Success? That's No Big Deal.

"If you got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen." ~ Barack Obama

This kind of thing has me heart sick for our country.  Not because Obama said it; I expect this kind of idiocy to come from Obama and his operatives.  What deeply saddens me is that he can say it and not be booed off the stage...that so many average Americans seem to be buying into this collectivist, anti-American drivel.  Not so long ago we were not afraid to condemn this kind of socialist rhetoric as dangerous to our very way of life...to our liberty.  Now, it resides in the White House.

Obama says, "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system we have that allowed you to thrive."  While this is all true, Obama wants us to draw the conclusion that since, as John Donne famously penned, "No man is an island, entire of itself," we should not have a problem giving more of our money, time, and freedom to the collectivist, central government.  In the mind of Obama and that of  his ilk, the government is the font of all opportunity, all provision, all wealth, and all power...but only when they are in charge of it.

Success, regardless of what Obama thinks or says, does not happen because of the goodness of government.  Taxes, fees, regulations, and bureaucratic red tape place ever-larger road blocks in the path of small business.  This makes the already difficult task of business success almost impossible.  No, success happens in spite of government, not because of it.  


Successful entrepreneurs are not necessarily the smartest, or hardest working in our society.  But they are the ones who have used the intelligence they have, worked very, very hard, taken the risks, overcome the failures, and continued to strive toward their goals. They must have the right product or service, in the right location at the right time.  They risk their own money, sweat, and family lives to get the business started, and then more than 50% go out of business in the first five years.  Many successful entrepreneurs have failed multiple times in the process of learning how to succeed.  These are costs that the average American is not willing to pay.


Obama does not have a clue as to what it truly takes to succeed in business, and he continues to show his ignorance through his policies that have given us an economy that continues to falter with dismal unemployment numbers.  How dare he lecture us on what it takes to succeed!  It is not the teacher who gives the business owner money and stands by them through the long nights of paper work and planning.  It is not the road worker or the fireman who share their anguish about how they will make the next payroll.  It is not the government bureaucrat or politician who gives them the motivation and drive to keep going, even when it seems impossible to win.  No, these business people are out there to fail or succeed all on their own.   


And what about this "unbelievable American system we have" that allows them to thrive?  How can they get their supplies or ship their goods without the roads provided by the government?  What about electricity, communications, water, sewage infrastructure?  The small businessman didn't build those, but he uses them all for his success.  This is true...SO WHAT?!  All of those things are the natural outcome of people interacting together in a society.  Everyone is doing what they can to make a living by providing products or services to his fellow man.  The carpenter frames the storefront.  The electrical worker brings power to the building. The construction worker builds the roads to bring customers to the store.  All of these people ply their trades for their own self-interest.  The store owner owes them nothing.  They have been paid in full.  This has nothing to do with government.  We do not need government's permission to do it and we do not need their interference to make it happen.  See my earlier post, Why Feed The Pig, for more on the subject of government's involvement in infrastructure.


Without people interacting in this way there is no wealth creation, and, therefore, no money for government.  Business came first...people came first.  Government is a creature of the people.  Nothing -- NOTHING --of value originates with government.  In this country, The People institute government to serve them, not to rule them.  That is the principle of republicanism.


It has not been very long ago when the majority of people in this country celebrated success.  How then, can so many people now buy into its denigration, as if it is only a matter of luck and the largess of a benevolent government?  This attitude has not come about overnight.  It is the result of years and years of continuous programming.  Over the last decades we have been fed on a  diet of  class warfare that has told us that the rich have only succeeded on the backs of the poor.  We have been lead to believe that the economy is a zero-sum game where the more the rich make, the less there is for me and you.  We have had the self esteem movement inflicted on us, which tells us that everyone is special, whether you are a doctor or a welfare bum.  Multiculturalism has also told us that all cultures are equal, whether they have brought us wealth, art, and science, or they stone their women for talking to a man, or kill each other in clashes between warlords...one's as good as the other.  All lies!


All of these things have been designed to convince us that no one is special.  We all "deserve" a trophy.  It's "only fair" that those who have more should "share" it with those who have less...after all, they were just lucky and were helped along by all the rest of us.  It is all a scheme to bring down the very idea of American exceptionalism.  If Americans believe that their system of liberty, capitalism, and "small r" republicanism is nothing special, no better than any other country's system, then "fundamentally changing America" will be much easier. And now, after more than a hundred years of Progressive (socialism in sheep's clothing) teachings and propaganda, the average American has just accepted much of socialism as facts of life.  They have been dumbed-down as citizens in that they don't know or care about how their country operates...or is supposed to operate.  They just believe that government involvement is necessary for any real success.  They can't imagine how roads or infrastructure could possibly be built without an all powerful central government.

After Obama has made moves to take control of banks, auto companies and the healthcare industry, we hear that businesses are just a product of the collective.  Why then shouldn't they be controlled by the central nexus in Washington D.C.?  It only makes sense, right?  This is the central message of socialism.  Too many are either too busy worrying about the next winner of America's Got Talent, or have just become so jaded by the whole process that they have chosen to ignore it and Hope for some good Change.

If there's any hope to save liberty in this country, we must rouse ourselves from this stupor.  We must pay attention.  We must understand the foundations of our freedom and how it is being threatened.  And then, we must act to correct the damage.  In 1790, John Curran rightly said that, "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.”  Are we lazy?  Are we common?  Or are we Americans?  Then, let's stand, as Americans, vigilant against threats to our liberty.

Obama Care - Still a Bad Idea

Regardless of whether the Supreme Court found it constitutional or not, I thought it was time to remind everyone of why Obama Care is still a bad idea.  The basic facts have not changed since I did a post about the Democrat's wild rush to pass this monstrosity back in July of 2009. At that time, Gallup polls indicated that 56% of likely voters believed that passing some form of healthcare reform was important.  This past week, Rasmussen reported that 53% of likely voters support repeal of Obama Care.  Gallup reports that, "Americans are more likely to say the 2010 healthcare law upheld by the Supreme Court last week will hurt the national economy (46%) rather than help it (37%), while 18% say they don't know or that it will have no effect." Which agrees with what the Congressional Budget Office said in 2009 when it reported that the Obamacare legislation would raise federal health care costs"to a significant degree" while not reducing health care costs in general.  This tells me that while people thought there were problems with the health care system, they do not believe that Obama Care is the right solution.  But, the majority of Americans have continued to say that they do not want a government takeover of health care all along.

The very basis of Obama Care were the claims made by supporters that a large number of Americans were not covered by health insurance.  Here's what I wrote then, which is still true:

The President and the Democrats trot out all of the normal, emotionally charged statistics to back their claim that we are in a health care crisis. Particularly they point to the last U.S. Census data that shows that nearly 47 million were uninsured as of the 2006 census. Taken at face value, this seems like terrible thing, but once the data is broken down you begin to see a different picture. For example, 10.2 million of this number is made up of non-citizens. 8.3 million are between 18 – 24 years old, a group that typically chooses not to spend their money on insurances. Another interesting group is the 9.2 million with household incomes of $75,000/year or above. Now that number does not seem nearly as tragic, does it.

So, the lie is revealed.  The 47 million who are tragically uninsured is really more like 19 million.  Of these, many were only temporarily uninsured do to job changes but were reported in the snapshot of the 2006 Census.  But, let's take 19 million as the number.  That is 19 million of a population 310 Million, or 6%.  Should we completely overhaul a system that is working for most Americans for 6%...a number that seems to be high to begin with?  Should we trust the central government to control one-sixth of the economy?  From my earlier  post:

What in the history of the Federal Government or the career of Barack Obama recommends them to be able to run health care any better than the private sector? I submit that, in fact, the opposite result is indicated. Government never has to compete…if they fail; they just raise taxes or print more money. More Americans (45%) trust doctors and hospitals to address the problems than either the Democrats (33%) or Republicans (10%). Beyond the trust issue, the Federal Government has long been known as a paragon of inefficiency. While large corporations can have their own level of bureaucracy, they seldom pay $2,000 for a toilet seat or hammer. Companies are responsible to their stock holders and must compete against other companies to survive…unless they are a bank or auto manufacturer, I guess. The government mostly exists to further its own size and power.

Look, we didn't want it when it was Hillary Care, and we don't want it now.  Let's repeal Obamacare.  Let's dump the largest tax increase in the history of the country.  To do that, Obama Must Go!  Elections do indeed have consequences.

Who's Money Anyway?

On Monday, President Obama called for extending the so-called Bush tax cuts for anyone making under $250 Thousand a year while letting the cuts expire for those making more than that. While everyone can agree that raising taxes on the middle class during this troubled economy, Mr. Obama continues to use one of the major tools of socialists everywhere...class warfare.

One of the most troubling parts of his speech was when he said, "The money we're spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy is a major driver of our deficit, a major contributor of our deficit, costing us a trillion dollars over the next decade."

Okay, where to start? First of all, Mr. Obama, like all statist, central planners seems to think that all money belongs to the government. He believes that letting the wealthy keep their money is spending by the government. This is in direct opposition to the principles of this country's founding. The power...and the money, for that matter...comes from the People. It is ours first and we decide how to invest it in government. It is not the other way around. When we keep more of our money, it is not spending by government.

Let's look at an example of how this kind of thinking would work in another part of society. Say you go to a car dealership to buy a new car. You want something nice, with decent gas mileage numbers, but can't afford anything too extravagant. You decide on a Ford Fusion. You go to the dealership and pick the car you want. Now, when the paperwork is being completed, the manager of the dealership comes and tells you that you make too much money to buy a Fusion. You have to buy a much more expensive Lincoln MKT. "You see," he explains, "We are behind our quota and our budget is already overspent. We can't afford to spend the difference between the Fusion and the MKT on you this month. We will have to sell you the more expensive vehicle."

Does this seem like a ridiculous example? Why, because the dealership doesn't have armed agents to force you to buy the more expensive car? Or, maybe because nobody voted? What if all of the car dealers in your area voted and decided to give themselves the power to force you to buy a more expensive car? Would it be okay then? No, huh? Okay, you're a tough customer. What if everyone in your state voted and a majority said dealerships could force people of a certain income level to buy more expensive cars than they wanted? Then it would be okay, right? I mean everybody voted and all. Okay, still not convinced? What if they told you that they were going to take part of the extra money you spend for the MKT and help someone with less means buy a Fiesta? That would be nice...you could help someone else own a car.

Well of course it is a ridiculous example. It is your money...money you earned. What do you care if the dealership has mismanaged their business and are in financial trouble? If you don't buy a car that is twice as expensive as the one you want, the difference is not spending by the dealership. It's money they never had and were never entitled to in the first place. Helping someone with a lower income than you buy a Fiesta does not make any of it more acceptable. Why would it be more acceptable, or moral, when government does it? I propose that it is not.

Secondly, the President contends that the so-called "spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy" is a "major contributor of our deficit." This also is a ridiculous assertion. As I have chronicled in several past posts, which I list below, our deficit is not caused by a lack of taxation...of revenue...but by out of control spending. Deficit is the result of spending more money than you have...deficit leads to debt. Recent estimates are that the revenue raised by the allowing the tax rates for those over $250,000 in income to return to the pre-Bush levels would fund our deficit for about eight days...eight out of 365, or about 2% of the deficit.

This president is not serious about fixing the economy. With this assertion, Obama just presumes that every bit of government spending is absolutely vital and legal. He has no plans for cutting spending...in fact, he only continues to propose new spending. He has raised the nation's debt by more than $5 TRILLION in less than four years, more than all other presidents combined. Joblessness under this administration continue to be dismal. And all he seems to have to offer are repeal the Bush tax cut for the wealthy, a move which many in his own party don't even agree with, and the largest tax hike in the history of the country through Obamacare. This is the same man who said, "The private sector is doing fine. Where we are seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with State and local government."

What we can no longer afford to spend on are big-government solutions that have caused massive deficit and debt. We can't afford policies that kill jobs and ruin whole industries. We cannot afford to allow politicians to invest taxpayer money in business of their choosing to see those companies fail and take our money with them. What we cannot afford in this country is Obama and his like-minded Marxist, central-planning cronies. This man...this total failure of a President...must go, and we need to sweep his type of political theory out of government behind him.

Related Posts:
A Spending Problem

Are You Getting It Yet?

The Debt from Two Perspectives

The National Debt in Perspective

Follow The Money

In a discussion about money's corrupting influence on politics, I told my friend that it affects both parties, not just the Republicans.  He said, "Follow the money."  With little effort, I was able to find some very good data from OpenSecrets.org.

The following lists show the All-Time Top Donors, and the Top Individual Contributors in the 2010 election cycle and the percentage given to Democrats and Republicans.  The links on the headings will lead to more information.

All-Time Top Donors:
# 1. ActBlue - 99% Dems; 0% Rep
#2. AT&T -  43% Dem; 55% Rep
#3. AFSCME - 92% Dem, 1% Rep
#4. Nat. Assoc. Of Realtors - 45% Dem; 47% Rep
#5 NEA - 74% Dem; 5% Rep
#6. Goldman Sachs - 57% Dem; 39% Rep
#7. Service Emp. Intl - 75% Dem; 2% Rep
#8. American Assn for Justice - 88% Dem; 8% Rep
#9, IBEW - 96% Dem; 2% Rep
#10. American Fedn of Teachers - 87% Dem; 0% Rep.


Top Individual Contributors (2010 Election):
#1. Stephen Bing - 100% Dem; 0% Rep
#2. Haim & Cheryl Saban - 100% Dem; 0% Rep
#3. Fred Eychaner - 100% Dem; 0% Rep
#4. Steve & Michele Kirsch - 100% Dem; 0% Rep
#5. Bernard & Irene Schwartz - 100% Dem; 0% Rep
#6 Jon S & Joanne D Corzine - 98% Dem; 0% Rep
#7. Melvin & Brenda J. Simon - 100% Dem; 0% Rep
#8. Peter G & Georgia K Angelos - 99% Dem; 0% Rep
#9. John M. O'Quinn - 100% Dem; 0% Rep
#10. Roland E. & Dawn Arnall - 34% Dem; 66% Rep

Funny, Koch doesn't appear until #54, under a lot of heavy weight Democratic donors...though the Left would have you believe that all political evil originate from Koch Industries.

God Bless America

Nothing needs to be added.  Happy Independence Day!

President Reagan's Address to the Nation on Independence Day - 7/4/86

Obama Care and the Death of a Republic

Today's Supreme Court ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obama Care, is a huge disappointment for anyone who cares for the Constitution and the rule of law.  This law was shoved through Congress against the will of a strong majority of the people in this country.  It gives unprecedented power to the central government to control the lives of individual citizens.   This has been done over the objections of several States.  It also gives the central government control over approximately one-seventh of the economy...in effect socializing a  whole segment of the private industry.

One of the most troublesome aspects of this law, the so-called "individual mandate," which forces individual citizens to purchase health insurance, whether they want to or not, under the penalty of being fined, was held to be constitutional under Congress' taxing power.  Chief Justice Roberts found, in writing the majority opinion, that "In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."  This flies directly in the face the wording of the act and of what was continually claimed by Obama and his minions.  He claimed that the individual mandate was "absolutely not" a tax.

Rather than interpreting the law, as is the mandate of the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts and the other assenting members have legislated from the bench.  The mandate language in the law did not call for a tax, but rather a penalty.  Roberts and the others changed the law by judicial fiat.  In writing for the dissenting members,  Justice Kennedy explains that, "In a few cases, this Court has held that a 'tax' imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act adopt[s] the criteria of 'wrongdoing' and then imposes a monetary penalty as the “principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,” it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax."  But that's what the majority clearly did in this case...they interpreted a penalty as a tax.

Justice Kennedy, also explained:

"As for the constitutional power to tax and spend for the general welfare: The Court has long since expanded that beyond (what Madison thought it meant) taxing and spending for those aspects of the general welfare that were within the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, see United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65–66 (1936). Thus, we now have sizable federal Departments devoted to subjects not mentioned among Congress’ enumerated powers, and only marginally related to commerce: the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The principal practical obstacle that prevents Congress from using the tax-and-spend power to assume all the general-welfare responsibilities traditionally exercised by the States is the sheer impossibility of managing a Federal Government large enough to administer such a system."

"The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying nonconsenting States all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have beenenacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative."

The truly frightening part of this decision is that it sets precedent that will likely allow the central government to control any activity or sector of the economy they wish through their seemingly unlimited power to tax. Rep. Jeff Landry, R-La. had it right when he spoke on the steps of the Supreme Court after the ruling,  “They basically have said Congress has no limit to its taxing power. This is the largest tax increase on the poor and the middle class in the history of this country . . . it was sold to the American people as a mandate and not a tax.”


The short-term solution is to vote Obama and all of his central planning, socialist cronies out of office and push the new president and Congress for a total repeal of this bad law.  But this is not enough.  The problem is systemic...the government given to us by the founders has rotted to the core.  The central government can not be trusted to act on the principles of the founding and the original intent of our bedrock legal document, the Constitution.  Neither can Supreme Court be counted on to take up the cause.  As I wrote in a previous post:

Where are the checks and balances that safe guard our liberty? The Supreme Court? This is only a small group of politically appointed lawyers, with tenure for life, who have a history of rubber stamping government expansion. No, the only real hope is to return to America's founding principles, and it is The People who must demand the changes necessary.

Notice that throughout this post, I have referred to the "central government" rather than the Federal government.  I do this with a purpose.  The founding fathers provided us with a federal republic form of government.  It was a republic in that ultimate power originated from "the People."  It was federal in that there was a small body that was to represent the interests of the federation of the sovereign United States of America.  This central government was to be very limited in scope and power and, derived it's power from the States and the People.  The chief check on the power of the Federal government was to be the sovereign States.  With this ruling, and many before it, we no longer have a federal form of government in practice, we have a national one with the States now being subservient to the central body.  This is why I will no longer refer to this body as federal.  There are no sovereign States, and soon, if we don't make a change, there will be no republic.

Because the central government has become so corrupted, we cannot hope to restore it from within.  We must return to the principles of federalism.  The States must retake their rightful role as the check against usurpation and aggression by the central government.  To do this, we must repeal the Seventeenth Amendment (see these post for more information on this topic: Repeal the 17th Amendment ; Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!).  The states must then nullify unconstitutional laws and rollback the central government to it's rightful scope.  Without these steps, the republic is truly dead.

See the following posts for background on Federalism:

Balance of Power

The Utility of Federalism

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 1

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 2

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 3

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 4

That's Irresponsible. It's Unpatriotic.

By Bob Gorrell - June 14, 2012

In the video below, Candidate Barack Obama blasts President Bush, and rightly so, for adding $4 Trillion to the national debt.  He said, "...we now have over nine trillion dollars of debt, that we are gonna have to pay back.  Thirty thousand dollars for every man, woman and child."

Today, with less than one term in office, compared to Bush's two terms, the U.S. national debt is more than $15 Trillion.  That is more than $50,000 for every man woman and child.  This is a $6 Trillion increase over the debt level that candidate Obama railed against.

Once again, we should take President Obama at his word:

"That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

A One Term Proposition

"I will be held accountable, you know, I've got four years...A year from now, uh, I think people are gonna see, uh, that we're starting to make some progress, but there's still gonna be some pain out there.  If I don't have this done in three years, then there's gonna be a one-term proposition." ~ Barack Obama, 2009.

The economy is in such a bad way that we should certainly take Mr. Obama at his word, hold him accountable and make him a one-term president.  He hasn't gotten it done!  We can't afford to give him another shot at it, hoping that maybe, just maybe, this time he can improve things.

I am not a big Mitt Romney fan, and would rather see someone else running in opposition.  But he can not do worse than this current president has done.  If Romney doesn't get it done, he should likewise be a one-termer.  Then, maybe we will all get serious about voting for serious candidates...statesmen instead of politicians.  We should have this same attitude about our Senate and House candidates..and state and local candidates for that matter.  This is not a game, folks.  This is our lives, our future, our liberty at stake.



Thanks to VideoSeattle.

Defeat of Special Interests

(Updated: 6/8/12)

The victory of Governor Scott Walker in the recall election in Wisconsin was a resounding defeat of special interests.  That's right, one of the biggest special interest groups in the country was soundly rejected...labor unions, and public service unions in particular.  The People of Wisconsin, in large numbers, turned out to reject the ridiculous recall attempt waged by the unions in the state.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only about 11.8 percent of all workers nationally belong to a union.  In Wisconsin, the number is about 13.3 percent.  Looking at union membership by sector, it is even more interesting.  The percentage of all private sector employees that belong to a union was only 6.9% in 2011 compared to 37% of all public sector workers.  Union membership has been falling for years.  In fact, The New York Times reported that union membership has fallen to "the lowest rate in more than 70 years."  The vast majority of Americans are not in a union and don't want to be in one.  And so, they really don't care about the unions.

Even the politicians, it seems, don't seem to see the union issues of key importance, as noted in an article in Mother Jones:

"In an interview, an official with the Democratic Party of Wisconsin downplayed the importance of the anti-union provisions in Walker's 'budget repair' bill in the Democrats' broader recall strategy. 'Collective bargaining is not moving people,' says Graeme Zielinski, a Democratic Party spokesman. And in the party's new strategy memo for defeating Walker, there's little mention of collective bargaining or organized labor in the Democrats' messaging plans."

But while unionism is on the decline, union special interest groups continue to be some of the largest donors to national political candidates.  According to National Review Online, "the biggest 'outside group' spenders in the 2012 elections aren't oil and gas companies, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, or hedge funds. No, as reported by the Associated Press, the biggest spender in the 2012 elections will likely be Big Labor."  In fact, according to OpenSecrets.org, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), one of the biggest forces behind the Walker recall effort, is the third all time largest donor, with 92% of their funds going to Democrats and only 1% to Republicans.  In the 2008 election cycle alone, AFSCME was the 6th largest donor.  The National Education Association (NEA), another public sector union, was the largest.

What does this mean, in real terms.  Public sector workers contributing money to politicians is a conflict of interest.  Think about it.  If this happened in the private sector, it would be illegal.  If employees gave money to get their bosses promoted, then expect favorable treatment in return, everyone would be fired at least.  Steve Huntly of the Chicago Sun Times describes the issue this way:

"Collective bargaining for government employees can never survive much scrutiny. Their unions are by their nature in conflict with the interests of taxpayer. Unions use their numbers, their voting booth clout and their members’ dues to elect politicians who then return the favor in contract negotiations. Liberal good government types constantly advocate bans against government contracts for businesses that make significant campaign contributions to politicians. But they fall silent on the inherent conflict of interest in labor contracts negotiated by public employee unions and the politicians they help elect. Talk about a corrupt bargain — that’s the very definition of one.

Taxpayers have grown weary of financing generous benefits that most of them never see in their lives. President Barack Obama must recognize that voter attitudes on this are changing. Despite the appeals of Wisconsin Democrats for a big show of support, the closest Obama came to Wisconsin was flying over the state recently on his way to a fund-raising dinner in Minneapolis." 

Wisconsin was on the verge of insolvency.  Scott Walker said he was willing to do what was necessary to fix the problem.  He was elected by the people of Wisconsin.  He did exactly what he said he would do...stand up against the outrageous demands and costs of the public unions.  The economy and budget have begun to improve.  The unions did not like the results of the election because it threatened their power in the government.  They organized the recall effort with much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how terrible Walker was for the working men and women of Wisconsin.  But, those same working men and women turned out to reject their special interest, class warfare rhetoric.

 Neither labor unions or crony capitalists should have undue influence on government through their ability to buy favor.  The American people are waking up.  They are seeing through the media fog.  Scott Walker's victory was a clear blow against the public sector union special interests.  Let's hope this trend continues and voters continue to look past the special interests and vote for the best interest of their States and Country.

A Spending Problem

Revenue - Spending = Deficit 

It is a simple equation, really...why does Washington not seem to understand it?  Our country's debt problem is simply a matter of spending more than the available revenue.

Government revenue historically averages about 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  This seems to be the level that the voting public and the economy will stand.  But, tax revenue per household, adjusted for inflation, as Professor Davies explains in the video below, has risen, by about 300% since the 1950s.

So, if revenue continues to grow over the years, but we also continue to have deficits, what is the problem?  I'll wait a little while for some of you to catch up...That's right, it's spending!  Our rate of spending continues to grow at an even faster rate than revenue.  Professor Davies explains the issue very clearly and succinctly in the video below.



Related Posts:
Federal Spending and the Economy