Why are we following and not leading?

I believe that Mr. Brooks (article below) couldn't be more right. If the progressive/socialist Democrats on the left think that free education, free healthcare, free rides is the way of the future they're dead wrong. They often say "we're the only modern industrialized nation who doesn't have national healthcare" but they ignore the world around them. Countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy to name a few are DEMONSTRATING that their system is not sustainable! Does this sound familiar: massive amounts of debt, high tax rates on the "rich", free primary education, free university education, free health insurance, social programs that spend billions? They are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the extreme progressive social ideas and programs cannot be sustained.

This is the United States of America, probably the most compassionate and understanding nation on the planet, can't we do better? When I was a child my mother told me to be a leader and not a follower and would frequently ask me things like "if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you?" and the answer to that is a resounding NO. So why can't we take that lesson and apply it to our beloved country? Why do we have to jump off the bridge just because everyone else is? Why don't we come up with a free market based solution that is *different* from everywhere else in the world and then have THEM follow us?

The FREE MARKET WORKS. Want proof? We have over 200 years of it in the USA!


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/opinion/brooks-what-republicans-think.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share

Increase tax revenue by decreasing tax rates

There are many on the left who have a one track approach to solving our fiscal issues in the U.S.A. today: eat the rich. This group of progressives feels that the only way we can get out from under the mountains of debt and budget deficits is to return to the profusely penalizing tax rates of the early 50's. Those tax rates would have the highest income earners paying 90% of their income in tax or more!! How could this be beneficial? The leftist progressives believe that a CEO making $20 million a year could easily do just fine on $2 million a year. I don't necessarily disagree that you could live very comfortably on $2 million a year but is it fair? Why is it fair for the CEO who likely worked through college earning a master's degree, who has likely been in the work force for 15-20 years, is responsible for millions of dollars, and is responsible for thousands of people's jobs to only take home 10% of their earned pay!? All too often the progressive left is willing to attack the leader of a for-profit corporation as some greedy devil while forgetting how those corporations on Wall Street benefit all of us. Have a 401K? A pension? A job? More than likely your 401k or public pension are invested in publicly traded corporations and if those corporations don't make a profit neither does your retirement fund.

So what the heck is Hauser's Law? It's a principle which states that the U.S.A. takes in around 19% of GDP in tax revenue regardless of the rate of taxation. As taxation increases, revenues to the treasury decrease. I agree that we need to increase tax revenues and cut spending to balance our budgets and get our country out of debt. I do NOT agree that the tax revenue increases should come by means of increasing the personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, death tax rates, or capital gains tax rates. We can increase tax revenue to the treasury by reducing tax rates and encouraging growth in the economy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952.html

Little Man

Happy Birthday to my main man Johnathan...5yrs old!

Federal Bureaucrazy at its best...

The Night Watchman

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job. Then Congress said “How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies. Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One was to do the studies and one was to write the reports. Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created two positions:  a time keeper and a payroll officer then hired two people. Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary. Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $918,000 over budget, we must cut back." So they laid-off the night watchman.

NOW slowly, let it sink in.

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter...Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter administration? Anybody?  Anything? No?

Didn't think so!

Bottom line is, we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency....the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember! Ready??   

It was very simple... and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate  The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977, TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL!!!!. Hey, pretty efficient, huh??? AND NOW IT'S 2011 -- 34 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE! (THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?")

33 years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports.

Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.

NOW, WE HAVE TURNED OVER THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

Signed,

The Night Watchman