Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Citizen Control Point #1 - provide seemingly free education through government schools where the graduates are little more than illiterate & not proficient in math or science.
Professor Milton Friedman writes in "Free To Choose" that "@ first schools were private & attendance was voluntary. Increasingly, government came to play a larger role, first by contributing government support, later by establishing & administrating government schools .That movement gained additional ground in the 1930s along with the general tendency toward both expansion & centralization of government."
Today over 90% of people are educated by the worst monopoly going - failing government schools which make up the largest socialized enterprise in the USA. To keep passing & graduating children who really do not know anything useful (& are too poorly educated to know that they don't know anything) will create a government dependent society, like we increasingly have been becoming for decades. A socialist school system is going to teach socialist values. The monopoly power is being exercised by teachers' unions. They are running the schools to promote their own objectives, not the objectives of the students. Neal Boortz has stated that "teachers' unions are more dangerous to America than al Qaeda" & he is so right.
"A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people." James Madison - Father of the Constitution
"An enlightened citizenry should abandon the superstitious worship of logic & the outmoded reliance on reason. ...so people who are not qualified to think should leave all thinking to the (government) experts & have faith in the (government) experts' higher authority." Dr. Robert Stadler - Head of the State Science Institute in Ayn Rand's fictitious novel Atlas Shrugged
Friday, February 26, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Now BO's invitation for the Republicans for the first time to join the healthcare reform negotiations starting on February 25 is just the latest ruse that will end with the Senate using the parliamentary maneuver called "reconciliation" that does away with the long standing Senate rule that requires 60 votes to bring a bill's deliberations to cloture. Only a simple majority of the Senate is required under "reconciliation." Of course "reconciliation" will not be needed if the Republicans capitulate which is highly possible. BO, Pelosi, & maybe Reid consider using "reconciliation" despite the Massachusetts victory of Senator Scott "41" Brown.
Betsy McCaughey sums up this chance of a generation for the statists - "Obama defends the current Democratic health bills, claiming they will reduce the deficit. That's a shell game. These bills are paid for with $500 billion in new taxes over ten years. A vast expansion of government is not deficit reduction. It's freedom reduction." And that is exactly BO's intention.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Now Neal & I have both described the problems with Social Security's (& Medicare's) solvency for quite some time - I think that benefits will @ least be reduced as the ratio of people paying into the system continues to dwindle. Politicians are being as cruel as Madoff was by just kicking the entitlement can down the road until disaster strikes the millions of aging people who are mistakenly relying on receiving benefits.
Neal presents in the piece below another worry that brings the insolvency of Social Security to us - not in 2017 as previously forecast - but today.
Why did Bernie Madoff go to prison? To make it simple, he talked people into investing with him. Trouble was, he didn't invest their money. As time rolled on he simply took the money from the new investors to pay off the old investors. Finally there were too many old investors and not enough money from new investors coming in to keep the payments going. Next thing you know Madoff is one of the most hated men in America and he is off to jail.
Some of you know this .. but not enough of you . Madoff did to his investors what the government has been doing to us for over 60 years with Social Security. There is no meaningful difference between the two schemes ... except that one was operated by a private individual who is now in jail, and the other is operated by politicians who enjoy perks, privileges and status in spite of their actions.
Do you need a side-by-side comparison here? Well here's a nifty little chart.
|BERNIE MADOFF||SOCIAL SECURITY|
|Takes money from investors with the promise that the money will be invested and made available to them later||Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a "Trust Fund" and made available later.|
|Instead of investing the money Madoff spends it on nice homes in the Hamptons and yachts.||Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund the politicians use it for general spending and vote buying.|
|When the time comes to pay the investors back Madoff simply uses some of the new funds from newer investors to pay back the older investors.||When benefits for older investors become due the politicians pay them with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the geezers.|
|When Madoff's scheme is discovered all hell breaks loose. New investors won't give him any more cash.||When Social Security runs out of money they simply force the taxpayers to send them some more.|
|Bernie Madoff is in jail.||Politicians remain in Washington.|
OK ... I've understood this scheme for some time now, so just what was it that almost slipped by me? For some time now we've been told that it would be 2016 or 2017 before Social Security started paying out more money than it was taking in. Well ... we're here. In 2009 the economy forced many more people than expected into retirement. These people filed for their Social Security benefits. Last year Social Security durned near ran out of money. The benefits paid almost exceeded the taxes collected. There is, of course, no "trust fund" to go to. That money has been spent. For Madoff that was a crime. For our politicians, it wasn't. Now the chief actuary of the Social Security system says that we're going to "go negative" for the next year or two.
Now the politicians will naturally be looking for a solution. They cause the problem because they just couldn't stand seeing all of that money sitting in the trust fund. They just had to get their hands on it ... and leave behind some IOUs. Now the IOUs are due, and there's no money to pay them off. The solution? Well, they'll probably have to raise the retirement age. Then they may well introduce means testing. They'll tell retiring seniors who have done well with their own retirement plans that they may well lose their Social Security benefits. Can they do that? Oh hell yes they can. There is no federal law which guarantees Social Security benefits to anyone who has been forced to pay the taxes.
Then, of course, they'll try to raise the Social Security taxes. The earnings cap for this year is $106,800. My best guess is that the Democrats will propose a change in the law that allows the current earnings cap to stay, or to possibly adjust it to $100,000. Then they will give all income between $100,000 and $250,000 a year a pass .. then all incomes above $250,000 a year will be taxed with no further caps.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Now these numbers are so large they really become meaningless to most of us other than they sound like trouble brewing so the best thing to do is to refer to something like the above graph prepared by the Government Accounting Office in 2007. Since the graph is almost 3 years old it does not include BO's draconian spending increases of the past 13 months. It is going to be sooner than shown on the graph that mandatory spending will exceed all government revenue thereby leaving no money @ all for any other program like defense. Jim Bennett has a slide that he uses in his seminars that shows only interest on the national debt consuming all of our revenue in the not too distant future.
BO has recently tried to camouflage his reckless profligate destructive spending ways by talking about reducing the deficit but this is just another ruse. The real fiscal danger, as BO very well knows, is the amount of government spending not the deficit - Professor Milton Friedman used to teach that the nation would be better off with a budget half the current size but with larger deficits. For BO to balance (no deficit) a large spending budget through taxes will still bankrupt the nation before long - just as he plans.
Please check out this video of our Posterity reciting a pledge to the debt we will leave them.
We have momentarily held off BO's programs for both socialized medicine-universal healthcare & Cap & Trade legislations thanks to the Town Hall & Tea Party movement - & nothing else. I hope that people saw Sarah Palin's presentation @ the Nashville Tea Party Convention on Saturday night & will continue to get behind & support this movement.
In the meantime if the fiscal integrity of America is important to you I recommend that you let your elected reps know that you have some suggestions for improving BO's budget plan - like, for starters off the top of my head, elimination of the Departments of Health & Human Services, Education, Commerce, Agriculture, HUD, Transportation, the EPA, the National Endowment of the Arts, & the National Endowment for the Humanities, & the progressive income tax & replacing it with the FairTax.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
As you know, NJ 101.5 FM is one of the most popular news-talk shows in New Jersey, and it competes with national media out of New York and Philadelphia.
Jim Gearhart is having Jim Bennett back because of the overwhelming response to the FairTax following the interview on the station last month & to answer questions that Mr. Gearhart did not feel he was able to answer himself.
Please call in to the show at 1-800-283-1015 Thursday, between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.
You can also listen through the Internet by clicking here.
Suffice it to say that the majority of Americans have learned nothing about preserving our security since 9/11 & BO continues to exploit this ignorance as he refers to the would be (not alleged) Christmas bomber over Detroit as the "Nigerian student," holding KSM's civilian trial in NYC (although even this is becoming a too obvious destructive ploy against America), & of course vowing to close the Guantanamo prison for no good reason.
The danger to America & the world could not be more front & center as Iran fails to acknowledge BO's December 31 deadline to take up his invitation to negotiate their nuclear program. I refer to my posting immediately below, dated July 14, 2007 - nothing has changed except adding our troops in Afghanistan to the immediate jeopardy.
"Middle East oil dependence is one thing but the nuclear ambitions of our Muslim enemies is another. Iran has had nuclear ambitions for quite some time & there are many intelligence estimates that conclude that Iran is very close to obtaining nuclear capability - a capability that the Iranian President has said he will share with every Muslim nation on earth & I think he would also include al Qaeda in Iraq. Since Iran constantly sends IEDs & car bombs into Iraq to kill our troops by the dozens, just think what would happen if Iran gets a nuclear bomb & its first unannounced target is the nearby Baghdad, where the Iranians couldn't care less about civilian casualties as they target 150,000 American troops in one fell swoop that would be like shooting fish in a barrel."
Well not only do I remember but I will never forget the words of WSJ Editorial Board Member Susan Lee in the fall of 2002 answering Stuart Varney's question on the Journal Editorial Report - "can we afford to spend $87 million on a war in Iraq?" Ms. Lee responded "we cannot afford not to."
The Congressional Joint Resolution authorizing the use of U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq was dated October 11, 2002. There were seventeen enumerations in the Resolution & I invite every one to read them to see how little mention there was of WMDs despite what the hostile anti-American media would otherwise have us believe.
The grilling of Mr. Blair by the Chilcot Commission highlights to me that the lesson of 9/11 still has not been learned by many Americans. In 2008 then Senator Obama thought he had an iron clad position saying that he never was for the Iraq invasion. Mr. Obama was counting on people looking @ Iraq then & not remembering either the time or circumstances that resulted in our attack on Baghdad.
Put yourself back to September 2002 - just one year after the murderous attacks on our soil by seemingly primitive people living in the mountains of Afghanistan. With all of the intelligence, literally in the world, pointing to Iraq as a terrorist haven & past user of weapons of mass murder - ask yourself if the majority of the electorate had learned anything by electing a commander-in-chief who thought we could afford to find out the hard way just how much of a threat to our survival Saddam Hussein was.