Louis R. Avallone

Blog

  • 99-Centers

    99-Centers

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    By now, of course, you’ve heard of the “Occupy Wall Street” folks. These are the ones who, since September 17, have been camped out amidst tents, tarps, and sleeping bags in a lower Manhattan city park, not too far from the New York Stock Exchange, protesting everything from corporate greed to joblessness to economic inequality. And similar protests have spread to over 25 new cities now, including Atlanta, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, and Los Angeles. In fact, a rally was planned in Shreveport just last weekend.

    These protestors have branded themselves as the “99 percenters.” And who are the “99 percenters”? Well, from its website, they explain: “We are the 99 percent. We are getting kicked out of our homes. We are forced to choose between groceries and rent. We are denied quality medical care. We are suffering from environmental pollution. We are working long hours for little pay and no rights, if we’re working at all. We are getting nothing while the other one percent is getting everything. We are the 99 percent.” Just a quick footnote: To qualify for this 1% group getting everything, a household must have a minimum income of approximately $516,633.

    But I get it. Unemployment is still ridiculously high, with good paying jobs continuing to be scarce. There are 14 million unemployed Americans, and long-term unemployment accounting for 44.6% of the unemployed. The housing market is horrible, home values are down, and banks own nearly 1,000,000 homes now (twice as many as in 2007) and are in the process of foreclosing on almost a million more.

    So strong is the frustration with these conditions, the “99 percenters” planned to camp out for weeks or even months, imitating many of the protests that have taken place in Egypt, Spain and Israel. They hold up banners reading, “Wall St. Takes From the 99%. Gives to the Rich,” all while chanting, “Make banks pay”! Visit their website and most folks there will share the same sentiment: “We are asking for fairness, for a change in a system that keeps the bottom from rising up.”

    And like most folks when they are frustrated, sometimes empathy is more important here than the solution, more important to be heard than to be admonished. After all, when most people talk about their problems, they generally don’t say, “Golly, I have been so stupid. Thank you for explaining how I have completely messed up my life and how I can take personal responsibility for the consequences of my decisions so that I make sure never to let that happen again.”

    Instead, most folks blame others. The “blamers” have a “cause-and-effect” worldview, but it only works one way…and all that matters to them is how it all affects them and their feelings. The “blamer” sees what someone else has (a good job, a nice place to live, etc…) and concludes that they could have all that too if only it weren’t for the bankers, or the politicians, or whomever or whatever.

    This is “victim” mentality. But it doesn’t have to be that way. We’ve all succeeded and failed in life. Albert Eistein said that, “Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.”

    The truth is that all of the “one percenters” were worse off than the “99 percenters,” at one time. P. T. Barnum went bankrupt before starting all over and growing into the largest circus venture in American history. Francis Ford Coppola came back from bankruptcy twice. 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. Even Abraham Lincoln failed miserably as a businessman, a farmer, and even as a would-be politician, before becoming President. Steve Jobs was fired from the very company he co-founded, but then returned to develop the iMac, the iPhone, etc… and the rest is history.

    There’s another group of folks out there that you should know about also. They are calling themselves the “53 percenters” (referring to the percentage of Americans who pay federal income taxes). Their message to the “99 percenters”: “Suck it up you whiners. I am the 53 percent subsidizing you so you can hang out on Wall Street and complain. I don’t blame Wall Street because it doesn’t matter what Wall Street or anyone else does. I am responsible for my own destiny.”

    Well, maybe they are. But a rising tide generally lifts all ships too. And that should be the focus, not blame. Not envy. Or even what percentage of Americans pay taxes. Go to both of these groups’ websites: http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/ and http://the53.tumblr.com/. Which group do you feel best represents the American spirit?

    You know, Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
    The same can be said about American ingenuity, entrepreneurship, free markets, and the American dream. These values also are never more than one generation away from extinction, and I am more certain than ever, despite the “99 percenters” and the political discord in our nation, that the reports of their demise are still greatly exaggerated.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Branding

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Long ago, in a world far, far way, before status updates on Facebook or innumerable Twitter feeds, the power in “branding” an image in American society was well understood.

    In fact, 30% of the world’s 100 most valuable brands were developed before 1900.

    And these brand names can often become so recognized that they become a generic name for the product itself, such as “Band-Aid” or “Kleenex” or “Coke.” Brand names become the “personality” of the product or service, and since 75% of buying decisions are based on emotion, the personality of the brand is a powerful motivator, and can be financially lucrative, as well.

    For example, in 1988, Philip Morris purchased Kraft Foods, Inc. for six (6) times what the company was worth on paper because what they were really purchasing was the over forty (40) brand names, including Maxwell House and Oreo. But the effectiveness of branding is not limited to coffee and cookies, branding works with people too. The “Oprah” brand is worth an estimated $2.5 billion, for example.

    Similarly, some have said that presidential candidates are engaged in “branding” their candidacies, much like McDonald’s or Nike appeals to their respective target markets to sell milkshakes and shoes. But there is really something here, to this so-called “branding” of candidates.

    Consider, for example, that the Obama campaign was named Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008, edging past runner-up Apple, whose brand value is estimated at $153 billion. Seriously? A U.S. presidential campaign was lauded as a “marketer”?

    Some say this candidate “branding” is “junk politics” because it shifts a political campaign from a platform-centered, or ideas-based campaign to a candidate-centered campaign, emphasizing image over substance. Perhaps this is why Obama, for example, uses the personal pronoun “I” so repeatedly in his speeches (132 times in one recent speech alone).

    Historian Warren Susman suggests that the emphasis on image is consistent with a shift in our society from being production-oriented to being presentation-oriented. In other words, the seemingly dull values of hard work, integrity and courage, that ordinarily accompanies thrift and moderation, becomes much less important than charm and likability.

    A candidate, if effective as a “brand,” will only say and do whatever the polling data (like consumer research) indicates will be most effective to get them elected (or sell their product or service). Marketing professionals and psychologists alike have long recognized that emotional reactions can be as influential as rational ones, which explains the carefully chosen and controlled images in political campaigns.

    In essence then, branding helps us organize, and simplify, the estimated 3,000 marketing messages we receive everyday. 65% of Americans already feel overwhelmed with marketing messages and 61% feel the volume of advertising is out of control. I mean, even at the nationally televised memorial service, following the Tucson shootings last year, where Obama addressed the nation, the memorial service included a branded T-shirt for each attendee that included a logo advertising, “Together We Thrive: Tucson and America.”

    You see, the gravity of the situation involving the branding of candidates is that it masks reality because our candidates steer clear of the complicated issues, and into more marketable ones. And the longer we live in an illusion, absent the discussion of the complicated issues, the less capable we are as a nation to cope with the reality of those complicated issues.

    Branding in politics, unfortunately, oversimplifies the inconsistencies, while seemingly bringing a sense of order to our complicated world at the same time. Out of a job? Vilify the rich. Price of gas too high? Demonize the oil companies. Destruction of the planet? Blame the burning of fossil fuels. Want to reduce the size of government, increase personal accountability, and promote self-reliance? Pigeonhole those folks as compassionless, mean-spirited, right wing extremists. You see how this branding works, now?
    In reality, the candidates, and the issues, are not so neatly and succinctly packaged. Yes, reality is complicated…and often boring, and there is much more to a campaign of ideas, than of carefully choreographed images and manufactured dramas.

    But the campaign for the presidency in 2012 must not be reduced to a national branding campaign, or boy band parade. It must be about setting the course for the kind of hope and change that cannot be discussed completely in a 30-second sound bite, staged photo opportunity, or in using trite stereotypes. We cannot risk again having a president that is branded as all things to all people because, in the end, a president that becomes all things to all people becomes nothing to no one.