30. A Modest Proposal

It has been 280 years since Jonathan Swift penned his proposal, and now it is my turn. I've decided to stop fighting the enlightened, intellectual progressives. In fact, I'm picking up their mantle with the exuberance of a zealot. I agree with their vision, their hope of a better future for all. They want healthcare for all Americans. I say great!! But I also say, "Why stop there? Why not guarantee a comfortable and safe future for all Americans?"

So, here is my modest proposal. The US government will give each American $1 million to secure their future. In addition, $500,000 will be given to each family to purchase a home. Health care will be provided, regardless of cost, to each and every citizen of this great country. No American shall ever go without a safe home, a warm bed, a full belly and the best medical care possible. Upon the birth of a child, the government will issue a check for another $1 million to ensure that child's future.

How can any caring, loving, concerned, compassionate American not agree with me? To disagree with this proposal would doubtlessly be because of hate and/or racism. No other reason could possibly be valid. Don't we all want the best for each and every one of us?

What, you say? This proposal is too much? Too extreme? Too generous? I'll ignore for a moment your obvious greed and selfishness and try to be open to debate and negotiation. How about we reduce the amount to only $750,000 per American and only $400,000 for a home. The health care, though, is not negotiable. Unlike so many non-progressives, I have a heart, a soul, a conscience.

-------------------------------------

Just as Swift's essay was satirical, so, of course is mine. Sadly, many of the progressive left would almost agree with such a proposal. Since their make-believe world has no limits or boundries, this proposal, or some variation of it, certainly is possible. Isn't it?

I do agree with socialist progressives that it would be wonderful if healthcare could be provided to every American, even every person on this planet. It would be great if the world worked in such a way that every person could live without want. But this is not reality. We've seen the results of countries trying to ensure "fairness" and the results have been nothing more than common misery for all. No American ever flew to the USSR to avail themselves of their excellent medical care. No wall was erected around the prior communist eastern bloc countries to keep people out, only to keep people in. No one has ever risked their life swimming from Florida to reach a supposed paradise in Cuba.

The issue with Obama's healthcare is its cost. It isn't about racism, or greed or hate. Let's look at my modest proposal and its cost. The US would have to print almost $1 quadrillion. What would be the result? First of all, those dollars would basically be worthless, inflation would drive the cost of every product to stratospheric heights. Even if inflation could be avoided, most Americans would stop working and live off their windfall. If no one is working, who is producing the goods and services we need to live? Someone owning chickens would quickly find a market for his eggs at $1,000 each!

If you, Mr. Progressive, think this is ridiculous and Obamacare isn't, explain to me why the left accused then President Bush of bankrupting our country when the national debt hit $1 trillion yet you see nothing wrong with Obama tripling that debt in his first six months in office. The projections are that should all of Obama's programs be implemented, the debt will rise rapidly over the next ten years to $10 to $20 trillion. How can that possibly make sense to you? On Sunday, Obama shockingly stated that the only way to reduce federal spending, at this point, is to implement this healthcare program. Ignoring the data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which stated that the cost would actually rise, Obama still stands up and makes such a statement. Even worse, there are those that believe him.

Yes, it would be nice to give everyone, everything they want or need, but life simply doesn't work that way. Our founding fathers were wise beyond their time. We can provide opportunity and nothing more. It is up to each individual to succeed.

I have written before in my essay America The Prejudiced of immigrants from all over the world who have found success in this country. We provided opportunity and they came, they worked hard, they went to college, they saved, they invested, they bought homes and they made lives for themselves and for their families. Something not possible in the socialistic countries from which they fled.

Yet through some fantasy delusion, the progressive left sees a socialistic utopia as possible here in the US. Yet in spite of the fact - the fact - that it has never worked anywhere else in the world at any time in history, they still believe somehow, some way, it will work here.

My proposal is satire. To the left, it is sadly somehow real.



(Special thanks to Roger Massengale)

29. The Party of Parrots

Yesterday I read an opinion piece regarding Obama's recent troubles getting legislation through Congress, especially his health care bill. After completing the article, I continued on and read many of the comments posted by other readers. Not surprisingly I read the same comments I've read many times before from other articles. The comments come from what I now call "The Parrots." A parrot, usually a leftist, is one who continually repeats the same phrase over and over without understanding what he or she says or even why he or she says it. Yet, repeat it they do.

The first parrot phrase I've found is that the Republican Party is the "Party of 'No'." Since conservatives reject Obama's socialistic agenda they have been encouraging their Congress men and women to vote against these policies. Of course, that vote would be "No." Do these same parrots see Democrats as the party of "Yes?" Hmmm.... Whenever conservatives try to push legislation for choice in education, allowing poorer parents the same priveleges to send their children to private schools as the rich, what does the left say? "No, No, No, No, No!!!"

What about privatization of Social Security? If you read my article "Jack Makes An Investment" you'll discover that privatization would conservatively lead to retirement benefits five to ten times greater than the current government controlled program. What has the left said about such a change? "No, No, No, No, No!"

These are just two examples of the supposed "Yes Party" stomping their feet, taking their shoes off, beating them on their tables and shouting, "No, No, No!" But does that stop the parrots from assigning that label to conservatives? Well, um... no, it doesn't.

The second label used against conservatives is that we are the "Haters." Hate, hate, hate - that's all we do on the right, we hate everyone and everything, well, at least according to the parrots. If anyone disagrees with any policy in any way of Obama's - they are a hater. No discussion, no debate, no give and take - just hate. Hmmm...... let me think, what did the left call George W. Bush? Nazi, Stupid, Racist...... I guess I just don't feel the love there. Sounds like hate to me.

Jesse Jackson has made a career spewing hate by calling people racists. Harvard professor Henry Gates was quick to decry his arresting officer as a racist. What about Obama's "Green Czar" Van Jones, saying "they [Republicans] are a**holes?" He's also made racially charged statements referring to "white polluters and the white environmentalists steering poison to minority communities." More hate. On any day of the week, visit the DailyKos and read the postings or check out the HuffingtonPost and read what the bloggers say about anyone who disagrees with the policies of the left. How any rational person can read that crap and see love and compassion is beyond me. It's hate - vitriolic hate. I don't know how many times I've been in a room with leftists and someone makes a political comment to which all I do is simply question their position, asking them to give supporting evidence for their views, and I am met with a litany of name-calling and hate. Hate, hate, hate. Hate and more parrot phrases.

The third parrot example is to me, the most interesting. I first heard this parrot line from MSNBCs Rachel Maddow. Ms. Maddow went to Stanford University yet she too is nothing more than a parrot. She was ranting on about conservatives standing up against Obama and Pelosi's push to ramp up this countries run to socialism. Her exceedingly brilliant parrot phrase was, "if these people hate socialism so much, why do they still draw Social Security and Medicare?" Wow, Rachel, you got me there. Ok, Rachel and the rest of you parrots - are you listening? I'll try to take this one slowly. Yes, as much as I would love to see both Social Security and Medicare phased out, I can't blame anyone, conservative or liberal, for expecting the government to live up to their promises. If I'm 65 years old and have been forced all my life to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars into both Social Security and Medicare, yes, I do expect a return, pitifully small though it may be. If I had been given a choice to contribute to Social Security or to a private program and chose the private program, no, I would not then expect to draw from the public option. The same is true for Medicare. For what I and my employer have paid into the system over my lifetime, I could secure private insurance for my retirement years. But, it didn't go into a private account, it went to the government. So, I do expect them, regardless of my belief in the program, to pony up. Just as I would expect the same from any organization, public or private, into which I've paid and who has guaranteed me a product or service in return. Rachel, let me opt out of these programs and put that same money into a private fund and you'll never hear me ask for government assistance. Is that fair? Are you ok with that? But the supposed "Party of Choice" has repeatedly said, "NO, NO, NO!! NO Choice for YOU!"

But if Rachel sees this as hypocrisy, let's take a closer look at the left. In 2001, the state Democrats in Arkansas wanted to raise taxes. Then Governor Mike Huckabee said "no." But, he did respect those that wished for such an increase and created the "Tax Me More Fund." This fund allowed those leftists who believed in the "public option" and higher taxes to put their money where their mouth was and voluntarily contribute to this fund. The result? Six months later the fund had only raised $1,900. I wonder how much Rachel contributed.

I'm all for the "public option" as long as the public who demands that option also pays for it. Obama and his followers want health care for an additional 50 million people. Great - tax them more!! Set up a fund to which they can contribute. Then use that money to purchase health insurance for all of the uninsured. What do you think Rachel?

I'm guessing Rachel and the rest of the parrots will say, "No, No, No!"

28. Two Townhall Questions For President Obama

President Obama, thank you for taking my question today.

First of all, I want to assure you that I do not represent any insurance company nor am I a plant of any faction of Hillary's "vast right-wing conspiracy." I am not a member of any mob, a racist nor an "evil-mongerer." I am just an ordinary American citizen who is deeply concerned about the proposed health care initiative in Congress. Second, in spite of Ms. Pelosi's views, I do not see my concerns as "un-American" and I trust you will not see them as such either.

In listening to many of the townhall meetings which have been broadcast, members of Congress, as well as yourself, Mr. President, have often been unable to answer specific questions regarding the content of the health care bill. The reason usually cited is that several versions of the bill are currently working their way through committees and it is not yet currently known what will be in the final bill. This is quite understandable. On the other hand, in July, before the Congressional summer break in August, you were trying to push this seemingly unknown bill through both houses before members of Congress and the American public were even able to review its contents.

So, my first question: Mr. President, will you promise me and all Americans that when this bill is fully hammered out, that it will be posted on the internet for a minimum of eight (8) weeks so that all members of Congress and all concerned citizens of this great country are allowed sufficient time to review and understand a bill that will place one-seventh of our economy under government control? This will give us all time to understand and digest this bill and then time to contact our members of Congress with our comments and concerns. Considering the magnitude of this bill and its potential impact on our economy, is this really too much to ask?

My second question: Mr. President, you have made many sweeping promises regarding this bill. One such recent promise is that no one will ever have to stand in line for health care. You have portrayed this bill a the solution to our nation's health care problems and concerns. So, Mr. President, will you promise to me and all Americans here and now, that one additional clause will be placed in this bill. That clause will read:

"All members of Congress, the Supreme Court, the President of the United States, all members of the President's cabinet, all federal employees and all members of the families of each of these offices must be covered soley by this plan. Any elected or appointed federal official, member or employee not choosing this plan must reliquish their office or job within the federal government."

If I was a member of Congress or even the President of the United States, there is not one single piece of legislation I would ever force upon the American people that I would not also wish to apply to me. I trust you, your wife Michelle, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Al Sharpton, Dick Durbin, Arlen Specter, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and every other member of Congress who is committed to this health plan, hold these same values and will welcome the excellent care which will undoubtedly be provided. And if this plan is not good enough for you, your family or for your esteemed colleagues, then why should it be good enough for any other American?

Thank you Mr. President for your time and your concern.

27. What's In A Name?

Tuesday, the California Supreme Court actually lived up to their role in government, well, at least six of the seven justices did. Instead of legislating from the bench, they ruled in favor of the majority of Californians who passed Proposition 8, the proposition which bans gay marriage. In their summary, they sent the measure back to the people. If gay marriage is to become law, they said, it must be the residents of California who approve the measure.

Bravo. It’s about time.

But this puts the gay community in a very awkward situation. For their future proposition to pass, they must now somehow convince the same people they have been demonizing in the past to vote for their measure in the future. Since the passage of Prop 8, here is a sampling of what I have seen on television from the pro-gay marriage crowd:

1. Near-rioting in front of the Mormon Temple in Los Angeles. The Mormon church has been a frequent target of anti-Prop 8 activists. But demographically, the churches most responsible for the passage of Prop 8 are the black churches and Latino Catholic churches.

2. During an anti-Prop 8 demonstration in Palm Springs, a small, elderly woman entered the crowd carrying a cross. A demonstrator wrestled the cross out of her hands, threw it on the ground and stomped on it.

3. Tom Hanks calling those who supported Prop 8 “un-American.” Although he later apologized, it’s pretty difficult putting that comment back in a can where it should have remained.

4. In San Francisco, during a Catholic mass, several drag queens dressed as nuns, entered the church and approached the altar to take communion. Again, this was a protest against the churches position on gay marriage, but it desecrated the altar and the sacrament and certainly won no converts to their cause.

5. Anti-Prop 8 groups calling anyone who disagrees with their position as “homophobes” and “hate-mongers.”

It is fascinating to me that anyone in the gay community would think that these actions would rally support for their cause. In fact, it has the opposite effect by polarizing and empowering those who oppose gay marriage. I would think that even Mormons who might have been sympathetic or even voted against Prop 8 now may change their mind after the near rioting outside of their temple.

Fred Phelps, a minister in Topeka, Kansas campaigns heavily against the gay community with his “God Hates Fags” website and organized protests. He is a vile, repulsive man. The gay community, understandably, denounces Fred and his disgusting demonstrations, yet they take his same approach by attacking those with whom they disagree. Is Fred winning over converts with his disgusting antics? If not, why does the gay community feel that it will work for them?

The gay community and its supporters claim this issue is about “rights.” It isn’t though, it’s merely about a word and that word is “marriage.” They could easily have the same rights as long as they use a word or phrase other than “marriage.” Calling it “domestic partnership” or “life partnership” would make all the difference. Polls within California have repeatedly shown that the vast majority of voters are sympathetic and would vote for such a measure. But once the proposition invokes “marriage” the attitudes of voters change. Their position is understandable since marriage has strong religious meanings, especially for Catholics and Mormons.

But this really isn’t about rights or even fairness, it is about money and political power. By keeping your group victimized and agitated you also keep them organized. As long as this remains a hot political issue, money will continue to flow into the Human Rights Campaign and other pro-gay marriage organizations. Take away the hot-button topic and you lose your financial support.

Respecting the beliefs of others and working toward a reasonable compromise is clearly not part of this movement. It is all or nothing. It has been decided that nothing short of “marriage” will suffice. So, more money, more anger, more protests, more victimization, more demonization and more finger pointing are ahead for California and the rest of the country.

What a waste.

26. Dem Bones

"De back bone connected to de neck bone
De neck bone connected to de head bone
Oh hear de word of de Lawd!"

I guess my biggest problem with liberal ideals is that they all seem disconnected from the reality that everything in life is interconnected. Each of their ideals can only operate in the pristine fantasy land in which liberals abide. Whether it be political or economic, each item exists in a separate little bubble and none of those bubbles apparently interact.

Since we are in a recession, let’s first start with economics. Liberals believe they can raise federal income by simply raising taxes on corporations. Sounds pretty simple, the companies pay more from their profits and the government has more money to spend. Of course, this ignores the reaction from the corporations and consumers. To maintain their profits, corporations will first consider raising the prices of their products to meet the higher tax demands. They may lay off workers, reducing their expenses. They may even consider relocating their facilities to another state or country with more favorable tax codes. In general though, raising taxes on corporations rarely increases revenues to the Feds. In fact, it is more likely to reduce jobs, which then in turn, reduces the taxes each of those employees would have paid.

How about raising taxes on rich people, something Obama and most liberals feel is a solution. Most of those rich people have options, just like the corporations. They may switch investments to municipal bonds to avoid taxes. As tax rates rise, the lower interest rates paid by muni bonds become more attractive and more profitable. They may shelter income by forming a foundation, something the Clintons and Michael Moore found as a good way to avoid taxation. How about moving money offshore? Whether legal or not, this is an option that the Kennedy family found to be quite appealing. In each case, federal and state revenues drop, not increase.

Yet when you mention these outcomes to a liberal, they dismiss them as irrelevant. It doesn’t appear that they really care about outcome – just revenge in some twisted way.

Unions are another banner which liberals proudly wave. Yes, unions do generally ensure higher wages for unskilled workers, but they are more than just a wage problem for corporations. In the 1940s, the vast majority of products in the world were manufactured in the US. Today the number is less than 25%. Unions drive jobs out of the country – that is a fact. Which is better, lots of jobs at $10 an hour or just a very few at $30 an hour?

The US currently imports more steel than it manufactures. The demand is here, but union, government regulations and taxation all drive the production elsewhere. Can’t liberals see the correlation? Are fewer American jobs what liberals really want? Apparently so.

Liberals often complain about jobs being shipped overseas. Guess what? When wages and taxes are lower and there are lower costs associated with less government regulation then the end price of the product is also lower. Guess who ultimately drives those jobs overseas? Bush? Reagan? Greedy corporations? Nope, it is the consumer. By buying cheaper, foreign made products it puts US companies in a position in which they can no longer compete. A liberal acquaintance of mine recently complained about the lack of electric and fuel efficient cars produced in the US. I’ll ignore for the moment that he drives a Japanese luxury import running on eight cylinders, but the reality is that these cars have been produced and have been available and no one bought them!! Detroit wasn’t producing big SUVs because they just liked the look of them, they produced them because of consumer demand.

Bringing these jobs back to the US is really quite simple and needs no government intervention – if all liberals would just dig deeper into their pockets and pay the additional costs of US made products and US made products only, the jobs would come rushing back. But say goodbye to cheap clothing, electronics, appliances and so forth, because US made products, especially those produced in union-only shops, will cost one hundred to one thousand percent more.

I attended a concert by the local symphony shortly after the election last year. I suspect that most of the musicians enthusiastically voted for Obama. I’m sure it never occurred to them that their salaries are paid, for the most part, by rich individuals and corporations. So, while they think they are “sticking it to ‘The Man’” they are actually damaging their own financial future. When the income of any organization or individual is reduced, whether by lower profits or higher taxation, the first thing they cut is their charitable contributions. I’m sure there will be layoffs coming to most of the orchestras, opera companies and other non-profit organizations in the coming years. Some will likely be forced to shut down.

What about our esteemed institutions of higher learning? They love students who major in art, history, women’s studies, cultural and race studies, poetry, philosophy, literature, humanities and so forth. Guess what? Aside from teaching these same subjects, there are no jobs waiting for these graduates except at Macy’s selling shoes. Our economy is demanding engineers and computer scientists and instead we are sending flower children into the real world. Computer jobs didn’t go to India and China just because of lower wages, job positions couldn’t be filled in this country because there wasn’t a large enough pool of qualified workers. As the demand rose, wages rose so high for the few US workers that did exist that it then became worthwhile to export the jobs.

Liberals want to believe that there are no consequences for any of their actions. They praise Obama for his massive spending spree while refusing to acknowledge the future cost to our economy including higher taxes for everyone, especially our children and grandchildren. When confronted with these facts, they immediately go into the same, tired, bizarre excuse that I’ve heard over and over again, “Well, what about Bush? What about his spending?” First of all, Bush isn’t president anymore – get over it. Second, I can only assume that since they approve of Obama’s spending, then they must have approved of Bush’s spending. If not, then they must believe in the child’s rule of “two wrongs really do make a right.” Third, just in case anyone wants to know, I was equally unhappy with Bush's spending and domestic policies.

I can give hundreds of examples just like those above, yet liberals will still reject the logic and continue living in their fantasy bubble world. With Obama as their head mouseketeer, leading their no-consequences parade, our economy will continue to collapse as talented individuals, companies and capital leave this country for economies more firmly grounded in reality.

25. Rational?

My cousin sent me a link from the alleged investment expert Jamie Dlugosch. The title of the article is “There is no place for gold on the global financial stage.” Mr. Dlugosch states that he “…despise[s] gold and everything it stands for” and that investment in gold is “hogwash!” He then lays out his five “expert” reasons for not investing in gold.

I have no idea what qualifies Mr. Dlugosh to hold the title of “expert.” But what I do know is that his five reasons seem to come more from a novice than any sort of thoughtful expert.

Since mid-2001, gold has risen from $260 to almost $1,000 an ounce. Although it has retreated recently to the $900 range, it is likely preparing for another major run upward. During this same time I’ve listened to investment talking heads on TV bash the buying of gold while gold ignored their advice and continued to climb higher in value. During that same time we watched tech stocks bubble, burst and lose 85% of their value under the Clinton administration. The real estate market bubbled and, to date, has lost 35% of its value. All this while gold increased 285% in price.

So, even though this site is primarily about politics, I’m going to take the time to go through the five points and refute Mr. Dlugosch’s arguments. But then, maybe this is about politics. I suspect that Mr. Dlugosch is probably a disciple and kool-aid drinker of the messiah and doesn’t want to accept that Obama is destroying the dollar, our economy and our way of life. In doing so, this then leads to gold being a very good investment and hedge against losses in other markets.

So – let’s begin…. Here are Mr. Dlugosch’s five reasons for not investing in gold. I have selectively edited his comments on each point. My rebuttals follow each of his thoughts.




1. There Is No Inflation. “….Today, the numbers do not support an inflationary environment and fear over current spending and stimulus of the government creating inflation is misplaced.”

Apparently Mr. Dlubosch actually believes government inflation figures, probably the most manipulated and inaccurate reports produced by the feds. The higher inflation, the more the government must pay in Social Security, government salaries and pensions, etc. It is to their benefit to keep the figures low. I don’t need an official report to know that inflation is alive and well in the US.

The Obama stimulus package, budget, massive borrowing and the Treasury simply printing another trillion dollars to throw into the economy, all work together to devalue the dollar and destroy the economy. Certainly, he can’t believe that this isn’t happening and that all those reasons don’t work to increase the value of gold? Well, maybe he can.


2. Gold Prices Are Easily Manipulated. “Unlike paper currency that is impossible to manipulate in any way, gold can be accumulated by a group of connected buyers for the sole purpose of eliminating supply from the market.”

Wow, amazing. He actually states that paper currency is impossible to manipulate. Someone needs to tell George Soros about this. Based on just one comment he made in an interview about the French Franc, the franc plummeted in value the following day. Or what about China's persistent manipulation of the value of the yuan? Doesn't Mr. Dlugosch read the financial news?

Is the price of gold manipulated? Yes, just as the stock market, oil, corn, wheat other commodities, real estate and currencies are manipulated. And who are the biggest players in these manipulations? It is banks and governments which regularly manipulate currencies, stocks, bonds and commodities. But much like the stock market, these manipulations are short-term moves. The market will always find its correct level over time.


3. Gold Is In Limited Supply. “Those who want to return to the gold standard fail to appreciate that at some point a lack of supply could have disastrous consequences in a gold-based system.”

Yes, there is a very limited supply of gold in the world, only about two Olympic-sized pools worth. It is one reason this metal gets the adjective “precious” in front of its name.

But as fiat currencies become worthless and individuals turn to something to preserve their wealth, precious metals such as gold, silver, platinum are at the top of the list. China has even begun to hoard copper as a hedge against falling fiat currencies.

Is it viable to have a gold-backed currency? Probably not, but that doesn’t make gold a “hogwash investment” over the next 3 to 5 years.


4. Gold Was Dead For 20 Years. “For more than 20 years, the price of gold did nothing. If you invested in gold, you wasted your time. That all changed with fears of inflation and hedge fund speculation several years ago. Today, the church of gold is full of believers. What changed?”

Yes, that is true. But from 1975 until early 1980, gold was a fantastic investment, going from $35 to $860 an ounce, a return of over 2,300%. Mr. Dlugosch, all investments move in cycles. Stocks tend to move in twenty-year cycles. From 1920 to 1940 the Dow Jones Industrial Average moved from about 110 to only 130. From 1960 to 1980, the DJIA again went sideways from about 600 to 800. That was an average annual return of merely 1.45%. But that doesn’t mean that stocks weren’t a fantastic investment between the years of 1940 to 1960 and 1980 to 2000.
If you bought real estate in Southern California in 1989 you watched as the value of your property declined 40% and had to wait another ten years for the value to return to your original purchase price. Investment-wise, was that a good ten years for you? On the other hand, if you bought real estate in 1994 and sold it in 2004 you did quite well.

All investments have periods of boom and bust.



5. The Dollar Is The Global Currency. “Do not underestimate the strength of this country as compared to the rest of the world. Predictions of our demise are premature.”

I agree, we are still a powerhouse of a country. That does not mean that the dollar cannot go into crisis nor is it premature to sound the alarm at the direction we are being taken by the Obama administration and a complicit Congress. Our government is moving in the same direction as other fallen empires by destroying our monetary system and our economy through excessive borrow and spend policies. I’m sure there were those shortly before the fall of the Roman Empire who insisted it couldn’t happen as well. With computers and the internet, it can happen almost instantaneously. Civilizations and empires also come and go in cycles. And even if this is not the end of the United States as we know it, it again does not mean that gold is not a good investment right now.



Mr. Dlugosch founded and edits a newsletter called “The Rational Investor.” I guess we’ll see just how “rational” his advice really is over the next three to five years.

24. The Bubble-Headed Bleach Blonde

"We got the bubbled-headed bleach blonde
Who comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash
with a gleam in her eye." - Don Henley, Dirty Laundry


The other day I caught a few minutes of CNN, you know “The most trusted name in news?” They were discussing another of Obama’s anti-business proposals and the costs associated with such a program. The anchor finished the segment by saying, “the concern is that corporations will pass these costs on to the consumer.”

I couldn’t suppress my very audible sigh. Is there a brain in anyone’s head in the media? How about academia? I’m beginning to seriously wonder.

So, in my effort to educate the left by writing this column, I’m going to give a brief class on businesses and corporations. I’m hoping to enlighten those Ivy League intellectuals that run the news rooms of CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC. God knows, SOMEONE needs to have a talk with them.

Guess what Ms. CNN-Reporter? ALL costs of businesses are borne by the consumer. Did you hear that? The consumer pays ALL COSTS. Instead of repeating this ad nauseam, I’ll just ask you to re-read the first sentence of this paragraph fifteen times.

Costs of doing business include rent, salaries, fuel, energy, raw materials, office supplies and equipment, legal fees, government regulation, lawsuits and, are you ready for this one…….. TAXES. Yep – even corporate taxes – are paid by the CONSUMER. These costs are passed on to the consumer in the price of the product. And, if you didn’t already know, a corporation isn’t even a person – it is merely a piece of paper filed away in a law office.

Now, what about the investors, you know, the stock holders? Hey, maybe they are the evil, greedy ones CNN talks about. Let me ask you a question, Ms. CNN. Suppose a stock broker calls and wants you to invest in the ABC Corporation, a little start up firm that makes ATWs (advanced technology widgets). The price per share is $10. You understandably ask about the company’s profit potential. ABC Corp, your broker tells you, has no intention of making profits – EVER. So, if the company does well, your share price will never be more than the $10 you originally paid. If they don’t do well, you’ll lose your money. Also, since they don’t want to be greedy and make a profit, there will never be any dividends paid to you. So – are you ready to invest? At the bank in a safe, secure CD, you’ll get 3% on your money. If you invest in ABC, at best, you’ll merely get your money back and, at worst, you’ll lose. Is this a difficult decision? If a corporation doesn’t make profits, no one will invest in their business.

Hey, Ms. CNN – are you still with me here? Or am I moving too fast?

Ok, let’s review - if a company doesn’t pass along its costs of doing business to the consumer it can’t make a profit. If it doesn’t make a profit, then investors won’t invest and there won’t be any companies.

During the Clinton administration, Big Bill was hot on raising the minimum wage. A businessman challenged Bill complaining that the higher wages would hurt his business. Yale and Rhodes Scholar Bill replied, “just raise your prices.” Guess what Bill, if I get a raise yet the cost of everything I buy goes up at the same time, my raise is meaningless. I’m in the same spot I was before I got the raise.

The left keeps proving to me over and over again that they are the “feel” people. They make all decisions based on how they feel and never seem to bother using their heads. Yes, it does feel kind of good to hate big corporations. It feels good to point your finger at something or someone else on which to blame your own problems even though it solves nothing. Ultimately, you will be the one that is hurt, not the corporations. You will be hurt either in having to pay more for goods and services, by losing your job or you will watch your investments, your pension, your IRA and your 401(k) values drop like a stone falling from a tall building. If you ultimately drive corporations out of business or out of the country, it will be the employees and again, the investors who are hurt. It’s pretty difficult to hurt a piece of paper – or didn’t you know.

Hey – guess what Ms. CNN, that’s exactly what is happening right now. Stock prices are falling just like that stone off of that imaginary building and with it Americans are watching their savings and retirement funds fall dramatically in value. It started, interestingly enough, as soon as Obama got the democrat party nomination and began his war on business.

Now do you understand? Or will you need another class?