American Daughter - Multimedia journalism with articles,pictures and graphics, podcast audio and video,slide presentations, live-blogging of events, and webcasting
California Chronicle - Published daily The California Chronicle brings you the top news and commentary of the day throughout the Central Coast, the State and the Nation.
Real Clear Politics - One of America’s premier independent political web sites. Updated every morning and throughout the day, RCP culls and publishes the best commentary, news, polling data, and links to important resources from all points of the political compass and coveri
TownHall - Townhall.com is designed to amplify conservative voices in America’s political debates just as the 2006 and 2008 election cycles begin to heat up.
Working Senior - The National Association of Working Seniors
With all the talk about minorities in this country and the heat that is so often generated by the topic, have you ever thought about where you fit? Are you a member of some minority group and, if so, how has it affected your life, your beliefs and values, your perceptions of others, your friends and associates, your job or profession, your expectations and, of course, your day to day activities.
Even if you have never thought of yourself as a member of a minority group, chances are, when you examine the details of your personal circumstances, you will find that you are. Consider just some of the many and varied categories that apply.
Ethnic: Asian, Hispanic, Native American, Indian, East Indian, African, etc.
Race: White, Black, Asian, other
Gender: Male, female, gay
Religion: Christianity (about 33% of the world’s population, including Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Oriental Orthodoxy, Latter-day Saint, Seventh Day Adventist, Nestorianism, etc.), Islam (about 20% of the world’s population, Sunni and Shia), Hinduism (13%), Chinese fold religion (6.3%), or Buddhism (5.9%). Atheist and other non-believers are about 14% of the world’s population. Other religions, such as Sikhism, Judaism, Baha’i, Janism, Shinto and others, each represent about one-half-of-one percent of the world’s population. There are many more types and categories of religions and religious beliefs, but this illustrates the multitude of those that most people generally follow.
In the United States, we seem to have elevated the issue of minorities, who is and who is not part of a minority group, to a major if not THE primary consideration in a wide variety of choices. Decisions, such as college entrance and employment criteria, employee relations, customer relations, housing, business associations, friendships, pretty much every aspect of American life.
Our laws have become such a labyrinth of complex considerations that we are forced to navigate in making decisions about hiring, firing and disciplining employees, making public statements, and membership in service clubs and other groups, among others. All decision making, personal, public and business, must be processed through a minefield of potentially risky options, with the consequences of making a poor or incorrect decision ranging from loss of one’s position or status to being sued to public approbation.
The New York Times reported in an August 14, 2008 article, “William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, said that by the 2028 presidential election, racial and ethnic minorities will constitute a majority of adults between the ages of 18 and 29 for the first times…When the first census was conducted in 1790, about 64 percent of the people counted were white…By 1900, about 9 in 10 Americans were non-Hispanic white, most of European ancestry.
America.gov noted in August 2008, “By 2050, minorities – those who identify themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander or mixed race – will account for 54 percent of the U.S. population…” And, U.S. Census Bureau statistics show that about 10 percent of the nation’s 3,000 plus counties have already reached the point where they are over 50 percent minority population.
Almost everything in American life is influenced by minority status and, up to now, the primary characteristic of majority-minority status has been based on race, which has been dominated by whites, who have outnumbered all other groups. But, what happens when the current minority becomes the majority? This is already the situation in California, which has been heavily impacted by the influx of Hispanics from south of the border. Furthermore, population projections indicate that by the year 2023 the majority of all American children under the age of 18 will be so-called minorities, and by 2039 minorities will comprise the majority of all working-age Americans.
So, what happens when whites are in the minority? Will they then qualify for favored treatment under our laws? Will they be given preferential treatment in college admissions, employment, housing and other matters? Should they?
Will we ultimately reach the point where a white minority demands the same legal advantages and benefits that have been woven into the fabric of our society in the effort to level the playing field and make amends for past wrongs? We are already seeing some evidence of this in lawsuits for reverse discrimination. The Liberty Lounge recently reported, “The U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday it would hear the reverse discrimination case appealed from lower courts by 20 New Haven firefighters who claimed they were denied the opportunity for a promotion because of their race.”
We will undoubtedly see many more of these types of cases as the current majority continues to move further toward minority status.
The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Parties drew national attention for a brief period in the recent news cycle. It was an interesting exercise in peaceful public gatherings to protest government policies, the sort of assemblies that our nation’s Founders envisioned. It was inspiring to many Americans, not just those who attended the estimated 2,000 plus gatherings, but also to substantial numbers of those Americans who did not participate directly in the rallies.
The Tea Party crowds have been estimated as totaling around 250,000 people who felt the need to be heard. I did not attend any of the Parties because one was not organized in the community where I live. However, I listened on the radio and followed their activities with great interest. I may not have been there to protest in person, but I emphatically agree with the message they were expressing.
Columnist Michelle Malkin, who attended the Tea Party in Sacramento, CA, noted: “Let’s use liberal math to calculate attendance at last week’s nationwide Tax Day Tea Party protests. When Left-wing activists make crowd estimates, the algorithm is: six figures = one million. An incomplete survey of newspaper accounts and organizer estimates pegged the Tea Party protest population at a minimum of 250,000. We can now, therefore, officially call it the Million Taxpayer March. Or the Million Right-Wing Extremists March if you work for the Department of Homeland Security.”
Media coverage was mixed. The leading liberal news sources (The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, ABC, CBS and NBC, etc.) viewed the Tea Parties as an exercise in futility, ginned up by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other right-wing “extremists.” CNN joined them in excoriating and denigrating those who attended.
These media organizations, and it appears most of those who work for them, simply did not understand the message, claiming that only those who oppose Obama and voted against him participated, or that the Tea Parties were only about taxes and “taxation without representation.”
In a further effort to marginalize those who participated in the Tea Parties, critics stressed the point that the tax policies of the Obama administration are taxation WITH representation. Other assertions about the Tea Party crowds included such characterizations as not including any minorities, specifically blacks and Hispanics, or Democrats and people who voted for Obama. The critics were not only wrong but they have also been unwilling to look beyond their own biases.
Newt Gingrich noted, “Liberal politicians and pundits did their best to discredit the Tea Parties by describing them, first, as a partisan Republican movement, and, second, as a revolt of greedy old rich people who don’t want to pay more income tax.”
Actress Janeane Garofalo said on CNN: “It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. (Empahasis mine). That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks…”
And, Paul Begala, a CNN contributing commentator, wrote the Tea Party protestors off, saying, “Why are they out there whining with this Tea Party thing? Just a bunch of wimpy, whiney, weasels who don’t love their country…”
However, columnist Mark Steyn offered a different perspective on the motivation behind the protests when he said, “Like the original tea party, it is in the end about freedom. Live tea or die!”
I believe that what we witnessed on April 15 was an outpouring of concern by tens of thousands of Americans who were protesting the unbridled spending and excessive debt being created by Obama’s policies. There was no discrimination involved. It was just a spontaneous demonstration of concern by working Americans.
The Tea Party protests clearly demonstrated that people from all walks of life, both liberal and conservative working Americans, understand that we cannot spend our way to prosperity by borrowing and printing money, which they believe is a sure path to the destruction of our way of life. They see what the Obama administration is doing, and they don’t like it.
But, the Tea Parties were only a beginning. If the protestors do not become organized and focus on specific objectives, they will prove to have been just a temporary outpouring of concern.
The following message recently circulated on the Internet. I received it from one of my email friends, and I don’t know if it is real or simply the result of some creative writer’s effort to make a point. As far as I know, it has not been checked on Snopes or any other similar website to determine if it’s true. However, I don’t think it matters, because it conveys a vital message that is understood and appreciated by far too few Americans today. - HRS
“This morning I was at Wal-Mart and I overheard a couple of associates talking about how the company executives “don’t do any work.” I was tempted to say something but decided against it since it would have been a wasted effort to convince them otherwise. Later, as I was reading the news, I ran across this letter (http://www.boortz.com/) that was recently written by an employer to his employees. In it, he describes all that he went through to get where he is. He sheds a lot of light on those things the employees never see. Finally, he lays out his potential future course of action regarding his company should he be taxed any more than he already is. In his proposed action, you will see the end result of Obama’s punishment of America’s achievers. I’d love to show this to the two women I overheard this morning.”
To All My Valued Employees,
There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn’t pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country.
However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests.
First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You’ve seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I’m sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.
However, what you don’t see is the back story.
I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.
My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn’t have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.
Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom’s for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn’t look like it was birthed in the 70’s. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.
So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don’t. There is no “off” button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden — the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations… You never realize the back story and the sacrifices I’ve made.
Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn’t. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.
Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I’ve paid is steep and not without wounds.
Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:
I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don’t pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my “stimulus” check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.
The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.
The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you’d quit and you wouldn’t work here. I mean, why should you? That’s nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.
Here is what many of you don’t understand … to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn’t need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.
When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don’t defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.
So where am I going with all this?
It’s quite simple.
If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child’s future. Frankly, it isn’t my problem any more.
Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I’m done. I’m done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.
If you lose your job, it won’t be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about….
A commentary about the stimulus bill in the Orange County Register noted: “There are more fundamental reasons to doubt whether throwing more money at a problem largely if not entirely caused by loose money and government incentives and mandates to overspend and over lend will yield the kind of recovery that President-elect Barack Obama and most Americans would dearly love to see. In his speech on the economy and his stimulus package Thursday…the president-elect declared that ‘only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe.’”
“The unspoken assumption behind such a statement is that government has a virtually inexhaustible supply of money that can be deployed without having deleterious side effects, only beneficial ones. The problem, of course, is that government has no money of its own, only the money it takes by force from the productive sector of society or it borrows and must pay back with taxes extracted from our children and grandchildren. In the private marketplace economic transactions take place only if both (or all) parties believe they benefit.” (Emphasis mine).
“Such private, profit-making activity, as most of American history demonstrates, involves not simply the redistribution of existing wealth but creation of new wealth. Increased government spending, however financed, takes money from the private wealth-generating sector of society and allocates it to projects not on the basis of their capacity to be economically self-sustaining, but on the basis of their political attractiveness…[A] government ’stimulus’ can only be accomplished by taking money away from genuinely economically productive activity. Pumping dollars that will eventually be worth less than they are today into various projects may provide some short-term relief or appearance of relief. But only the private sector can actually create wealth and thereby stimulate genuine economic growth. This seems pretty elementary, but most people in Washington have powerful incentives to ignore elementary truths.”
It’s a common misperception that, in the interest of fairness, the “rich” should be taxed to pay for the government programs politicians favor, for whatever reason. However, looking beyond the simplistic slogan of “taxing the rich,” the question is just how much money can be generated this way?
Looking at the situation from another perspective, we can get a clue from the September 2008 Forbes’ list of the 400 Richest Americans. The top five were: Bill Gates (Microsoft), $57 billion; Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway, $50 billion; Lawrence Ellison (Oracle), $27.0 billion; Jim Walton (Wal-Mart), $23.4 billion; and S. Robson Walton (Wal-Mart), $23.3 billion – a total of $180.7 billion.
Their portfolios have no doubt lost value as the market crashed but, assuming their holdings are now worth only fifty percent of their previous value, they would still have a combined net worth of around $90 billion.
Based on the administration’s proposed 2009 budget of $3.5 trillion, if the government took everything these five richest Americans have, it would run the government for only about ten days.
The Orange County Register has it right. Private enterprise does not redistribute wealth, it creates new wealth, whereas increased government spending can only be accomplished by taking money from the “private wealth-generating sector of society.” The more money government takes and spends, the less there is available for business and industry to grow and create jobs. When the situation reaches the point where the government is spending more than it takes in and finances the excess outgo by borrowing or printing money, the inevitable result is inflation. Just how much inflation and how fast it happens depends on the ratio of the borrowing to the size of the economy. The more the borrowing or printing of money, the more inflation occurs. If it’s too much too fast, hyperinflation results.
Germany after WW I, Argentina in the 1980s and Zimbabwe today offer clear warning about this risk. Unfortunately, most of today’s politicians are economically ignorant and seem to think they can somehow repeal the laws of economics and continue to spend without suffering the consequences. That won’t happen, and higher rates of inflation are sure to follow. You won’t like it.
Why are politicians and government employees so often referred to as being in “public service,” as if they are making some great sacrifice to work for the government?
We live in the era of the professional politician. “Public service” has become a career choice, and one that pays far better than most politicians could earn on their own, along with benefits and retirement plans that generally exceed anything the average taxpayer in the private sector receives.
From my perspective, what I see in politics are people who, for the most part, make a career of being on a government payroll while the rest of the population pays the tab. They often talk about the financial and career sacrifices they make, yet the combination of their compensation and benefits are often better than those in business and industry, without being subjected to comparable market risks.
In fact, most politicians probably could not earn a better living in another field. Yet, they persist in giving themselves raises, or establishing systems that make their raises automatic, without having to declare themselves by voting on their own pay increases.
As far as I’m concerned, this is absolute nonsense. Perhaps the most offensive aspect is the fact that their compensation is not related in any way to performance. They get paid the same no matter how well or how poorly they manage the “people’s business” that they so often talk about.
In May, 1999, Gary Ruskin, Director of the Congressional Accountability Project, stated in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives that a 1996 Roll Call study found that “all but six of the 73 newly elected House Members will receive large pay hikes when they take office, compared with their previous employment. . . During the last thirteen years, Congressional salaries grew by $42,900 – more than $15,000 above inflation.”
Based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, in 2006 the average annual earnings of four professions: teachers, software engineers, accountants and doctors, makes the case very clearly: Estimated average annual compensation for elementary school teachers was $48,700 a year; for software engineers, it was $82,000; for accountants and auditors, $60,700 was the number; and for doctors, it was $142,200.
Contrasting these income figures with the current $174,000 annual compensation of rank and file members of the U.S. House and Senate, it’s clear that, by any standard, most politicians receive a pay raise when they are elected to Congress, even compared with some of the higher paying professions.
Most Californians are not aware that their legislators currently earn over $145,000 a year, while the average annual per capita income of the state’s residents is only about $39,000. People’s Advocate, Inc. has reported that, “California legislators are now the highest paid state officials in America!” Our “public servants” in California receive an annual salary of $116,208 plus a tax free “per diem” allowance of $100 a day (about $30,000 a year), an annual allowance of $5,400 towards a state-leased automobile, plus insurance, along with other perks. In addition, they are allowed to earn outside income over and above their pay as legislators – as lawyers, doctors, accountants, insurance brokers, whatever.
Contrast the numbers above with other states, such as Alabama, which pays its legislators only $10 a day, or North Carolina at $13,951, South Dakota at $12,000 for two sessions, Texas at $7,200 or Nebraska’s $12,000 annual compensation.
Furthermore, government employees, at least in California, have established a seemingly foolproof system of guaranteeing regular increases in their salaries and benefits, by surveying their counterparts in other governmental entities, i.e., municipal, county, etc., then adjusting their own employee compensation programs accordingly. The other cities and counties do the same, and the process goes on continuously, constantly surveying and comparing themselves to other governmental entities and granting increases based on the results, which then become the basis for the other agencies to approve their own increases, in a never ending cycle of increasing compensation.
Life in the public sector is not necessarily always easy, it’s just not as underpaid as it is so often made out to be, and “public service” has really become just another a career path in itself.
Perhaps Mark Twain said it best when he observed, “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly Native American criminal class except Congress.”
Still in the so-called “honeymoon” phase of his presidency, Barack Obama’s actions are already echoing his campaign rhetoric, “Words, Just Words,” demonstrating that his own promises are also “just words.”
A long standing maxim in business and politics is: Pay attention what people do, not what they say. Read the following and judge the honesty and integrity of our president for yourself:
Obama: “If a federal agency proposes a project that will waste that money, I will not hesitate to call them out on it and put a stop to it. What I will need from all of you is unprecedented responsibility and accountability.”
Question: Where’s the Obama administration’s transparency in accounting for the trillions of dollars it has been spending?
Obama: “The American people are watching. They need this plan to work. They expect to see the money that they’ve earned, that they’ve worked so hard to earn, spent in its intended purposes without waste, without inefficiency, without fraud.”
Comment: To date, there has been no accountability, zero, none, nada, for the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been given to the financial industry.
Obama: “We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration or the next generation.”
Comment: Since taking office, Obama has done exactly what he said could not and would not be done.
Obama: “…when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”
Reality: The $410 billion omnibus spending budget bill that the president signed contained over 8,500 “earmarks.”
Obama: “…this piece of legislation ($410 billion omnibus spending bill) must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.”
Really! When can we expect to see the accountability that Obama has promised?
Obama: “I will immediately sign a law that begins to phase out all incandescent light bulbs. It’s a pretty simple task to implement, given it could save all of us Americans $6 billion a year.”
Note: Politifact.com comments, “…after 50 days with no action, we count that as a promise broken.”
Obama: “When I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”
Politifact.com notes, “…with about 9,000 earmarks in the omnibus spending bill, our stance is promise broken because when you say no earmarks, that means absolutely no earmarks.”
Another issue President Obama felt strongly about on the campaign trail, a pay as you go budget, meaning big spending commitments must be paid for by cuts elsewhere or by other new revenue has proven to be “just words,” as he plunged the United States into trillions of dollars of debt to finance the unbridled expenditures of his administration.
Obama: “I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq…”
Note: Army planners have privately acknowledged that the number of Americans remaining in Iraq could range between 30,000 and 50,000, even as high as 70,000 troops for a considerable length of time beyond 2011.
The Wall Street Journal observed: “Anyone who thought the recession and financial market turmoil would moderate President Obama’s policy ambitions discovered the opposite last night. Far from suggesting limits on Congress or federal spending, the new President made clear in his first State of the Union address that he believes in government power as the answer to our current difficulties, and he intends to use it…Mr. Obama said at one point that he didn’t believe in government for its own sake, but his policy emphasis showed otherwise. … Mr. Obama clearly believes the recession has created a political moment when Americans are frightened enough to be open to a new era of expanded government.”
In his article, “Obamanomics: Keeping The Wrong Promises,” Austin Hill noted: “The President’s inconsistencies have become so egregious that Peter Whener of Washington, DC’s Ethics And Public Policy Center was compelled last week to describe Obama as an ‘agent of cynicism.’ Writing in Commentary magazine, Wehner stated that Obama is pretending that ‘the politics of cynicism’ is the ‘politics of hope,’ and is displaying a willingness to ‘vulgarize and invert the meaning of words’ so as to advance his own ‘narrow aims.’”
usa online gambling? Play Online Blackjack For Money Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Australia Gambling online blackjack in usa
play online casino!
usa online gambling? Roulette Software Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Gambling In Michigan online blackjack in usa
play online casino! Playtech Bingo
