Special Commentary
By Harris R. Sherline on August 8, 2011 at 3:46 pm
PUBLIC SECTOR PENSIONS ARE ANYTHING BUT MODEST
(from The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association)
The following commentary appeared in The Washington Examiner on July 27, 2011:
By Steven Malanga
Recent polls show that public opinion is turning against government workers because of their rich pay and benefits — especially pension benefits.
A spring poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times and the University of Southern California, to take one example, found that 70 percent of Californians favored a cap on public employees’ pensions because of the widespread perception that pension costs have become a crushing burden to state and local governments.
Unions have counterattacked by claiming that government pensions are actually quite modest. They argue, for instance, that the average annual pension of a state worker is under $30,000 in California and even less in New Jersey and New York. But their figures are misleading to say the least.
Consider California. Earlier this year, state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, a Democrat who has received union backing in his political campaigns, claimed that the average retired state worker in California was getting just $2,500 a month in benefits.
When Contra Costa Times columnist Daniel Borenstein investigated, he found that Lockyer’s average included people who had worked for the state for as little as five years and were collecting partial benefits, as well as those who had retired years before the state significantly enhanced pension benefits in 1999.
But if you limit the average to currently retiring workers who have spent more time working for California and thus can retire with full benefits, a different picture emerges, Borenstein found. The average state worker retiring in 2009 with full benefits received a pension of nearly $67,000 a year.
Local government workers in California did even better. Looking at his own town, Contra Costa, Borenstein found an average pension for new retirees of $85,500 annually.
There’s more: Though government workers don’t automatically qualify for Social Security, about 65 percent of the retired government employees who are members of CalPERS, the state’s government-employee pension system, do get Social Security benefits because the state has made contributions for them for years.
The average benefit comes to $19,000 a year. So sweet are California’s pension deals that a report by the state’s Little Hoover Commission, a government watchdog agency, estimated that the average government worker retiring with full benefits and Social Security will get 109 percent of his final working salary as a pension.
Still, union advocates have found that citing misleading pension figures makes for effective sound bites. During a rally against New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s pension reforms last year, an official of the Communications Workers of America claimed that the average pension in New Jersey was a mere $20,000 a year for state workers and $13,000 for local workers.
But the Newark Star-Ledger reported strikingly different numbers: an average of nearly $40,000 a year for state workers who retired with 25 years of service; $46,486 for teachers; and $73,571 for police and firefighters.
Similar statistics in New York are just as deceptive. Union reps argue that state workers receive just $19,000 a year, on average, but the actual median pension for those recently retired with full benefits is more than $50,000 a year, according to state pension-fund documents.
For New York teachers, the median pension is often reported as slightly more than $48,000; for those retiring now with full benefits, though, it’s about $71,000.
The difference in these numbers is significant, especially because in most state systems, current workers are earning benefits at the same high levels as recent retirees, not at the levels of those who retired years ago or retired with partial benefits.
That’s why the annual contributions that many governments must make to pension systems for current workers are exploding. In short, the public is right to worry about the rising cost of public-sector pensions — notwithstanding the unions’ misinformation campaigns.
Steven Malanga is the senior editor of City Journal and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He is the author of “Shakedown: The Continuing Conspiracy Against the American Taxpayer.” This article is adapted from the summer issue of City Journal.
Illegal Aliens Cost Hospitals
By Harris R. Sherline on August 2, 2011 at 10:23 am
Stephen Frank’s Political News and Views has observed, “This is just the tip of the iceberg. According to the California Hospital Association (CHA), illegal aliens cost hospitals across the state about $1.25 billion a year in unpaid medical care…The CHA recently stated that $26 million of those costs are absorbed in the eight hospitals in Ventura County alone.”
“Your health care and lives have been endangered by criminals from other nations–we call them illegal aliens. We must demand that every elected official either enforce the immigration laws or resign–illegal aliens are killing us.”
“In 2003, the American Southwest saw 77 hospitals enter bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills incurred by illegal aliens. A staggering 84 hospitals in California have been forced to close their doors because of the growing crisis. Hospitals which manage to remain open, then pass the unpaid costs onto the rest of us, which translates into more out-of-pocket expenses and higher insurance premiums for all Americans.”
Having run a hospital in California for about seven years, I can personally attest to the impact that illegal aliens can have. In our case it was Mexican women who did not have health insurance but knew that state law requires all hospitals to treat anyone who presents to their Emergency Department, regardless of ability to pay.
Our hospital was a small facility and did not have a birthing center, which had been closed about four years before I became the CEO. It was closed because the cost of mainting the required minimum staffing was too great for the number of births we handled for our relatively small community, and the department was generating substantial losses.
Local Hispanic women would wait until they were close to giving birth and then come to the ER, which they knew was required to accept them, regardless of ability to pay. We could see them being dropped off on the parking lot by their husbands or significant others, who would wait outside, while the women walked to the ER. Since we did not have facilities to care for newborns, they were immediately transferred to another hospital that had a birthing center, which was also required to accept them, regardless of their ability to pay.
It was a lose, lose situation that the hospitals were (and I assume still are) unable to avoid.
Testimony by Carol Plato, an executive at Martin Memorial Medical Center in Florida provides graphic specifics about hospitals that are forced to bear the costs of caring for illegal aliens. (See link below).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjPBtfpn8wI
© 2011 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Phony Government Budgeting
By Harris R. Sherline on July 29, 2011 at 1:17 pm
With an August 2 deadline rapidly approaching to approve an increase in the federal debt limit, we are being deluged with wall-to-wall media coverage, talk show discussions and debates, and presidential speeches, all intended to sway public opinion to favor one approach or another to solving the problem.
However, I submit they are all a waste of time. They may attract eyes and ears to the radio or T.V., which is good for the media outlets but doesn’t really provide any long term solution.
Certain terms or words that are commonly used by politicians and bureaucrats are now so ubiquitous that they have become buzzwords. They are intended to convey a particular meaning in political discourse and legislation but are invariably misunderstood by the public. That, of course, is the idea – to keep people unaware of what the politicians and bureaucrats are actually doing.
Since these words usually don’t mean what they appear to say or what we may think they say, I thought I would offer my own explanations of those that are most often heard in today’s political discussions in the hope that they will clarify some of the political discourse that’s currently raging.
Balanced Budget: Most people seem to think this means that budgeted income matches projected outgo, ergo, the budget balances. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works in the Beltway. Even when government budgets are prepared that appear to balance, many of them really can’t, probably ever. One major reason is that a number of extremely large obligations are usually not included on the government’s books or on the financial reports of most other jurisdictions, that is, states, cities and counties. These are generally referred to as “unfunded” liabilities (debt), which simply means that the money to pay them has not been set aside in a separate fund so the cash will be available when they come due. A good example of this is the pension obligations for government employees. When these commitments are included, most government financial statements will not balance.
Budget Cut: There’s always a lot of political posturing about various cuts in the budget that one side or the other, usually Republicans, want to impose. However, this is pure sleight-of-hand, because they are not real cuts at all, and the public in general has little or no understanding of how things actually work.. This get a little complicated, but the budget process does not work the way most people may think.
The Federal government uses a method of budgeting that does not determine how much should be spent, which is called “zero based budgeting.” Instead, the budget for each new fiscal year starts with the expenditures that were adopted for the previous year and are automatically increased by a certain percentage to arrive at the amount needed for the next year. For example, say a one billion dollar budget for some department in the current year is to be increased by 7% for the next year, which would raise it to one billion-seventy-million dollars.
Here’s the tricky part: If the proposed increase is reduced to, say 5%, it is considered a cut. In other words, if the budget for the prior year is only increased by $50 million instead of $70 million, that’s called a cut, even though no one may be advocating an actual reduction in the total amount of expenditures from the prior year. All hell breaks loose in the political posturing that ensues, because someone is advocating a CUT. So, a cut is not actually a cut at all, but politicians are able to call it one so people will think anyone who favors something less than the proposed automatic increase in a particular budget, say for school lunches or Social Security, is a heartless, unfeeling, evil scrooge. Neat trick, huh?
Out-Year: Here’s another way budget numbers are finessed by clever politicians, especially at the Federal level. “Out-year” refers to subsequent years after the budget for a particular year is adopted. The budget for several years is projected to balance in the future, after the politicians responsible for developing it are no longer in office, such as the President or members of Congress who are involved in the process and vote on the legislation. In other words, the budget doesn’t balance now, but it will later, when they’re no longer around – so they can’t be held accountable if it doesn’t balance at that time. This is simple sleight of hand. It doesn’t balance now but it will later. Trust us, they say. It will all work out in the end.
Debt Limit: This one is really absurd. The term usually refers to the amount of money the Federal government is authorized to spend. The fact that there is a limit to the amount of money politicians can spend is a good thing, right? Yes, but…any limit is only good so long as it is not changed, otherwise it’s not really a limit, is it?
When our fearless leaders run up against the debt limit, what can they do? Either cut something or raise the limit, of course. And, what invariably happens? They raise it. Whenever the debt ceiling is breached, Congress, in its infinite wisdom, simply passes a bill to increase it. Nothing could be easier, and nothing could be phonier that the “debt limit.”
Abe Lincoln’s famous admonition, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time,” never had greater meaning than it does today. Unfortunately, there are not yet enough people who see through the political sleight of hand that our legislators use to mislead the public today to be able to put a stop to these practices.
In general, the obvious intent of our politicians is to label their actions and legislation in ways that the public does not understand, to divert opposition and confuse people so they don’t actually realize what the consequences of legislative actions actually are. Makes one wonder if they don’t go to work every day thinking, “Let’s see how we can fool them (the public) today.”
There ought to be a law that requires truth in legislation and politics. I know that’s a silly idea, but it’s fun just to think about it.
© 2011 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Watch Your Mouth
By Harris R. Sherline on July 26, 2011 at 11:48 am
There was a time when openly swearing was not just frowned upon, it was illegal in some circumstances, such as on the air (radio or T.V.). But, unfortunately, time and the changing mores of American society have not only made inappropriate language commonplace but almost universally accepted.
Years ago, it was not unusual for parents to wash their children’s mouth out with soap for using “bad language.” Today, it seems as though many parents have been corrupted by the change in mores to that point that they not only tolerate their children’s use of offensive language but frequently use it themselves. We are routinely assaulted by over-the-top verbal assaults in the movies, on T.V., in the schools and workplace, even in public speeches on occasion.
For example, in March 2010, the Vice President of the United States dropped the “f-bomb” when the President signed the health care reform bill. Joe Biden’s comment was intended for Obama’s ears only, when Biden whispered, “This is a big f-ing deal,” as they shook hands in front of a cheering crowd and, as often happens, an open mic.
Researchers point out that swearing has been around for centuries, noting that the taboo status of certain words is what makes them powerful, because they enable people to express strong feelings.
Studies have found that swearing can provide both “emotional release and relief from pain.” People often feel better after saying something that might otherwise be considered taboo. The specific words that are considered unacceptable change over time, but every generation has such expressions.
The power of swear words comes from their status as generally being inappropriate in “polite society.” The more restrictions there are on specific words, the more alluring it is to use them. Geoff Nunberg, a linguist at the University of California, Berkeley, notes, “It’s emphatic and has an intensity of emotion.”
Psychologist Timothy Jay, of the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts in North Adams, believes that words like the “f-bomb” have “an intensity of emotion that conveys the intensity of emotion that best expresses strong feelings.”
Curse words have been around for hundreds of years, maybe more, although the specific words that are considered vulgar change over time.
Throughout history, swear words have reflected the taboos of time and place. A century or two ago, religious words dominated the lewd lexicon: Hell and damn were unspeakable in proper company.
Lexicographer Jesse Sheidlower, editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary wrote a book called “The F-Word,” noted that the “f-bomb” has 15th-century Germanic origins, and that the word’s root meant “to move back and forth.”
Over the centuries, the f-word has appeared repeatedly in obscene contexts in letters and poems, sometimes written in code. At some point in the 20th century, Sheidlower said it began to be used beyond its sexual connotations. As the word became more figurative, it also became increasingly versatile.
Today, variations of the word can function as a noun, a verb, an adjective, an adverb and an expletive. It can be used to describe almost anything. Not only can the word be anything you want it to be, it has also become an equal-opportunity expression. That is, women use it just as much as men do..
“I think this is one of the most important words in the language,” Sheidlower said. “People use it all the time.”
Swearing in the workplace has also become more commonplace, although there are limits, such as being openly using swear words in meetings or when they are directed as specific individuals, such as calling a woman a “bitch” or a “whore.”
In one dispute, the defendant argued that he had a right to freedom of speech based on section 16 of the Constitution and should therefore not be disciplined for his statements. However, the arbitrator found that this right also carried a duty, which related to respecting the fundamental worth and dignity of fellow human beings. The argument was therefore rejected and the finding of dismissal confirmed.
One important labor law case concluded that there are a variety of employment environments where vulgar language is accepted as a standard means of communication. The finding noted that vulgar language in the workplace occurs in two situations: when an employee or manager swears as a sign of frustration and not at a person, and where swearing is directed at a fellow-employee. Although swearing may be the cause for a reprimand of the employee, swearing that is directed at a fellow-employee could result in serious grievance and/or disciplinary action, perhaps even harassment claims against the employer.
© 2011 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
The Most Overused Word
By Harris R. Sherline on July 23, 2011 at 10:58 am
“Alleged” has become perhaps the most overworked and misused word in the American lexicon. No longer used just to protect the rights of an accused when referring to a crime, it has become so ubiquitous that it is often used even when commenting about someone who has actually been convicted of or confessed to committing a serious crime, such as rape or murder.
The attempted terrorist bombing of the Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009 and the statements by the Obama administration, including the president himself, highlight the degree to which Political Correctness (PC) has overrun our culture: “A person was detained by customs at Detroit Metro Airport on Friday following Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s alleged attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, according to a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.”
It was an “alleged attack” notwithstanding the fact that the man seriously burned himself in the act and was clearly attempting to blow up the airplane as it was landing.
To illustrate just how silly this looks on closer inspection, consider the following examples:
Shortly after the man who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was taken into custody, T.V. news accounts were referring to him as the “alleged” gunman. Never mind that he was overpowered and disarmed at the scene of the crime.
When Major Nidal Hassan shot over 30 people at Fort Hood, Ga, in November 2009, he was wounded by a policewoman who happened to be in the audience, but news reports after the incident frequently referred to him as the “alleged” shooter.
The idea, of course, is to protect the rights of the accused, but referring to clearly guilty criminals as “alleged” doesn’t really protect anyone. No one is fooled. Given the blanket news coverage that high profile trials usually involve, the excessive use of the word “alleged” seems like overkill to me.
My question is: Does using the word “alleged” in every reference to a crime really protect the rights of a suspect or the accused, especially in those instances where the criminal has openly confessed?
I seriously doubt that it changes the opinion of the public, who are discerning enough to know that the use of the word “alleged” doesn’t really protect anyone’s rights. Chances are, even the most fair-minded observers form their opinion based on the circumstances involved, notwithstanding media’s efforts to appear fair and unbiased.
A quick Google search turned up the following examples of the use of the word “allegedly” in the news:
“$50K bail set for woman who allegedly put baby in trash.”
The Seattle Times
“Jasmine Marie Ritchey, of South Bend in Pacific County, allegedly hid the baby boy under the plastic liner of a garbage can. Ritchey, 23, is being held at…”
“Allegedly Intoxicated Teens Crash Car Into Tree”
Patch.com
“Army private arrested after C4 allegedly found in luggage”
CNN
“…an unruly passenger allegedly karate chops air marshal”
CNN articles.cnn.com
“CIA allegedly bought flawed software for attacks”
|InSecurity …news.cnet.com.
“The agency allegedly bought flawed targeting software for drone missile attacks–software it knew was faulty, and that could misdirect…
“
“David Prosser Allegedly Grabbed Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice…”
www.huffingtonpost.com
“Wisconsin state Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed one of his colleagues around the neck prior to the court’s recent…”
“Nicki Minaj – Allegedly Attacked In Hotel Fight”
www.tmz.com
Jul 12, 2011 – “Rapper Nicki Minaj told authorities she was “struck” in the lower lip by a man during a heated argument at a swanky Dallas, TX hotel…”
“N.C. Man Allegedly Robs Bank of $1 to Get Health Care in Jail…”
abcnews.go.com…Jun 20, 2011
“James Verone, 59, says he robbed a Charlotte bank to get health care in prison.”
“Seattle Police on Hunt for Gunman Who Allegedly Killed 1, Injured…”
www.foxnews.com/…/seattle-police-on-hunt-for-gunman-who-allegedly
Jul 14, 2011 – “Police are still looking for the man who walked up to some parked cars in south Seattle and shot four people, killing one and wounding…”
These are just some of the examples that illustrate how often the word “allegedly” is inappropriately used in media reports.
© 2011 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Tax Loopholes
By Harris R. Sherline on July 20, 2011 at 10:47 am
“Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.” - - Judge Learned Hand (1872-1961), U.S. Court of Appeals (Gregory v. Helvering, 2nd Cir 1934).
Just about everyone complains about tax “loopholes,” by which they usually mean “loopholes” for the “rich.” The word is routinely used by politicians and pundits to influence public opinion, always without any explanation or clarification. It’s an ideal smokescreen that obfuscates and confuses the electorate in an effort to influence them to support a particular cause or politician or tax legislation, or berate “greedy” businesspeople. It has become an all-purpose elixir, fit for whatever grievance is popular at the moment.
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Third Edition, 2002) defines tax loophole as “A provision in the laws governing taxation that allows people to reduce their taxes. The term has the connotation of an unintentional omission or obscurity in the law that allows the reduction of tax liability to a point below that intended by the framers of the law.”
In fact, one man’s (or woman’s) tax loophole may be another’s legitimate deduction.
Most people have no real understanding of what tax loopholes are and how they are created. “Loophole” implies some sinister, perhaps even illegal, manipulation of the tax laws for personal gain or advantage, although they are generally created for specific purposes.
Looking further at tax “loopholes” and some of the so-called “advantages” that are implied by the term, the following points are worth noting:
1. Tax “loopholes” are created by the same politicians who employ the term for political purposes. However, they are often really just an error or oversight in the tax laws that some sharp-shooting tax advisor discovers was somehow overlooked by the legislators or the IRS. In other words, they are perfectly legal.
2. Tax laws are an instrument of public policy. In addition to generating money for the public treasury, they are often designed to accomplish some specific social or economic purpose, such as encouraging certain industries to invest in equipment or expand in an effort to stimulate the economy. Examples of this are found in such tax deductions as the mortgage interest deduction for homeowners, the depletion allowance for the oil and gas industries, depreciation of business equipment, rapid write-off of computers or automobiles purchased for business use.
3. One legal deduction that is sometimes considered a “loophole,” is the charitable deduction, which was created to encourage charitable giving. This includes the various types of trusts that enable taxpayers to avoid or minimize estate taxes, which many people also seem to think are also “loopholes.”
4. Most people do not realize that the tax laws are written by Congress or the various state legislatures, not the IRS or the state tax agencies. After tax bills have been signed into law, the tax authorities define the rules (regulations) that they determine are necessary to clarify the intent of the laws and to enforce them.
5. It is widely recognized that our tax laws are far too complex and burdensome. But, what is not fully understood or appreciated is the fact that most “loopholes” are a result of complexities that are created by the efforts of tax authorities to define specific taxable events. In other words, the tax laws have become so complicated that certain legal write-offs or deductions can often be found that the authors did not foresee or intend. When tax rules are developed, the law of unintended consequences invariably rears its ugly head. The result is more complexity, as they attempt to “fix” the problem or problems they themselves have created. This is one of the reasons the federal income tax laws, rules and regulations now require almost 73,000 pages to document.
An interesting example of a tax “loophole” that received considerable media coverage in 2007 involved The Blackstone Group, a large corporate buyout firm. The case is a good illustration of the law of unintended consequences and how it is possible to find ways to minimize income tax liability by taking advantage of the way in which certain tax laws are written and implemented.
Writing in the New York Times (July 13, 2007), David Cay Johnston noted, “…the Blackstone arrangement…was a reminder of the disconnect between the tax debate in Congress and how the tax system actually operates at the highest levels of the economy…The debate in Congress is about whether most of the compensation that fund managers earn should be taxed at the 35 percent rate that applies to other highly paid Americans, or at the 15 percent rate for capital gains.” The issue involved had to do with the tax treatment of the sale of the goodwill of a business. There certainly was nothing illegal involved in this case, which had to do with paying taxes on $3.7 billion from selling shares of the entity to the public.
In the final analysis, tax “loopholes” are tax advantages that benefit others. When we (you and I) benefit from them, they are called legitimate deductions. As Russell B. Long, U.S. Senator (D-LA, 1918-2003) put it, a tax loophole is “something that benefits the other guy. If it benefits you, it is tax reform.”
© 2011 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
The Entitlement Mentality
By Harris R. Sherline on July 17, 2011 at 6:16 pm
What’s in a name? A lot, sometimes everything. For example, consider the term, “entitlement.”
We hear a lot about “entitlements” and “rights” these days. In general, they mean the same thing, but what is generally implied is a demand. That is, a demand that is made for some benefit or privilege, rightly or wrongly, which is not necessarily supported by law and certainly not by the Constitution.
In a word, an “entitlement” is a right.
Wikipedia defines entitlement “as a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A “right” is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an “entitlement” is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle (”rights”) which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement….In a casual sense, the term ‘entitlement’ refers to a notion or belief that one (or oneself) is deserving of some particular reward or benefit if given without deeper legal or principled cause, the term is often given with pejorative connotation (e.g. a ‘sense of entitlement’)…As a legal term, entitlement carries no value judgment: it simply denotes a right granted.”
The two big “entitlements” that a significant percentage of the American population are currently claiming are Social Security and Medicare (or Medicaid), neither of which are “rights,” although many people now believe they are.
Considering the structural problems with both programs, there is little doubt that they will be unable to pay future beneficiaries as promised.
Social Security is already running a deficit and, contrary to the hype of our politicians, there is no money in the so-called Social Security Trust Fund, only IOU’s for the funds that have been taken and used to run the federal government for years. In 2000, the Office of Management and Budget said, “These balances are available to finance future benefit payments…only in a bookkeeping sense. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.”
The 2009 Social Security Trustees’ report projected that Social Security will owe $7.4 trillion after the year 2083, which will create a permanent deficit of $15.1 trillion.
So, all the talk these days about making social security payments to seniors is just political hype, and when Obama said (on July 12) that he could not guarantee Social Security checks will go out to retirees on August 3, he was probably well aware that there is money in the Social Security trust fund to make the payments.
Because people generally want something for nothing, they believe the claims that are made by politicians that Social Security is in good shape. Unfortunately, the facts don’t support this assertion. There are 145 million people in the workforce, and some 40 million seniors are receiving Social Security. But, 80 million baby boomers are beginning to retire, which will leave just 65 million people to support them all. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to see that this won’t work.
As for Medicare, the situation is even worse. When the program was established in 1966, the cost was predicted to increase to $12 trillion a year by 1990. However, the cost actually turned out to be $107 trillion by that year. In 2009, it was $484 trillion, and the program is now $25 trillion in the hole.
Calling Social Security and Medicare “entitlements” or “rights” is really a distinction without a difference, and making threats not to send out Social Security checks when there is no money in the trust fund is just another example of political intimidation and lying.
The unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable, and unless these programs are changed they will eventually destroy America.
© 2011 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Guest Commentary
By Harris R. Sherline on July 13, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Why Are Americans So Unhappy?
Anonymous
(Courtesy of Rich Sapp)
‘The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3’s of the citizenry just ain’t happy and want a change.
So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ”What are we so unhappy about?”
Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?
Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?
Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?
Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.
Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provides services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings.
Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.
This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?
Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are: The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don’t have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating?
Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks?
The Commander-In Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn’t take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?
Think about it…are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR
is it because the ‘Media’ told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn’t have to go.
They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ”general” discharge, an ”other than honorable” discharge or, worst case scenario, a ”dishonorable” discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it on the media.
If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner?
The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by ‘justifying’ them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about ‘how he didn’t kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way’…Insane!
Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.
‘With hurricanes,tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, ‘Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?’
Conventional Wisdom
By Harris R. Sherline on July 10, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Every generation has its own beliefs that are considered the conventional wisdom of their time. However, what is generally not recognized is that today’s wisdom is often revealed as ignorant or foolish by history. The benefit of hindsight can make all-seeing seers of everyone.
For example, the Maginot Line, which was built by the French as a defense against Hitler’s advancing German army. It was intended to be an impregnable line across the French border. And, so it was. However, they failed to take into account the German tanks, which simply went around the static line of defense. Looking back, it seems so obvious as to appear stupid. But, it was merely the failure of one of the basic premises of warfare at the time.
Examples of other types of conventional wisdom that have ultimately proved to be wrong include:
•Terrorism is best addressed by U.S. disarmament, negotiation, law enforcement and foreign aid.
•Nick Berg’s death was the fault of the American military.
•Abu Ghraib is an indictment of American culture.
•The Israelis are the real villains in the Middle East.
•People in other countries hate us for good reason.
•Islam is a religion of peace.
•Truth is relative and facts are not reliable.
•Columbine was the fault of the military industrial complex and the NRA.
•Racism is a Republican pastime.
•Most of the problems in the world can be laid at the doorstep of white American males.
•Hollywood is enlightened.
•Violence begets violence, except on TV and in movies and contemporary music.
•We invaded Iraq primarily to secure access to oil.
•It is criminal to expect people to work, earn a living, take care of their families and take responsibility for their own actions.
•Capitalism is obviously inferior to socialism.
•The American Republic is a failed democracy.
•9/11 was something America deserved for her crimes against the third world.
•The U.N. will save us.
•Europeans are smarter and more sophisticated than Americans.
•President Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Condolezza Rice and Colin Powell are all liars..
•The earth is warming so we need to shut down industry and ride bicycles.
•The spotted owl is more important than jobs and wood products for home building and thousands of other products.
•Castro is just trying to do the right thing. If he has done anything wrong, it’s America’s fault.
•The killing fields in Cambodia were America’s fault.
•Sudan is America’s fault.
•The Israelis are squatters. They created a Palestinian ghetto.
•We should try to understand Hamas and Hezbollah because after all they are simply trying to free the faultless Palestinians.
•Americans are the bad guys.
•Christians are bigots.
•Radical Muslims are just different.
•The real reason for the Patriot Act is to erode our civil rights so the Republicans can take over.
•Republicans manipulate election results by electronically manipulating polling places.
•There is a vast right wing conspiracy to rule the world.
•Rwanda was just a misunderstanding, a lack of information, and confusion about the definition of “genocide.”
•Hillary Clinton would make a great president, because, well…just because, and she’s a woman.
•Tax cuts are only for the wealthy.
•Criminals just need more understanding.
•Entitlement programs emerging out of Johnson’s Great Society will solve the poverty problem.
•Who needs God when we have our own brains to rely upon!
•Public education should be in the exclusive hands of the NEA because they have master’s degrees.
•Everything is relative.
•Truth is an illusion.
•If you’re wealthy, you’re a pirate.
•There is no such thing as evil, except making a profit in business.
•Vietnam was Nixon’s war.
•God is a crutch manufactured by the intellectually lame.
•People in the Third World are always right so long as they oppose America.
•Tolerance is paramount, but it’s rational to be intolerant of conservatives and Christians because they’re either nuts or selfish or both.
•Diversity is to be celebrated as long as you agree with us.
•If you disagree with leftist philosophies you are an uneducated moron.
The list of the so-called truths is endless, most of which if not all eventually prove to be wrong.
© 2011 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Guest Commentary
By Harris R. Sherline on July 7, 2011 at 11:09 am
What Muslim Heritage?
(from The American Jingoist blog)
Barack OBAMA, during his Cairo speech, said: “I know, too, that Islam has always been a part
of America’s story.”
AN AMERICAN CITIZEN’S RESPONSE:
Dear Mr.Obama:
Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed? Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.
Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.
Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution?
Declaration of Independence?
Bill of Rights?
Didn’t think so.
Did Muslims fight for this country’s freedom from England? No.
Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America? No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery. Your own half brother, a devout Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black Muslims as “pug nosed slaves.” Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family’s “rich Islamic heritage,” doesn’t it Mr. Obama?
Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not present.
There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil
Rights.
Where were Muslims during this country’s Woman’s Suffrage era? Again, not present. In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the ‘hajib’ or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband. Yep, the Muslims are all for women’s rights, aren’t they?
Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi’s in killing Jews.
Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001? If they weren’t flying planes into the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East. No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day. Strangely, the very “moderate” Muslims who’s asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo, Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.
And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the “rich heritage” Muslims have here in America .
Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates. They were Muslim.
And now we can add November 5, 2009 - the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim Army major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist (and incidentally one of your advisers during your campaign for president), who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan .
That, Mr. Obama is the “Muslim heritage” in America
-
Publisher/Editor
-
Spread the Word!
Help us spread the word about our site by bookmarking OPINIONFEST with your favorite social bookmarking application.
-
Sponsors & Partners
Interested in sponsoring or partnering with Opinionfest? Get in touch with Harris to let us know how you can help!
