Is the United States a nation of whiners? Just what is a whiner anyway? In the army I learned that a soldier has the right to complain. Hang around a bunch of soldiers for a while and you will get the idea. There is always something to bitch about. It may be the food, or the weather or a change in orders or the inconvenience of a field training activity. As a young private I learned that it was a soldier’s right to complain, but that is not whining!
Most soldiers won’t hesitate to let you know what’s bothering them. Then, they go ahead and get the job done! Whiners don’t do that. They don’t complain and then “get ‘er done.” Whiners complain and cry about it and then try to put the responsibility on someone else. They whine and make a habit of whining. These people have learned to make a career of being a victim.
Our nation was not built by whiners. It was built by people who were willing to accept personal responsibility for changing their circumstances. The Bible tells about Joseph who was sold into slavery but made the best of the situation. He never threw in the towel or threw up his hands and sacrificed his faith in God. In the end, God blessed him. Young Abraham Lincoln was born to poverty, but he overcame his circumstances and became president of the United States. Many Americans have overcome early losses or initial unfavorable circumstances to become successful. They put their shoulders to the wheel and made the most of their circumstances. They were not whiners.
More recently, I knew a man who was laid off by a carpet manufacturer. He had spent much of his adult life manufacturing carpet. When he was laid off he hated it. His life was thrown into turmoil, but he did not whine and cry for government assistance. No! He accepted the lay off as a set back and then decided to make the best of it. In fact, he went into a carpet related business. He scrimped, saved and borrowed so he could open his business. Then, he worked sixty to eighty hours a week to make it successful. Today, he is a self-employed success.
Throughout our history, America has rewarded those who stayed the course. Those who accepted responsibility for their lives and committed to overcome unfavorable circumstances. One might even say that adversity actually produced tenacity and the drive to succeed.
Lately in America I have seen a trend in the opposite direction. Whining is accepted as normal and in many cases it is even encouraged. Continued whining encourages the victim mentality. Here we are not talking about the kind of complaining that creates tenacity and the drive to succeed. Rather, we are talking about acceptance of the fact that our society is comprised of victims. If you are a victim, you have the right to whine until someone else takes action to ease your pain. Never mind about accepting personal responsibility to change your circumstances! And who does the victim look to for help. The government, of course.
Where adversity once energized and motivated people, it is now seen as a flaw in our society. The more victims are created, the more need there is for a federal government that will solve society’s problems. To make matters worse, our government encourages this. Instead of encouraging self-determination and personal responsibility, the government has begun to tell people that their circumstances or situations are not their faults. It is our capitalistic society that has paved the way for their problems and the only solution is for government to regulate those aspects of society that made this situation possible. Never mind personal responsibility. Never mind pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. An all-powerful federal government has the responsibility to solve your problems and provide for your welfare. With a strong and powerful central government, society can be fixed. We can all be equal. Of course, no one will be exceptional. Innovation will cease to exist. And America will become a part of the global community in which everyone is equally poor, but in which no one will face adversity.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Evolution of the Welfare State
I know this is “old hat” to many of my readers. In fact, I have been accused of preaching to the choir. The truth is that I would like some of you to forward this and some of my other articles to those who may be, in fact, undecided or at least open-minded. After all, facts are facts and history is undeniable. Please consider the following thoughts.
The United States has changed greatly over the last 230 years. These changes have occurred gradually. Each change may have seemed like a good idea when it was proposed. For example. In the 18th Century, property ownership was considered a fundamental requirement in order to vote. This was gradually changed. After all, on the face of it, fairness dictates that every citizen of a nation should have the right to vote. So, this right was extended to virtually every citizen. What could be fairer?
Other changes occurred and the very nature of government, its purpose and its responsibilities, were changed. Interpretation of the Constitution changed and the government went from promoting the general welfare to providing the general welfare. Gradually, the government began to give some people assistance in their day-to-day existence. What could be fairer?
As more people began to rely on government to take care of them, government grew. Our representatives became professional politicians rather than people who did their civic duty and returned to their private lives. In fact, they (our representatives) began to gradually see themselves as vested public servants and awarded themselves retirement funds and other special privileges. Civic duty became “a very nice living.” Remaining in office became their first priority. Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel and Chris Dodd come to mind.
As this situation continued, these citizens were encouraged not to work, and not to venture out to take advantage of the opportunities made available by our Constitution and our capitalist system. They became the “welfare class.” These comprise a good part of the 49% of our citizenry who pay no taxes. They had discovered that they could vote in a group of professional politicians who would continue to generously provide for their basic needs from the public coffers. We have literally generations of people who have been on the public dole all their lives.
Again, in a very gradual manner, our representatives also began to understand that by giving public assistance to people, they could encourage those very people to vote for them. Since the requirement to own property in order to vote had been eliminated, these people became a class unto themselves. They owned no property, many had no steady jobs, and virtually all received some form of public assistance. They vote for the government representative who will continue to “take care” of them. This group of voters grew and grew. They had learned that they personally benefitted from a government composed of representatives who wanted to “provide” for their welfare. The representatives had learned that they could rely on the votes of these people in order to keep their comfortable jobs, expense accounts and salaries -- not to mention whatever other benefits could be squeezed out of their positions.
Over a relatively short period of time, we as a nation created a large class of people who depended on government for their very existence. They had been conditioned to expect this. And who paid for it? Those who retained the concept of personal growth and individual responsibility. These are the people who take the risks and build the businesses and often the fortunes that go with them. In order to continue to provide for those whom the government was subsidizing, these people were taxes at a higher rate than others. After all, they had more money and it only seemed fair for them to sacrifice for the greater good.
Unfortunately, those who took the risks and built the businesses gradually began to see themselves as victims of a system that took care of the unproductive while they themselves were punished for their hard work! As a result, fewer people began to take those risks and build businesses. After all, the more money one makes the more one is taxed. The amount of money going to the government began to dwindle. Those representatives who had kept their seats in government by giving from the public coffers had to continue to raise taxes and increase government responsibility for the new welfare class in order to keep their jobs and comfortable life-styles. Their next step was to grant citizenship to those who had entered our country illegally. These people seemed to offer the next voting block of government dependent welfare recipients.
Alexander Tyler, an 18th Century Scottish professor once said, “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.” We have reached that point in our history. We have a Congress composed mostly of people who will give and give and give until there is nothing left to give. This is called socialism. It has failed around the world and it will fail here, too. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “Eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”
Many well-intended people believe it is the government’s responsibility to provide for the general welfare. This is not correct. The Constitution says the government should promote (not provide) the general welfare. That has been twisted by self-serving politicians. The United States has come to a crossroads. As a nation, we need to recognize what has happened and change it. We need a new class of politicians. Better still, let’s call them true public servants, who put their private lives on hold to do public service for a brief time and then return to it. We need to stop this cancer of a career in politics!
During the last 75 years or more, our elected representatives have created a fiefdom for themselves. They have insulated themselves from the very laws they pass for the rest of us. They have learned how to get re-elected again and again by giving and giving. They have created a welfare class and benefitted from it. They believe that the only answer to any problem is spending more money and that money comes from increased taxes. We can not go on like this. We have just about run out of other people’s money. We are now borrowing from China and printing worthless money. The value of the American dollar has deteriorated significantly.
What can we do? Vote out the liberal/socialist cabal and encourage people to run for office who will be more concerned about the country than about their own political hides!
The United States has changed greatly over the last 230 years. These changes have occurred gradually. Each change may have seemed like a good idea when it was proposed. For example. In the 18th Century, property ownership was considered a fundamental requirement in order to vote. This was gradually changed. After all, on the face of it, fairness dictates that every citizen of a nation should have the right to vote. So, this right was extended to virtually every citizen. What could be fairer?
Other changes occurred and the very nature of government, its purpose and its responsibilities, were changed. Interpretation of the Constitution changed and the government went from promoting the general welfare to providing the general welfare. Gradually, the government began to give some people assistance in their day-to-day existence. What could be fairer?
As more people began to rely on government to take care of them, government grew. Our representatives became professional politicians rather than people who did their civic duty and returned to their private lives. In fact, they (our representatives) began to gradually see themselves as vested public servants and awarded themselves retirement funds and other special privileges. Civic duty became “a very nice living.” Remaining in office became their first priority. Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel and Chris Dodd come to mind.
As this situation continued, these citizens were encouraged not to work, and not to venture out to take advantage of the opportunities made available by our Constitution and our capitalist system. They became the “welfare class.” These comprise a good part of the 49% of our citizenry who pay no taxes. They had discovered that they could vote in a group of professional politicians who would continue to generously provide for their basic needs from the public coffers. We have literally generations of people who have been on the public dole all their lives.
Again, in a very gradual manner, our representatives also began to understand that by giving public assistance to people, they could encourage those very people to vote for them. Since the requirement to own property in order to vote had been eliminated, these people became a class unto themselves. They owned no property, many had no steady jobs, and virtually all received some form of public assistance. They vote for the government representative who will continue to “take care” of them. This group of voters grew and grew. They had learned that they personally benefitted from a government composed of representatives who wanted to “provide” for their welfare. The representatives had learned that they could rely on the votes of these people in order to keep their comfortable jobs, expense accounts and salaries -- not to mention whatever other benefits could be squeezed out of their positions.
Over a relatively short period of time, we as a nation created a large class of people who depended on government for their very existence. They had been conditioned to expect this. And who paid for it? Those who retained the concept of personal growth and individual responsibility. These are the people who take the risks and build the businesses and often the fortunes that go with them. In order to continue to provide for those whom the government was subsidizing, these people were taxes at a higher rate than others. After all, they had more money and it only seemed fair for them to sacrifice for the greater good.
Unfortunately, those who took the risks and built the businesses gradually began to see themselves as victims of a system that took care of the unproductive while they themselves were punished for their hard work! As a result, fewer people began to take those risks and build businesses. After all, the more money one makes the more one is taxed. The amount of money going to the government began to dwindle. Those representatives who had kept their seats in government by giving from the public coffers had to continue to raise taxes and increase government responsibility for the new welfare class in order to keep their jobs and comfortable life-styles. Their next step was to grant citizenship to those who had entered our country illegally. These people seemed to offer the next voting block of government dependent welfare recipients.
Alexander Tyler, an 18th Century Scottish professor once said, “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.” We have reached that point in our history. We have a Congress composed mostly of people who will give and give and give until there is nothing left to give. This is called socialism. It has failed around the world and it will fail here, too. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “Eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”
Many well-intended people believe it is the government’s responsibility to provide for the general welfare. This is not correct. The Constitution says the government should promote (not provide) the general welfare. That has been twisted by self-serving politicians. The United States has come to a crossroads. As a nation, we need to recognize what has happened and change it. We need a new class of politicians. Better still, let’s call them true public servants, who put their private lives on hold to do public service for a brief time and then return to it. We need to stop this cancer of a career in politics!
During the last 75 years or more, our elected representatives have created a fiefdom for themselves. They have insulated themselves from the very laws they pass for the rest of us. They have learned how to get re-elected again and again by giving and giving. They have created a welfare class and benefitted from it. They believe that the only answer to any problem is spending more money and that money comes from increased taxes. We can not go on like this. We have just about run out of other people’s money. We are now borrowing from China and printing worthless money. The value of the American dollar has deteriorated significantly.
What can we do? Vote out the liberal/socialist cabal and encourage people to run for office who will be more concerned about the country than about their own political hides!
Monday, October 25, 2010
On Being an American
I was raised on Long Island, New York, not 20 miles from Manhattan. This has always been a blessing to me because I was exposed to a multi-cultural community. My neighbors were the Giovanelli’s, Damone’s, Sannella’s and Gravina’s. Coming from a Scot-Irish background, I was surrounded by Italians, Greeks and Sephardic Jews. These families were second generation in this country. They were born in America but their parents were from Europe. Their English was perfect, not just passable. Their parents spoke both English and Italian or whatever their native language, but they spoke it with a strong accent.
My neighbors made wine in the autumn and celebrated Saint Anthony’s festival and some attended the annual San Gianaro Festival in New York City. Many of these were from southern Italy or Sicily. They were fun loving and made wonderful neighbors. We broke bread with them and talked over the fence. When we were teenagers and working in the yard mowing or doing other chores, Mom Giovanelli would come out with a small glass of Anisette or red Vermouth to refresh us. We kids enjoyed this and my father laughed. All the men were members of the local volunteer fire department. They had a softball team and there was always something fun going on in the community. It was a great childhood for me.
Here is the point. These people were eager to be Americans. They learned the language as fast as they could. They integrated themselves into the American community and culture. And yet, they also retained their European culture and heritage. They did this without a government program to promote diversity and without schools emphasizing the need for inter-racial or inter-ethnic tolerance.
My neighbors had come to America to join the club. They wanted to be part of the “American Dream.” They had come to the land of opportunity to escape class restrictions and economic restrictions and to build for their futures. They did not come to America to change it. They came to take advantage of the American brand of capitalism and its opportunities.
Years later, as a soldier in Germany, I noticed that in Germany if an American civilian wanted a job he had to speak German. That seemed right, fair and appropriate. I came home to a country where we were printing ballots in a variety of foreign languages and in many other ways we were encouraging people to maintain their national heritage at the expense of not becoming integrated as full-fledged citizens of the nation they came to as immigrants. This I did not understand and still do not.
A few months ago I heard a college football coach on the radio. When new players came on the team at the beginning of the year, he took them aside and made a short speech. As part of that speech he emphasized an important point. He said, “You chose to come to this college because we have a well known and successful academic program and a fabulous football team. You chose us because we have been successful. You are here to join us and become part of that success.” Then, he went on to say, “You chose to join us, so don’t think for a second that you are here to change us. We know what success looks like and how to obtain it. All you have to do is support our already successful program!”
I thought that speech was appropriate to those who have chosen to come to America. They recognized the benefits of our success. They had heard about the land of opportunity and wanted to strive for those benefits. As the coach said, they wanted to join us! As new members of our society, they must accept, support and abide by our laws and our customs. Can they retain their own cultural identity? Certainly! Just as my neighbors did in the 1950’s and ‘60’s. They chose to come here because we have a history that supports opportunity. They did not come here to change us.
Our government and perhaps some well intended others have lost sight of the reason people have come to America. They made a choice. They could have remained where they were but America offered opportunities that they felt were not available in the country of their birth.
The first thing one does upon taking up residence in a foreign country is to learn the language. My missionary friends learn Spanish before they go to Peru or Bolivia to share the gospel. They study the customs and traditions of the people so they can blend in and not be unintentionally offensive. This increases the probability of success in their endeavor.
Have we as a nation lost sight of just how wonderful America is? People scrimp and save, they plot and plan and some even break the law to come to America. They recognize what a wonderful place this is. They see the result of 200 years of progress and they want to be a part of it. Why then do we encourage them NOT to become real Americans, to speak our language and submit to our laws and our customs?
As a child, my neighbors spoke both Italian and English. They maintained their cultural identity but they were proud to call themselves second generation Americans. Some served in the armed forces. Some went into business. Others went on to college and to graduate school, but they never lost sight of the fact that they were Americans.
This is a nation built on Judeo-Christian traditions and beliefs. If you don’t like that, don’t come to America. We speak English here. If you do not want to learn it, don’t come to America. If you think Shari‘a law is superior to our brand of law, don’t come to America. And, if you are an American who disagrees with this, perhaps you should review our history and see what has made America great. We have been for over 200 years a capitalist country. It works. It has its flaws, but it works. Socialism has failed around the world. You are part of the greatest country in the world. Don’t change it.
My neighbors made wine in the autumn and celebrated Saint Anthony’s festival and some attended the annual San Gianaro Festival in New York City. Many of these were from southern Italy or Sicily. They were fun loving and made wonderful neighbors. We broke bread with them and talked over the fence. When we were teenagers and working in the yard mowing or doing other chores, Mom Giovanelli would come out with a small glass of Anisette or red Vermouth to refresh us. We kids enjoyed this and my father laughed. All the men were members of the local volunteer fire department. They had a softball team and there was always something fun going on in the community. It was a great childhood for me.
Here is the point. These people were eager to be Americans. They learned the language as fast as they could. They integrated themselves into the American community and culture. And yet, they also retained their European culture and heritage. They did this without a government program to promote diversity and without schools emphasizing the need for inter-racial or inter-ethnic tolerance.
My neighbors had come to America to join the club. They wanted to be part of the “American Dream.” They had come to the land of opportunity to escape class restrictions and economic restrictions and to build for their futures. They did not come to America to change it. They came to take advantage of the American brand of capitalism and its opportunities.
Years later, as a soldier in Germany, I noticed that in Germany if an American civilian wanted a job he had to speak German. That seemed right, fair and appropriate. I came home to a country where we were printing ballots in a variety of foreign languages and in many other ways we were encouraging people to maintain their national heritage at the expense of not becoming integrated as full-fledged citizens of the nation they came to as immigrants. This I did not understand and still do not.
A few months ago I heard a college football coach on the radio. When new players came on the team at the beginning of the year, he took them aside and made a short speech. As part of that speech he emphasized an important point. He said, “You chose to come to this college because we have a well known and successful academic program and a fabulous football team. You chose us because we have been successful. You are here to join us and become part of that success.” Then, he went on to say, “You chose to join us, so don’t think for a second that you are here to change us. We know what success looks like and how to obtain it. All you have to do is support our already successful program!”
I thought that speech was appropriate to those who have chosen to come to America. They recognized the benefits of our success. They had heard about the land of opportunity and wanted to strive for those benefits. As the coach said, they wanted to join us! As new members of our society, they must accept, support and abide by our laws and our customs. Can they retain their own cultural identity? Certainly! Just as my neighbors did in the 1950’s and ‘60’s. They chose to come here because we have a history that supports opportunity. They did not come here to change us.
Our government and perhaps some well intended others have lost sight of the reason people have come to America. They made a choice. They could have remained where they were but America offered opportunities that they felt were not available in the country of their birth.
The first thing one does upon taking up residence in a foreign country is to learn the language. My missionary friends learn Spanish before they go to Peru or Bolivia to share the gospel. They study the customs and traditions of the people so they can blend in and not be unintentionally offensive. This increases the probability of success in their endeavor.
Have we as a nation lost sight of just how wonderful America is? People scrimp and save, they plot and plan and some even break the law to come to America. They recognize what a wonderful place this is. They see the result of 200 years of progress and they want to be a part of it. Why then do we encourage them NOT to become real Americans, to speak our language and submit to our laws and our customs?
As a child, my neighbors spoke both Italian and English. They maintained their cultural identity but they were proud to call themselves second generation Americans. Some served in the armed forces. Some went into business. Others went on to college and to graduate school, but they never lost sight of the fact that they were Americans.
This is a nation built on Judeo-Christian traditions and beliefs. If you don’t like that, don’t come to America. We speak English here. If you do not want to learn it, don’t come to America. If you think Shari‘a law is superior to our brand of law, don’t come to America. And, if you are an American who disagrees with this, perhaps you should review our history and see what has made America great. We have been for over 200 years a capitalist country. It works. It has its flaws, but it works. Socialism has failed around the world. You are part of the greatest country in the world. Don’t change it.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Bispartisanship: Not What It's Cracked Up to Be
Bipartisan, bipartisan, bipartisan! That seems to be the Holy Grail of politics. It is in the news daily. Whenever there is a thorny issue one party or the other screams “Bipartisan!” If we only had more cooperation from the other party we would have this all ironed out. The truth is that “bipartisan” is just another word for compromise. Now that sounds like a reasonable and good political approach. You can’t expect to have everything your own way, so it only makes sense to compromise. In other words, to come up with a bipartisan solution. But, is it good statesmanship?
Unfortunately, our liberal administration and our liberal congress have a view of compromise that suits them but undermines the very essence of conservative values. What compromise can be had with socialism and the radical Saul Alinsky approach to politics? A bipartisan compromise might mean only a 50% move toward socialism -- this time. What compromise can you make with those who would tear our country apart, blame America for the ills of the world, and throw out those very institutions that have made us great? Can you compromise on individual liberty? Even the Republicans have compromised on limited government and look what we have: increasing government involvement in every aspect of our lives. Now governments at various levels are attempting to determine what we can and cannot eat. They want to legislate the menus that can be served in restaurants.
Democrats and Republicans have been compromising for decades. They have both raised the bipartisan flag and agreed to move only slightly to the left. Only slightly toward more government. Only slightly toward reduced individual freedoms. Every compromise puts the American citizen a small step farther from the heretofore inalienable rights declared by our founding fathers. We have come to the point where “we the people” have been co-opted into sacrificing our rights by the two major parties’ efforts to compromise. Republicans are just as culpable as the Democrats. They claim to be conservative, but every time they compromise they are selling their principles and their values down the tubes. They continue to play a game of smoke and mirrors in an effort to fool the American people into believing that Republican means conservative. It’s a lie!
Every time Republicans compromise, Democrats win. Every compromise is one step closer to the nanny state where big government is not a safety net, but is the sole provider! “Bipartisan” is simply the politically correct term for selling your soul to those who would dismantle basic American institutions and replace them with a socialist, fascist government determined to spend us into third world status. Their mantra: It’s only fair! Why should the United States be the richest and most successful nation in the world? They seem never to understand that it would be better to bring the rest of the world up to our lofty standards rather than to tear us down to third world status. That is accomplished by promoting individual freedom and small government and encouraging a capitalist system where creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship are appreciated as the engine that drives progress and enriches our lives.
I say, to hell with bipartisan politics. Let’s strive for values we know have worked and will work. We need statesmen and not politicians.
Unfortunately, our liberal administration and our liberal congress have a view of compromise that suits them but undermines the very essence of conservative values. What compromise can be had with socialism and the radical Saul Alinsky approach to politics? A bipartisan compromise might mean only a 50% move toward socialism -- this time. What compromise can you make with those who would tear our country apart, blame America for the ills of the world, and throw out those very institutions that have made us great? Can you compromise on individual liberty? Even the Republicans have compromised on limited government and look what we have: increasing government involvement in every aspect of our lives. Now governments at various levels are attempting to determine what we can and cannot eat. They want to legislate the menus that can be served in restaurants.
Democrats and Republicans have been compromising for decades. They have both raised the bipartisan flag and agreed to move only slightly to the left. Only slightly toward more government. Only slightly toward reduced individual freedoms. Every compromise puts the American citizen a small step farther from the heretofore inalienable rights declared by our founding fathers. We have come to the point where “we the people” have been co-opted into sacrificing our rights by the two major parties’ efforts to compromise. Republicans are just as culpable as the Democrats. They claim to be conservative, but every time they compromise they are selling their principles and their values down the tubes. They continue to play a game of smoke and mirrors in an effort to fool the American people into believing that Republican means conservative. It’s a lie!
Every time Republicans compromise, Democrats win. Every compromise is one step closer to the nanny state where big government is not a safety net, but is the sole provider! “Bipartisan” is simply the politically correct term for selling your soul to those who would dismantle basic American institutions and replace them with a socialist, fascist government determined to spend us into third world status. Their mantra: It’s only fair! Why should the United States be the richest and most successful nation in the world? They seem never to understand that it would be better to bring the rest of the world up to our lofty standards rather than to tear us down to third world status. That is accomplished by promoting individual freedom and small government and encouraging a capitalist system where creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship are appreciated as the engine that drives progress and enriches our lives.
I say, to hell with bipartisan politics. Let’s strive for values we know have worked and will work. We need statesmen and not politicians.
Unions: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Franklin Roosevelt is quoted as saying, “If I worked in a factory, the first thing I would do is join a union.” In the early 1930’s this was good advice. The US Constitution reinforces the right of people to assemble peacefully and to organize. This is what America is all about. Working conditions in the first three or four decades of the twentieth century were poor to say the least. At the same time, factory owners and managers had the right to hire others and to choose whether or not they wanted to improve those working conditions. Workers had the right to quit and go work somewhere else if they were unhappy with conditions at work. They also claimed the right to organize and bargain collectively.
There was contention. Both business owners and union members used strong-arm tactics to drive home their particular point of view. Crimes were committed. Laws were broken. The courts became involved. Ultimately, however, the workers and the unions were successful in getting conditions improved. This was a complex situation and causes one to wonder the degree to which government involvement was good or bad during this period. Having said that, we must acknowledge that the liberal establishment of the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s sided with unions to the point where big unions were as powerful as big business. In fact, they became big business.
Along with that development came government-supported pressure on business to yield to union demands. And here is where things began to go a little crazy. Instead of protecting workers from unfair labor practices, unions became a shill for unproductive employees. Union contracts gave the unproductive worker the support of the union and tied the hands of management. The auto industry is only one of many areas undermined by management concessions to unions.
The National Labor Relations Board was created by congress in 1935 to safeguard employees' rights to organize and to determine whether to have unions as their bargaining representative. The agency also acts to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and by unions. It immediately became a “pro-union” institution. Unfair labor practices were and, to a great extent, still are usually considered actions of businesses and not unions. In fact, the NLRB became the bane of private industry. Unions were given the benefit of the doubt in virtually all situations.
In recent years, however, union officials have been accused of more violations of fair labor practices than have employers. While the unions claim to be there to serve the employee, the majority of allegations said that union members were the ones hurt by the actions of union officials. In short, the unions have violated the trust of those they are obliged to serve. In 2005, almost 4000 charges were filed against Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and almost 7000 against the Teamsters union.
More egregious are the terms of the contracts which compel employers to actually pay union members who do not work. In this same category are the blatant efforts to retain unproductive employees simply because they are union members. It is possible for many union members to make more money in retirement than they did while employed. Teacher’s unions are notorious for this. “Tenure” has come to mean, “I can’t be fired regardless of how poorly I perform my job.” This attitude and mindset comes from those who hold the future of our nation in their hands. The union does not serve the students. It serves the teachers. Students be damned!
Industries and commercial businesses are organized to make money. The owners take the risks and put their wealth, livelihoods and often more on the line. If they do not go into business, no jobs are created. If their businesses fail, the jobs disappear. Somehow, employees have come to believe that they “deserve” a piece of the business. They say, “It is only fair!” They want what they call their fair share. Of course, they have not invested their money and risked their family’s comfort. Still, the idea of employees getting “their fair share” seems to have been accepted by many.
Our Constitution provides the same right of free enterprise to all Americans. Any employee has the right to quit an hourly job and open his own business. He or she may even choose to compete with a previous employer. This can, however, create a bit of a conundrum. Now, the onetime worker has become the employer. That change of perspective is a big one. Suddenly, the new entrepreneur measures “fairness” in a different way. After all, it is his money invested. His new employees see him as “big bad management.” They want their share; it’s only fair.
Roosevelt’s comment was probably appropriate in the 1930’s. Unions sought better working conditions and better wages. Unfortunately, the entire concept of unionization has become warped and misused. Where it once served the employee and resulted in improving production for the nation, the character of unions has changed significantly. They have become big business. They serve union officials and have made many of them wealthy indeed. At the same time, they have become an institution of mediocrity, poor production and business failure. The realization of the negative impact of unions on our nation is clear to see. Where they once enhanced our national character, they are now undermining the capitalist system and creating mediocre production and unsuccessful business efforts. The end will be disastrous for America.
There was contention. Both business owners and union members used strong-arm tactics to drive home their particular point of view. Crimes were committed. Laws were broken. The courts became involved. Ultimately, however, the workers and the unions were successful in getting conditions improved. This was a complex situation and causes one to wonder the degree to which government involvement was good or bad during this period. Having said that, we must acknowledge that the liberal establishment of the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s sided with unions to the point where big unions were as powerful as big business. In fact, they became big business.
Along with that development came government-supported pressure on business to yield to union demands. And here is where things began to go a little crazy. Instead of protecting workers from unfair labor practices, unions became a shill for unproductive employees. Union contracts gave the unproductive worker the support of the union and tied the hands of management. The auto industry is only one of many areas undermined by management concessions to unions.
The National Labor Relations Board was created by congress in 1935 to safeguard employees' rights to organize and to determine whether to have unions as their bargaining representative. The agency also acts to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and by unions. It immediately became a “pro-union” institution. Unfair labor practices were and, to a great extent, still are usually considered actions of businesses and not unions. In fact, the NLRB became the bane of private industry. Unions were given the benefit of the doubt in virtually all situations.
In recent years, however, union officials have been accused of more violations of fair labor practices than have employers. While the unions claim to be there to serve the employee, the majority of allegations said that union members were the ones hurt by the actions of union officials. In short, the unions have violated the trust of those they are obliged to serve. In 2005, almost 4000 charges were filed against Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and almost 7000 against the Teamsters union.
More egregious are the terms of the contracts which compel employers to actually pay union members who do not work. In this same category are the blatant efforts to retain unproductive employees simply because they are union members. It is possible for many union members to make more money in retirement than they did while employed. Teacher’s unions are notorious for this. “Tenure” has come to mean, “I can’t be fired regardless of how poorly I perform my job.” This attitude and mindset comes from those who hold the future of our nation in their hands. The union does not serve the students. It serves the teachers. Students be damned!
Industries and commercial businesses are organized to make money. The owners take the risks and put their wealth, livelihoods and often more on the line. If they do not go into business, no jobs are created. If their businesses fail, the jobs disappear. Somehow, employees have come to believe that they “deserve” a piece of the business. They say, “It is only fair!” They want what they call their fair share. Of course, they have not invested their money and risked their family’s comfort. Still, the idea of employees getting “their fair share” seems to have been accepted by many.
Our Constitution provides the same right of free enterprise to all Americans. Any employee has the right to quit an hourly job and open his own business. He or she may even choose to compete with a previous employer. This can, however, create a bit of a conundrum. Now, the onetime worker has become the employer. That change of perspective is a big one. Suddenly, the new entrepreneur measures “fairness” in a different way. After all, it is his money invested. His new employees see him as “big bad management.” They want their share; it’s only fair.
Roosevelt’s comment was probably appropriate in the 1930’s. Unions sought better working conditions and better wages. Unfortunately, the entire concept of unionization has become warped and misused. Where it once served the employee and resulted in improving production for the nation, the character of unions has changed significantly. They have become big business. They serve union officials and have made many of them wealthy indeed. At the same time, they have become an institution of mediocrity, poor production and business failure. The realization of the negative impact of unions on our nation is clear to see. Where they once enhanced our national character, they are now undermining the capitalist system and creating mediocre production and unsuccessful business efforts. The end will be disastrous for America.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Newsweek Article: Wrong and One-sided
A Tea Party Taxonomy; that is what the September 27, 2010 issue of Newsweek titled its article about the Tea Party movement. A taxonomy is a study of general principles and is usually associated with a scientific endeavor. It usually requires research and, if possible, the use of primary sources. This piece by Jacob Weisberg is not scientific and offers only Mr. Weisberg’s opinion which is clearly one-sided and misinformed.
In the article, under the heading of Politics/Anger, Mr. Weisberg states, “What’s distinctive about the Tea Party is its anarchist streak – its antagonism toward any authority, its belligerent self-expression, and its lack of any coherent program or alternative to the politics it condemns.” The audacity of the author is only surpassed by the fallacy of his words. Let’s address these comments one at a time.
“Antagonism toward any authority.” The Tea Party movement has as one of its prime values the supreme authority of the U.S. Constitution. This is a far cry from “antagonism toward any authority.” Standing against government violation of the Constitution is, in fact, defending its authority. Tea Party people do not break the law. They abide by and promote the concept of “the rule of law” as embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Their criticism comes when others violate that authority.
“Belligerent self-expression.” Exactly what is this? When liberals riot in protest, they are said to be expressing their First Amendment rights. Is that belligerent self-expression? “Belligerent” is the operative word. It means hostile or aggressive. Although many groups of political activists within our country are hostile and aggressive, I do not believe it is a “distinctive” characteristic of the Tea Party movement. Beyond that, if one compares the conduct of a Tea Party rally with that of many liberal or progressive groups, one will find that the Tea Party participants are distinctly more well-behaved and respectful of other individuals and their property.
“Lack of any coherent program or alternative to the policies it condemns.” First, The Tea Party is not and has not claimed to be a cohesive, unified group or “party.” Because it is a grassroots movement, it should not be expected to have a single unified plan for putting the country back on a more responsible and constitutionally legal path. It does, however, promote some very simple values as guiding principles for our political representatives. These include, smaller, more fiscally responsible government, and the promotion rather than the curtailment of individual liberty and the personal responsibility that goes with it.
Mr. Weisberg also states that the Tea Party “looks backward to a capitalist – constitutional paradise.” This phrase does not define the Tea Party movement; however, the progressive movement does, in fact, look forward to a socialist, paradise, without God and with government elitists making the decisions that will free the people from the burden of individual liberty and responsibility. My goodness! The United States has never been and will never by a capitalist – constitutional paradise. But, it can, once again, be the land of equal opportunity and liberty.
Finally, Mr. Weisberg says, “The Tea Party is fundamentally about venting anger at change it doesn’t like, not about fixing what’s broken.” This is only partially correct. Although the Tea Party movement has many people who are angry, it is not what it is fundamentally about! It is composed for the most part of people who have not been politically active in the past. These people have been busy working, paying their mortgages, paying taxes and rearing responsible children. However, the excesses of government in recent years (by both political parties) have aroused the sleeping tiger. Tea Party people are upset, annoyed, outraged and angry about a government running rampant over their God given, inalienable rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Do they have an answer? Do they know how to fix what’s broken? Yes, they do and the election of November 2010 will be the start point.
In the article, under the heading of Politics/Anger, Mr. Weisberg states, “What’s distinctive about the Tea Party is its anarchist streak – its antagonism toward any authority, its belligerent self-expression, and its lack of any coherent program or alternative to the politics it condemns.” The audacity of the author is only surpassed by the fallacy of his words. Let’s address these comments one at a time.
“Antagonism toward any authority.” The Tea Party movement has as one of its prime values the supreme authority of the U.S. Constitution. This is a far cry from “antagonism toward any authority.” Standing against government violation of the Constitution is, in fact, defending its authority. Tea Party people do not break the law. They abide by and promote the concept of “the rule of law” as embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Their criticism comes when others violate that authority.
“Belligerent self-expression.” Exactly what is this? When liberals riot in protest, they are said to be expressing their First Amendment rights. Is that belligerent self-expression? “Belligerent” is the operative word. It means hostile or aggressive. Although many groups of political activists within our country are hostile and aggressive, I do not believe it is a “distinctive” characteristic of the Tea Party movement. Beyond that, if one compares the conduct of a Tea Party rally with that of many liberal or progressive groups, one will find that the Tea Party participants are distinctly more well-behaved and respectful of other individuals and their property.
“Lack of any coherent program or alternative to the policies it condemns.” First, The Tea Party is not and has not claimed to be a cohesive, unified group or “party.” Because it is a grassroots movement, it should not be expected to have a single unified plan for putting the country back on a more responsible and constitutionally legal path. It does, however, promote some very simple values as guiding principles for our political representatives. These include, smaller, more fiscally responsible government, and the promotion rather than the curtailment of individual liberty and the personal responsibility that goes with it.
Mr. Weisberg also states that the Tea Party “looks backward to a capitalist – constitutional paradise.” This phrase does not define the Tea Party movement; however, the progressive movement does, in fact, look forward to a socialist, paradise, without God and with government elitists making the decisions that will free the people from the burden of individual liberty and responsibility. My goodness! The United States has never been and will never by a capitalist – constitutional paradise. But, it can, once again, be the land of equal opportunity and liberty.
Finally, Mr. Weisberg says, “The Tea Party is fundamentally about venting anger at change it doesn’t like, not about fixing what’s broken.” This is only partially correct. Although the Tea Party movement has many people who are angry, it is not what it is fundamentally about! It is composed for the most part of people who have not been politically active in the past. These people have been busy working, paying their mortgages, paying taxes and rearing responsible children. However, the excesses of government in recent years (by both political parties) have aroused the sleeping tiger. Tea Party people are upset, annoyed, outraged and angry about a government running rampant over their God given, inalienable rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Do they have an answer? Do they know how to fix what’s broken? Yes, they do and the election of November 2010 will be the start point.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Socialism Means Mediocrity, Decline and Fall
This administration is driving the United States toward socialism. The government now controls the auto industry and banks among others national industries. Most of the jobs created over the last year and a half have been government jobs. The new health care set up will increase government involvement in our lives. As government grows and inches its way into our lives we are becoming a socialist society.
The ultimate result of socialism in America will be the loss of a desire to succeed. That desire, some call it the urge to compete, is what has strengthened the United States and made her the greatest nation on earth. It is not by accident that America is known as “the land of opportunity.” Immigrants like Andrew Carnegie and home grown men like Bill Gates have seized that opportunity and become American icons. Yes, they have made fortunes and in so doing they have created jobs for millions of Americans. Socialism is opposed to this concept. Its goal is to make everyone equal. Redistribute the wealth. Make everyone a “winner.”
If everyone is a winner, there are no losers, and average becomes the standard. Hence, there is no reason to compete. This levels people and countries. Competition is seen as a bad thing in the utopian world of socialism. Losing can make a person “feel bad.” Socialism wants everyone to be equally happy. In recent times, youth sports teams have begun to give trophies to all participants. Even those who warm the bench are given trophies. In some instances, scores are not kept because this might hurt someone’s feelings and perhaps bruise a sensitive little ego. While this might make sense on the surface, the practice fosters mediocrity. Why strive to be exceptional if everyone is going to be a winner anyway? Mediocrity is rewarded and superior performance is discouraged. Has America come so far over the last 200 years by fostering mediocrity?
It seems to me that socialism is the great leveler. It will eradicate competition and strive to make everyone truly equal. Those with an innate sense of competition, who have a desire to grow and improve at something, they will become the misfits. They will be seen as showoffs and people who place their own success above that of the collective. They will be castigated and alienated from the socialist society. Ultimately, they will be singled out and possibly even prosecuted for their evil desires. They will be branded enemies of the state.
What will happen to these misfits? They will have to be re-trained to recognize the error of their ways. Institutions will be established to “re-program” those who do not fit the socialist mindset. (Shades of Communist China!) These people will be taught that exceptionalism is selfish and not supportive of the collective good. Ultimately, they will learn to suppress their “unhealthy” desires and to rely more completely on government, who, after all, has the best interest of all the people at heart. Yes, excellence or the desire for it will be punished.
Socialism is the ultimate leveler. Our children will learn to be average. Being above average will be seen as a sin against the greater good. This means that everyone will be comfortably mediocre. People like Carnegie and Gates will become relicts of a bygone era of selfishness. Children will no longer strive to become entrepreneurs. They will not begin businesses in their garages. They will not build empires, and they will not create jobs. Growth and development of technology will taper off and perhaps die altogether. Socialism and mediocrity will have succeeded in making a nation, and perhaps even a world, of mediocrity where individual and collective growth will be forgotten. We will all be unhappily equal.
The ultimate result of socialism in America will be the loss of a desire to succeed. That desire, some call it the urge to compete, is what has strengthened the United States and made her the greatest nation on earth. It is not by accident that America is known as “the land of opportunity.” Immigrants like Andrew Carnegie and home grown men like Bill Gates have seized that opportunity and become American icons. Yes, they have made fortunes and in so doing they have created jobs for millions of Americans. Socialism is opposed to this concept. Its goal is to make everyone equal. Redistribute the wealth. Make everyone a “winner.”
If everyone is a winner, there are no losers, and average becomes the standard. Hence, there is no reason to compete. This levels people and countries. Competition is seen as a bad thing in the utopian world of socialism. Losing can make a person “feel bad.” Socialism wants everyone to be equally happy. In recent times, youth sports teams have begun to give trophies to all participants. Even those who warm the bench are given trophies. In some instances, scores are not kept because this might hurt someone’s feelings and perhaps bruise a sensitive little ego. While this might make sense on the surface, the practice fosters mediocrity. Why strive to be exceptional if everyone is going to be a winner anyway? Mediocrity is rewarded and superior performance is discouraged. Has America come so far over the last 200 years by fostering mediocrity?
It seems to me that socialism is the great leveler. It will eradicate competition and strive to make everyone truly equal. Those with an innate sense of competition, who have a desire to grow and improve at something, they will become the misfits. They will be seen as showoffs and people who place their own success above that of the collective. They will be castigated and alienated from the socialist society. Ultimately, they will be singled out and possibly even prosecuted for their evil desires. They will be branded enemies of the state.
What will happen to these misfits? They will have to be re-trained to recognize the error of their ways. Institutions will be established to “re-program” those who do not fit the socialist mindset. (Shades of Communist China!) These people will be taught that exceptionalism is selfish and not supportive of the collective good. Ultimately, they will learn to suppress their “unhealthy” desires and to rely more completely on government, who, after all, has the best interest of all the people at heart. Yes, excellence or the desire for it will be punished.
Socialism is the ultimate leveler. Our children will learn to be average. Being above average will be seen as a sin against the greater good. This means that everyone will be comfortably mediocre. People like Carnegie and Gates will become relicts of a bygone era of selfishness. Children will no longer strive to become entrepreneurs. They will not begin businesses in their garages. They will not build empires, and they will not create jobs. Growth and development of technology will taper off and perhaps die altogether. Socialism and mediocrity will have succeeded in making a nation, and perhaps even a world, of mediocrity where individual and collective growth will be forgotten. We will all be unhappily equal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)