Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Obama’s 'Throwing Voters Under The Bus' Tour

Yesterday, a Twitter friend alerted me to the now-well known Gallup Daily, indicating that President Obama’s approval rating had dropped to 39%. My tweet in response said, “When I see 39% still actually say they approve of Obama's presidency, it depresses me.” Since then, I’ve reached an even lower state of despair as I’ve observed the related political activity coming from the Whitehouse, as well as from the Democrat Leadership in both houses of Congress. I know there’s only one way these folks are ever going to “get it”, if they ever do, but their total self-absorption and their complete disconnection with the overriding demeanor of our nation continues to baffle me.

To illustrate this, let’s begin by taking a look at Obama’s current bus tour in the upper Midwest. The Romney campaign has dubbed this the “Magical Misery Tour.” The RNC has nicknamed it the “Obama Debt-End Tour.” Regardless of what it’s called, many have lamented that, “Here we are, over three years after Obama was on his way to being elected President by promising Hope and Change and he’s just now getting out there in an effort to learn what it was that voters were hoping for.” Sadly, the truth is that this episode of “The Campaigner in Chief” has nothing to do with discovering what the American people want. If you listen to the words and watch the actions actually coming from this political outing, it’s obvious that Obama and his team continue to be convinced of their Devine Right, as America’s Royalty … they’re out there to tell voters what they should have been hoping for.

Of course, what the Romney campaign calls the “Magical Misery Tour” is just the latest example of how out of touch the current far-Left version of the Democrat Party is with the reality of the prevailing views of the American public. Leading up to this bus-based excursion, Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has been in the pulpit of the mainstream media, preaching about our country’s “Tea Party Credit Rating Downgrade.” This, in the face of clear evidence that the Tea Party is almost exclusively responsible for the fact that fiscal accountability has been made a top priority for the U.S. Government. And, Axelrod's sermon (echoed by numerous other Liberal Leaders) was the next level of spin development embodied in the endless repetition of the DNC’s "Millionaires and Billionaires" talking point. That continues in spite of the fact that it requires a complete suspension of reality, accepting the belief that Conservatives wake up every morning thinking, "What can I do today that will make life better for America's Millionaires and Billionaires?!"

Though I'm discouraged by the ongoing tyrannical attitude of today's Democrat Party and I don't understand their insistence on continuing in that manner, there is a way for them to "get it." But, as I said earlier, I know there's only one way for that to happen. Stating how that will happen will be my mantra through the General Elections of 2012. Until that long-awaited event, my repeated message to Tax and Spend Big Government Democrats will be:

“You’re misunderstanding the low approvals indicated by polls for the Whitehouse and for Congress. Those polls indicate that voters aren’t happy with those institutions ... YET. Those same approval ratings will be climbing, election by election, as we send more and more of your type home.”


Millionaires and Billionaires

Submitted by Mike M Boyer on Tue, 2011-08-16 06:10.

The Fabian Socialists are still trying to remold the world closer to their hearts desire http://www.newswithviews.com/Kress/joe137.htm by fanning the flames of class warfare.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Empty Boots, Not Empty Suits, at Iowa GOP Presidential Debate

On one of his recent shows, Conservative Radio Talk Show Host, Hugh Hewitt, was rejoicing in observing how similar today’s political circumstances are to those of 1979, during the Carter Administration. According to Hewitt, he did so because he is certain that the present conditions will lead to a “reinvigorated … American renaissance of power and influence”, as it did under the Reagan Administration, from 1981 to 1989. I’m certainly in favor of seeing that happen so, as a member of the Twitter group that Hewitt calls “The Tribbles”, I was able to indicate my support by tweeting “Preach it, Brother @HughHewitt!” As I did, though, I was thinking, “There’s a key ingredient missing here … Ronald Reagan.”

Our nation was blessed to have had President Reagan but a great leader of his stature, typically, only comes along once in a lifetime. I would welcome seeing someone emerge as an exception to this but; so far, I don’t see anyone who could fill Reagan’s boots. While I would apply this statement to the eight participants in Thursday evening’s GOP Presidential Debate in Iowa, I would also say, as a group, they showed themselves to be anything but empty suits. Unlike we do with the current Democrat Party Leadership (as represented by Obama, Axelrod, Geithner, Kerry, Reid, Durbin, Pelosi, Rangel, Clyburn, etc.), we didn’t hear the relentless drumbeat of party talking points and attacks on voters who want to resurrect our great nation. To those Democrats, I’d say, “You’re misunderstanding the low approvals indicated by polls for the Whitehouse and for Congress. Those polls indicate that voters aren’t happy with those institutions … yet. Election by election, as we send more and more of your type home, approval ratings will be going up.” By contrast, what we did get from the announced Republican Presidential Candidates Thursday night was what Moderator, Bret Baier, asked for – i.e. for talking points to be left behind. Instead, what we heard from this group were pretty unvarnished observations about how to get our country back on a positive footing, along with how their ideas differ from the sitting Administration and their Republican rivals.

One candidate, who I thought did quite well in Thursday evening’s debate, was Newt Gingrich. It was good to see him, finally, sort of step out of the shadows in this campaign. Perhaps his strongest statement was one aimed at putting the press (in the person of Chris Wallace) in its place, when he chastised Wallace for “playing Mickey Mouse games” with “Gotcha questions.” Later, he tried the same gambit with Bret Baier. This latter attempt didn’t strike me as seeming justified and I thought it was a clear indication of why Gingrich doesn’t measure up to Reagan. He is a very intelligent man but he often shows that he doesn’t always use good sense. With that said, I thought he did an excellent job of thoroughly addressing all the questions that came his way. My personal favorite was when he called the Federal Deficit Super Committee the “dumbest idea” he’s heard of and he stated that this is a job for the entirety of Congress.

Of course, the sparring between Congresswoman Michele Bachman and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was entertaining. Frankly, I’d tune in to that if it was a TV series. However, I think they both showed more indications of how they fall short of Reagan, as a standard, rather than showing how they could follow in his footsteps. In Bachman’s case, she seemed more like another career politician with her ongoing chant about making Barack Obama “a one-term President” and with her defensiveness about taking rigid positions that have not produced results. Likewise, I thought Pawlenty came off as a career politician, with the difference being that he seemed mean.

Former Senator Rick Santorum didn’t seem to get as much exposure as some of the other candidates. I thought his complaint about that had some legitimacy. However, I didn’t think he made good use of what visibility he did get. He seemed to use most of the time he got to denigrate his opponents. I never find this breaking of what President Reagan called “The Eleventh Commandment” to be appealing.

As per usual, Congressman Ron Paul seemed to have the most vocal supporters in the audience. And, once again, he and his supporters, to quote the tweet of a fellow-Tribble, “came off as nuts.” I don’t know many Ron Paul supporters well but I do know one supporter who is a fellow Tea Party member and quite a nice lady so, for her sake, I’m very uncomfortable in saying this.

The “front-runner” going in to this debate was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. I think he remained in that position coming out of the debate too. Mostly, I thought he did a good job of dispelling a press “gotcha comment” that, up to now, he has seemed to be in a “Mittness protection program.” He was very clear and thorough in outlining the seven steps he sees as needed for resurrecting the U.S. economy. And, I thought he did a fine job of illustrating how, both in the private sector and the public sector, he has provided the sort of leadership to get these jobs done. Furthermore, he plainly stated that, by contrast, President Obama is “out of his depth” in this regard.

I have to admit that former business CEO, Herman Cain, is a sentimental favorite with me. The positions he’s taken on the issues are well aligned with mine and I like the down-to-earth way he states his positions. However, he has regularly let his openness get him into trouble. And, his “willingness to learn” on foreign relations leaves many wondering if he would suffer from the same “What will he do when the phone rings at 3:00 in the morning?” weakness that Barack Obama has shown.

Finally, there’s former Utah Governor, Jon Huntsman. Out of the candidates participating in Thursday night’s debate, he is the most recent to enter the race. Although I found that several issues he addressed in the debate (securing the border, understanding foreign relations, locally determined education reform, etc.) line up with my views, he did seem like another career politician who is new to the race.

Beyond the GOP Presidential Debate in Iowa, there has been significant interest in the likelihood that Rick Perry will enter the race. As Governor of Texas, I’m betting he owns a pair of boots. Maybe he will prove himself to be somewhat “Reaganesque.” Or, perhaps, one or more other candidates will emerge, who seem to fill that bill. But, as I said before, “so far, I don’t see anyone who could fill Reagan’s boots.” With that said, I did feel that Thursday night’s debate demonstrated another comment I’ve made previously – i.e. There are several Republican Presidential Candidates who are head-and-shoulders above Barack Obama, in terms of being qualified for the job of President. My hope has been, in the process of selecting from this field of candidates, we won’t end up with McCain II. Based on what I saw in the Iowa GOP Presidential Debate, I’m more comfortable with either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney, in that regard.


The battle begins

Submitted by Brittanicus (not verified) on Sat, 2011-08-13 09:45.


+-Only one candidate for the White House will stop the bleeding of billions of dollars annually, by illegal foreigners who have taken advantage of the American people? Even Ron Paul in his book, is hesitating on bringing the full power of the law, to halt in its tracks another terrible immigration Reform package; but not so lady Michele Bachmann. Perhaps this is why Rep. Michele Bachmann exempted from being asked questions on illegal immigration? Her stance on this issue is far above the rest who stood behind their dais in Ames, Iowa? Was this leaving Bachman out of this social issue premeditated? Whether this was the case or not, she strands strong as this uncontrolled illegal immigration invader problem has been ignored by administrations for years. Bachmann will not tolerate any form of Amnesty as President. Every Sanctuary City and state that does not comply by cutting of these ordinances will lose federal funding. It’s been said many times before, that American cannot afford to subsidize Mexico, Central America, Europe, Pacific Rim or other nation; its inhabitants impoverished and desperate illegal immigrants anymore? This illogical problem is crippling America’s economy by the massive payouts for families, which have migrated illegally across our sovereign border.

The TEA PARTY has become an immense grassroots movement of tens of millions of one- mind Americans from all racial and religious backgrounds, political parties, no matter what the adverse pundits say? The TEA PARTY members share the focused philosophy of limited government, individual freedoms, personal responsibility, "fair" free markets and above all else returning power to the States and the people. The TEA PARTY is about reforming all political parties and control, so the key principles of our Constitution, once again is the foundation of which this nation stands.

Of course open border disciples, business lobbyist will deny the obvious, that this illegal incursion is drowning us in debt—with no end in sight. (FAIR) American Federation of Immigration Reform that of 2009, reported that overall costs to subsidize the illegal alien household was calculated through, federal, State, County and Municipal sources that it was a $113 Billion dollar problem. Federation for American Immigration Reform issued a report in which they estimate the total annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level is estimated to be $113 billion combined. The states are bearing the burden of the costs; while the government share is nearly $29 billion, it escalates to $84.2 billion at the state and local level. The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The state-by-state breakdown begins on page 4 of this report at: http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf?docID=4921

Education for the children of illegal migrants and immigrants constitutes the sole largest outlay to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Virtually all of those expenses are absorbed by state and local governments. At the federal level, only about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs is allied with the illegal immigration occupation and recouped through taxes collected from illegal nationals. Nearly all illegal aliens do not pay income taxes; only those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal immigrants when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resultant in payments from the U.S. Treasury. Please note this is not a static expenditure, but these dollars amounts are raising all the time.

Ask yourself, why the Grand Canyon State of Arizona had not choice, but to clamp down against the massive dollar amounts spent to appease illegal alien homesteads How can a small South Western state that is mostly desert, afford to pay out $2 Billion dollars annually for foreigners? Then again-- how can Leftist legislators in Sacramento, California, justify taking taxpayer’s money and giving it to illegal aliens when these persons truly don't exist, other than in ICE enforcement records or Homeland Security? HAS ANY READER THOUGHT OF CHECKING THEIR STATES PAYOUT TO FOREIGN NATIONALS? Although they come here through the magnet of jobs, welfare and each year bring their children. The estimates of 300.000 babies enter via a broken, intermittent border fence, that can no-way be fully enforced without the deployment of troops. Instant citizen for babies is above most payments, is an incredulous cost forced on taxpayers by Liberal judges legislating from their gavel.

Because entering America without papers is not a—FELONY—it is essentially a giant hole in the wall, which imports not only millions of illegal aliens, but a massive population of criminals; bringing death, mayhem and ID theft on the unsuspecting citizens and residents. As I said in my commentary yesterday, the only way to sever the incentive of jobs (which I never thought I would admit) is issuing every citizen and legal resident a government ID CARD. This could be used to get employed US workers. (8 million illegal aliens have stolen jobs from mostly low income Americans according to reputable sources.) The same official ID card could be presented for voting; instead of the mess we have now, with convicted felons, deceased and illegal aliens, fraudulently using the election process to alter an elections direction.

You would also use this federal ID CARD to be checked against other data bases, official birth records to see if you have the right to be issued a driver’s license, vehicle insurance, welfare or other Public entitlements. I shouldn't gloat over the welfare payouts in California, but it is a self inflicted wound caused by the Liberals in the capitol. California, the Godfather of Sanctuary State has a $19 Billion dollar budget gap, with a staggering cost of $21 Billion $ according to the National Conference of State Legislators in 2009. We must wonder how the welfare costs have escalated in two years in the once Golden State?

MY EARLIER BLOGS: http://brittanicus-enoughisenough.blogspot.com/

No Copyright. Distribute Freely.

From Rab L Rouser via email

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Sun, 2011-08-14 14:25.


+-I was going to compliment you an a nice article and point out that, as Michael Reagan points out in his book ‘The New Reagan Revolution’ (on pages 66-67) ;

“Gerald Ford was a flawed candidate, as was John McCain. But I’ll let you in on a secret: We’re not going to find a perfect candidate. Ronald Reagan was not perfect. He was not 100% pure. He was a great man, but he had his flaws. Despite all that he accomplished Ronald Reagan couldn’t win the GOP nomination today.

If Ronald Reagan were running for president today, where would the opposition come from? From the left? No, from the right! Ronald Reagan would not be considered ideologically pure enough to be the standard-bearer of the party.

Conservatives revere Ronald Reagan as the patron saing ot the GOP– and rightly so. But if conservatives in 1980 had applied the same standards to Ronald Reagan that they apply to Joyhn McCain, we might never have had the economic recovery of the 1980′s of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Ronald Reagan caaomplished what he did because he saw the big picture. He waved a bnner of bold, unmistakable colors, with no pale pastel shades. He wasn’t a perfect man, but he was a good man–

And a great leader.

I didn’t bother to watch the debate. I have learned that words used at these events are just lies intended to hornswaggle voters into lending their support toward the candidate most to their liking.

I sit back and wait for my intelligent friends to post on trustworty publications such as Red State and then benefit from their sage judgement.

Thank you for your tireless devotion to liberty my friend.


Submitted by Jon R (not verified) on Sun, 2011-08-14 20:04.


+-If a political candidate has to compare himself to Reagan; Chances are he is not anything like Reagan. It annoys me to know end to hear Presidential candidates say things like, I am Reagan Republican or What would Reagan do?

You know what candidate? Reagan was a leader. Reagan didn't compare himself to other people. Reagan saw himself as a leader of a movement. Be that person, don't say your like that person.

From @strongthought via Twitter

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 05:47.


+-If we had ‘internet scrutiny’ in 1979 we would be critical of Reagan too. There is a Reagan in that pack of candidates. There is.

From @tamij via Twitter

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 05:50.


+-Nice Gary!

From Michael Beck via email

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 05:52.


+-Great analysis big Gary. I think correct analysis. This next election, Obama will be in over his head in debating the GOP candidate, just like he is in over his head in running the country. Ron Paul is a total idiot. To think that Iran with a nuclear weapon poses no threat is kooksville.

From Joel Turvey via email

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 05:54.



I enjoyed your post very much. You put your finger on what is missing in the Republican presidential primary contest. Having said that, I feel hopeful after watching the last 2 debates. Any one of these candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) would be better than President Obama. All seem committed to encouraging free enterprise and reversing Obama’s policies, especially Obamacare. They are articulate and forceful. And who knows, like @strongthought observed, maybe a Reagan will eventually emerge from this field, especially with the addition of Rick Perry.

My sentimental favorite is Michele Bachmann. She may seem rigid, but she was uncompromising in opposition to raising the debt ceiling, and she has fought against the administration’s positions, despite Pawlenty’s petty comments. She walks the walk on the pro-life issue.

Keep up your good work.

From a fellow Northwest conservative,

Joel Turvey (@joelmt)

From team_Excalibur via email

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-15 06:03.


+-I have to admit that the “political machine” of either party is not producing a believable candidate I would strongly back and vote for in 2012. Every “hard-line party”, rich politician currently in Congress thinks that the existing two-party system with support from dependent, high-density urban area voters will either save them in the coming elections or replace them with a party clone that holds the “status quo”. It’s ironic that many of the nation’s young voters and “poor” vote for Congressional candidates that are from a very rich and arrogant sector of our society. Why should anyone of the right stuff that we need to replace the Congress or the President in office need to pay millions to promote themselves as a viable candidate and participate as a candidate in a preliminary campaign event??? The whole system is broken! We need real leadership, not accusations and vague political promises! Obamacare is not about medical care improvement, it’s about expanded federal government control of the middle class populous and weakening of the Constitutional rights of every American.

The Democrats are primarily funded by big business interests (those same corporations who don’t pay their fair share of taxes and outsource our critical balance of trade jobs to our national debt “lenders”) and fully supported by new white-collar state government unions in almost all states with very large cities on both coasts. We are headed for a direct political conflict between suburban folks with angered patriotic seniors who paid their “entitlement” taxes the Democrats established over the last 60+ years and progressive liberal socialists and communists headquartered in all of America’s big cities. A dictator will emerge (if he hasn’t already been voted in by the “sheeple” who depend on the current course of federal government-initiated entitlement programs and taxation.) We are under economic attack and still giving borrowed money away to other counties in the world for favors. Meanwhile, Congress just keeps rearranging the deck chairs on the American, National Debt-ridden Titanic…

Sunday, August 7, 2011

President Obama: To Employ More Veterans, Get Big Government Out of Their Way!


In a speech Friday, at the Washington Navy Yard, President Obama overviewed his administration’s new initiative meant to help those serving in the military find employment following their service. The program announced was in response to a report regarding the unemployment rate for Iraq and Afghanistan-era veterans. Although the unemployment rate for all veterans stands at 8.6 % (lower than the nation’s overall unemployment rate of 9.1 %), the current unemployment rate for Iraq and Afghanistan-era veterans is 12.4 %. That is an increase over the 11.8 % rate reported for this group a year ago.

As could be expected, with the Navy Yard as a backdrop and surrounded by military personnel, a speech on this topic was well received. Regardless of the setting and the audience, I see this as a topic deserving of positive interest from us all. When our heroes, who offer themselves for military service on our behalf, return from that service to civilian life, I want to see them welcomed on a level playing field and given a head start I believe they’ve earned. Obviously, based on the unemployment rates being reported, our Iraq and Afghanistan-era heroes are experiencing a welcome that is opposite of what I’d like for them to be getting.

President Obama’s plan here consists of two key elements: (1) He is asking Congress to legislate new tax breaks intended to encourage employers to give a hiring edge to veterans. (2) He has ordered the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments to form a new task force, to develop a plan aimed at helping veterans secure post-service employment.

Although I commend the President for having his heart in the right place on this, I don’t think his is the right solution. It’s amazing to me that, even in the face of the abundantly obvious abject failure we’re experiencing with his dogma, President Obama remains an undying big government ideologue. Much as was the case with this approach during the Carter administration, Obama and his fellow-zealots have formulated a scheme for tinkering with the symptoms of this matter rather than diagnosing its cause and prescribing corrective treatment.

In considering this problem and its likely source, I couldn’t help but notice its similarities to another dilemma I wrote about not long ago, in an article entitled Meeting the Challenge of Senior Underemployment – One of Our Greatest Socioeconomic Opportunities. This writing addresses the difficulty being faced by another group of veterans … Seniors who are veterans of business.

When I wrote that article, the U.S. unemployment rate was 9.3%. At that time, the unemployment rate for Seniors (people aged 55 and over) was 6.7%. Initially, that made it sound like older workers were doing better than the general population. However, since the recession began in December of 2007, the unemployment rate for Seniors had increased by a factor of 2.09, while unemployment in the general population increased by a factor of 1.86. Furthermore, the average duration of unemployment for Seniors was 53.6 weeks (more than one year) versus 39.4 weeks for the younger unemployed.

In addition to the similarities between these two groups of veterans, with unemployment, they share corresponding experiences with underemployment. I believe related accounts of this tell us as much as, if not more than, unemployment tells us about the underlying cause of the overall problem here and its likely source.

The following are a few anecdotes, to exemplify this predicament for our Iraq and Afghanistan-era military veterans:

“After almost two years in New York looking for work in law enforcement, Iraq veteran Christopher Kurz just moved back in with his parents in Arizona. His military police work in Iraq and aboard a nuclear aircraft carrier didn't seem to translate into a job.”

“Staff Sgt. Meghan Meade, 27, of East Moriches, N.Y., said her lack of a bachelor's degree also seems to have kept her from getting a full-time job, even doing administrative work. A member of the New York Air National Guard, she said she's spent five years on active duty and did a tour in Iraq. She has an associate's degree, but she's reluctant to go back to school because she's not sure exactly what to study. She's waiting tables and doing temporary clerical work.”

“Hugh Conlon, from Augusta, Georgia, who served in the Army for 20 years as a Sergeant First Class. He served three combat tours as a medic, most recently as a Senior Medical non-commissioned officer for an Iraqi National Police Brigade in Iraq. Despite his extensive experience as a medic in combat zones, Hugh was unable to find a job in the medical field when he left the Army. He was turned down for positions ranging from driving an ambulance to admitting patients to the hospital.”

Although this group of veterans may not hear these things directly from prospective employers, typical reasons that come back to them about why they’ve been passed over include: The prospective employers’ failure to connect the responsibilities of their military duty to civilian job requirements, concerns that veterans might have mental health issues and with Guard and Reserve troops, worry that they will deploy again.

To illustrate the corresponding quandary with the other group, Seniors who are veterans of business, here are a few stories out of the many like this that I’m personally aquainted with:

“A President and CEO of a telecom company. For nearly two years he was “between jobs” but got one six-month consulting gig. Now he is employed as a Senior Operations Manger with a nonprofit.”

“A VP of Worldwide Sales for a software developer. The five years since she left that position have held a VP-level job with a marketing research firm, a VP-level job with a nonprofit, a couple of advisory/consulting gigs and significant periods ‘between jobs’.”

“A CFO-level person who had been working abroad. He moved back home to be with an ailing parent who has, since, passed away. During over three years ‘back home’, he managed to get only two months of consulting work. He has returned to a financial role, working abroad, for a U.S. Government agency.”

“A President of an apparel manufacturer. After two years of unemployment he accepted a position as VP of Operations for a heavy equipment dealer. That job lasted 1 ½ years. He has returned to consulting, as he looks for his next opportunity.”

Here, again, this group doesn’t necessarily get direct feedback from prospective employers about why they have been passed over but the rationale seems to include: The hiring company viewing the candidates age as a negative rather than valuing the experience that comes with the age, concerns that these veterans may lack energy/enthusiasm and apprehension that they may just be looking for a place to ‘coast’ to their imminent retirement.”

So, what does all this indicate? Does it mean that I think Seniors should be getting the same sort of government supported jobs program that the President is proposing for our Iraq and Afghanistan-era military veterans? Well, as temptingly self-serving as it would be for me to say “Yes”, I have to say “No”. Does it mean that I’m opposed to seeing our Iraq and Afghanistan-era military veterans get the help the President is proposing? No. I agree with Hugh Conlon when he says, “That’s no way for America to support the troops”, regarding the unemployment/underemployment experience we’re presently giving Vets like him. Do I think that what the President is proposing is more of a band-aid than corrective surgery? Yes!

If you just listen to what both sets of veterans are being told about why they’re being passed over for employment, you hear evidence of the need for a paradigm shift, not tinkering. Whether it’s failure to connect the responsibilities of their military duty to civilian job requirements, concerns that veterans might have mental health issues and worry that they will deploy again (for military veterans) or it’s viewing the candidates age as a negative rather than valuing the experience that comes with the age, concerns that these folks may lack energy/enthusiasm and apprehension that they may just be looking for a place to ‘coast’ to their imminent retirement (for business veterans); these are the results of businesses looking for reasons not to hire. This is what you find when the business environment has been stifled by ever-increasing regulation and taxation accompanied by government spending exceeding the wildest imaginations. On the other hand, when these factors are reversed, business thrives and you find employers looking for reasons to hire people - i.e. They look for ways to match up the skills a military veteran gains from their service or the experience a business veteran aquires from their career with fitting jobs that need doing in a booming economy. This is the paradigm shift that is called for.

In closing, I want to emphasize that accomplishing this paradigm shift for the two groups of veterans I’ve mentioned here is critical to the socioeconomic future of our nation. To a great degree, today’s Seniors are made up of Baby Boomers. This generation was lavished, more than any other, with education. Moreover, they were raised by the GI Generation, who instilled them with a great work ethic. That meant, not only did they get a great education, they actually went out and tried to accomplish everything they could with that resource and in the process, grew the resource by honing it with experience to create what I call “A Great Wealth of Wisdom.” Sadly, this invaluable resource is going to die with the Baby Boom generation, if we don’t put them to work, ideally in mentoring roles with the best of our younger generations. What better candidates for this latter group than our Iraq and Afghanistan-era heroes? By combining and unleashing these immediately available resources, we can reinvent the socioeconomic environment of a true Super Power. But, this won’t result from tinkering. It will require systemic corrective action.

Very good, well reasoned

Submitted by Big Mike (not verified) on Sun, 2011-08-07 11:19.


+-Very good, well reasoned article, Gary. Thanks!

Your Comment

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-08 07:59.


+-Thanks, Big Mike!

Via Facebook

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Sun, 2011-08-07 12:54.


+-Larry J. Smith Good thing. We owe them jobs for their contributions and dedication.

Your Comment

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Mon, 2011-08-08 08:02.


+-I fully agree, Larry.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Much Heat, Little Light

The result of the end of "the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America"? ... Politics as usual!

Monday evening, by a vote of 269-161, the U.S. Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 … a/k/a the bipartisan agreement to address the debt crisis. According to an AP report on this, “A final Senate sign-off for the measure is virtually assured on Tuesday” and “If the bill were presented to the president, he would sign it.”

Sunday night, President Obama and congressional leaders announced this agreement that, according to another AP article, is a "dramatic resolution" that will "(lift) a cloud that had threatened the still-fragile economic recovery." In that same article, the President is quoted as saying, "(The deal) will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America". One can only hope that he was looking in the mirror as he made that statement but I have to admit that the President hit the nail on the head about this being a "crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America". Sadly, it appears that, after putting the American public through this stressful time, our elected federal officials have only accomplished a continuation of "politics as usual". And, in my mind, it's just the sort of political outcome that's in Barack Obama's "wheelhouse" - i.e. Continuing to dangle "Hope" before the nation's people without delivering much in actual "Change".

What This Deal is Aimed to Deliver

Reportedly, this agreement is meant to cut federal spending by $2.2 trillion over the coming decade. Based on the 2011 Federal Budget, the U.S. government plans to spend $38.2 trillion over the next 10 years. While cutting that by $2.2 trillion doesn't seem very significant, that is this deal's overall "best case" scenario. Getting to the $2.2 trillion level requires the most optimistic outcome of sure-to-be highly contentious follow up work by a "super-committee" of legislators. However, the first phase of this proposed legislation will generate around $900 billion in spending cuts over the next decade, while allowing an immediate $900 billion increase in the government's ability to incur debt. So, the "best case" scenario for this deal's first phase actually means Zero change initially, followed by continuing and ever increasing deficit spending. And, the conservative objective to get Congress to pass a balanced-budget amendment, which seemed within easy reach, has been abandoned.

Furthermore, the federal government's ability to borrow more money will now be authorized beyond the 2012 elections. This is being positioned as a relief to the American public, in not having to continue to live under the "cloud" of this "debt crisis", for now, but its true benefit is solely to President Obama, for his reelection aspirations.

Finally, it's being touted that Republicans have achieved a major goal in this agreement through avoiding tax increases. In fact, though, increased tax recommendations are likely to come from the follow up work of the bipartisan "super-committee".

Winners and Losers

As noted above, this "dramatic resolution" claims to result in a number of "Winners". You can, easily, judge those for yourself. However, some have pointed to the Tea Party, as a "Loser" in this deal and I want to address that.

As indicated by the title of this article, I see this "crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America" as having produced "Much Heat" and "Little Light". Of course, I was hoping for much more in a real debt reduction plan. And, certainly, I'm deeply disappointed to see the loss of momentum towards a balanced budget amendment. However, the general focus of our federal lawmakers has been shifted from continuing ever-increasing spending to striving to learn to live within our means. That is an accomplishment that the Tea Party can proudly take credit for.

Courageously Achieving More

Although the above mentioned shift in the general focus of our federal lawmakers is in line with what voters were looking for in electing a new Congress last Fall, I had hoped those newly focused legislators would not accept this accomplishment as being enough. For many years now, our nation has been sinking in a morass of "politics as usual". The desire to get out of that quagmire was the driving force that brought the sitting Congress into power. More than anything else, the "dramatic resolution"' announced by President Obama and congressional leaders Sunday night, is "politics as usual". Since that is diametrically opposite of the primary impetus that brought these newly focused lawmakers into office, I was disappointed to see many of them (including Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, who represents the congressional district where I live) support this deal.

Of course, I recognize that what I had hoped for is something that, as folks would say where I was raised in the Midwest, "says easy and does hard". Standing your ground when you’re being hit from all sides on the “debt crisis” with issues like its “cloud” continuing to hang over the American people, its threat to our economy, necessary levels of spending, appropriate levels of debt, its potential impact on Obama’s reelection, its prospective bearing on your own reelection, legitimate needs for taxes/revenues, its impact on job growth, the possibility of passing a balanced budget amendment, countless political pressures, etc.; makes this far from easy. In fact, just the opposite is true; it requires extremely hard work and great courage.

With that said, let me go on to say I understand that the courage required for me to express my views, hiding behind my keyboard, is nothing compared to what I'm asking of those legislators who came into office along with the momentum of the Tea Party. And though I’m disappointed with their not continuing to stand their ground to accomplish even more, that doesn’t mean I’m giving up on them. To the contrary, I’m very proud of the tremendously difficult work they have done and the immense courage they have displayed in doing it. I just want remind them that this is what we were looking for when we voted for them. And, I want to encourage them that the greater level of accomplishment I’d hoped for is, in fact, achievable. For me, the greatest indication of that came from Barack Obama, the antagonist in this episode of “politics as usual”, when he told Eric Cantor, “Don’t call my bluff.” To me, that clearly said, he was bluffing and that his bluff could have been called.

Next time, stand your ground and don’t miss a similar opportunity.


on Bluffing and Ideologues

Submitted by Mike Frome (not verified) on Tue, 2011-08-02 07:28.


+-Hi Gary, I don't believe the president was bluffing, he was merely misusing the language (again). What he meant was "Don't try me because I'm not bluffing". In my view this is because he is an ideologue; a true believer in his closely held (although repeatedly disproved) social and economic theories.

I believe that in his eyes, a failure in congress to act would have been acceptable...he would have done as the extreme progressive wing of his party has been demanding. He would have unilaterally taken the power to set the debt ceiling unto the executive branch, thereby making a complete mockery of congressional budgetary authority for the indefinite future.

To the masses, I believe he would have been able to justify this by making the case "he was the only adult in DC" and "it was in the urgent best interest of the country to act", and I believe that case would have been sufficient for many.

As far as these "cuts" are concerned, a "cut" of a trillion or two into a notional $9T of increases over a decade is another mortal insult to the English language, just on a semantics basis. Never mind the fact that none of those cuts, put off into the indefinite future, are going to happen until they are *again* forced. If our leadership couldn't do anything meaningful now, they are going to be worse than useless in the coming monetary crisis.



Fool we once, then fool me again

Submitted by Lynn Costello (not verified) on Tue, 2011-08-02 14:32.


+-As we've seen from watching the President and democrats today, it is back to business as usual with "investments" in more government and of course an effort to make those millionaires, billionaires and owners of corporate jets pay their fair share. So much for compromise. We wake up realizing once again, we are suckers!

Millionaires & Billionaires

Submitted by Gary Wiram on Tue, 2011-08-02 19:03.


+-Don't you just love knowing that, with the Liberals never-ending repitition of this talking point, there are actually many out there who must think that Conservatives get up every day asking themselves, "What can I do today to make life better for America's Millionaires & Billionaires?!"