Tag Archives: entitlements

Myth: “Republicans also support Big Government – in defense spending”

Flag7

There is currently a myth being spread across America that Republicans also support Big Government, in the form of generous defense spending, and that this is Republicans’ sacred cow. Anti-defense liberals and libertarians falsely claim that Republicans cannot credibly call for federal spending cuts and for limited government unless they’re willing to significantly slash defense spending.

But they are dead wrong. Read on, Dear Reader, and I’ll show you why.

Limited-government conservatism is an ideology that aims to reduce and limit the size of the federal government to the bounds authorized by the Constitution. Conservatives and libertarians alike agree that the federal establishment has expanded way beyond these authorized constitutional boundaries.

But generous defense spending is completely in line with the Constitution and the Founding Fathers’ intent. It is not a Big Government program, nor anyone’s sacred cow. It is, in fact, the #1 Constitutional DUTY of the federal government. The #1 reason for having a federal government at all is to have it defend the country and its citizens.

What does the Constitution say about defense? The Preamble to the Supreme Law of the Land explains why the federal government was established in the first place:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution lists 18 prerogatives of the Congress, nine (i.e., 50%) of which are related to military affairs, including “to raise Armies,” “to provide and maintain a Navy,” to regulate captures on land and water, to declare war, and to make regulations for the military. They authorize the full spectrum of the defense needed, from “providing for the common defense”, raising and supporting Armies, and providing and maintaining a Navy, to building arsenals, dockyards, and forts. As Ernest Istook of the Heritage Foundation has observed, “National defense receives unique and elevated emphasis under the Constitution. It is not ‘just’ another duty of the federal government.”

The Constitution not only authorizes a strong national defense (and consequently, robust funding for it), it REQUIRES it. Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the Constitution says as follows:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…

As you can see, the Constitution not merely authorizes, it REQUIRES a strong defense and therefore any measures necessary to build it – including any amount of funding required to build it. Any amount of defense spending is Constitutionally authorized and perfectly in line with the Constitution and therefore with the Limited Government Principle.

A key tenet – indeed, the overriding principle – of conservative philosophy is that we must obey the Constitution as it is written. We may not cherry-pick which parts of the Constitution we’re going to obey and which ones we won’t abide by. But that’s what liberals and libertarians like Raul Castro Labrador are doing. They cherry-pick the Constitution and abide only by those party they like, while ignoring the ones they don’t like and pretending they don’t exist.

Most of the Founding Fathers also supported a strong national defense as a top imperative. George Washington, told the Congress in 1790 in his first State of the Union address:

“Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. (…) To be prepared for war is one of the effective means of preserving the peace.”

James Madison, for a long time an opponent of standing armies, ultimately changed his opinion and said in 1788:

“How could a readiness for war in times of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?”

So according to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, defense is not a big government program, but rather a Constitutionally legitimate government function and indeed the highest Constitutional DUTY of the federal government. And if that is the case, a strong military (and generous funding for it) does NOT violate the Constitution and therefore also does not violate the Limited Government Principle.

In other words, Ronald Reagan did not invent the “peace through strength” philosophy – George Washington did, although he did not call it that way.

Consequently, the Limited Government Principle does NOT require any defense cuts, nor does any other tenet of conservative philosophy. Therefore, consistent application of conservatism, including the Limited Government Principle, does NOT require any defense cuts.

In fact, conservative ideology REQUIRES that a strong defense be built and generously funded, as stated by numerous conservative leaders from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan.

No, the Pentagon is not a Big Government program, nor is it anyone’s pet project. Defense is the #1 Constitutional obligation of the federal government and, as John Adams rightly said, “one of the cardinal duties of a statesman.”

So generous defense spending is fully consistent with the Constitution, the wishes of the Founding Fathers, and the Limited Government principle of conservatism.

So how much does the US spend today? Can deep defense cuts balance the federal budget?

The answer is overwhelmingly no. Washington’s trillion dollar annual deficits are so huge that, as the Heritage Foundation graph below shows, even eliminating military spending entirely would not even halve the budget deficit.

defense-spending-entitlement-spending-problem-600

The FY2013 military budget, under the FY2013 authorization bill was – prior to sequestration – $613 bn (for all military spending: the base defense budget, the Afghan war, and the DOE’s national security programs). That is 17% of the total federal budget and 4.01% of America’s GDP.

But under sequestration, the base defense budget faces a cut to $469 bn (3.07% of GDP) and by FY2014 will still be at a pathetically low $475 bn (3.11% of GDP).

sequestrationisapermanentcut

The House has recently passed a defense authorization bill authorizing $552 bn for FY2014 – for the base defense budget, the Afghan war, and DOE nat-sec programs combined. But even that sum is only 3.62% of GDP and just 15.33% of the entire federal budget.

So defense, the program that is supposed (under the Constitution) to be the federal government’s highest priority, is being shortchanged and will, even under the most optimistic scenario, receive only 15.33% of the entire federal budget! 84.67% of the federal budget will be spent on something else!

There is a big difference between being frugal and cheap.

Since the 1950s, defense spending has declined dramatically as a percentage of GDP and of the federal budget, from 50% of the total budget in FY1962 to just 15.33% today, and from 10% of GDP in FY1961 to 4.01% of GDP today – on track to slip to below 3% of GDP under sequestration.

 

national-defense-spending-560

Meanwhile, domestic spending – discretionary and mandatory – has splurged.

 

Non-Defense-Spending_130204

Do you see what is wrong here, Dear Reader? Washington has its priorities exactly backwards.

For a further comprehensive examination of the “the Pentagon is just another big government project” and “you can’t be a limited government conservative if you don’t support defense cuts” claims, please also read my article, “Defense and the Principle of Limited Government”.

Liberals Sound Good On Paper

Has anyone else noticed that all these Liberal policies always look good on paper and in theory, but never seem to work in the real world. I truly believe that this country is on the decline because of Liberal views and policies. Healthcare for all sounds great; I mean after all, who would not want to give all people access to health care? Sounds great on paper, in theory also great, in reality it is a disaster. It is not until we start to dissect the entire bill that we find out what a disaster that bill really is. Everything that we were told by the Liberals about the bill was a total lie, such as:

Lower Premiums, LIE

Keep your doctor, LIE

Keep your healthcare plan, LIE

Lower healthcare costs, LIE

Will not cut Medicare. LIE

Everyone in America will be covered, LIE

No death panels, LIE

No rationing, LIE

It is not a tax, LIE

That is just a short list, if I was going to list all the lies, this article would be five pages long.

It is not only the healthcare bill, history is full of bills that were past that look great on paper and sound good in theory, but wind up being a disaster. Single mothers with children, who would want them to starve or live on the street, so there is a bill that takes care of them, gives the mother money to live and so much more for each child, sounds good. However, did anyone bother to look at the consequences of that bill, did anyone in Washington look ahead? Of course not, so what we have now are women who are having babies just so they can get the extra money every month, they don’t even care about the welfare of the baby. So, what happens is that every child that women has will be a drain on societies entitlements.

Welfare, taking care of people that cannot take care of themselves, looks good on paper and sounds good in theory, but what about the consequences of reality? People who are on welfare usually stay on welfare and it seems that it is also handed down to the next generation, it becomes a way of life for many people. Who can blame these people, they get everything thing they want and never have to work for it, that is some life, these people become slaves to the government.

Case in point, some years ago there was a story that broke nationwide about a women living in New Orleans who happens to be on welfare, her name was Sharon Jasper, here is a clip from the paper.

Sharon Jasper has spent 57 of her 58 years dedicated to one cause and one cause only, and has nothing to show for her dedicated servitude. She has lived in Section 8 housing all but one of her 58 years. This legacy was passed down from her parents, who moved into Section 8 housing in 1949 when Sharon was six months old. She has passed the legacy down to her own children, but fears they may have to get jobs to pay for the utilities and deposits that Section 8 is now requiring. She laments about her one year hiatus from the comfort of her Section 8 nirvana: “I tried it for a year… you know… working and all. It’s not anything I would want to go through again, or wish on anyone in my family, but I am damn proud of that year.”

Notice she said she feared her children might have to find work. She was also quoted as saying, “just because you pay for my house, my car, my big screen and my food, I will not be treated like a slave!” She said that because they were trying to reform welfare.

jasper

Ms. Jasper at home, by the way, she thinks she lives in a slum

This is one man’s opinion.

 

 

Labor Force Drop Outs are the Younger Workers

Young people in the US are not working. Unemployment for ages 16-19 is 23.5%, ages 20-24 is still a very high 11.8% (according to the BLS). This week Stuart Varney on FBN interviewed Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA. Turning Point is a group geared to reaching the high school and college age young adults believing that an informed electorate will force candidates to stand behind principles.

The twenty-year-olds today still living at home and benefiting from their parents and governments benevolence will become the thirty and forty-year-olds of the future. Can we change this entitlement mentality before it’s too late? Will they be willing to take responsibility for maintaining the quality of life we’ve come to expect in the United States or will they choose to riot like the young in Greece when ‘forced’ to find employment, pay for retirement and health benefits? This is the country that prided itself on a ‘can do’ spirit and a willingness to take on the hard tasks and accomplish them. What will happen to following generations who are raised by these laissez-faire young adults?

Talk to your young adult friends. The future of this country is in their hands.

Election Aftermath – I’ve Just Decided To Not Have Children

Shortly after the announcement was made that Ohio went to Obama, a friend tweeted this:

If I had to point to something that worries me most about our current economy and cultural climate, it would be the sentiment expressed in this tweet. I talk about value systems regularly, in every venue of conversation that I have available to me. I believe that the only things that will change the course this country is on are a dedicated effort to move our political and popular culture away from the ideas that spawned entitelment and dependency.

Tim is not alone in his reservation to bring children into the world. His decision is a rational and thoughtful one. But, it is one with devastating effects to our economy and value system. In 2011, the US birth rate hit a record low, and the economy was the most cited probable reason for the drop, according to a recent ABC article. Additionally, our labor force participation recently hit a 31 year low, and our current economy has nothing in place that promises a quick return to significantly higher rates. With the increase in retirees, the continuing easing of means testing to receive entitlement and disability benefits, and the steady decline in birth rates and employment, the number of people working to support these systems has reached levels that make the programs unsustainable by traditional funding.

Economy aside, the value system that made America a prosperous and charitable nation has all but vanished. Today’s children are assaulted from all sides with information and experiences that shape their world views and future parenting decisions. They are no longer taught that hard work means probable success. They are no longer taught that providing for your family is an unyielding responsibility. They are no longer taught thrift and savings to meet goals. Instant gratification and a safety net of epic proportions have all but removed failure and adversity from most children’s lives.

It is no easy suggestion that our entire culture needs to change and no easy task to see that change happen on a grand scale, but I cannot fathom that the US would again be the beacon of light and opportunity that it once was without a move away from instant gratification and entitlement mentalities. Parents, future parents, this falls on you. Make the time to parent, become aware of, and control, the influences in your children’s lives, and accept that the people your children become is largely your responsibility. You know, be the change.

To do these things, we have to have children. I do not suggest that you have children “for the greater good”, but I would hope that you don’t decide to not have them because of the greater bad. Tim is a friend of mine. It wasn’t his tweet that inspired this post, but the way my heart broke when I heard him say the same to me on the phone. He is the kind of friend who I would like to see become a parent, should he want to do so.

Economy relies on families, it should not destroy the potential of creating them.

Taxation Without Participation

It’s easy to vote for higher taxes when you’re not paying.

Michael Kinsley described a “gaffe” as anytime a politician is caught telling the truth. This is particularly accurate for Republicans and conservatives as is demonstrated by the reaction to Mitt Romney’s comment regarding Obama’s base.

The setting was unfortunate — a $50,000–a–plate fundraiser — but the message was accurate. As he discussed campaign strategy — not governing philosophy — Romney explained: “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it… And the government should give it to them…

Our message of low taxes doesn’t connect…so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful…”

Romney neglected to mention another solid portion of the Obama base: the welfare–industrial complex composed of government workers and associated special interest groups. The simple fact is the more people receiving government handouts, the more government employees you need to distribute the geetus.

The size of the two populations increases in lockstep as does the size of the Obama base. There is no exit strategy for the War on Poverty.

And this is nothing new, as Ann Coulter pointed out, “Democrats’ problem with welfare reform always was that if it worked, we would need fewer of these well-pensioned public employees, a fact repeatedly acknowledged by liberals themselves.”

Democrat “compassion” for the poor and underprivileged always comes with a healthy dose of self–interest. Just like any attack on Republicans while defending welfare programs is done with elections in mind. They know a reduction in dependency threatens to result in a reduction in Democrats.

Why do you think the Obama administration imitates Tupperware and throws food stamp parties to urge people to apply for handouts? Why did the number of able–bodied participants in the food stamp program double after Obama suspended the work requirement? Why do a record 8.8 million Americans collect disability checks? Why do federal unemployment checks continue for almost two years? And why is the Obama administration spending a record 15.4 percent of the Gross Domestic Product on direct cash payments to individuals?

The answer is simple: Obama’s building his base. That’s why Democrats at their national convention had no problem with an Orwellian video that proclaimed, “Government is the only thing that we all belong to.”

Realizing this 47 percent voting block constitutes a problem isn’t a targeting decision made inside the Romney campaign. It’s an issue with the potential to rend the social fabric of the nation. It is a serious enough problem to offer Democrats a trade.

Conservatives agree to abandon photo ID requirements for voting if in return Democrats agree any citizen who is dependent on the federal government for his livelihood is not eligible to vote. This important reform would not mean a permanent loss of voting privileges and the creation of lifelong second–class citizens. On the contrary, as soon as the dependent citizen re–establishes financial independence the individual regains his vote. Regaining his vote acts as an incentive for personal responsibility.

When 47 percent of the populace is dependent on government benefits the nation is fast approaching a tipping point. Once the number passes 50 percent, American society will no longer have a crucial element of shared sacrifice. Instead the dependency block gets to vote for their share of increased benefits and taxpayers make the sacrifice. Even Democrats should be able to recognize that situation is unfair and inequitable.

For example, are McDonald’s customers allowed to set the price of a Big Mac? Do employees of Government Motors vote to set their own salaries? Do football teams get to vote on how many points the opposing defense will surrender?

There already exists a precedent for temporarily relinquishing the vote. Judges, Congressmen and even members of the city council are not supposed to vote or rule on matters in which they have a financial interest.

Naturally government employees would retain voting privileges. As would Social Security recipients, simply because seniors have been told since the program’s inception the money is not welfare. It’s not true now and it was a lie in 1935, but I’m not prepared to penalize seniors because the government misled them.

This reform would leave us with an electorate that bears the responsibility of paying for the government it advocates. Without this reform the Obamatrons continue to benefit unfairly from Taxation Without Participation.

In November one might cynically term Obama’s 47 percent “pocketbook voters,” only the pocketbook they’ll be voting is yours.

Mother Jones Did Romney a Favor

One thing I’ve learned over the years is that truth is relative, especially in politics. While Mother Jones might be thinking they’ve really done Romney some major harm, I think they are sorely mistaken. First, let me point out what should have been bloody obvious from the start here – whoever got that video of those private fundraising events is not different from the Nixon operators that broke into the Watergate offices to spy on the Democrats. The fact that no one is pointing that out is thanks to Ford pardoning Nixon, and therefore setting the precedent that political spying is “A-Ok.”

didbygraham (CC)

Now, the next point that is obviously lost on the drooling media is that Romney was speaking the truth. Even better, it’s not altogether different from what he’s been saying on the campaign trail so far. Hell, Romney was possibly being kind, since thanks to Obama’s policies, almost 50% of all U.S. citizens live in a household where someone is receiving some form of governmental assistance. That was reported in May, so given the lackluster “growth” of the economy since, who knows? Maybe we’ve broken through that halfway mark by now.

Perhaps even worse than the media touchdown dancing the end-zone is the GOP establishment response. Seriously? They now think that it is a bad thing for the American public to know that major Romney donors would love to hear their candidate say that he’s not going to waste time chasing votes of Obama Zombies? And why exactly aren’t GOP strategists madly typing away right now, producing content for stump speeches that actually flaunt this little video?

Since the folks on the right are obviously slow on the uptake here, I guess it’s necessary to point out a few interesting points. Of course people that are dependent on the government, and don’t pay taxes aren’t going to give a rat’s ass about Republican principles or plans. That might mean that they might actually have to get off their collective (socialist) asses, and get a job. The economy sucks? There are no jobs? Go back to the previous stump speeches on real economic recovery, that includes offering some semblance of stability to business owners, so that they actually attempt to expand their ventures, and hire people! And yes, that means stop even suggesting that Obamacare is negotiable at all, since that’s arguably one of the biggest reasons why employers aren’t hiring. Sure, argue out a soft consumer market, and increasing costs due to rising fuel prices. But, the bottom line is that when businesses get nervous, the people get nervous, people stop buying, demand goes down, production goes down, job numbers go down, and then businesses get more nervous – continue, ad infinitum, or until the economy collapses. Simplistic? Yes. But that is the point. Voters aren’t pundits! They understand simple English, not jargon laden double-speak with graphs and charts.

And since I brought up Nixon at the beginning here, it wouldn’t hurt to point out a few simple things. The obvious would be that whoever got that video and released it, while the Dems might cry otherwise, is with them. (You know, the whole “if you’re not for us, you’re against us” rule.) So, why isn’t anyone saying that the Dems are so bloody desperate to keep the public from looking too closely at Obama’s latest string of severe screw ups, that they have resorted to publishing Romney’s speeches to the “inner circle”? Why isn’t anyone pointing out the obvious, that Romney wants his audience to give him money, so of course he’s going to point out that he’s not going to waste those dollars by chasing after votes from people everyone knows damn well would never vote for him in the first place? I know, in that beautiful Dem world of pixie dust and unicorn dreams, money grows on trees, and they don’t worry about whether or not they waste it. If you run out, you just print more – just ask Ben Bernanke. But, in the real world, where people actually earn their cash, the fact is that you have to prove you’re not going to waste that money before you get it. So, thanks lefties. You just firmly placed this campaign in Romney’s court – it’s the economy, stupid! I can just hear it now on the campaign trail – “I won’t waste the hard-earned dollars you pay in taxes. I don’t waste the dollars donated to my campaign, and in the White House, I will do the same. It would be my job as President to ensure that your dollars are not wasted.”

Understanding The Debt Crisis, But Simplified

I am 60 years old, but I remember when I was a kid we all dreamed of becoming millionaires. Back then a millionaire was the ultimate goal even though we had no concept of what a million dollars actually was. I remember sitting with a bunch of my friends describing to each other what we would do if we had a million dollars to spend.

Now a million dollars seems like nothing, all I hear being tossed around are billions, trillions, gazillions and who knows what is coming next. The majority of people like myself, have no grasp of these type of numbers, so when we hear politicians talk about the deficit and the countries debt problem, many people just do not grasp the severity of the situation. We as a country are headed for a disaster if we do not stop all this out of control spending. I do not understand the people of this country, our future is staring us in the face, but we ignore what the future holds for us. We choose to close our eyes to what is going on in Greece, France, Italy and Spain, not to mention the rest of Europe. We watch all the time on T.V. rioting in the streets, unemployment as high as 25% and we feel safe living in America, thinking that will never happen here. Well 10 years ago, those countries never thought it would happen to them either. Well, now look at them.

This is one of the best explanations of this country’s economic condition made simple.

Lesson #1:

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000

* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000

* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000

* National debt: $15,271,000,000,000

* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700

* Money the family spent: $38,200

* New debt on the credit card: $16,500

* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $152,710

* Total budget cuts: $385

Got It ??? OK now…

Lesson #2:

Here’s another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:

You come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood….and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.

What do you think you should do…Raise the ceilings, or pump out the crap? Your choice is coming November 2012

I’m for pumping out the crap…

This is one man’s opinion.

Should We Really Feel Sorry For The Poor?

One of the things that I am criticized for (believe me there are many more) is when I make the statement that poor people are poor because they make themselves that way. Just like rich people are rich because they make themselves the way they are. (Well, except the ones that inherit their money) So many times, I am told how insensitive I must be to feel like that. Poor people are poor because society will not give them a break or they have no education or they come from a broken home or some other excuse that they think justifies the poor. Well to that, I say BULLCRAP.

What one person can do, another person can do. I am sure that you have heard of Andrew Carnegie, he became a multi millionaire in the steel business in the late 1800’s. Carnegie was born dirt poor in Scotland, his family came to this country with hopes of a better life. At the age of 13 he had to go to work to help support his family, he had very little schooling. However, he worked his way out of poverty to become the second richest man in the country, just behind John D. Rockefeller. Once he became rich, he was known to help his family and friends, the ones that never became anything more than they were born into. His first job at age 13, he was paid 4 cents an hour, by the time he died, he had given away over 150 million dollars. However, what made him reach the top of the heap, while those around him stayed poor? It was dissatisfaction.

Why do poor people today, not have that dissatisfaction? Well maybe because they are not really that poor. Now don’t get me wrong, I know that there are many truly poor people out there that have nothing and are homeless. I am talking about the people that live in government provided housing, receive money from the government every month as well as food stamps. These people are considered poor, yet are they? They are living like kings, compared to the many people living in other countries such as China or North Korea.

However, the government in their effort to try to help the so-called poor, is robbing them of that all too important ingredient that makes a person rise from poverty to prosperity. The dissatisfaction of being poor. Let’s face it, if the government is giving someone a place to live, clothes on their back, food to eat and money to spend, why would they bother to try to do anything else, when the government is providing all the necessities they need in life? When you see people standing on the welfare line, wearing $200 sneakers and talking on $600 i-phones, how poor are they anyway?

Poor people are poor because of the way they think, their attitudes, their actions, their outlook on life and their belief system. Just like the rich people are rich for the same reasons. Nobody holds anyone back in this country, this is America, it is still the land of opportunity. If you have enough dissatisfaction in your life you can make it. Unfortunately, the liberals in this country keep telling the poor that they are poor because of the rich, it is the rich people that are making them poor and keeping them poor. When in reality, it is the liberals and the government that are keeping them down in life, by robbing them of that all to important dissatisfaction. You have to wonder, how many more Andrew Carnegies would this country have produced if the liberals and the government would just get out of the way? A lot more I think.

This is one man’s opinion.

Cradle to Grave Suicide

Alexis Tsipras, head of Greece’s Radical Left Coalition, declared that country’s commitment to austerity is over because voters have rejected those deals. “There is no way we will sneak back in again what the Greek people threw out”, Tsipras said. “This is an historic moment for the Left and the popular movement and a great responsibility for me,” he added, saying he would try to form a left-wing government that will “end the agreements of subservience” with Greece’s bailout creditors. “The pro-bail-out parties no longer have a majority in parliament to vote in destructive measures for the Greek people,” he added. “This is a very important victory for our society.”

In France, Socialist François Hollande said he will move quickly to implement traditionally Socialist tax-and-spend programs, which call for boosting taxes on the rich, increasing state spending, raising the minimum wage, hiring some 60,000 teachers and lowering the retirement age from 62 to 60.

Meanwhile, in California, Gov. Jerry Brown is calling for more social services cuts to help eliminate $15.7 billion deficit. Brown revealed a revised budget that calls for higher income and sales taxes to avoid deep cuts to K-12 and higher education. Rather than canceling an ill advised bullet train to nowhere that will cost the state at least $6 billion to build, Gov. Brown chose to scare Californians into voting for tax hikes by threatening cuts to education.

What do these three states have in common? They’re either already broke or will be soon due to government spending money it doesn’t have on socialist welfare programs, characterized within institutionalized “progressive” leftist circles as “entitlements”.

Greece, where the population is already suffering from 20% unemployment, describes austerity measures they’re expected to follow in order to receive additional bailout money from the EU as “barbaric”. With an economy so weak that it can’t employ one fifth of its own citizens, where does Greece expect to find the money necessary to become financially solvent?

France, if it enacts Hollande’s pledge to mimic Greece’s socialist welfare spending, will soon experience similar fiscal troubles. By following Greece down the road to fiscal insolvency, France will ensure that Germany stands alone in continental Europe as the sole, fiscally responsible, productive society.

California has been on a similar, European style path for decades, which is why California is closer to a fiscal cliff that most of the United States. The legislature in California continuously acts on the belief that it can spend the state into prosperity. California has taxed the rich, spent money on socialist programs, established sanctuary cities that fund the lives of millions of illegal aliens and spent huge amounts of money on education. Much of the cost of that education goes for the children of unlawful residents.

On the list of most business friendly states, California is currently ranked fiftieth. California has held that rank for the last eight years. Meanwhile, businesses are fleeing California in droves, seeking residence in states like Texas, where tax and regulatory policies are friendlier to business. The California tax base is fleeing along with those businesses.

In Sacramento California, government employee unions are running the show. Not only do “progressive” politicians vote overvalued salaries and perks for themselves, they also obediently kowtow to union demands for ever escalating salaries, benefits and pensions. This occurs because those politicians depend on union money, muscle and turnout for their own re-election. Rather than choosing to run the state responsibly, self interested career politicians continuously submit to demands from “civil servants” who are too often far from civil. The looming, unfunded costs of union benefits and pensions are among the largest liabilities contributing to the state’s $15.7 billion deficit.

These are precisely the results all Americans can expect for future generations if the cradle to grave mentality continues to be legislated by “progressive” me first career politicians. These results are predictable if the cradle to grave lie remains propagandized in schools, promoted in television programs, glorified in the movies and dutifully drubbed into the minds of sound bite voters by the news media.

If America is to be saved, these combined forces of the institutionalized “progressive” left must be stopped; starting with voting “progressive” politicians out of office. That’s the first order of business. When a patient arrives in an emergency room, stopping the bleeding receives top priority. The detailed surgery needed to excise the root problem, while still necessary, comes later. It took years for “progressives” to infiltrate and infect academia, Hollywood, the media and political class with their cancerous agenda. And while delay is not an option, it will take years to repair those institutions.

Unless that happens, today’s Americans will spend their declining years describing to young people who’ll listen, how the United States was once the place where the world’s people came for otherwise unavailable opportunity. How the land of the free and the home of the brave was more than just a line in a song.

In America, for an increasingly limited amount of time, cradle to grave suicide is still an option.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/cradle-to-grave-suicide/

F**k The Constitution, Just Make Me Happy

Our Founding Fathers may have been the most thoughtful men in human history. To create a new government with the many checks and balances that are in place is the envy of the entire world. If there is any doubt of how great this country truly is, all you have to do is just look at all the people trying to get in, legally and illegally. Why are people not beating down the doors to get into Venezuela, Cuba, China or North Korea? We as a country must be doing something right. However, how long are we going to be different from those countries?

The Internet is a wonderful thing; on it, you can find views from both sides of the aisle. Not too long ago, I had the pleasure of watching a couple of videos that had an interview with people that came here from socialist countries, on the video they were describing what life was like living under socialism. At the end of each video, they all seem to say the same thing. America is heading down the same path that the socialist countries they left once went down. I must admit, a chill went down my spine when I heard them describing the similarities. The left in this country shrug these people off as idiots who don’t know what they are talking about.

They say experience is the best teacher, so why are we not learning from the very people that lived through socialism? We all know the old saying, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it. So why are we not learning? The writing is on the wall, but most of America refuses to see it. America seems to be closing its eyes to the reality of socialism creeping its way into our society. The people that were speaking on those videos, spoke of similarities of what is coming, they are; Removal of God from society, Taking over the car companies, as well as the banks, Socialized medicine and the Government is the answer to everything. Sound familiar? However, these are the very things that the people on the videos have lived through in the countries they left. They see the same things happening here, scary, isn’t it?

Who’s to blame? Well, look in the mirror, because it is we the people. Our founding fathers set this country up to be a self-governing nation, of the people, by the people, for the people. Lincoln said those words in his Gettysburg Address, but things sure have changed. This country has been changing for a while, but the Obama administration was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

We have a generation of people who do not even know what the Constitution is; they were raised to believe in an entitlement society, where they think they are entitled to everything, instead of going out and working for it. They all seem to say F**k the Constitution, just make me happy. Moreover, this president seems to want to oblige them. This country is learning the hard way that liberal views and policies just do not work. We are now paying the price for the liberal policies of the past. Yes, we have a constitution, but what good is it if we ignore it.

A quick note; Those of you who have read my book, America, A Society Gone Wrong or follow my articles know that I like to lighten things up with a touch of humor, I always do, but I find this to be, too serious of a subject for humor.

This is one man’s opinion.
.

Have we reversed the Constitution?

It’s pretty obvious at this point that our country is headed in the wrong direction.  And with a little perspective, it’s just as obvious why.  Over the last few decades, in many ways we have actually allowed our politicians to reverse the Constitution.

Take a look:

  • We no longer focus on what government can’t do to us.  Our current political conversation largely surrounds what we should expect the government to give to us.  That has gotten us to the point where apparently the government now has enough power to force us to violate our religious beliefs… but who cares?  Look… free condoms!!
  • This nation was founded with the mindset that individuals should have the freedom to do whatever they choose (to the greatest extent possible) and that the power of the government should be strictly limited.  But the prevailing wisdom in Washington D.C. is that the government can do whatever it wants and that the freedom of individuals should be limited.
  • There is no provision in the Constitution for entitlement spending, yet we increase it.  National defense is one of few areas of spending specifically mentioned in the Constitution, yet we decrease that.  Our politicians talk as if entitlement spending were mandatory and defense spending were an option.  It seems that our politicians now feel it’s now a higher priority to protect Americans from the burden of paying for their own retirement than to protect them from foreign invasion.

Our Constitution was founded on principles that have been proven to be effective in protecting our rights as individuals.  When we do the opposite of what is provided for in the Constitution, it only makes sense that we would get the opposite of protection.  And that’s what we’re getting – the government is waging an all out assault on our liberty.  But who cares?  Look… free condoms!

How Much Does The Government Really Have To Buy A Vote?

A break down of exactly how much does the government REALLY has to buy votes, who pays taxes, who does’t pay taxes, and how much each department spends. Bill Whittle calls Barack Obama’s $1 billion that he will spend to get re-elected “chump change” in comparison. These Big Government statistics are 22,000 times that amount… and each dollar is spent buying votes!

Barack Obama will have ONE BILLION DOLLARS to spend on his re-election in 2012. Bill calls that chump change. Find out how the Big Government statists spent 22,000 times that amount on buying votes in 2011 alone!

Bob Beckel: Liberals Created A Dependent Society With Welfare

We live in a world of “Gotcha Journalism” that greases its wheels with quotes like the one in this video.  That is why I’m going to try to share it responsibly.  Bob Beckel, the “resident Liberal” at Fox News, made a startling comment today on The Five.  When briefly discussing entitlements, he said that Liberals had made a “terrible mistake” with things like public housing and welfare, and that they had inadvertently created a “dependent society”.  Video is below.

As a conservative audience, I can see the temptation to jump on Beckel’s quote and exploit it for all it’s worth.  Here we have a Liberal stating point blank that their policies have not only failed, but he’s implying that damage has been done to society.  It’s a pretty damning and powerful statement.

Judging by the reaction I got when I shared this quote on Twitter, there is much to exploit in the video, but… I think there is another powerful statement when you consider the full context of things.  Try, if you can, to imagine this being said on any other network.  You definitely would not have a Liberal admit something like this on MSNBC.  And even a milquetoast network like CNN wouldn’t dare to make such a proclamation.  You only get lucid moments like this on Fox News, and it’s sad.  And I have to say “lucid moments”, because it’s not like Fox is that much above the fray.  They have plenty of partisan reporting on their part too.  It’s just that every now and then, someone has the courage or the ability to speak truthfully, and for that I thank them.

Bob definitely gave the Right Wing something to crow about with this quote, but I also think he gave us, as Americans, something to think about:  If we’re ever going to actually solve some of the problems in this nation, we’re going to have to admit the instances where our side is wrong.

Why This Country Needs Scarlett O'Hara

Today unfortunately, we live in a society where we expect the government to take care of us, instead of us taking care of ourselves. For decades, little by little the entitlement mentality has become a way of life, and now we have a generation of Americans who feel everything is owed to them. And that’s sad.

And it is sad, because America has become the greatest nation in the world because of its energy, initiative, enthusiasm and just plain get up and go. However, our entitlement society has taken a lot of that away. Why should someone go out and hustle to put food on the table, if the government will do it for them? Why should we go out and hustle to put a roof over our heads, if the government will provide us with one? In addition, if we fail at something, not to worry, the government will fix it. It is this type of mentality that has brought America to the brink of collapse.

I was thinking about this while watching TV, when an advertisement came on for the upcoming showing of that great movie Gone With The Wind. I’m sure everyone has seen it. They showed the part after the Civil War when Scarlett goes back to her beloved Tara and finds it destroyed. Scrounging around for whatever she could find on the ground to eat, she stands up and she says in the famous scene, “As God is my witness I vow never to be hungry again.” That started me thinking, what if they had entitlement programs back then? What if instead of vowing never to be hungry again all she did was go to the local government office and applied for food stamps and welfare? You see where I’m going with this? All her drive and determination would have been washed away. She would have fallen into that zombie like coma of the governments spell. Fast forward five years. Instead of becoming the beautiful, rich and sought after land owner that she becomes in the movie, she would have become a fat, ugly, lazy land owner who just sits on the front porch all day collecting welfare checks and food stamps, while the government pays her not to grow anything. Boy what a difference in the story that would have made.

Another point. I was watching the John Stossel show about the American Indians. It seems that if you are an American Indian you never have to work, because the government provides everything for you.

While the Indians who stay on the reservation and become those government zombies live in squalor, have no drive or motivation, the Indians who move off the reservation and hustle for what they want and have that drive and motivation, become successful rich people. I don’t know about you, but I would rather be rich and successful.

Now I don’t want you to think I am one heartless son of a bitch. I know that people need help some time. Things happen in life that we have no control over, and we just need a helping hand some time. However, what I object to is making it your life’s work. The solution is simple. When someone needs help, they get. No matter whether it’s welfare, food stamps, unemployment. Now the only difference, it’s not a gift, it’s a no interest loan which has to be paid back when you get back on your feet. Give the person a year to get back on their feet; at that point, they have a small amount taken out of their check every month. It doesn’t have to be much as little as $25. This serves two purposes. How fast do you think they would be looking to get off the gravy train if they know they have to pay the money back? Pretty quick I think. Therefore, it would not only teach them responsibility paying the money back, it also wouldn’t be a burden on the taxpayers. So there you go, no burden on the taxpayer, responsible people, would mean a better society.

« Older Entries