The Obama administration continues it's Democrat Voter Drive (after the colossal flop of the War on Women) by announcing today that it will grant immunity and work permits to young adults who were brought to the United States as children. According to the story posted this morning on The Hill's website, those eligible for this "deferred action" (as Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano calls it) are illegal aliens under the age of 30 who were brought here before the age of 16 and claim to have been in the United States continuously for the past 15 years. They also cannot have a criminal record and must apply for a two-year work permit. This work permit does not have a limit on the number of times that it can be renewed.
At first blush, this strategy serves two purposes. This first is to assuage Latino lobbyists who have previously raised concerns that the Administration is not doing enough for them. In the not to distant past, President Obama chided the pro-amensty crowd for blaming him for the failure to pass the DREAM Act. As of last year, the President said "The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetuating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true." So, other than the fact that Obama is busying trying to get re-elected with a shrinking economy and high unemployment, what's changed?
The other, perhaps less obvious, purpose is to ensure that these newly legal residents will vote like good little Democrats. The illegals that can apply for and be issued work permits are practically guaranteed to have been properly indoctrinated in the ways of liberalism. The youngest in this group will have just graduated from high school. The oldest in the group will either be in grad school or less than five years out of college. Couple that with the high probability that these young adults were raised to not assimilate into American culture (but rather maintain a culture separate from and untrusting of American culture), and you have a recipe for the perfect class warfare voter.
Of course, some people will still look at this and say that this doesn't affect voter rolls because legal residents are not necessarily citizens. Because only citizens legally have the right to vote, these young adults would not be eligible. One would have to be naive to not account for the recent Department of Justice assaults on state governments seeking to purge their voter rolls of fraudulent registrations or enact voter ID laws. Just like the seemingly off-the-wall question that Mitt Romney was asked about the states' ability to take away birth control, Attorney General Eric Holder's aggressive opposition to fix the issues of voter fraud and voter identification was a prelude to this latest outrage.
I call this an outrage because it is being done via an executive order and without legislation from Congress. Congress already tried this once before with the DREAM Act. The attempt was shot down in flames when people flooded the phone lines and inboxes of their Senators and Representatives to protest it. Liberals can only get their way by either judicial activism or by fiat. While illegal immigration is a large and as of yet unresolved issue, there is a much more threatening precedent being set here: can the President use an executive order indiscriminately?
At this nation's founding, the idea of an all-powerful executive was repugnant. To the mainstream, it still is. From a constitutional standpoint, the President has the following authority: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America...To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." The Internet is already abuzz with liberals pointing to Reagan's granting amnesty to illegal aliens as an example of this already being done in the past. There's one little problem, though. Reagan granted amnesty because Congress had first passed a law that granted him the authority to do so.
Because the power to make Federal laws is exclusively reserved for Congress, what law is Obama executing by the issuance of this executive order? Undoubtedly, the constitutionally of this will be challenged. In fact, observers on the left and the right already acknowledge that this is unconstitutional. The question is, will it be too late or will it even matter to this President? The fact that it is backdoor amnesty is outrageous. The manner in which it is being done is Orwellian.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Back with a Vengence!
So, we meet again! After much tumult in my personal life (getting laid off, working multiple jobs to pay the bills, getting a roommate, interviewing for a new job, getting a new job, losing the roommate, and on and on and...you get the idea) I have returned to the blogosphere. First of all, let me say that I have a lot of ground to cover since I really don't have an outlet other than the unfortunates known as my family and friends. I'm sure that they get sick of discussing politics with me, especially my "to the left of FDR" friends. To them I say: Relax, go read some HuffPo, and hug a tree while I blog.
The last time that I posted, voters in California had just rejected four of five ballot initiatives brought to you buy our opportunistic State Senator-turned-Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado and a bunch of backroom dealing political hacks. They tried to convince us that we greedy working people needed to cough up more money to pay for Sacramento's precious social programs and feed the bloated tick that is our state's bureacracy. We were told that if we didn't tax ourselves into poverty, then the state would slide off into the ocean . Well, we didn't and...didn't. My apologies to the states of Arizona and Nevada; I'm sure that you were looking forward to some oceanfront property.
Our state is facing record deficits (again) and IOU's being issued to employees and contractors (again). According to the Employment Development Department, California's unemployment rate is 12.4%. On a national level, the unemployment rate was just reported at 9.8%. In the face of all of this what has California's legislators done? They have voted even more government spending, raised "fees" on industries and businesses still in the state, and passed a cap-and-trade bill that has our state's private sector economy shrinking. Whole companies have either gone belly up or have left California. In spite of all of this, what did the voters of California do? They voted to keep the status quo. Why? There are a few factors to consider.
Factor #1: California now has more people living off the government, both in the form of handouts and government employment. A state that is drowning in red ink is also the state's biggest employer. More than half of those employed in California are government employees. These employees all pay dues to their respective unions. As a former state employee (I quit because I actually like to finish projects), I had to pay $40 a month to the union despite the fact that I wasn't a member! How did they get away with this? State agencies are union-shops in California. Because I supposedly reaped the benefits of collective bargaining, I had to pay dues. What a racket! Even if you aren't a member, you are still funding the union's PAC and their candidates.
Factor #2: Almost all of the sane people have left the state, leaving the rest of us in the minority. I graduated from high school in a class of 150 students. Of those 150, about one-third of them have left California. There are roughly 37 million people in California. Of those people, 33% of them are under the age of 18 and a little over 11% are 65 and older. So, right off the top, you have 44% of the population that isn't working for a living. Of course, one would assume that the under 18 crowd is being provided for by their parents in some way or another. However, 2008 marked the first year that more people were actually leaving California than were coming here. If the people that I see in my day-to-day life are any indication, the only ones still here are senior citizens, kids, and illegal aliens that have fled Arizona.
Factor #3: At the state-level, the Republican Party still doesn't get it. Look at who we had for political candidates this last go-round. We were asked to hold our noses, once more, and vote for the lesser of two evils. Meg Whitman ran like John McCain. In other words, she ran a horrible campaign. It should have been easy to beat Governor Moonbeam; look at all the material you have. Jerry Brown hasn't had a private sector job since 1970. To give you a little perspective, my mom was ten years old the last time that Jerry Brown earned a paycheck that didn't come from a municipal or state treasury. Whitman didn't have to run a negative campaign to beat Jerry Brown. All she had to do was list his accomplishments while serving has Governor, Mayor of Oakland, and Attorney General.
Is California beyond hope? It's difficult to stay optimistic in the face of this past November. If California is going to recover and become prosperous again, we need to quit doing more of the same. By and large, all the State Legislature's incumbents were re-elected. Even though the governorship switch parties, it didn't change the agenda. Schwarzenegger abandoned conservative principles years ago so he could "get along" with everyone entrenched in Sacramento and still get invitations to Hollywood cocktail parties after he leaves the state's capital. I also suspect there was an element of domestic harmony to be maintained, as well. If you thought Ah-nuld was a schmuck, wait until Moonbeam gets sworn in for the third time.
At least we still have the recall referendum.
The last time that I posted, voters in California had just rejected four of five ballot initiatives brought to you buy our opportunistic State Senator-turned-Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado and a bunch of backroom dealing political hacks. They tried to convince us that we greedy working people needed to cough up more money to pay for Sacramento's precious social programs and feed the bloated tick that is our state's bureacracy. We were told that if we didn't tax ourselves into poverty, then the state would slide off into the ocean . Well, we didn't and...didn't. My apologies to the states of Arizona and Nevada; I'm sure that you were looking forward to some oceanfront property.
Our state is facing record deficits (again) and IOU's being issued to employees and contractors (again). According to the Employment Development Department, California's unemployment rate is 12.4%. On a national level, the unemployment rate was just reported at 9.8%. In the face of all of this what has California's legislators done? They have voted even more government spending, raised "fees" on industries and businesses still in the state, and passed a cap-and-trade bill that has our state's private sector economy shrinking. Whole companies have either gone belly up or have left California. In spite of all of this, what did the voters of California do? They voted to keep the status quo. Why? There are a few factors to consider.
Factor #1: California now has more people living off the government, both in the form of handouts and government employment. A state that is drowning in red ink is also the state's biggest employer. More than half of those employed in California are government employees. These employees all pay dues to their respective unions. As a former state employee (I quit because I actually like to finish projects), I had to pay $40 a month to the union despite the fact that I wasn't a member! How did they get away with this? State agencies are union-shops in California. Because I supposedly reaped the benefits of collective bargaining, I had to pay dues. What a racket! Even if you aren't a member, you are still funding the union's PAC and their candidates.
Factor #2: Almost all of the sane people have left the state, leaving the rest of us in the minority. I graduated from high school in a class of 150 students. Of those 150, about one-third of them have left California. There are roughly 37 million people in California. Of those people, 33% of them are under the age of 18 and a little over 11% are 65 and older. So, right off the top, you have 44% of the population that isn't working for a living. Of course, one would assume that the under 18 crowd is being provided for by their parents in some way or another. However, 2008 marked the first year that more people were actually leaving California than were coming here. If the people that I see in my day-to-day life are any indication, the only ones still here are senior citizens, kids, and illegal aliens that have fled Arizona.
Factor #3: At the state-level, the Republican Party still doesn't get it. Look at who we had for political candidates this last go-round. We were asked to hold our noses, once more, and vote for the lesser of two evils. Meg Whitman ran like John McCain. In other words, she ran a horrible campaign. It should have been easy to beat Governor Moonbeam; look at all the material you have. Jerry Brown hasn't had a private sector job since 1970. To give you a little perspective, my mom was ten years old the last time that Jerry Brown earned a paycheck that didn't come from a municipal or state treasury. Whitman didn't have to run a negative campaign to beat Jerry Brown. All she had to do was list his accomplishments while serving has Governor, Mayor of Oakland, and Attorney General.
Is California beyond hope? It's difficult to stay optimistic in the face of this past November. If California is going to recover and become prosperous again, we need to quit doing more of the same. By and large, all the State Legislature's incumbents were re-elected. Even though the governorship switch parties, it didn't change the agenda. Schwarzenegger abandoned conservative principles years ago so he could "get along" with everyone entrenched in Sacramento and still get invitations to Hollywood cocktail parties after he leaves the state's capital. I also suspect there was an element of domestic harmony to be maintained, as well. If you thought Ah-nuld was a schmuck, wait until Moonbeam gets sworn in for the third time.
At least we still have the recall referendum.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Shame, Shame, Shame!
The New York Times has excoreated Californians for voting against more tax-and-spend (and tax some more) policies. Ah, yes. Shame on those of us who work for a living, for wanting to keep more of our hard-earned money so we can continue living in the most expensive state in the Union without being on the government dole. We should all hang our heads because we are so very selfish for not wanting to continue to send our money to Sacramento. What a bunch of ingrates we are! How dare we prevent more funding for the n'er-do-wells in government who are already too busy spending our tax money to actually get a real job? What an outrage that we may actually have to trim the fat off the budgets of the state's various bureaucracies, not the least of which are education system, environmental regulating agencies, and *gasp* welfare benefits! Mea culpa.
Of special note, all of the emphasis is being placed on cuts in the state's education system. First off, look at how liberals love to use children as a human shield for their policies. Strictly looking at the amount of money spent per child in California and then looking at the results, I'd say that California's education system has been a poor investment. Students graduating from high school should have enough education to either go to college or get an entry-level job. I hate to break it to you, but there are teenagers graduating who can barely read and write at the sixth grade level. Don't even get me started on the lack of work ethic or professionalism of these alleged young adults. And why should they have to work for achievement in academics? After all, in the state of California teachers seem to have made it a regular practice to pass the failing students (we don't want to damage their budding self-esteem). When they graduate with their Cracker Jack diploma, they can continue to live off their parents or apply for welfare benefits. Meanwhile, the California Teacher's Assocation is allowed to engage in the type of behavior that helped the United Auto Workers bring down the auto industry in this country. Think fat pensions, tenure based on seniority (not performance), and a political action committee that might as well be a branch office for the DNC.
The governor, in an effort to scaremonger us into voting for higher taxes and more borrowing, threatened to cut funding for law enforcement and firefighters...during a wildfire that destroyed 80 homes and almost 8000 acres in the Santa Barbara area. That's low (even for a politician). Why not reduce welfare benefits and use that money to maintain the funding for law enforcement and emergency services? Reducing welfare would serve multiple purposes. It would take away the incentive for laziness, incentivize hard work, and possibly discourage some would-be illegal aliens from coming here. I also bet you would see a precipitous drop in the number of pregnant, unwed mothers in California.
We should be ashamed of ourselves. Not for the outcome of yesterday's vote, but for the fact that it even had to take place. The last time the people of California were this focused on the state's budget issues was back when we recalled Gray Davis and elected "Ah-nuld". California's budget mess should have been straightened out then, rather than enacting some feel-good brand of bipartisanship that only kicked the can down the road. Only now that individuals and businesses are relocating to less hostile environments (and taking their tax dollars with them) are the politicians being faced with having to enact real budget reform. Let's hope that Californians have finally learned a lesson that they won't soon forget.
Of special note, all of the emphasis is being placed on cuts in the state's education system. First off, look at how liberals love to use children as a human shield for their policies. Strictly looking at the amount of money spent per child in California and then looking at the results, I'd say that California's education system has been a poor investment. Students graduating from high school should have enough education to either go to college or get an entry-level job. I hate to break it to you, but there are teenagers graduating who can barely read and write at the sixth grade level. Don't even get me started on the lack of work ethic or professionalism of these alleged young adults. And why should they have to work for achievement in academics? After all, in the state of California teachers seem to have made it a regular practice to pass the failing students (we don't want to damage their budding self-esteem). When they graduate with their Cracker Jack diploma, they can continue to live off their parents or apply for welfare benefits. Meanwhile, the California Teacher's Assocation is allowed to engage in the type of behavior that helped the United Auto Workers bring down the auto industry in this country. Think fat pensions, tenure based on seniority (not performance), and a political action committee that might as well be a branch office for the DNC.
The governor, in an effort to scaremonger us into voting for higher taxes and more borrowing, threatened to cut funding for law enforcement and firefighters...during a wildfire that destroyed 80 homes and almost 8000 acres in the Santa Barbara area. That's low (even for a politician). Why not reduce welfare benefits and use that money to maintain the funding for law enforcement and emergency services? Reducing welfare would serve multiple purposes. It would take away the incentive for laziness, incentivize hard work, and possibly discourage some would-be illegal aliens from coming here. I also bet you would see a precipitous drop in the number of pregnant, unwed mothers in California.
We should be ashamed of ourselves. Not for the outcome of yesterday's vote, but for the fact that it even had to take place. The last time the people of California were this focused on the state's budget issues was back when we recalled Gray Davis and elected "Ah-nuld". California's budget mess should have been straightened out then, rather than enacting some feel-good brand of bipartisanship that only kicked the can down the road. Only now that individuals and businesses are relocating to less hostile environments (and taking their tax dollars with them) are the politicians being faced with having to enact real budget reform. Let's hope that Californians have finally learned a lesson that they won't soon forget.
Monday, April 20, 2009
"Why Make Trillions When We Could Make...Billions?"
In an effort to show that he is working on maintaining a balanced federal budget, the Lord Messiah, Barack Obama the Most Merciful (LMBOMM, for short) had told his Cabinet that they must cut $100 million in spending from the proposed $3.5 trillion budget (see the story here). For visual reference,
that is this many: $100,000,000
from this many: $3,500,000,000,000
Do you notice something strange about this? The amount to be cut is only 0.0029% of the budget! Apparently, our "articulate, bright and clean" president (per our vice president's description) either really sucks at math, or is a graduate of the Dr. Evil School of Economics, which is located on the same campus as the Joe Biden Institute of ABCs and 123s (and the Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Don't Read Good, and Want to Learn How to Do Other Stuff Good Too). Maybe I'm being too hard on Obama. After all he may have meant to to say $100 billion, but the teleprompter technician miskeyed it.
All joking aside, though, even $100 billion would be a pittance compared to the size of this budget (it would only be a 2.9% reduction). Just think about it. Three. And One-Half. Trillion. Dollars. There is slightly over 300 million people in the U.S. That means that if they decided to divy this up to every man, woman, and child we would each get $11,666.67. Of course, that wouldn't happen because the people that make over $250,000 a year are included in that 300 million people. This budget is 60 times Bill Gates' estimated net worth. If you hear a peculiar sucking sound, that's the sound of your hard-earned money leaving your wallet. Don't worry, though. Obama is going to "spread the wealth around" and make things better for you...with your own money.
that is this many: $100,000,000
from this many: $3,500,000,000,000
Do you notice something strange about this? The amount to be cut is only 0.0029% of the budget! Apparently, our "articulate, bright and clean" president (per our vice president's description) either really sucks at math, or is a graduate of the Dr. Evil School of Economics, which is located on the same campus as the Joe Biden Institute of ABCs and 123s (and the Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Don't Read Good, and Want to Learn How to Do Other Stuff Good Too). Maybe I'm being too hard on Obama. After all he may have meant to to say $100 billion, but the teleprompter technician miskeyed it.
All joking aside, though, even $100 billion would be a pittance compared to the size of this budget (it would only be a 2.9% reduction). Just think about it. Three. And One-Half. Trillion. Dollars. There is slightly over 300 million people in the U.S. That means that if they decided to divy this up to every man, woman, and child we would each get $11,666.67. Of course, that wouldn't happen because the people that make over $250,000 a year are included in that 300 million people. This budget is 60 times Bill Gates' estimated net worth. If you hear a peculiar sucking sound, that's the sound of your hard-earned money leaving your wallet. Don't worry, though. Obama is going to "spread the wealth around" and make things better for you...with your own money.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Real Change is My Cup of T.E.A.
A few things caught my attention about yesterday's TEA (Taxed Enough Already) parties. First off, how very normal the attendees looked. If one were to believe Janet Napolitano, we should have been looking at a bunch of fatigues-wearing, gun-toting Aryan Nation and Ruby Ridge types. We should have also expected to see effigies of Obama being burned or hanging from a noose. Another thing that struck me was how the media coverage largely focused on reaction from elected officials (i.e. the targets of these tea parties), not what was being said at the rallies. Any attention that was drawn to the attendees contained the following: 1) these were all orchestrated by conservative think-tanks and talk radio, 2) attendees are nothing more than anti-government malcontents, and 3) the attendees fit the Department of Homeland Security's description of the "right-wing extremist". The drive-bys also had a penchant for referring to participants as "teabaggers". Use urbandictionary.com to look it up, because I'm not going to explain it here (this isn't a public high school sex ed class).
Now, I attended one of the the tea parties here on the central coast of California. There were anywhere from 1500 to 2000 people. This was just one of the seven tea parties held between Ventura and Monterey (that I know of). The crowd had people of all ages, ethnicities, and walks of life. Attendees were unfailingly polite, even when the event was over and everyone was trying to vacate the parking lot. There were no riots, no burning cars, and no one attacking the police detail. In short, we were better behaved than most California protesters (unlike the protests that followed the passage of Prop 8).
In addition to protesting higher federal taxation, we were also protesting higher state taxes and onerous environmental regulations based on incomplete or fake research. California has the seventh largest economy in the world. Why is it then that California is in tank with an ever-increasing budget gap, while we have the highest income tax rate in the nation (and the sixth highest per capita total taxation)? Our current legislators think that the solution is to increase our income taxes, our sales tax, the fuel tax, the alcohol tax, the tobacco tax, and our vehicle registration fees. On top of these increases are new taxes on services such as auto repair and veterinary care.
Why do we have regulations in our state that stifle economic growth in the name of "environmental preservation" when there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that these measures actually work? The last thing California needs is the tax base leaving for places like Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado. Or, in the case of some of my wiser friends, Texas. On a side note, can I adopt Rick Perry as my governor? Between that, and having Rudy Giuliani run for mayor of Los Angeles we could really clean up California. All I'm saying is think about it.
Who's going to pay taxes to support welfare benefits and state employee retirement plans? Illegal aliens and welfare recipients don't pay income taxes and theoretically don't pay very many other taxes, either. Even supposedly recession-proof industries like engineering and health care are suffering here, thanks to an orgy of lawsuits and state-funded programs ruining any prospect of private sector survival. California, and other welfare states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York are prime examples of what the rest of the nation will become if people don't wake up and take action. The tea parties were a great first step...now we need the follow-through to bring about change that we can really believe in (without the aid of a teleprompter).
Now, I attended one of the the tea parties here on the central coast of California. There were anywhere from 1500 to 2000 people. This was just one of the seven tea parties held between Ventura and Monterey (that I know of). The crowd had people of all ages, ethnicities, and walks of life. Attendees were unfailingly polite, even when the event was over and everyone was trying to vacate the parking lot. There were no riots, no burning cars, and no one attacking the police detail. In short, we were better behaved than most California protesters (unlike the protests that followed the passage of Prop 8).
In addition to protesting higher federal taxation, we were also protesting higher state taxes and onerous environmental regulations based on incomplete or fake research. California has the seventh largest economy in the world. Why is it then that California is in tank with an ever-increasing budget gap, while we have the highest income tax rate in the nation (and the sixth highest per capita total taxation)? Our current legislators think that the solution is to increase our income taxes, our sales tax, the fuel tax, the alcohol tax, the tobacco tax, and our vehicle registration fees. On top of these increases are new taxes on services such as auto repair and veterinary care.
Why do we have regulations in our state that stifle economic growth in the name of "environmental preservation" when there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that these measures actually work? The last thing California needs is the tax base leaving for places like Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado. Or, in the case of some of my wiser friends, Texas. On a side note, can I adopt Rick Perry as my governor? Between that, and having Rudy Giuliani run for mayor of Los Angeles we could really clean up California. All I'm saying is think about it.
Who's going to pay taxes to support welfare benefits and state employee retirement plans? Illegal aliens and welfare recipients don't pay income taxes and theoretically don't pay very many other taxes, either. Even supposedly recession-proof industries like engineering and health care are suffering here, thanks to an orgy of lawsuits and state-funded programs ruining any prospect of private sector survival. California, and other welfare states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York are prime examples of what the rest of the nation will become if people don't wake up and take action. The tea parties were a great first step...now we need the follow-through to bring about change that we can really believe in (without the aid of a teleprompter).
Monday, November 3, 2008
With Friends Like This...
I wonder if the Obama campaign will comment on this one.
What started out as a typical, Left Coast wingnut-turned-overpass jumper protesting the Iraq War turned into a HUGE traffic snafu. Highway 101 was shut down in both directions. In case you're not local or are unfamiliar with California's Central Coast, Highway 101 is THE major highway in the area. If you want to get to any of the interstate highways from here, you have to use U.S. 101 at some point. At first, I only heard about it because some of my co-workers were stranded in the gridlock. Apparently, this was a big enough deal that it made the news on KFI 640 AM in Los Angeles (which is roughly 2 1/2 hours away).
This leads me to ask a few questions:
1) Does this guy know something that we don't? Is Obama in such dire straits that supporters have begun to resort to suicide, rather than entertain the possibility of living in an America with President McCain?
2) Could this possibly be a publicity stunt? It could be an emotional plea for for us to vote for Obama, lest we see some of our neighbors, friends, and colleagues kill themselves.
Maybe this was nothing more than a case of some guy going off his meds. At any rate, I can't help but notice that you don't hear too much about right-wing lunatics threatening to jump off freeway overpasses unless they get a yard sign.
What started out as a typical, Left Coast wingnut-turned-overpass jumper protesting the Iraq War turned into a HUGE traffic snafu. Highway 101 was shut down in both directions. In case you're not local or are unfamiliar with California's Central Coast, Highway 101 is THE major highway in the area. If you want to get to any of the interstate highways from here, you have to use U.S. 101 at some point. At first, I only heard about it because some of my co-workers were stranded in the gridlock. Apparently, this was a big enough deal that it made the news on KFI 640 AM in Los Angeles (which is roughly 2 1/2 hours away).
This leads me to ask a few questions:
1) Does this guy know something that we don't? Is Obama in such dire straits that supporters have begun to resort to suicide, rather than entertain the possibility of living in an America with President McCain?
2) Could this possibly be a publicity stunt? It could be an emotional plea for for us to vote for Obama, lest we see some of our neighbors, friends, and colleagues kill themselves.
Maybe this was nothing more than a case of some guy going off his meds. At any rate, I can't help but notice that you don't hear too much about right-wing lunatics threatening to jump off freeway overpasses unless they get a yard sign.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Price Check!
First off, I would like to apologize for my relative silence during this election cycle. My life beyond the blogosphere was chock-full of tasks and issues for me to address (busy at work, even busier social life, buying a house). Secondly, pretty much anything that I had to say was being said by those with voices bigger and more widely heard than mine. Now, on to the fun stuff...
Apparently, B. Hussein Obama and Joe Biden need to get someone to give them a price check on achieving the American Dream. One day, Obama is telling us that $250,000 a year is the height of achievement in the United States. Then, not more than a month later Obama sets the price at $200,000 a year. Right on the heels of that, his running mate lowers the bar to $150,000 a year. Clearly, achievement has a salary cap (and it's well below the MLB salary cap).
As a twenty-something, college-educated, single woman, I find the idea of limiting achievement repugnant. I thought the whole point of going through college, saving to buy a house, and working hard at my choosen career is so that I don't need to have the government or anyone else support me. I make a comfortable salary as an engineer (between $50,000 and $75,000), but I'm not content to just go on making the same amount of money throughout my career. I want to advance in my career and be compensated for taking on more responsibilities. It would be nice to have more disposable income so I can travel, donate more to the charities of my choosing (California's welfare programs don't count as a charity), and treat friends and family to a night out. I currently contribute to a 401(k) and would like to start putting money away in an IRA. After all, I don't plan on working forever.
I'm sure that I could do all of that and more on a $150,000 annual salary, but why should I be limited? Let's say that I decide to start a business with a couple of employees, and I clear $500,000 in gross income. My business would, therefore, meet the Obama-Biden definition of "rich". Keep in mind, that is gross income. If my business has employees, I'm required to pay them, payroll taxes, worker's compensation, and other associated overhead costs of having employees. The Obama-Biden answer to my complaint is, "Well, if you hire more employees, we'll give you a $3000 tax credit for each new employee." I'm not sure to which small businesses they've been talking, but $3000 would barely cover the cost of processing the new hire paperwork. Besides that, who starts a business with an upper limit on revenue? That's like playing a football game, but telling your team that they can only score 14 points (even if the other team racks up 51).
Isn't the whole point of America that the only limits we have are the ones that we place on ourselves? The truth is, the American Dream is priceless and should be without limitations. When success and achievement are penalized, what incentive is there for people to excel? Why would someone want to strive for success in their career or financial well-being if the government is going to come along and "spread the wealth around"? Why not wait around for someone else to be the sucker and put in all the hard work, while you kick back and wait to reap the benefits? Eventually, the golden goose is going to quit laying eggs and people will just quit working altogether...including the box boys (and girls) at the grocery store.
Hat tip to Christina, who provides some video links of the laughable-if-it-weren't-true.
Apparently, B. Hussein Obama and Joe Biden need to get someone to give them a price check on achieving the American Dream. One day, Obama is telling us that $250,000 a year is the height of achievement in the United States. Then, not more than a month later Obama sets the price at $200,000 a year. Right on the heels of that, his running mate lowers the bar to $150,000 a year. Clearly, achievement has a salary cap (and it's well below the MLB salary cap).
As a twenty-something, college-educated, single woman, I find the idea of limiting achievement repugnant. I thought the whole point of going through college, saving to buy a house, and working hard at my choosen career is so that I don't need to have the government or anyone else support me. I make a comfortable salary as an engineer (between $50,000 and $75,000), but I'm not content to just go on making the same amount of money throughout my career. I want to advance in my career and be compensated for taking on more responsibilities. It would be nice to have more disposable income so I can travel, donate more to the charities of my choosing (California's welfare programs don't count as a charity), and treat friends and family to a night out. I currently contribute to a 401(k) and would like to start putting money away in an IRA. After all, I don't plan on working forever.
I'm sure that I could do all of that and more on a $150,000 annual salary, but why should I be limited? Let's say that I decide to start a business with a couple of employees, and I clear $500,000 in gross income. My business would, therefore, meet the Obama-Biden definition of "rich". Keep in mind, that is gross income. If my business has employees, I'm required to pay them, payroll taxes, worker's compensation, and other associated overhead costs of having employees. The Obama-Biden answer to my complaint is, "Well, if you hire more employees, we'll give you a $3000 tax credit for each new employee." I'm not sure to which small businesses they've been talking, but $3000 would barely cover the cost of processing the new hire paperwork. Besides that, who starts a business with an upper limit on revenue? That's like playing a football game, but telling your team that they can only score 14 points (even if the other team racks up 51).
Isn't the whole point of America that the only limits we have are the ones that we place on ourselves? The truth is, the American Dream is priceless and should be without limitations. When success and achievement are penalized, what incentive is there for people to excel? Why would someone want to strive for success in their career or financial well-being if the government is going to come along and "spread the wealth around"? Why not wait around for someone else to be the sucker and put in all the hard work, while you kick back and wait to reap the benefits? Eventually, the golden goose is going to quit laying eggs and people will just quit working altogether...including the box boys (and girls) at the grocery store.
Hat tip to Christina, who provides some video links of the laughable-if-it-weren't-true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)