And the Band Played On

[Editorial Notes: What you're about to read is scary. It's meant to be. It's not a movie, its real life. This is happening and some of the outcomes are inevitable. If you're scared at the end of this piece, good. Do something about it. Get involved and tell your representatives to start building lifeboats.]

On Monday, the financial world (cue the eye-rolling "not again" reactions) was stunned by the announcement from ratings giant Standard and Poor's that it has downgraded the financial outlook of the United States.

Most people on the street metaphorically shrugged their shoulders and said, "So?" I'm going to answer that question by continuing an allegory that I'm using with the people I meet.

Last November, I likened the U.S. economy to the Titanic. I spoke about the QE2, "Quantitative Easing", as being akin to applying full power to the economic ship while headed straight for the iceberg. Extending that metaphor, yesterday's announcement was that we've not only hit the iceberg, but, as Titanic's builder Thomas Andrews told Captain Smith, "We have about two hours," -- the ship of the United States is sinking and the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

You see, what this means is the Wall Street -- Thomas Andrews -- is finally acknowledging what analysts -- Frederick Fleet, the lookout -- have been warning of for years: there's an iceberg looming and we're going to hit it. In fact, we have hit it. And now we're "down by the bow."

For years, Captain Smith (successive administrations) and J. Bruce Ismay (Congress) have been blithely ignoring the ice warnings issued by numerous other ships (Greece, Spain, Portugal and the E.U.) have issued and have instead confidently sailed directly into ice fields with "full steam ahead." And yet, as I noted above, they are "stunned" when the ship hits an iceberg.

In the case of the Titanic, Captain Smith was, by many reports, so distraught and unbelieving that he was almost, at times, catatonic and paralyzed into inaction. And our leaders, and Wall Street, are now having the exact same reaction.

On the Titanic, Captain Smith told his officers not to "panic the passengers" by telling them to muster on the boat decks. In the United States, the Obama administration and a compliant media is focusing on so-called "recovery stories" and partisan wrangling.

But they're not the only ones. In our own state of Wisconsin, which like the Federal Government, is bankrupt (yes, that's right, both have no money - literally, not figuratively), the Unions and state workers are scrambling over each other to scream about their "rights". As the ships of state sink out from under their feet, they're only concern is, like those first class ladies on the doomed Titanic, that they are "properly dressed for the occasion."

In hindsight, its easy to see the series of miscalculations, mistakes and accidents that lead to the sinking of the grand ship. Its easy for us to shake our heads and make the judgement, "Couldn't they see they didn't have enough lifeboats? How stupid!" And yet our governments have done the exact same thing.

The British Board of Trade regulations in 1912 required only that one have lifeboats according to the tonnage of the ship, regardless of the number of actual passengers. It was an outdated and outmoded way of thinking with disasterous consequences.

Likewise, our governments have been following the Keynesian model of economics which prescribes that governments spend money to stimulate the economy. It is an outdated and outmoded way of thinking with disasterous consequences.

Even China, often touted as the superpower of this century that will eclipse the United States, has subscribed to this discredited economic theory and is soon to face its own massive financial crisis.

On the evening of April 12, 1912, there were no ships (save the Californian, whose radio was off) close enough to Titanic to affect a rescue. Likewise, given the current state of affairs in Europe and the impending Chinese meltdown, there is no one to save the United States. Its up to the passengers, each and every citizen, to make the officers, our legislators, take immediate action to save as many as possible.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have hit the iceberg. We are sinking. The builder Mr. Andrews has admitted that we are going down. The question now isn't "how do we save the ship", the question is, will we have enough lifeboats for everyone. And given that our government plans as well as J. Bruce Ismay, the answer isn't encouraging. It is up to each of us, regardless if First Class or Steerage, white collar or Unions, to take our fiscal lives and those of our fellow passengers in our own hands. We are all in the same sinking boat.

I am sending this column to my legislators at both the state and Federal level. I am going to hound them about priorities and building life rafts. And I'm making sure my own life jacket (my financial "house") is secure. What are YOU doing?

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

The Tax System - Explained With Beer

Special thanks to Mike N. for sending me this column:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

• The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
• The fifth would pay $1.
• The sixth would pay $3.
• The seventh would pay $7.
• The eighth would pay $12.
• The ninth would pay $18.
• The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men -- the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

• The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
• The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) .
• The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .
• The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
• The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
• The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

It's Gotta Work Sometime

You have to wonder, sometimes, about how sly some of these despots really are. President Obama received a letter from Qaddaffi begging him to stop bombing Libya. Ok, nothing new there... but just read the letter (new window) (here's the beginning):

Our son, Excellency,

President Obama

U.S.A

We have been hurt more morally that physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you. Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the U.S.A. We Endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaigne.

I gotta say, it reminded me of this (new window):

From: Pastor Kothapalli Prabhakara Rao
Subject: fellowship
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:14:57 +0000 (GMT)

Dear in Christ,
I greet you in the precious name of Jesus. I praise God that He has
privileged me to send this email to you for your kind co-operation to
spread the Gospel and save the perishing soul.
You do not know me, but it has happened for me to find your e-mail
address on the internet. Please for give me for my intrusion like this. I
am Pastor. K.Prabhakara Rao.

Now give Qaddafi some credit. Obama's giving everyone else money, why not him??

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

My Job is Your Job is Our Job

The local, state and even national media spent quite a bit of time this winter on the budget battle in the state of Wisconsin. In a very short time, the 60's wanna-be's drummed up sit-ins, walk-outs, websites, chain letters and all of the other hallmarks of "activism". Hours of airtime and reams of pages were devoted to the small but vocal groups of protesters and their antics. They shouted their vitriolic rhetoric from every possible venue. They even went so far as to attempt to blackmail businesses into supporting them. And yet the majority remained silent (although, thankfully, in some instances effective).

What conservatives need to do is to take some lessons from the "symbolism over substance" left and heed the warnings. We can and must learn if we're to save the progress that was made this last November:

Cult of Personality
The left is all about "feelings", not logic. They are about "rights", not responsibilities. They peg their hopes and dreams on an anointed saviour who can do no wrong and then defend that person regardless of their glaring mistakes. Look at Marion Barry, Gordon Hintz, Bill Clinton and now President Obama.

Last fall, Conservatives stunned the liberal demagogues at the polls. People like Scott Walker were swept into office with a mandate from the people to cut spending. Scott Walker is not the messiah. He does not walk on water. And he can't do this by himself. The liberals are pulling out all the stops, using the state's courts to legislate from the bench. Like the liberals, the conservatives must "stand by their man". But unlike the liberals, conservatives cannot assume that now that "their man" is in, its all up to "him".

Government of the People
The liberals like to claim that they are for "the people". They claim to represent the downtrodden masses and the "little guy". They believe that they are right, no matter what the majority might say and that its their duty to make sure that their views are pushed through. When their views are challenged, they resort to tactics like legislation from the bench.

Conservatives believe in a government of the people, by the people and for the people. They believe in democracy and the will of the people. Conservatives showed the will of the people last November. But its not a single, one-time, isolated instance. The will of the people must be proven time and time again in each election and for each issue. That's the essence of a government of, by and for the people. Every election is a referendum on that principle. Like the liberals, conservatives must muster for every election and continue to show the will of the people.

Representative Government
Liberals believe that the masses are sheep who need to be lead. They elect leaders to make decisions for them. They believe in being governed, not in being represented.

Conservatives believe in self-government. Self-government means exactly that - you govern yourself. You elect people to represent your views, your will. Like the liberals, conservatives need leaders. But those leaders need continuing support and feedback. Without that, they are no longer representatives of the people.

To paraphase Ronald Reagan, from his "A Time for Choosing" speech:
"We will keep in mind and remember that Scott Walker has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny."

April 5th is another state election in Wisconsin. According to poll watchers, turnout is likely to be very low. People look at these spring elections as "why bother?" In the past, many patriots would have responded with words like "civic duty", but this time, there's a deeper reason. It's about grass-roots activism and continuing what's been started. Conservatives can do this, but, let's face it, liberals have a much longer track record with it. That's why the Tea Party movement has so confounded the left. The right just doesn't have the record of continuing grass-roots activism.

April 5th's election is more than just another judicial seat-filling exercise. It is a referendum on Conservatism. It is a rebuttal to the voiciferous left. It is a repudiation of legislation from the bench. It is a support for the continuation of the principles that were expounded last November. If you remain silent on the 5th, Conservatives, don't wake up on the 6th and wonder "what the hell happened?"

Government isn't just Scott Walker's job. It's the people's job. Every day. Every election. Every issue. Unlike the Runaway Fourteen, on the 5th I'll be doing my job. What will YOU be doing?

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

Unbiased Media? That Un-possible!

A big "thanks" to one of my loyal readers for forwarding this very insightful list that highlights the bias of the media. Where's the outrage comparable to Bush and Reagan?

• If any other of our presidents had doubled the National debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would You have approved? (compare to the outrage over Bush adding $4T to the debt)
  
• If any other of our presidents had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
• If any other of our presidents had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?
  
• If any other of our presidents joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal Immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?
  
• If any other of our presidents had pronounced the Marine Corps like Marine Corpse, would you think him an idiot? (compare to the chortling over Bush's mispronounciation of nuclear or Dan Quayle's gaffe with potato)
  
• If any other of our presidents had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one foreign company had an accident, would you have agreed?
• If any other of our presidents had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him? (compare to the indignation over Reagan firing the PATCO strikers)
  
• If any other of our Presidents had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes? (compare to the "furor" over Reagan allegedly having Alzheimer's in office)
  
• If any other of our presidents had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take his First Lady to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
• If any other of our presidents had reduced your retirement plan holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
• If any other of our presidents had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
  
• If any other of our presidents had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
• If any other of our presidents had given the Queen of England an IPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought it a proud moment for America ?
• If any other of our presidents had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved? (compare to Regan's Bittberg visit)
  
• If any other of our presidents had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed It off as a minor slip?
  
• If any other of our presidents had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
• If any other of our presidents had stated that there were 57 states In the United States, wouldn't you have had second thoughts about his capabilities?
• If any other of our presidents would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in his home town, would you not have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.
• If any other of our presidents had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Quattro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, wouldn't you have winced in embarrassment?
• If any other of our presidents had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
• If any other of our presidents' administrations had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
• If any other of our presidents had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence? (compare to Bush's handling of Katrina)
  
• If any other of our presidents had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what Is happening in America , would you have ever approved.
• If any other of our presidents had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in his first 24 months -- so you have that much time to come up with an answer.

Every statement and action in this email is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama. Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable. For those of you reading this via RSS or email, check the blog... I have researched and put in links, including to the "comparative outrages".

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

The Wrong End of the Stick

No politician is perfect. No person is perfect. I can disagree with someone while supporting them. Thus, upon hearing the news, today, that Speaker Boehner is actively seeking to block the proposal that the body of last WWI Veteran Frank Buckles lay in state in the Capitol, I went to his website and wrote the following. I urge everyone to do so, as well.

Speaker Boehner,

I am a Reagan Conservative who was very glad to see the turnaround in power during the last election. I am, like President Reagan "strong" on national defense.

I am also the son of a highly decorated WWII veteran and a member of the National Order of Battlefield Commissioned Officers "Ponies" organization.

I was, to use the words of a colleague, "stunned and amazed" at the news, today, that you are actively opposing the proposal to have the body of America's last WWI veteran, Frank Buckles, lay in state in the Capitol.

I do not understand at all your objections to this honour.

If anyone outside of a former President deserves this honour, it is Mr. Buckles. Take away the fact that he was our last living link with the conflict that marked not only the shift from colonialism to the birth of superpowers, the conflict that set the stage for the Century of America. Take away the fact that he not only enlisted under-age but went on to serve with distinction. Take away the fact that he was captured and survived a notorious Japanese prison camp in World War II. Take all that away and you still are left with the fact that this man absolutely typified, in his life, his outlook, his patriotism the very soul of what made the United States the world's only surviving superpower.

This honour has indeed been bestowed upon non-legislative and non-executive citizens in the past. Most notably, the Unknown Soldiers of World War I, World War II and Vietnam. Those men were laid in state not only to honour their sacrifice and service, but to service as a reminder of those to the entirety of the United States and to honour as well those who continue to put place themselves in harm's way for their countrymen.

It is, therefore, completely fitting that Mr. Buckles be so honoured and is inconceivable and indefensible to deny, either actively or passively, such a proposal.

I urge you, sir, to reconsider your position which is, I may say, more expected out of the anti-military elements of some of your brethren across the aisle. It is not in keeping with the tenets and philosophies of the Republican Party nor, indeed, any patriotic American to so wholly disrespect those to whom our freedom is daily owed.

If nothing else, I would hope that you would explain yourself in some logical, rational way. But moreover, I would hope and expect that you would comport yourself as an American legislator and see fit to instead wholeheartedly support this proposal.

In the words of Charles Michael Province, "It is the Soldier, not the politician / Who has given us the right to vote."

Respect those who have given us the power to put you in power.

Jeffery L. Vogt
Son of Lt. Col Roland H. Vogt, US Army
NOBC

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.

What I Don't Get Is...

The debates in Wisconsin are, of course, the topic du jour. During this, WTMJ talk host Charlie Sykes has, several times, had a popular segment entitled "What I Don't Get Is..." I'm constantly amazed at the callers who express surprise (not necessarily outrage, but surprise nonetheless) at the protests, the reaction of the Unions, the 14 AWOL Senators, and the rest of the circus in Madison and across the state. Since I don't get a chance to call in and since Charlie's program is so popular that I can't get through, I'll answer that question here.

What I don't get is why they don't get it.

The plain truth is that the reactions of the protestors, the Unions and the far left did not have spring up overnight. They have evolved over the last decade or more. It is the manifestation of the mantra of "symbolism over substance". In a word, it is hypocrisy.

Now let's be fair - there are hypocrits of every stripe. But the modern Democratic Party has made this a core principle. I say "modern" to distinguish this from the party of Kennedy (who, fiscally and on defense, was more Republican than Regan) and Roosevelt (who said what he was going to do, then did it -- like Scott Walker). And this has been evolving for more than a decade.

Take the Political Correctness movement of the 90's beyond. In specific, "free speech" versus "hate speech". Recently, that maven of the media Oprah called for "respect" for President Obama, saying, “even if you’re not in support of his policies, there needs to be a certain level of respect.” And yet, it was perfectly acceptable for Oprah, The View, Jon Stewart and others to not criticize, but engage in ad hominem attacks on President Bush. Remember when it was "patriotic to speak out against your government"? Ah, but not when its our guy.

And staying with public figures, let's talk about our Flee-Baggers. During the Doyle administration, with a Democratic-controlled state House and Senate, the Republicans drew repeated fire for their use of the filibuster. Last night, the House Democrats acted outraged when a procedural motion was used to end over 80 hours of a Democratic filibuster (far longer than any that has ever been staged before). Let me not hesitate to point out that a filibuster requires that the politicians in question actually are on the job, not hiding out like fugitives in a sympathetic neighboring state.

And then there are the protestors themselves. The Union Line is that of Helen Lovejoy, screaming, "Won't someone think of the children!?!?" They try to tie the modest increase (5.6% for pension and 12.8% for healthcare) to a collapse of the educational system when, in point of fact, those increases are less than private sector workers pay for those benefits. When this is pointed out, they cite the "anti-Union" portions, stating that its taking away workers "rights and freedoms". And yet, that conveniently ignores the fact that this bill gives back freedoms -- the freedom to choose if one wants to pay $1000 per year in Union dues and be forced to accept whatever health care plan the Union wants (one that is, ironically enough, owned by the Union). So, drawing the line from point A to point B, this isn't about the finances of their members and it isn't about the freedoms and rights of their members, its about Union dues, Union-administered and owned health funds and Union power.

And the "rights" that are "stripped" (a favorite word of the pablum-fed media)? Turns out that "unions still could represent workers in wage negotiations, but they can’t seek pay increases above those pegged to the Consumer Price Index unless the hikes are approved in a public referendum". So this isn't about "rights", this is about the Union not wanting to "chance" the public turning down such a referendum. It's about Union power.

The protesters themselves are on the forefront of hypocrisy. Their leader, President Obama, recently called for "a more civil and honest public discourse" in the wake of the Arizona shootings. And yet the protesters, the vanguard of the "political correctness" movement, are making direct "hate speech" attacks on Governor Walker -- even so far as to putting "crosshairs" over his picture and calling for "reloading". Scant weeks before, these people were screaming about Sarah Palin's "crosshairs". Shame, shame if it's Palin, but huzzah if its the left!

Then there's the blogger (not journalist) Ian Murphy who scammed (not pranked, that word is too 'lighthearted' for his misrepresentation) his way onto a phone call with the Governor. In a recent interview by a real journalist, Murphy, a virulent shock-blogger, admitted that he is not a journalist. He's akin to the guy who breaks the jewelry-store window and then the passerby (the responsible journalists) who would never do it themselves, happily take the stolen goods.

Yet the same people who are holding this self-described "troublemaker" as a paragon of investigative reporting are the same ones who cry "foul" at conservative (and degreed) journalists like Fox News, Drudge and Breitbart. They constantly harp on how "biased and slanted" those legitimate news outlets are while at the same time espousing people like Murphy (who ranted "F*** THE TROOPS" in one of his virulent blogs) as the standard of virtue.

Additionally, there's the selective short-term memory of the protesters, bloggers and leftists when it comes to "responsibility". They love to blame Republican administrations for all the world's ills, but are mysteriously silent about the fact that it was a Democratic Governor, State House and Senate that used short-term budget "fixes" and Federal monies to paper over the serious fiscal situation while simultaneously passing larger and larger budget deficits to future administrations.

So now we're faced with the reality of a massive budget shortfall. And some of the people who swept Walker and others into office under the banner of "fixing the fiscal mess" are committing the largest hypocrisy of them all -- fix it, but don't take away MY perks!

As I said at the beginning, none of this is new. It's been brewing for a long time. You could see it in the lawsuits of the 2000 Presidential election versus the so-called "mandate" of the 2008 Presidential election. What is new is the blatant way in which it is shown in public. The left has taken off the mask of principle and sincerity in the last decade and now they are the ones asking "What I don't get is..." when the hard-working private sector no longer buys into their hollow rhetoric. They are left wondering why they are, despite doing all the things that people have "bought" for a decade, now being laughed at, vilified by the majority, and no longer in power.

What I don't get is... why they don't get it.

Reminder: If you're getting this via RSS or Email, check the Blog at http://wethepeoplegovern.blogspot.com for embedded links that may be omitted.