Ask LA

Time for another dig into the old mailbag. Here's one I just ran across:

Dear LA,

Man, these people be trippin. Ya see, I don't know where to turn. Some people be saying for me to write Aks LA, because the man has the answers. I sed, that's what I am talkin bout. I needs the answers. Right on?

Anyway, here's what's goin down. I am living in a FEMA trailer in the 9th Ward of NOLA (Thassss right, baby. Da Crescent Citty.) But now these people be sayin that I have to give up the crib. They be sayin that da guvment is takin my home away. It only be four years since Katrina and I can't get my act together cuz da man is holding me down.

What am I ever supposed to be doing to stop dis unjustice?

Right On,

Frustrated In Fematown.



Dear Frustrated,

You have a right to be upset. This current FEMA policy of setting an unreasonable May 1, 2009 deadline is racist. It's not even been a full four years yet.

I suggest you call your local media and whip the locals into a frenzy. Tell them how the current administration is trying to keep black people down, by causing extra suffering in addition to the suffering already imposed.

If that doesn't work, call Al Sharpton to come down and lead a march through the streets calling for Barack Obama's head. Let the President know that you will NOT tolerate the continuation of the racist policies of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the evil Karl Rove.

You must act to defend your rights. There is no reason for them to be putting this much pressure on you or your neighbors, so soon after this horrible disaster.

Hope this helps.

LA

A Fractured Fairy Tale: Robin Hood

From the San Diego Union Tribune comes this short piece on Robin Hood politics. Let's focus on this part for a second:

It is not surprising that those who have worked hard, made sacrifices, saved money, started businesses and made payrolls would frown on the idea of a presidential candidate actually boasting that he plans to raise their taxes, if elected, in order to give tax breaks to those who make less money. But it is a little frightening to think that there are so many people on the other side who covet their neighbor's bank account.

The writer thinks it's frightening that so many people have their hands out. But what can we expect from society, when leftists have so deeply permeated our educational system and planted socialist theory into the masses' heads, for so long? Would we expect anything else, when those very same educators have romanticized the tale of Robin Hood and elevated it to one of the more prominent places in the world of illustrative metaphors. It now ranks with FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society, as required lesson material.

The scarier part of this is, the inability of the Robin wannabes to have the moral courage to define rich:

And what's the cut-off for the tax cuts? No one knows, because Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, can't settle on a figure. First, it was said that only wage-earners who earned more than $250,000 annually would have their taxes raised. Then Obama, in an interview, lowered the figure to $200,000. Then Biden, in a speech, lowered it to $150,000. Luckily, this campaign is ending. Or we might be headed for a situation where anyone earning more than poverty level gets a tax increase.

Think this is worrisome and confusing? Let's take a look at this.

For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class -- leading Republicans to question whether he'll stick to his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.

The latest hiccup in the campaign message came Friday morning on KOA-AM, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pegged the middle class as those making $120,000 and under.

Don't believe it? Here it is:



So much confusion. So little consensus on definition of terms. How can anyone trust these people, when they do not display any consistency in such an important matter?

But beyond the absurdity of this "so-called" noble notion of taking from the rich to give to the poor, lies the underlying message of Robin Hood and how it has been used as a Marxist teaching tool, erroneously. Even fiscal conservatives sometimes do not fully understand the message. The truth is, they use a skewed analogy to promote or oppose wealth redistribution.

Robin Hood's chief target was the money belonging to Prince John , who was the mythical, economically-despotic monarch, better known as the government. He had asserted his power through a coup and wanted to tax the hell out of his new royal subjects, regardless of their wealth. But instead, he kept the money.

Instead of targeting hard working entrepreneurs that worked and risked to make their money, Robin concentrated his efforts against those that benefited from that excessive taxation. Any revenues destined for the royal till, was fair game.

If anything, there is an analogy to be had here. But it's not the one the leftist school teaching community has been successful in sowing, among the fertile fields known as our children's minds. It's the coup, the excessive taxation for government expenditures, and the blatant arrogance in doing it. And it is my firm belief, the real Robin Hood would have targeted an Obama administration as well.

I cannot deny to myself in any way, a vote for Obama is a vote for Prince John. The next problem that will need to be solved is, who will be the Robin Hood? Honestly, I don't know why I should even have to worry about this, because it would stand to reason that most Americans do not want this kind of life.

Barney Frank: Plenty Of Rich People To Tax

At a time when conservation and wise fiscal prudence should be prevailing, Barney Frank gives John McCain and the GOP another gift in addition to Biden's:



Folks, they are telling us what they are going to do. They are not hiding it anymore. They are going to tax and spend this country into the ground. They are so confident they will control both Houses of Congress and the White House, they are beginning to sell their ideas right now (as if they have already won). I don't know about you, but I think this is the highest form of presumptuous arrogance one can ever see.

Are you going to let them do this? Are you really going to vote for Obama, after all of this?


Addendum:

PYY's good friend AICS of The Logic Lifeline has left a comment worthy of much thought and consideration:

They are strategically telegraphing their intent - weakly enough not to raise too many alarms, strongly enough to later claim they had a mandate to implement their socialist plans.

If Obama wins, watch closely for the words mandate and socialist policies to go hand in hand in the media.

What The 60s Hath Wrought

There is a group of people here and elsewhere in the world that look at the 60s as an era that brought a new social order, which at that time was supposed to change the world and make it a beautiful place. It was billed as nothing less than utopia and featured a group of people that believed Marxism was the future, which would bring this whole fantasy to fruition. Down with the establishment, up with the movement (whichever one was protesting at the time).

LBJ promised us the Great Society, where hunger and poverty would someday be eliminated. But instead, it has brought government dependency and laziness, and poverty is still every bit as problematic today. If the Great Society legislative programs of 1965 were so successful, why were radicals so restless in their protests in 67, 68 and 69? Did we not hear how the Watts riots were a direct result of the despair and frustration of being black and in poverty?

If this notion that people can truly be equal by simultaneously eliminating the rich and the poor if it were possible, wouldn't it stand to reason that the Soviet bloc would still have the same economic system as they did in the 60s? Wouldn't they be dominating the markets right now under those weak and unnatural systems? Would not China and the USSR be the dominate forces in the world now? They may be someday, but socialism has played no role whatsoever in their resurgences. But capitalism has.

Today we have Obama desperately trying to convince us he is the agent of change and can best take us into the future. if this is the case, why is his campaign trying to repeat the magic of JFK in Berlin. Why are they invoking the 60s as their measuring stick of influence? To me, it sounds like they are looking to the past and not the future.

Victor Davis Hanson's latest essay features some interesting aspects of the 60s, all of which are difficult to refute unless one has their thinking clouded with lysergic acid diethylamide. His take is more poignant than mine and features a recurrent theme that has some pretty strong roots in that same 60s era. It's known as hypocrisy.

Give it a read when you get a chance.

Recommended Reading

Journalists are a unique breed. It is often said that it takes one to know one. And since Ralph Peters is one, he certainly is qualified to describe them. You can read his well-written scathing indictment on journalists here.

Bloomberg is reporting the dismal numbers from corporate giant General Electric. These are the fine people that used to say they made" good things for life". With competition unlike ever before seen, GE has known to be in trouble for some time now. This is precisely why they are hitting this "global warming" issue so hard, they stand to make a lot of money if the GW cultists get their ways. If not, their future looks very bleak.

A local radio talk show host has some interesting thoughts about poverty. In fact, he goes as far as saying there is no such thing as poverty, here in America. Read and consider what he says, when you get a moment.

Recommended Reading

If you haven't had a chance yet, you really need to read Mustang's latest post. If covers a lot and is lengthy. But it is well worth the time you will put into it. It will give you much to think about as you ponder the future of this country.

One can continue to choose idealistic theory over realism, or they can wake up to reality and deal with it appropriately.

U.S. Poverty Rate Declines

Per the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2006 poverty rate has declined, for the first time since 2000.

Five years into a national economic recovery, the share of Americans living in poverty finally dropped.

Despite the declining rate of unemployment we have been experiencing since the tax cuts were implemented, the rate has risen until last year. And as you may guess, this is one piece of data that Democrats have traditionally used against Republicans, especially when the GOP occupies the White House.

While the drop was 0.3% (down from 12.6 to 12.3), you can bet there will still be some harping from some. Take Charlie Rangel, for instance. He can't resist spinning it, despite the fact that the numbers have improved. From the same article:

"Too many Americans find themselves still stuck in the deep hole dug by economic policies favoring the wealthy," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., said in a statement. "Income remains lower than it was six years ago, poverty is higher, and the number of Americans without health insurance continues to grow."

Despite the news, he still cannot resist turning a positive into a negative. I am confident that if Al Gore or John Kerry were in the Oval Office, there would be lavishing praised statements coming from Rangel's mouth. But that's merely the nature of the political beast.

To understand this a little better, I want to point out some things that this report does not address. Let's start with how we compare to other nations.

Many PYY readers are French, so I am sure they will gloat over the fact that in 2004, their poverty rate was 6.2%, about half of the U.S. rate in 2006. And that's okay, they pay a hell of a lot more taxes than we do here, just to get that bragging right. But in Canada, we see that the rate was higher in 2003, at 15.9%. Rangel couldn't resist tying poverty to lack of healthcare coverage, I wonder how he would spin that one.

But, this isn't about who's better or worse, internationally. You can read the table and draw your own conclusions, if that's all you are interested in.

What we have to understand here is, poverty means different things in different countries. In many African nations, poverty means struggling to get food, water, clothing, and shelter. Active disease processes are usually much higher and in some cases epidemic. Much of that comes from the lack of those essentials I just mentioned, some of it because there is not enough medicine, and certainly no preventative care.

So what does this mean for the U.S.? What does poverty mean here?

Today, the Indianapolis Star profiles three different people, with different set of circumstances, with one thing in common: All three are considered one of those 12.3% we had in 2006. These three are the ones that usually get paraded out. The homeless, the single mom, and the elderly are the most recognizable.

With all of this in mind, this still isn't the entire picture we need to see. What you may not be considering in all of this can be found in this NRO piece by Robert Rector, published yesterday. This is particularly important to know and understand, when we are talking about comparative poverty. Poor people in third world countries, struggle with getting the basics needed to sustain life. They have nothing, nada, zilch. But the poor in the U.S. do have assets and this NRO article I am citing, clearly shows us some perspective.

I highly recommend you read it with an open mind, and think about it.

Yes, we have people in this country that struggle. Yes, we have people that are truly poor. But after reading Mr. Rector's piece, one must question the definition of poor, as it pertains to the United States. Because, from where I sit, poor is certainly a relative term and it all depends on who is using it, and for what purpose.

The Adventures Of Hillary Hood

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton made a statement that said much to define who she is and what she stands for. From CBS comes the specific details:

Sen. Hillary Clinton outlined a broad economic vision on Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic presidential hopeful said what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

Putting politics aside for a moment and taking a close look at these particular words gives us all an opportunity to examine her political and economic ideologies, with some much needed scrutiny and tells us much about how an economic system might look like, under a Hillary presidency. I also think it's extremely important to note that this economic view is not much different than what we have expected from Democrats (in general) over the years, one that began in a troubled time known as the Great Depression (the New Deal) and was exacerbated by LBJ's "so-called" Great Society.

One thing we must all consider in this is, FDR inherited an economy with 25% unemployment. And while the causes of this tanked economy can be debated into eternity, the fact remains that something had to be done as a means of emergency intervention. If not, there was the strong probability that suffering was going to become even more widespread than it already had become. In no way was public assistance intended to become a way of life like many people have made it, in the years that have followed.

If we contrast the New Deal with the Great Society, we will see a very different set of economic circumstances. When LBJ and his staff of liberals were propelled into what was perceived at that time to be a mandate for economic change (as a result of the 1964 election), they immediately enacted tax cuts that were originally proposed by JFK before his death. The unemployment rate in 1964 was around 5.2%, not the staggering 25% left in the lap of FDR three years after the Stock Market Crash of 1929. (The rate in 1963 was 5.7%.) And while the Great Society promoted programs that many felt were needed at the time, there was a lot of pork that was unnecessary and many felt were a hindrance to the improvement of the lives of the poor and underprivileged.

It can be argued that with Johnson's program came even lower unemployment rates. Unemployment bottomed out in 1969 at a meager 3.5%. But with that low rate came sky-rocketing inflation (5.46% in 1969). In fact, from 1965 to 1966 the nation watched inflation grow from 1.59% to 3.01%. It almost doubled and right at the time when Johnson began implementing his welfare state. Coincidence?

Although Jimmy Carter was not known for his coined economic phraseologies like FDR and LBJ, many of his programs were deemed directly responsible for inflation topping out at 13.58% in 1980 and an unemployment rate of 7.1 %, in the same year. And if you were in the workforce at this time, you no doubt remember that your cost of living increases were nowhere near 13% annually. Add to this a prime lending rate topping out at 20% in early 1980, and you have the makings of an economic disaster.

So, looking at giveaway programs coupled with high tax rates intended to level the playing field for all, we see that the ideology being promoted my Hillary has already been tested and tried by many before her, with some pretty harsh results. At the times this country has leaned more towards socialist policies, people were not helped (as was the intention), but were hindered as an unintended consequence.

When the lending rate was high, so were the payouts by banks in savings, money markets, and CDs. This did not encourage growth, because it was more advantageous for a rich man to put his money into savings than it was to invest in a new enterprise that would create jobs and more opportunities for those that were part of the labor force. Instead of building a new business or adding on to an existing business or industry, it was stashed in a bank and only created wealth for the select few that had the money and capital to create and produce. (If that's not enough to convince you, consider the former Soviet Union and China. Neither could effectively meet the needs of their populations until after the economies were shifted towards free-market enterprise.) Add to that this concept: There are many that look at socialist programs as a means of enslavement and nothing more than a modern-day version of feudalism (not to mention Jim Crow), with the masses dependent on government for their well-being (and not the individuals, themselves). And quite frankly, from where I sit, I agree with them.

This is precisely why, I am not an active proponent of more government control, but less. I say this because from where I sit, the more government can control in our lives, the more we will depend on them. The more we depend on them, the more they will fail us. Therefore, with this in mind, we must ask ourselves this all-important question: With more control yielded to government and more dependency resulting from that yielding, coupled with less potential for freedom of opportunity/self-sufficiency, where else could we turn when that government fails us, if not ourselves?

Can anyone see why I am very wary of proposed wealth re-distribution as a commonly promoted theme, especially when there is a Democratic President and Congress serving simultaneously?