I have to comment on the protests coming out of the public sector unions in Ohio and Wisconsin. To me this is very shameful, and I wish weren't even in this position. Which side am I on?
Comments from leaders in the public unions have criticized the republican governors and state representatives in these states for trying to take away the rights of the hard working teachers, firefighters, policemen, and all public workers. They couldn't be more wrong.
When these public unions are "negotiating" their wages and benefits, they are not squeezing every penny they can out of evil politicians, they are taking ME to the cleaners. Public sector unions are bargaining against every private sector worker in their county, city, state and country...their neighbors.
Don't let these protesters fool you into thinking that the state leaders are the ones to blame, we are all paying their way, and they need to stop and look at the reality around them.
I have zero sympathy for public sector workers who think they "deserve" anything...zero, zilch, nadda. I'm probably offending friends and family here, but I work hard and maintain my job on the merits and quality of my work.
The union rules for my local school district are ridiculous:
- guaranteed wage increases
- greater than 90% health benefits covered
- guaranteed pension benefits
It's pretty interesting looking at the salary database here for Ohio. The thought that those in unions are fighting against me for more pay and benefits makes me gag a little bit. My $3000 county property tax bill hard at work...protesting at the statehouse.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Who Said It?
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
This quote is from 2006 when our national debt was just over $7 trillion.
...... March 20, 2006 - Senator Obama.
Go figure.
This quote is from 2006 when our national debt was just over $7 trillion.
...... March 20, 2006 - Senator Obama.
Go figure.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Is it really Science?
..."Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.
One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.
He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'
After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause' but science's failure to explain it.
The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse?"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html#ixzz17M33HTgN
One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.
He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'
After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause' but science's failure to explain it.
The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse?"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html#ixzz17M33HTgN
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Fiscal Fix: Discussion
NPR is reporting that much of the meaningful cuts in the "Fiscal Fix" that were released a few weeks ago are not popular among a majority of voters and many lawmakers. I wanted to comment on ONE of the items in the report that I think is exactly what we need, although potentially hard to swallow.
One of the recommendations by the commission was reducing tax rates for every into 3 brackets ranging from about 12% - 24% (from what I remember) and in turn eliminating the mortgage tax break for homeowners. I think this is great.
For one this option removes the government incentives to borrow money, especially for housing. Even without directly addressing the problems with Freddie and Fannie lending, this would move governmental influence away from the mortgage market, eliminating the false incentive that writing off the interest on our loans is doing us a bit favor.
Also, lowering the overall tax rates for EVERYONE, and getting rid of tax breaks further eliminates governmental influence in the markets. Everything becomes much more simple. We pay our taxes, and we don't have to jump through hoops and spend all our resources looking for breaks and loopholes....although I still think a "fair tax" might be the way to go.
The fiscal commission does fall short in some areas, but the tax changes seem positive to me. The Healthcare legislation (Obamacare) will surely need to be removed to also save money. We must get the bearacracy out of the way, if we really want to save money. When people are spending money that is not theirs, they will not be nearly as careful with it as we would ourselves.
One of the recommendations by the commission was reducing tax rates for every into 3 brackets ranging from about 12% - 24% (from what I remember) and in turn eliminating the mortgage tax break for homeowners. I think this is great.
For one this option removes the government incentives to borrow money, especially for housing. Even without directly addressing the problems with Freddie and Fannie lending, this would move governmental influence away from the mortgage market, eliminating the false incentive that writing off the interest on our loans is doing us a bit favor.
Also, lowering the overall tax rates for EVERYONE, and getting rid of tax breaks further eliminates governmental influence in the markets. Everything becomes much more simple. We pay our taxes, and we don't have to jump through hoops and spend all our resources looking for breaks and loopholes....although I still think a "fair tax" might be the way to go.
The fiscal commission does fall short in some areas, but the tax changes seem positive to me. The Healthcare legislation (Obamacare) will surely need to be removed to also save money. We must get the bearacracy out of the way, if we really want to save money. When people are spending money that is not theirs, they will not be nearly as careful with it as we would ourselves.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Thanksgiving
"On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs.
Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work.
"But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness," destined to become the home of the Kennedy family. "There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning.
During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure.
When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Yes, it was Indians that taught the white man how to skin beasts. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments.
Here is the part [of Thanksgiving] that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share.
All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way.
Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.
He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace.
"That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened?
It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh?
What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation!
But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently.
What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future.
"'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote. 'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'
Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? What's the point?
Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.
Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?
'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'
Bradford doesn't sound like much of a... liberal Democrat, "does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes.
Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the 'seven years of plenty' and the 'Earth brought forth in heaps.' (Gen. 41:47)
In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves.... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London.
And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'"
-Rush Limbaugh
Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work.
"But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness," destined to become the home of the Kennedy family. "There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning.
During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure.
When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Yes, it was Indians that taught the white man how to skin beasts. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments.
Here is the part [of Thanksgiving] that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share.
All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way.
Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.
He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace.
"That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened?
It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh?
What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation!
But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently.
What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future.
"'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote. 'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'
Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? What's the point?
Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.
Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?
'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'
Bradford doesn't sound like much of a... liberal Democrat, "does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes.
Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the 'seven years of plenty' and the 'Earth brought forth in heaps.' (Gen. 41:47)
In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves.... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London.
And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'"
-Rush Limbaugh
Friday, November 19, 2010
Meet the Press
There is some serious mis-representation going on by the media about votes in the congress. This, of course, has been going on forever, but I think it is important for us to see the real picture about the partisinship in the congress.
On November 18, 2010 there was a vote to extend long-term unemployment benefits for 60 days, at a cost of $12 billion or so dollars. Keep in mind that people on unemployment get 26 weeks of State funded benefits and then 99(!) weeks of Federally funded benefits. If you lose your job, you are potentially eligible for some kind of compensation for the next TWO YEARS! This is rediculous. There is absolutely no excuse for not finding a job in two years. If you can't find one...make one for yourself. Unemployment benefits seem to provide a nice benefit at a reasonable cost when the unexpected happens and people need a buffer for a few weeks (maybe months) while they figure out what to do...but the current length is rediculous.
Anyway, back to my original point. There are many reports circulating like this one in the New York Times that Republicans have blocked the legislation to extend benefits. Is this true?
Here are some facts:
- 435 members in the House of Representatives
- 2/3 majority needed to pass this legislation - that means 261 votes needed.
- The unemployment extension lost with only 258 vote Yea...they fell 3 votes short.
Who gets the blame? Republicans, because all 143 present voted against it. What they don't really tell you is that there were 11 democrats who voted against it as well. Keep in mind that they were only 3 votes short. There is no way that Republicans can block legislation, the Democrats have a super-majority.
This message by the press and many on the left have been happening for years since the Democrats took control of the House.
The facts are that there is unity and bipartisinship amongst Republicans and some Democrats against debt-spending measures that the leadership is trying to push.
Look back on all the legislation that hasn't gone through the House over the last couple of years, then think about why you've been told nothing is happening. Republicans have been powerless to stop anything IF the Democrats were unified in their efforts. Luckily there are some clear-thinking Democrats out there that realized some of the legislation being pounded through is not good for us and have voted against it.
On November 18, 2010 there was a vote to extend long-term unemployment benefits for 60 days, at a cost of $12 billion or so dollars. Keep in mind that people on unemployment get 26 weeks of State funded benefits and then 99(!) weeks of Federally funded benefits. If you lose your job, you are potentially eligible for some kind of compensation for the next TWO YEARS! This is rediculous. There is absolutely no excuse for not finding a job in two years. If you can't find one...make one for yourself. Unemployment benefits seem to provide a nice benefit at a reasonable cost when the unexpected happens and people need a buffer for a few weeks (maybe months) while they figure out what to do...but the current length is rediculous.
Anyway, back to my original point. There are many reports circulating like this one in the New York Times that Republicans have blocked the legislation to extend benefits. Is this true?
Here are some facts:
- 435 members in the House of Representatives
- 2/3 majority needed to pass this legislation - that means 261 votes needed.
- The unemployment extension lost with only 258 vote Yea...they fell 3 votes short.
Who gets the blame? Republicans, because all 143 present voted against it. What they don't really tell you is that there were 11 democrats who voted against it as well. Keep in mind that they were only 3 votes short. There is no way that Republicans can block legislation, the Democrats have a super-majority.
This message by the press and many on the left have been happening for years since the Democrats took control of the House.
The facts are that there is unity and bipartisinship amongst Republicans and some Democrats against debt-spending measures that the leadership is trying to push.
Look back on all the legislation that hasn't gone through the House over the last couple of years, then think about why you've been told nothing is happening. Republicans have been powerless to stop anything IF the Democrats were unified in their efforts. Luckily there are some clear-thinking Democrats out there that realized some of the legislation being pounded through is not good for us and have voted against it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)