.

  • Don’t Mess With Jim

    Don’t Mess With Jim

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Let’s get right to the point. And it’s a point that all Americans can appreciate, even some liberals. Okay, here it goes: By now, you have heard that President Obama, in a speech to a rare joint session of Congress, proposed $447 billion in new government spending to create jobs or to otherwise stimulate the national economy.

    Now, we have been over this ground before. As you know, a couple of years ago, Congress spent nearly $800 billion to create (or save) jobs too. Instead, unemployment rose from 7.6% to 9.3% (with an effective unemployment rate of 16.2%, when you count the unemployed folks who have given up looking altogether).

    In fact, the Obama administration spent nearly $17.2 billion (or half of the $38.6 billion set aside for the administration’s “green” energy programs) and yet only created 3,545 permanent jobs. This calculates out to a staggering $4,853,000 per job. Really? And one of the biggest beneficiaries of the stimulus funds was the now bankrupt Solyndra, the White House protégé for “green” jobs development. Solyndra received $545 billion in government-backed loans to build solar panels…and now the taxpayers will get thrown down the stairs (again).

    I mean a $528 billion loan guarantee? And now it is gone? Are you kidding me? Whose idea was this? That’s almost as much as the comparatively paltry sum of $545.5 million that Obama set-aside in the stimulus bill for the Small Business Administration to assist all small businesses in all 50 states.

    Now, Obama wants to spend another $447 billion dollars in his jobs bill, to create (or save) jobs and stimulate our economy? Haven’t we been here, done this?

    Look, if an $800 billion stimulus bill has increased unemployment and inflation, why repeat the same mistakes? Or to put it another way, in the words of Albert Einstein, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

    So, with that said, let’s talk about that jobs bill again for a moment. Obama is offering employers a $4,000 tax credit for hiring someone who has been out of work for at least six (6) months. Sounds good, right? But hiring is not a discretionary decision. Only the customer, the marketplace, can provide the necessary incentive to a business, not a government bureaucracy. Hiring is not like receiving a coupon in the mail for “2-for-1 enchiladas on Tuesdays” and then deciding to go out to eat for enchiladas on Tuesdays.

    I mean, there’s really only 2 possibilities here, in terms of providing a hiring incentive to businesses: Either the $4,000 Obama incentive will be pointless because it will have been paid to an employer who was going to hire someone out of work for six (6) months anyway, or you are encouraging businesses to hire employees that they may not be able to keep fully employed in the first place. Again, the customer, the marketplace, is the genuine incentive that establishes the foundation for authentic economic growth.

    And look, let’s go over this again for the administration’s sake: Governments do not create wealth. They merely move it around. At the end of the day, the source of government spending is still revenue from taxpayers. The government cannot inject money into the economy without first taking money out of the economy in the form of debt, taxes or printing new money.

    Many in Congress, and in the White House, still don’t get it. They believe in the theory of Keynesian economics, and the “multiplier” effect. This theory presupposes that for every $1.00 in government spending, there will be a greater than $1.00 economic activity that results. This is why folks like Nancy Pelosi believe that extending jobless benefits “creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.”

    Technically, Pelosi is correct, but it is a fallacy. Extending jobless benefits does support local economies because folks have more money to spend. But this is like giving $5 to your wife or husband. Yes, they have $5 to spend now, but you didn’t boost your household income by $5, you merely redistributed the $5, from your hand to theirs, and you have $5 less to spend now, but they have $5 more.

    Government spending works the same way. It doesn’t boost national income or our standard of living. It merely redistributes income, less the cost of the bureaucracy to manage it all.

    This proposed jobs bill, and the ensuing $447 billion in new spending, will increase capital gains taxes by $18 billion, levy $40 billion in new taxes on oil and gas companies, and collect $40 billion a year in new taxes on individuals making over $200,000 a year.

    But monkeying around and choosing the winners and losers in the free market is a high wire act without any safety net below. We know the consequences; from the housing credit collapse to “cash for clunkers”…one wrong move begets another, and then folks, their families, and their livelihood, get hurt.

    Messing around with the U.S. economy is like the 1972 Jim Croce song, “You Don’t Mess Around With Jim,” which lists out some equally foolish activities that will definitely result in similarly unwanted consequences. The song goes like this: “You don’t tug on Superman’s cape. You don’t spit into the wind. You don’t pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger. And you don’t mess around with Jim.”Mr. Obama, after all this time, please don’t mess around with “Jim.” And we won’t tug on your cape.

  • An End to Enabling

    An End to Enabling

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    It’s a story that is all too familiar in our country today. Millions of Americans are in an unhealthy relationship where they are enabling destructive behavior. Some are acting out of love and trying to help or protect, even though they may actually be making a chronic problem worse, like an addiction. These folks are often referred to as “enablers” because they accommodate another’s harmful behavior and, in the process, almost encourage it.

    What is an example of “accommodating” harmful behavior? Here’s a letter from a reader in “middle America” who discovered she was “enabling” her significant other’s destructive behavior. She writes:

    “We have been together now for 3 years. When we first met, we drank and partied every time we were together, but I thought this was normal for moderates and liberals like us, who were out to change the world, on our terms. There were the parties and concerts at our home in Washington, D.C., from Broadway plays to performances by Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder, Bob Dylan, and Queen Latifah. I mean, we spent at least $10 million on such engagements in 2009 alone. He started out as a very caring person too, even volunteering his time to provide amnesty to illegal aliens and free healthcare for us all, even giving “cash for clunkers” and spending wildly on this, or that, thinking that it would make it all better. I hit it off with his family too, like Aunt Nancy, and Uncle Harry, and even his Reverend. I felt like I belonged somewhere, and was proud, for the first time in my life. But even after our finances were completely out of control, and jobs became so scarce that I eventually lost my unemployment benefits, he would still go out and party, and I really didn’t know where he was, who he was meeting with, nor what he was doing. He seemed to stop taking a genuine interest in work altogether, because he kept trying the same old, tired, and failed ideas, over and over and over. One time, in fact, he went golfing thirteen weekends in a row, and we just seemed not to exist to him at that point.

    Now, some people might call me dysfunctional too since I chose to be with him. But we continued this cycle of him obsessing on liberal ideology and me getting angrier, because things were not improving – our home’s value had plummeted, our retirement savings were nearly depleted, and I increasingly had to ask for permission to do just about anything. It was like a bureaucracy. And he told me once that if I brought a knife to the fight, he would bring a gun. I thought it was my anger issues, or mean-spiritedness, that were the problem, and if I could just get control over my anger, and be more tolerant and patient, things would be fine. But I became very resentful of him, because he wasn’t there to help me. He seemed to always put his liberal ideology of bigger government, more spending, and higher taxes before my well being and my children.

    I was alone in an economy where the effective unemployment rate was 21.3% and feeling so very alone. All he could talk about was how food stamps and unemployment benefits stimulate economic growth. Our children have seen things no one should ever have to witness, especially from someone in his position.

    He calls me names, if I disagree with him. For example, he said I was a ‘terrorist’ to him, for no reason at all. One time he said, ‘you know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.’ Then, the next day he either won’t remember what he said, or he will say he’s sorry and expect everything to be fine, and for me to just forgive him.

    He always promises me that he will cut down on his spending, and his liberal ways, but he always ends up hurting us anyway. I keep waiting for him to grow up, but I am beginning to change instead. I realize now that ‘change’ and ‘hope’ begins first with me.”

    This is the story of the American people, under the Obama administration. It is sad, but it doesn’t have to be this way. Quite simply, the American people have “enabled” President Obama, the Democrats in Washington, and the bigger government crowd to threaten our liberties, mask American exceptionalism, and further bankrupt our country. Now it is time for an “intervention”.

    Sure, Obama’s hurried speech to the joint-session of Congress right after Labor Day was full of the same-ol’-same-ol’ promises of change. But to get something that you haven’t got, you have to do something you haven’t done. And while Americans may not be much older, they are much wiser, than they were in 2008. Yes, we understand that America’s problems were not created overnight. We understand that there is not just one “magic bullet” that Obama can use to make everything better right away.

    But this is not a time for Americans to be understanding nor patient, nor “enabling” of destructive behavior, in any way. Millions of Americans have “been there, done that.” We need change. Not promises. It’s time for an “intervention” to end this liberal addiction and return America back to the clean and sober nation that still, for 235 years now, makes it the envy of all the world.

  • Paying Dues

    Paying Dues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Straight Talk

    Straight Talk

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Is it too much to ask, really? For a little honesty? I mean, do you sometimes feel that you are living in an artificial world, whether it is in politics or entertainment or morality; where you are prompted by the mainstream media to simply accept the reality of the world with which you are presented? Sometimes it’s kind of like the movie, The Truman Show, in which the main character, Truman, thinks he is an ordinary man, with an ordinary life. Have you seen that movie?

    You see, in the movie, Truman’s ordinary life is actually a concocted one; played out on a giant movie set (and viewed by all the world), where all of his friends, and those around him, are actors…only he does not know it. But Truman is genuine. There’s nothing fake about Truman, despite that the world, in which he lives, is counterfeit.

    It’s hard to avoid feeling like Truman these days, with so much misinformation or “spin” being disseminated through the mainstream media and from our nation’s leadership. Whether it was the President disingenuously suggesting that our nation’s seniors might not receive their Social Security checks unless the federal debt limit was raised by $2.2 trillion last month, or Nancy Pelosi explaining months ago that extending jobless benefits “creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name,” it can all be quite frustrating (and disappointing) to the millions of hard-working, country-first Americans.

    So when the President recently reiterated (over and over) about the malaise of the country caused, in part, by tax breaks for folks with corporate jets, I had to check out the facts.

    Here is what Obama told Americans: He said that if the debt ceiling wasn’t raised last month, then “that means there are a bunch of kids out there who do not have college scholarships. [It] might compromise the National Weather Services. It means we might not be funding critical medical research. It means food inspection might be compromised. I’ve said to Republican leaders, You go talk to your constituents and ask them, “Are you willing to compromise your kids’ safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?”

    That’s what Obama said. But here’s the truth: The “tax break” that Obama refers to, about corporate jets is inconsequential to college scholarships or medical research of our kids’ safety. The reason is that the “tax break” merely consists of shortening the time period (five years instead of seven years) over which corporations can write off the purchase of a corporate jet.

    That’s it. That’s all there is to the much maligned and whined about “tax break” for corporate jet owners; a “tax break” that supposedly is threatening to end even our nation’s food inspections (according to Obama).

    And to add insult to that dishonesty, do you know that even if you collected this corporate jet tax every year (sans the “tax break”), for the next 5,000 years, you will cover only one year of the debt that the Obama administration has run up thus far?

    So, we get rid of the corporate jet “tax break” and no more deficits now? Medicare is solved? The unemployment rate is lessened? Are you kidding me?

    For the record, despite the President’s bashing, business aviation employs 1.2 million people, and contributes $150 billion to U.S. economic output. In Kansas, for example, it accounts for $7.1 billion, or nearly one-third, to the state’s economy. In addition to business use, private jet use provides medical care, law enforcement, and disaster relief to literally thousands of small communities throughout the country where commercial airline service is absent.

    With that said, consider that, despite Obama’s apparent political necessity to now demonize the corporate jet “tax break,” it was the Democrats, through Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill, that created this “tax break” to begin with.

    That’s right. It was Obama’s own legislation that created the very tax break that he rails against today. Essentially, Obama is condemning the Republicans (and anyone else, for that matter) for supporting his own policy here. It’s just crazy.

    So, this is exactly what we were talking about earlier. The Obama administration presents this alter-reality that somehow the Republicans value corporate jets, while Democrats value our nation’s youth; that Republican care about tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, while Democrats protect the Social Security checks of our nation’s seniors. But in reality, it’s not that way at all.

    Mr. President, just be honest with the American people and talk straight. Remember, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.” It’s a best seller in our country. What page are you on?

  • Debt Ceiling

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    You heard about this, right? President Obama was lobbed a question regarding the likelihood that social security benefits would not be paid in August, unless the federal debt limit was raised by $2.2 trillion this month. You might think that this would have been an opportune moment for him to engage the American people on principles, not politics, and in facts and figures, not fear and foolishness. Unfortunately, President Obama didn’t think so.

    Instead, even with rising unemployment and higher and higher food, gasoline, drug, medical care, and housing costs, Obama spoke directly to millions of already worried American senior citizens, many of whom are living on meager, fixed incomes. Here’s what he said about the August social security payments, which total approximately $20 billion: “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,” reminding us, as well, that “this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans’ checks, these are folks on disability, and their checks.”

    This uncertainty might be considered important information, even instructive and educational, for our nation’s president to communicate to voters in such a candid and forthright way. But there’s one issue there, though: It’s just not true. Those payments to our nation’s senior citizens (and veterans alike) will be made, even if Obama doesn’t stamp and lick the back of every check envelope before mailing.

    Although it is unconscionable that the office of the presidency of the United States would be used like a baseball bat, held over the heads of senior citizens, to intimidate Congress into raising the federal debt limit, neither the facts nor the American people support the substance, nor the spirit, of Obama’s doom and gloom.

    The fact is that the U.S. Treasury is expecting $172 billion in tax receipts next month. Based on historical data, it is unlikely that interest payments in August will exceed $35 billion. This leaves approximately $137 billion for other August bills such as Social Security, Medicare, and military salaries.

    What we don’t have enough money left over is to pay for the continued expansion of government, exemplified through Congress passing a $700 billion financial bailout of the banks, plus over $1 trillion in economic stimulus, a $1.5 trillion health care expansion, a $447 billion omnibus spending bill, and a $15 billion Medicaid bailout, not to mention a 25% rise in discretionary spending.

    You see, the legal limit on borrowing, by the federal government, is at $14.3 trillion currently. Democrats want to raise that limit to by $2.4 trillion. So, if the debt ceiling is not raised, Obama has some tough decisions to make, all in a run-up year to his re-election campaign.

    But not being able to send out social security and veterans’ benefit checks is not one of those tough decisions. In fact, President Clinton’s lawyers, in the Department of Justice, in 1995, laid out how federal agencies should operate if Congress failed to appropriate funds. Because the program doesn’t need Congress to authorize funds for Social Security each year, those benefit checks could be mailed during a government shutdown, if the federal debt limit is not raised. During the last major shutdown in 1995, the Social Security Administration mailed checks during that shutdown and it appears that the agency has the legal authority to do so again.

    Now, there are some folks, out there, that will make the case for Obama’s “non-guarantee” statement that Social Security benefit checks may not be mailed in August. They might say that he is technically correct because, in 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that workers do not have a legal right to their Social Security benefits and, therefore, benefits cannot be guaranteed where there is no legal right. While this is a debate all unto itself, the American people should be able to rely upon the spirit of what the president says, without having to read the fine print first, for exceptions and exclusions. By saying that he could not “guarantee” that Social Security checks would be mailed out in August, he unnecessarily and callously frightened millions of senior citizens; many of whom simply took their president’s words for the plain meaning he intended for them to understand.

    With the national debt at its highest point in 50 years, compared with the size of the U.S. economy, and with Americans opposing the raising of the federal debt limit by a margin of 2-to-1, we need more responsible government, not more rhetoric.

    Lyndon Johnson once told Richard Nixon, “The Presidency is like being a jackass caught in a hail storm. You’ve got to just stand there and take it.” Sure feels like it is the other way around today, as the American people seem to be the ones caught in the hailstorm. Oh my, how times have changed.