Louis R. Avallone

Category: Economy

  • Less is More

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Last month, officials in Shreveport, Bossier City, and Bossier Parish had announced a ban on the sale of fireworks, through the end of June, effectively causing the seasonal vendors of fireworks to forego any selling to the public during this year’s 4th of July holiday season. Because of the dire drought conditions in our area, the ban was imposed for public safety reasons.

    The Shreveport Fire Chief delivered the news of the ban, during a press conference, all while at least twenty (20) other government officials and representatives stood behind him, apparently in a show of solidarity for the imposition of the fireworks ban.

    With this large contingency of government officials and representatives on hand, to participate in a press conference where far fewer persons could have accomplished the same objective of informing the public, many folks might find it appropriate to insert some humor here, along the lines of, “How many government officials and representatives does it take to screw in a lightbulb?”

    But this is no laughing matter. In fact, it is estimated that almost 50% of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local government is just the expense of employing the government employees (like those honorable public servants standing behind the Shreveport Fire Chief during that press conference). Is it any surprise that municipalities across the U.S. are on the verge of bankruptcy?

    So, with that said, were 20 government officials and representatives needed here, flanking the Shreveport Fire Chief’s podium? Or could those folks have applied their time more effectively in achieving the important work of the people in other matters?

    Practically speaking, it seems that only 1 representative, from the City of Shreveport, Bossier City, and Bossier Parish, would have achieved the work of 20 that were present. And by doing so, this would have represented an 85% reduction in the personnel expense of having those other important government officials and representatives standing idly by.

    But however trivial this example of inefficiency may seem, it is indicative of the billions of dollars wasted at all levels of government. Since 2007, private businesses have cut hiring and increased layoffs, but the percentage of federal employees who lost their jobs has barely changed, despite the downturn in the economy. Instead, the unemployment rate in the private sector has nearly doubled to 9.4%.

    Did you know that there are 15 federal agencies overseeing food-safety laws? Or that there are 70 programs, across 57 different federal departments and agencies, which receive more than $16 billion a year to fight illegal drug use? Or that there are at least 80 “economic development” federal programs being administered by 4 agencies, at a cost of $6.5 billion? I mean, there are 10 federal agencies that are attempting to track “teacher quality” through 82 programs. Come on, now. Seriously?

    So it’s no surprise that, with such redundancy, you need lots of folks to administer those redundant programs. As a result, in America today, there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). Almost the inverse was true in 1960. More Americans now work for the government than work in farming, forestry, construction, fishing, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined.

    And Louisiana, like so many other states, is facing huge budget shortfalls in the 2011 fiscal year. These shortfalls, and the fact that Louisiana has one of the highest percentages of government employees – 15.6% — is no coincidence; although we’re doing slightly better than Mississippi where 18.9% of the workforce is employed by state and local governments. For Louisiana’s part, we just cannot continue to afford the payroll expense of 100,000 state employees or the associated $12 billion debt in our state pension system.

    The bottom line is this: “We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we have not taxed enough,” said Ronald Reagan in 1982, “but we have a trillion dollar debt because we spend too much.” So, when folks talk about raising taxes, to support more government programs, just remember this means more government employees, and that means even greater debt and inefficiency – at the local, state and federal levels alike; debt and inefficiency that we can no longer afford the illusion of supporting.

    Will Rogers once said, “Be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.” That may be true, but with just a little effort to improve our government’s efficiency, couldn’t we just pay less for the government we have?

  • Insatiable

    Insatiable

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Recently, the Vancouver Canucks lost Game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals to the Boston Bruins. Back home in Vancouver, their distraught fans rioted, with nearly 100 people arrested and almost 150 injured, while cars were burned and an estimated 50 businesses vandalized. The total damages are expected to run into the millions of dollars. Of course, sports rioting is not new, but the recent Vancouver riot was unusual because it is usually the winning team that riots.

    The winning team riots, really? For example, when the Los Angeles Lakers captured the NBA title in 2000, its fans began vandalizing property, setting bonfires, and destroying vehicles, resulting in 11 arrests and 12 injuries. Same result occurred when the Lakers beat the Boston Celtics in the 2010 NBA finals. And after the Red Sox won the 2007 World Series, there were at least 37 arrests made as fans burned cars and threw bottles at police – and this was the winning team.

    Ridiculous, right? But this isn’t much different than the modern-day Democrat Party. Their “team” won in 2008 and their “team captain” is in White House. Yet all they have done is complain since then. In fact, only 44% of these Democrats say that the U.S. is heading down the right track, and 69% of voters, who are not affiliated with either major political party, believe that the U.S. is heading down the wrong track.

    Just this past March, for example, Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin said Obama had “failed to lead.” Just last week, former Vice President Al Gore sharply criticized Obama as lacking leadership on climate change. Hispanics too are unhappy with the President, as summarized by a Miami immigration activist who said, “Obama has the guts to deport our mothers, deport our fathers, deport our people and then come to us and say `I want your vote’? Please.”

    Democrat Sen. Kent Conrad recently described Obama’s consideration of tax cuts, to stimulate our economy, as “just misdirected.” Last week, Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg, wrote a letter to the President, saying his administration “has not shown the leadership to combat gun violence.” Even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi led Congressional Democrats last week, arguing that Obama’s timeline for bringing 33,000 U.S. troops home by next summer isn’t fast enough.

    Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. And as if that wasn’t enough, Congressional Democrats in April called Obama’s budget compromise “irresponsible,” “dangerous” and “immoral.” When one’s morality offends liberals, you know you have crossed the proverbial “line in the sand”.

    But for all of the criticism, remember that Democrats, and liberals alike, chose these policies and yet they appear miserable. There was the $787 billion government stimulus plan to start things off, followed-up by nationalized healthcare. There were opportunities to lower income taxes and reduce government regulations, as well as union controls, so that small businesses, in particular, would begin investing and hiring again. Instead, more Americans than forecast filed applications for first-time jobless benefits last week and new-home sales fell in May, as the jobless rate rose to 9.1 percent, which is the highest since December, up from 9 percent.

    And instead of choosing policies that promoted energy independence, they chose moratoriums on offshore drilling in the U.S., which was predicted to reduce long-term U.S. oil production by 27%, while increasing long-term U.S. foreign oil imports by 19 percent, not to mention the thousands of jobs lost to Louisiana alone.

    They chose redistribution of wealth policies that advertised “shovel ready” jobs, a term that the President now chuckles and grins about; as if my 5 year old just answered the question of “Did you eat all the cookies before dinner?” Still, Democrats got what they wanted, yet seem unhappy. What gives?

    There is a school of thought that liberals are generally unhappy. And unhappy is not good. According to hundreds of surveys, happy people increase our prosperity and strengthen our communities.

    According to a study by the Pew Institute, conservative Republicans are happier than conservative Democrats, and moderate/liberal Republicans are happier than liberal Democrats. In fact, there are several predictable conditions that are present in happier Americans: Faith, work, family, charity, and freedom, with the level of happiness being proportionate to the extent, which these conditions exist within us all.

    But surprisingly, political elections have little effect on our happiness, which might partly explain why the Democrats can be so unhappy. Apparently, Democrat victories in elections do not translate into happiness for Democrats.

    In fact, according to the Pew Institute study, going, as far back to 1972, conservatives are happier than liberals, even under Democrat Party control. The data indicates this to be overwhelmingly true during both the Clinton and Carter administrations. And not only that, but it turns out the age old wisdom of “money cannot buy happiness” is true here also. As it turns out, poor Republicans are happier than poor Democrats. And despite conventional wisdom that it is easier to be happier when you are wealthier, you should know that this happier Republican condition is shown to remain consistent throughout all income groups.

    Of course, unhappiness may not cause Democrats to riot in the streets, or turn over cars, or shatter the storefronts of businesses along American main streets. But Democrat policies have wreaked havoc on our nation, turning the direction of our country away from those traditional, conservative values upon which we were founded, while shattering the lives of millions who are still unemployed because of small businesses who are crushed under the weight of higher taxes, increased government regulations, and the uncertainty of them both.

    Maybe it’s just like Abraham Lincoln said: “People are just as happy as they make up their minds to be.” But then again, he was a Republican.

  • Flawed: Obama’s Rhetoric Masks Truth

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    You heard about this, right? In a town hall meeting in Reno, Nevada last month, President Obama said, “I’m rooting for everybody to get rich, but I believe that we can’t ask everybody to sacrifice and then tell the wealthiest among us, well, you can just relax and go count your money, and don’t worry about it. We’re not going to ask anything of you.”

    Well, let’s talk about that for a minute, since you brought it up. Who is the “everybody” that is being asked to “sacrifice”, and what exactly are they sacrificing? Or is this merely the trite and tired populist campaign rhetoric talking points, taken from the Democrat operations manual that was written nearly 80 years ago with the ushering in of the New Deal?

    You do know, however, that one in every two Americans do not even pay income tax, right? In fact, because of the tax cut extension passed last year, many American families, including those households making between $50,000 and $75,000 annually, will see a reduction of over $2,000 in their federal income taxes, on average. And just in case you didn’t know, the top one percent of American income earners do pay almost 40 percent of all federal income taxes, with the top five percent paying 58 percent, leaving the rest of the taxes due to be split up among the rest of us.

    Okay, so if one in every two Americans is not paying any income tax, and are not being asked to “sacrifice” in some other way, then it sounds like the “wealthiest” Americans, according to Obama, need to “pony-up” more or, in the words of Joe Biden, “get some skin in the game,” even though they already have often worked endless hours, for years, with little or no pay, to finance their small business with credit cards, loans from friends and family, and mortgages where the collateral was their own home and good name.
    But Obama just doesn’t get it. In one campaign speech after another, he refers to “rich folks” as if they are all lifetime members of a private club, where someone has to die in order for the next person on the waiting list to join or take their seat at the table. And since the conventional wisdom is that these “rich folks” keep getting richer (while the “poor folks” get poorer), it only stands to reason, as he explained in a speech last month, that those “who have benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more.”

    But, as Abraham Lincoln put it, “You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.” The implication from Obama’s comments, instead, is that those who benefit the most in our society have essentially won life’s “lottery” and have a moral debt to repay their community for their good luck. I get that. But Americans already contribute more than $300 billion a year to organized private charities, and volunteer eight billion hours annually to charitable activities, all without government involvement in redistributing anyone’s “wealth.”

    Does anyone think that the federal government can do this better than private individuals and organizations? Of course not. Take Warren Buffet, for example. He is one of the richest men in the world and routinely advocates tax increases to fund federal government spending. Yet, ironically, he is leaving most of his estate to private charities, and not the federal government.

    Obama says “we’re going to tax people making over $250,000 a year so those millionaires and billionaires will pay their fair share.” Are we listening? All we must hear is the “millionaires and billionaires” part, thinking it doesn’t affect us. But he’s talking about increasing taxes on small businesses, where most of us work, even those that earn $250,000; businesses that are responsible for over 50% of our private sector workforce, 50 % of the gross domestic product (GDP), and 90 % of net new jobs.

    These are not all “millionaires and billionaires,” but he must know that. The reason that Obama is coming after the upper-middle class here is because the “millionaires and billionaires” simply don’t have enough money. In fact, he could confiscate all the wealth from the “millionaires and billionaires,” and there still wouldn’t be enough money to cover the costs of his administration’s agenda.

    But back to the “rich folks” discussion and Obama’s image of them wearing a banker’s green visor, in a dimly lit backroom, counting their money, all while sipping a lacquer that most folks like me couldn’t pronounce. You see, to vilify the “wealthy” is to accept the flawed reasoning that this is a monolithic group, or that same people are “wealthy” from year to year. For most Americans, wealth is not static, nor a forgone conclusion that they will always be wealthy. Every year, new people will qualify in Obama’s “millionaires and billionaires” club, and every year too, folks will not earn enough to belong and lose their membership.

    So when Obama goes after the “club” with higher taxes, he is crippling the galloping American spirit of entrepreneurship, which means fewer jobs created, less ingenuity, and a dampening of the American soul. And that’s the headline here.

    Socialism may hope to make sure we all have enough, and guarantee the same outcomes. But even for Obama, it’s hard to ignore: Someone has to first create the wealth, before he can redistribute it.

  • Dangerous Precedent

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Oil has risen to over $100 a barrel now. It is estimated that an additional $10 – 20 increase, in the per-barrel price of imported crude oil, will translate into an additional 100,000 jobs lost in the U.S. in 2011. And while there is political unrest in Egypt and Libya, even higher oil prices are certain to result if the demonstrations spread to the Persian Gulf or to Nigeria and Algeria.

    Closer to home, however, the news is also discouraging. Foreclosures are supposed to increase by 20 percent this year, over 2010, with prices expected to bottom out as well in the housing market.

    And according to Gallup, when the “underemployed Americans”, or those that have part-time jobs (but really want full-time jobs), are factored into the unemployment numbers, then the unemployment rate climbs to 19.3 percent of the American workforce.

    Meanwhile, the Chinese are manipulating their currency to keep its value low by constantly increasing the overall supply of their currency and thereby exporting more “cheap” goods to the U.S.; even while tens of thousands of factories and millions of jobs are moving to China. Still, Obama continued to fondly mention China many times during his recent State of the Union address. China now even makes more beer than the U.S. does.

    Then there is our border with Mexico, which continues to be plagued by cartel violence, drugs, and other forms of illegal smuggling, as well as illegal immigration. The Obama administration has even diminished the authority of state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law, while at the same time abandoning the prosecution of non-criminal illegal immigrants and allowing them to remain in the United States.

    It’s easy to go on and on here about several other challenges facing our nation, and the impending difficulties, requiring our nation’s full attention, in the proverbial pursuit of a more perfect union. We should be seeking consensus on solutions, not divisions. After all, only 27% of likely U.S. voters now say the country is heading in the right direction. And only 25% of the nation’s voters “strongly approve” of the way that President Obama is performing his role as president.

    So, if you were Obama, at this point, what do you do to unite a nation? Do you take definitive, even unpopular efforts within your own political party, to address unemployment, inflation, immigration, the rising national debt, political instability in the Middle East, or the rising nuclear threat from Iraq and North Korea? Or do you choose to initiate a significantly controversial policy reversal, without much explanation at all to the nation, on an issue that tends to polarize Americans, rather than unite them?

    Obama chose the latter, in spite of the already turbulent times in which we live. What did he do? He announced that he and his attorney general have decided that the Department of Justice will stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which passed in 1996 with overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress and was signed by President Clinton. So, he substituted the rule of law, with the rule of Obama.

    You heard about this right? Attorney General Holder said that the president had decided that the law, after 15 years, was not defensible. A court of law did not decide, nor Congress. Instead, Obama decided the law.

    Regardless of your political orientation regarding DOMA, the main issue here is that we are a “nation of laws”, as so famously was written by John Adams. And even though Senate records show that the Department of Justice, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, has told Congress before that it was not defending an act of Congress (13 times in the past six years), here’s the big question: What other laws will this president, or future presidents decide to declare that its administration won’t defend? After all, the president’s Article II duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” admittedly must include laws with which the president (or his political party) disagrees.

    What if the next Republican president decided that the Department of Justice would stop defending constitutional claims against Roe v. Wade? Or to invalidate Obama-care? If Obama continues to ask the Department of Justice to “stand down” in the defense of laws, passed by Congress, but with which he disagrees, it sets a dangerous precedent. In the future, winning the presidency may wield increased power in deciding what legislation to defend (and sustain), and what legislation will receive “end of life counseling” instead, thereby increasing Executive branch power at the expense of Congress’s power. Makes good sense? Well, not so much.

    John Adams’ ideal was that America was a “nation of laws, not of men.” This has been the bedrock of our nation’s longevity. But maybe Obama’s decision regarding DOMA is part of his self-described political strategy of “we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” If that is the case, unfortunately, our beloved nation has become a nation of men…not of laws.

  • Denial

    Denial

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    You heard about that didn’t you? Oprah Winfrey commented last week that the critics of the President should show “a certain level of respect” to him? After all, she said, “…everybody has a learning curve, and I feel that the reason why I was willing to step out for him was because I believed in his integrity and I believed in his heart.”

    Really? Well, her “stepping out for him” during the 2008 campaign is an understatement. In fact, The New York Times referred to Oprah’s 2008 campaign rally in Des Moines as “the largest spectacle of the campaign cycle.” In fact, she then believed in Obama’s heart so deeply that she said, “For the very first time in my life, I feel compelled to stand up and to speak out for the man who I believe has a new vision for America.” She even called him, “the one.”

    So, what’s really going on here? You see, Oprah sees how Obama’s “heart” has pushed through a $1 billion “stimulus” spending bill and yet the economy has still shed more than two million jobs since doing so. She reads that unemployment has risen to 9.8%, and that it doesn’t even include those discouraged workers who have given up looking entirely, not to mention the 60.8 million Americans still dependent on the government for their daily housing, food, and health care. She hears the reports of one million home foreclosures in just 2010, even as sales of new homes hit a 47-year low.

    She sees how Obama’s “heart” proposed a 2012 budget that reduces community development funding and home assistance programs, affecting mostly minorities, who are twice as likely to live in poverty as the rest of the population. She sees how Obama’s “heart” also now proposes almost $1 trillion in new taxes, over the course of the next 10 years, most of which are tax increases on individuals, while still adding over $26 trillion in new debt in the long run.

    Oprah watches as Obama’s “heart” bows to President Hu Jintau of China and nearly genuflects at the feet of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. She hears when his “heart” also led him to apologize for our country, to the European countries, by saying that “there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive,” despite the countless American lives sacrificed, so that others might live free, and without persecution.

    So when Oprah tells us to essentially give a break to “the one,” she may just be in denial. And she is not alone. You see, denial is a defense mechanism, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, despite the overwhelming evidence.

    From her recent comments, she is using many of the mechanisms of denial. Like so many supporters of the President, she minimizes the reality of the facts, but more importantly, she rationalizes it all away by explaining that “…everyone has a learning curve.” And because she may actually be experiencing feelings of embarrassment, remorse, and guilt from her “over-the-top” campaign endorsement, considering the direction of our country, she seems to minimize much of any responsibility simply by explaining she believed in his “heart”; everything else, she seems to say, she never bargained for.

    But perhaps more than anyone, Oprah knows that it takes more than “heart” or “wishful thinking” to be successful.

    After all, Oprah is the embodiment of the American dream, and her success is the result of hard work, dedication, and an unbridled entrepreneurial spirit to overcome whatever obstacles may lie ahead. Born to a pair of impoverished teenage parents in the South, and later raised in an inner city Milwaukee neighborhood, Oprah landed a job in radio while still in high school and began co-anchoring the local evening news at the age of 19. Later, she would be told by an assistant news director in New York City that her “hair’s too thick, nose is too wide, and chin’s too big.” Still, she went on to syndicate the Oprah Winfrey Show, the highest-rated program of its kind in history, has been ranked as the greatest black philanthropist in American history, and became the richest African American of the 20th century.

    Oprah knows that “respect” is earned and that success is more than “wishful thinking” or puling on one’s “heart” strings. She’s just in denial. And in the words of Mark Twain, “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.”

  • Investing Wisely

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Investment. Obama used this word 13 times in his State of the Union address last month, when proposing new programs in information technology, clean energy, and science research. In January 2009, in his first address to a joint session of Congress, he used the word “invest” many times also, to urge significant expansion of programs in areas like “energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy…”, he said. And he even used the word “investment” 15 times during the February 2009 signing ceremony of his nearly $1 billion stimulus package.

    Of course, the dictionary defines “investment” as, “the outlay of money usually for income or profit.” But for at least the past 20 years, “investment” is what Democrats say when they want to spend more of your money. In fact, Bill Clinton used the word nearly 24 times during his 1993 State of the Union address (coincidentally, just before the Republican Party gained a majority of seats in the House for the first time since 1954).

    So, when Obama uses the word “investment,” translate that to “government spending.” And when he says “reinvestment,” translate that to “government redistribution.” Whatever the word selection, and however polished the delivery, or clever the refrain, it remains inescapable that you simply cannot make chicken soup out of chicken poop.

    For substantially all of the “investment” our government has made, allegedly on our behalf, and with our monies, chicken poop is about all there is to show for it. For example, Congress passed a nearly $1 billion “stimulus” spending bill in February 2009 and the economy has still shed more than two million jobs since. Unemployment has risen to 9.8%, and that doesn’t even include those discouraged workers who have given up looking entirely.

    Our government has invested billions of federal dollars in education, for over 40 years, and test scores have barely budged. Taxpayer funds were invested in mortgage backed securities through Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac, resulting in the collapse of the housing market in 2006, and that “investment” has continued to pay “dividends” to the tax pay payers, in the form of one million foreclosures in just 2010, when sales of new homes hit a 47-year low.

    Now, Obama wants government to step up its subsidy “investment” of alternative energy, even though we have been doing so since the 1970s. Want to know what the return will be, on our government’s investment in a “green” economy? Call up Spain, which has greenest economy in all of Europe. They call it an “investment” there too. They also have 20% unemployment and their government’s own report found that Spain’s “green economy” program cost their country at least 2.2 jobs for every job “created” by the state. Makes no sense.

    The truth is that government “investment” is most always about expanding the size of government, and its influence, instead of the expenditure of money for income or profit. In fact, municipalities all over the U.S. are on the verge of bankruptcy. Half of the states’ pension funds are expected to run out of money by 2025.
    California’s pension shortfall, for example, is greater than the gross domestic product of Saudi Arabia, oil production and all.

    Yet these state and local governments continue to borrow money to fund their inefficient (and non-existent return on investment) operations – $2.4 trillion borrowed as of mid-2010, up 35% from five years ago.

    It is estimated that state and local government debt is nearly 10 times the national debt. Yet Obama tells our nation that prosperity can be attained by more government spending, even as the national debt grows to 70% of our gross domestic product (from 40% in 2008).

    Large, federal spending projects, such as manufacturing solar shingles and building high-speed rail lines, merely create temporary, unsustainable jobs only, because the object of such spending projects is of dubious consumer value to begin with. The private sector can create permanent jobs by allowing the market to determine the investments in new businesses and technologies.

    Government investments are not, in fact, investments. From the debt levels of our federal, state, and local governments, to rising unemployment, despite billions of dollars of stimulus, it is all incontrovertible evidence that government spending is rarely so prudent as to result in an income, or profit, of any kind. In the words of Ronald Reagan, it is as simple as recognizing, from history, that “outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.” That’s simply the truth, and for all of you unconvinced, taxing and spending liberals, the “truth” is a secure investment, with limited potential to lose “principal,” or loss of purchasing power due to inflation, and there are no surrender charges or maturity dates. Maybe that’s an “investment” this administration ought to look into.

  • Common Sense

    Common Sense

    December 15, 2010

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    THEY JUST DON’T GET IT

    For the love of God, and all that is good and great in this wondrous world, can we just talk a little common sense here, please? First, despite an $820 billion government “stimulus” bill last year, the economy has still shed more than two million jobs. And those proverbial, shovel-ready, construction jobs? Those have fallen by 450,000 since the stimulus bill passed, and unemployment has risen to 9.8%, not including those discouraged workers who have given up looking entirely.

    Now comes a deal brokered by the White House and Congress that extends unemployment benefits for 13 months and Bush-era tax cuts for 24 months. While the White House advertises that seven million, unemployed Americans will be affected if unemployment benefits are not extended, it makes no provision for those unemployed Americans who have already claimed the maximum of 26 weeks of unemployment benefits from their respective states, as well as those that have claimed up to four “tiers” of additional federally funded benefits, totaling 73 weeks.

    There are estimated to be five million of these Americans who are often coined as “99ers” (because they have collected unemployment benefits for the maximum number of weeks allowed). The White House deal makes no allowance for these folks. And the statistics grow more sobering. Nearly one third of Americans have been unemployed for 52 weeks or more. And 47% of Americans have been unemployed for at least 27 weeks, which is the highest since the government began keeping records in the 1940s.

    So while extending unemployment benefits for 13 months provides needed cash to millions of Americans who have been sideswiped and stranded by this administration, continued extensions of unemployment benefits do not address the flawed reasoning of this administration’s chronic, and terminal, spending and taxing addictions. It does nothing to reform our federal government, strengthen the dollar, or encourage small businesses to grow and prosper.

    This is why it frustrates so many Americans that Democrats continue to peddle policies that clearly have had no historically, measurable, or otherwise significant benefit to the economy.

    The Democrats in Washington continue to hustle their flawed reasoning that any spending will boost the economy. But we’ve spent nearly $1 trillion now and the unemployment rate continues to rise.

    Remember when Nancy Pelosi explained that extending jobless benefits “creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name”? Or when Senator Brown (D-OH) recently said, “It’s extending unemployment benefits that creates economic activity that creates jobs, not giving a millionaire an extra ten or twenty or $30,000 in tax cuts that they likely won’t spend”?

    Or when Vice-President Biden explained that unemployment benefits is a “powerful driver of economic growth” because the jobless tend to pump the money back into the economy quickly?

    Well, they are, in fact, all correct. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office concluded the same in a September 28 report, earlier this year.

    But while it’s a short-term band-aid to extend unemployment benefits, common sense tells you that this is a long-term fallacy. If extending unemployment benefits creates jobs faster than any other initiative, why not increase the number of unemployed also, so that more unemployed benefits could be distributed to more and more folks, and therefore more jobs would be created?

    Or how about reducing the poverty threshold so that more folks can qualify for food stamps, and thereby increasing consumer spending for groceries and other necessities. Any of this Democrat reasoning making sense yet?

    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. And all forms of spending does not stimulate the economy, most particularly that which is wasteful.

    Yes, the extension of unemployment benefits is necessary, but largely because of this administration’s continued mutilation of our free market economy. Still, Obama offers no fundamental redirection of his policies that have resulted in an incomprehensible 9.8% unemployment rate, with even his own economists predicting a reduction to only 8.2% unemployment by 2012. And all this, in the meantime, without any assistance to the increasing number of Americans who will soon have exhausted all available unemployment benefits (five million Americans and counting).

    So, while the extension of unemployment benefits will add another $34 billion to this year’s unconscionable $1.4 trillion budget deficit, continued government spending has, and will, prolong the pain, while amazingly the rhetoric, and policy initiatives of this administration remain unchanged. They just don’t get it. In the words of Ronald Reagan, “Government does not solve problems. It subsidizes them.” And when you subsidize them, wouldn’t you just expect more of them?

  • Denial Dems Blame All Others

    Denial Dems Blame All Others

    October 6, 2010

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Blame It On The Rain
    Milli Vanilli Only Scratched The Surface

    Perhaps not since 1989, when the number one song that year was Milli Vanilli’s “Blame it on the Rain,” has there been a more grand fraud, perpetrated upon the American people, than the incessant, obsessive, and child-like reasoning of blaming George W. Bush this election season, for everything from our economic challenges, to him being responsible for the BP oil spill in the Gulf, earlier this year.

    More on the specifics of all that in a moment. For now, it’s important to first understand the emotional distress that liberals are experiencing today. One of the mechanisms of denial is blaming others for our problems. So, faced with a growing majority of the electorate that is both informed on the issues and mostly diametrically opposed to the Democrat’s socialist policy initiatives, liberals are in full denial and, as a result, are blaming anyone, and anything, for their problems (other than themselves).

    You’ve heard Obama say repeatedly, “…it took nearly a decade to dig the hole that we’re in — and that it would take longer than any of us would like to climb our way out.”
 You’ve heard him blame the rising unemployment rate on Bush, saying that Bush left “an economy that was teetering on the brink of collapse.” You have also heard from Nancy Pelosi, who is likewise in denial. She’s blaming Bush for years of lax oversight from the federal government for offshore drilling, and suggesting that this contributed to the explosion and subsequent Gulf oil spill earlier in the year.

    She has also excused the nearly 10% unemployment rate, during the Obama administration, by saying that it is, at least, a “sharp turnaround from the 700,000 jobs per month lost under President Bush” (actually, this 700,000 jobs statistic was collected in November 2008, following the election of the current administration and Democrat controlled Congress). Still, nearly four million jobs were lost were lost the following year, the worst year for job losses since World War II.

    But wait, there’s more. Bush, apparently, has even been blamed for personal lapses in honesty. Rep. Maxine Waters blamed the Bush administration for her own ethics investigation, explaining that she had to use the power of her Congressional office to intervene with the Treasury Department so that federal bailout funds could be disbursed to a bank, owned in part, by her own husband (okay, and the dog ate my homework).

    Not to be outdone by the Waters’ revelation, media reports now reveal that Bush ultimately caused the break-up of the marriage between Al and Tipper Gore because of Bush’s winning of the Presidential election in 2000. As reported by CBS news, “Gore winning the popular vote for president but losing the electoral vote may have done the marriage irreparable harm.”

    The blaming of Bush, over and over again, for so many of their own shortcomings, reveals that liberals are simply behaving as an alcoholic, before deciding to get help. Like the alcoholic, before treatment, liberals are avoiding taking responsibility for their own actions, and pointing the finger at Bush (or at anyone or anything else). This helps them feel better about themselves. For the alcoholic, for example, blaming enables them to deny that their relationship with alcohol is the real cause of their problems. For example, if my job were not so stressful, I wouldn’t drink so much.

    The same is true for liberals. By blaming Bush, this helps them feel better about the unemployment rate that peaked around 10 percent in late 2009 and is now around 9.6 percent. It helps them feel better that one in every 381 U.S. housing units received a foreclosure filing last month, while home seizure rates reached a record level, for the third time in five months. And by blaming, they avoid honest communication and accountability for their own actions.

    So, it’s not real complicated, really. Pelosi told us herself what is going on. She explained that Democrats would only stop blaming Bush for the nation’s economic troubles “when the problems go away.” She gets credit for her honesty here, at least.

    However, if we’re still being honest, consider this: Since she became Speaker in 2007, the Congress passed a $700 billion financial bailout of the banks, 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. Discretionary spending has risen 25%. Despite this all, the unemployment rate continues to hover near 10%, nearly 1.1 million Americans have given up looking for work and our federal debt that is expected to rise to $20 trillion, by the end of this decade.

    It seems, however, that Americans are in the midst of conducting their own intervention, for the sake of liberals, and the future of our country. These Americans, regardless of party affiliation, are taking a stand that evading personal accountability, or avoiding honest communication, or otherwise blaming others, for one’s own irresponsible actions, will not be tolerated. As evidence, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that a growing number of likely voters are not going along with this administration’s “blame Bush” ruse.

    Milli Vanilli advised us to blame it on the rain. Liberals suggest blaming it on Bush. But I’m with the 19th century novelist Tolstoy, who once remarked, “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” That makes sense. Enough is enough. This election season, how about a little more introspection first?

  • Biden’s Big Deal

    Biden’s Big Deal

    April 7, 2010

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    BIDEN’S BIG DEAL
    Expletive Was More Polite Than The Alternatives

    Theodore Roosevelt had the “Square Deal,” a phrase that came to represent his administration’s ideas for the conservation of natural resources, increasing competitiveness in the marketplace, and improving consumer protection. FDR had the “New Deal,” which introduced banking reform laws and the seemingly permanent and persistent expansion of government, through work relief programs, union protection, and the Social Security Act. Then, Harry Truman had the “Fair Deal,” which was his administration’s policy initiatives, rooted in the notion that the federal government should guarantee economic opportunity and social stability.

    And now, apparently, Barrack Obama has the “Big Effing Deal,” the healthcare reform law that is estimated to reduce the number of uninsured U.S. residents, from current levels, by 32 million people, after the law’s provisions have all taken effect in 2019.

    That’s right. In case you didn’t know already, it was right after Obama signed this self-styled, historic, and largest peacetime expansion of the federal government ever, that Vice-President Biden leaned into Obama at the bill’s signing ceremony and proclaimed that this was all a “big [eff]ing deal” (expletive omitted). Those were Jefferson’s exact words after watching Washington sign the Constitution, I think.

    But in all fairness, and deference to Biden, there are some who say that Biden’s remark, into a live microphone, may not have been entirely clear, or intelligible. So, with all due respect, and in an effort to innocently explain to my seven year old daughter the missing letters (“****ING”) in the headlines reporting on Biden’s celebration of the “Big [Eff]ing Deal”, here are some other, similar sounding words that Biden may have said to Obama (in case Sasha and Malia Obama are around):
    F***TICAL: Biden may have said that this was “a big fanatical deal.” Fanatical is defined as surpassing what is normal or accepted in enthusiasm regarding a matter, or otherwise excessively or unusually dedicated or devoted. “Fanatical” is plausible, when describing the Democrats’ obsession with a single payer system, or universal healthcare coverage, even though this would result in the elimination of the private insurers altogether (eventually). “Fanatical” is right on point. After all, just last week Cuban dictator Fidel Castro had praised the passage of healthcare reform in the U.S. and admiringly characterizes Obama as “a fanatical believer in the imperialist capitalist system.” You have to be fanatical about governing this way when, according to a Rasmussen report last week, 54% of the nation’s likely voters still favor repealing this new healthcare reform law.

    F***ING: Biden may have also meant to say this was “a big fibbing deal.” After all, fibbing is defined as being deliberately unclear. And there is some fibbing going on here, for sure, according to the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”). After ten years of implementation, the cost of Obamacare will reach $2.5 trillion, at least, not $1 trillion as advertised by the White House.

    Another example of fibbing is that, for the first 10 years of revenue, from the taxes and fees required by this new law, there is only enough funding for six years of spending. And with Social Security paying out $29 billion more than it takes in this year, the CBO predicts that the federal deficit will actually grow by $562 billion, not shrink.

    F***KISH: Well, maybe Biden said that this was “a big freakish deal.” The dictionary defines “freakish” as markedly strange or abnormal. Come to think of it, this is the first time Democrats have controlled both Congress and the Presidency since Jimmy Carter, in the late 1970s (and we all know how well that turned out).

    F***NG: Finally, he could have said this was “a big filing deal.” The new healthcare reform law is over 2,000 pages. To keep up with enforcing the mandates, throughout this seemingly complex entitlement program, the federal government is hiring 18,000 more IRS agents and creating an estimated 111 more bureaucracies, largely to keep up with all of the paper. So, there will be lots of paper filing, Mr. Vice-President.

    Now, Biden is not the first politician to publicly use an “effing” expletive while in office. Most notably, in 2004, Dick Cheney used it in a verbal exchange, on the Senate floor, with Senator Pat Leahy. It was inappropriate then, as it still is now. Media reporting, back then, was fairly critical of Cheney for departing from proper decorum on the Senate floor. When Joe Biden uses an “effing” expletive, however, the media seemingly slaps him on the back and offers to get him another beer (even though Biden doesn’t drink).

    In the words of Abraham Lincoln, “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” This is especially important now, considering the current fanaticism that governs against the will of the people, a growing federal government that is distrusted by the electorate, absolute power corrupting absolutely through a growing central government, and the dilution of American independence from the unconscionable and perpetually increasing national debt.

    But a mere expletive is the least of our nation’ concerns. It is least injurious to the preservation of our Constitution, and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even though his “effing” expletive during the bill signing ceremony may not have been intelligible to all, Biden could have easily been heard to say “fanatical” or “fibbing” or “freakish,” or “filing,” in place of his “effing” expletive. They all would have been an appropriate fit. Ironically, though, Biden’s “effing” expletive may simply have been the most polite choice at the time.

  • Core Differences

    Core Differences

    March 24, 2010

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    There is a certain number of Americans that feel any criticism of the Obama administration’s policies are actually a personal affront upon the President himself. Their claim is often that such disapproval is, at its best, merely partisan or, at its worst, racist. Last September, former President Carter said as much, when he said that “an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man…”

    From time to time, pundits and pontificators suggest the same of other critical thinking Americans, from the Tea Party to the Grand Old Party. Nevermind that a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll last week indicated that 60% of Americans believe that the country is off on the wrong track. Or that only 17% of Americans approve of how lawmakers in the Democrat controlled Congress are doing their jobs. Or that 50% of Americans would vote to defeat every single member of Congress, including their own representative.

    So, with all that pushed aside, and for all of those Americans who believe that criticism of this administration reveals some psychological chasm, or deficiency, within the rest of us, let’s try illustrating how you can be quite disagreeable with someone’s actions (like the President’s), even if you don’t know their political party, race, or even gender.

    Let’s take the apolitical and mundane kitchen trashcan, in your office’s breakroom, for illustration purposes. Now, from time to time, this trashcan overflows (it happens). And instead of some folks simply emptying the trashcan, they seem content to just stack their garbage upon the already piled high garbage; like they are playing a rancid game of Jenga.

    And if your trashcan has one of those pivoting top lids, this adds a whole other level of complexity to the matter. Folks come by and shove empty pizza boxes, their 64 oz. foam drink cups, and their to-go box of seven day old kung pao chow chicken into the already capacity-filled trashcan, wedging it all into the little remaining space beneath the pivoting top lid. And when these folks decide that they cannot continue building the tower of trash to stretch any taller to the ceiling, these same folks will begin placing more trash around the trashcan; almost as if they are paying homage to the trashcan.

    At this point, if you are like me, you wonder why in the world someone just didn’t empty this overflowing trashcan already, instead of just jamming more trash into it. Now, I don’t often see the person(s) responsible for causing the overflow of the trashcan, and all of its aroma. It’s unsightly, and sometimes it smells. But this illustrates the point that any opposition to this unsanitary condition has nothing to do with the personality of the person who contributed to it. It does, however, have everything to do with their position on cleanliness, which according to an ancient Hebrew proverb, is next to godliness.

    Now, you simply not be in favor of participating as a bystander to this mess and want to clean it up yourself. I understand. You may speak out, post a memo in the break room, or send out an email to everyone in the company. In fact, Americans are responding the same way to the direction our country is moving, but not because of the personality, color, or political party of our President…it’s about the effect of his policies on our country’s future.

    Drawing out this analogy a little further then, there are only about two (2) main reasons for why this mess continues to persist in your breakroom (and in our country). First, folks apparently view emptying an overflowing trashcan as someone else’s responsibility (i.e. “It’s not my job”). They seem unconcerned how their obliviousness will affect the next guy that comes along. This is like Obama’s 2010 budget that, over the next decade, would raise taxes on all Americans by nearly $3 trillion and increase each American household’s share of the publicly held debt an additional $74,000.

    The second point is that folks may simply not have the time to properly dispose of their trash, like the members of Congress that were too busy last year to read the details of the $789 billion stimulus bill (before voting for it). Perhaps your co-workers intended to return and fix the mess that they left behind. The problem is, like Congress, tomorrow never comes, does it? This year, Social Security will pay out $29 billion more than it takes in. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office reported last week that Social Security will now be in the “red” in perpetuity. But we’re still expanding government.

    You see, despite those that say criticism of the White House is rooted in racism, or from animosity towards the President, they have it all wrong. The particulars of anyone that won’t take the time to empty an overflowing trashcan in the break room is insignificant, but it’s still not about their personality, skin color, party affiliation, etc… It is about the effect that the actions of a few will have on the many. And if we can have such fundamental differences regarding a relatively insignificant and benign matter as the sanitary quality of a break room trashcan, then for goodness’ sake, we can have the same fundamental differences on important policy initiatives set forth by this administration… and without being labeled or admonished for having them.