We have all heard the arguments against government “anointed” health care: The high unsustainable costs, the monopolies it will create, the special interest it will create, the lucrative contracts to favored constituencies it will create, the forfeiture of choice, the rationing, which ultimately leads to a total government takeover.
All are valid arguments; however, let’s not forget the most fundamental argument of all, which is: Health care is NOT a right.
A right is a moral sanction of mans actions. It says one’s actions are proper and good. Therefore to violate a man’s right is immoral and evil. The fundamental right, of which all others are corollaries, is the right to life. What this means in practical terms, is the right to live for one’s self not for the sake of others. The primary implementation of mans rights is to pursue a standard of living of one’s own choosing free from force or coercion. The only moral purpose of government, then, is to protect these rights. If government extends it powers beyond protecting these rights into the aggressive role of confiscating people’s wealth for the greater good of society, government becomes a tyrant plundering the people.
Any artificial right, such as the right to health care, destroys the real rights of people by forcing them to pay for the health care of those who cannot afford it. This is aggressive force to take one’s income and give it to another.
It is neither moral nor well intended to lay claim to the rewards of someone else’s productivity. It is vicious and predacious to demand a good or service without compensation, or to force someone else to pay for it. A right by its very nature makes no claim on someone else’s property or income, a right as our founders conceived it, only applies to the freedom of action not the compulsion of others. In other words these new rights, such as in the case of universal health care, which require the coercion of others cannot be a right. Such new rights are in fact immoral and evil.
What government health care—or any other form of government created publicly funded program that redistributes wealth or subsidizes one group at the expense of another—does, is it turns the productive in society into serfs of the state.
Showing posts with label Altruism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Altruism. Show all posts
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Morality of Climate Change
According to this article by Paul Driessen Harvard economists predict Cap and Trade will cost the average American family an additional $1500 a year in energy costs. MIT economists predict it will be even higher toping out at $3000 per family. This is sick and immoral and based on lies and unproven theories.
In Spain "green jobs" cost more to create than jobs in other enegry related fields. Can this be our future?
And we get this from a President who has vowed to respect and value science.
You can find more articles by Paul Driessen at Townhall.com
And Eco- Imperialism.com
Compared to no cap-and-tax regime, Waxman-Markey would cost the United States a cumulative $9.6 trillion in real GDP losses by 2035, according to an updated study by the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. The bill would also cost an additional 1.1 million jobs each year, raise electricity rates 90% after adjusting for inflation, cause a 74% hike in inflation-adjusted gasoline prices, and add $1,500 to the average family’s annual energy bill, says Heritage.
The Congressional Budget Office says the poorest one-fifth of families could see annual energy costs rise $700 – while high income families could see their costs rise $2,200 a year. Harvard economist Martin Feldstein estimates that the average person could pay an extra $1,500 per year for energy. MIT says household energy costs could climb $3,000 per year.
Where will families find that extra cash? “What do I tell a single mom, making $8 an hour?” asked North Carolina congressman (and Congressional Black Caucus member) G. K. Butterfield.
In Spain "green jobs" cost more to create than jobs in other enegry related fields. Can this be our future?
Spain’s experience should be cautionary, but probably won’t be. According to a study by Dr. Gabriel Calzada, Spanish taxpayers spent $800,000 for each new job in the wind turbine industry (mostly installing towering turbines) – and destroyed 2.2 regular jobs for each “green” job, primarily because pricey “renewable” electricity forced companies to lay off workers, to stay in business.
And we get this from a President who has vowed to respect and value science.
You can find more articles by Paul Driessen at Townhall.com
And Eco- Imperialism.com
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Story of stuff
This video is supposed to be the story of the "effects of human consumption" that teaches kids to be accountable. Does this challenge the minds of kids or does it indoctrinate them?
Monday, May 11, 2009
The Road to Fascism
They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So it would seem the road to fascism is also paved with good intentions.
Big government is intended to help people, taxation is a means for a benevolent government to afford to help people, the bailout plan is intended to save our financial institutions, the stimulus package is intended to save and create jobs, support for organized labor is intended to help to protect American workers, etc.
The unfortunate reality is each of these points also has unintended consequences. For example big government centralizes and consumes power—perhaps the most dangerous consequence of all. Taxes are taken from one group of people and redistributed to another group of people which diminishes property rights and feeds class warfare. Our current economic crisis was due to failed government policy, corporate favoritism, and Wall Street greed perpetuated by their government allies, the bailout plans and stimulus packages benefit the corporate elites. Unionized labor—perhaps at one time relevant—in today’s society of world markets and international competition makes American companies less competitive.
For those who wish to remain a free people need to recognize the philosophies that are inherently malignant to freedom. The philosophic combatants are “reason and logic” on one side and “pragmatism” on the other. It is the ability to recognize and interact appropriately with an independent reality. It is the ability to recognize the unintended consequences and their causes.
Unfortunately “pragmatism”—which ignores independent reality when it is inconvenient—has been winning the battle.
For instance, how many of you have come to the realization that there is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans philosophically? The difference between modern Democrats and Republicans is so insignificant that it could be said we are nearing a one party system. For all the rhetoric between them at the core they are both fascists pushing our country dangerously close to totalitarianism.
As a measure to understand the relationship between causality and consequence—cause and effect—of this philosophic “nationalized pragmatism” to compare where we once were to where we are now, and to see where we are heading politically as a nation, imagine if you will, a horizontal line-graph numbering 0-10; 0 being the far extreme political “left” and 10 being the far extreme political “right”. Also, 0 represents totalitarianism and at the opposite end of the spectrum is a 10 which represents anarchy.
To illustrate; the original colonists prior to the constitution, under the “Articles of Confederation,” were about an 8 or 9 on this graph. Later when the Constitution was ratified, with added governmental controls, the colonists were at about a 7 on the graph.
Today we find our society tittering at the ragged edge of totalitarianism at about a 2 on the graph. Why? The philosophies and agenda of both the Democrat and Republican parties are fundamentally the same, they both embrace the same moral philosophy which is synonymous with “altruism” and in politics altruism is practiced as “collectivism.” In order for collectivism to be initiated and maintained government has to coerce individuals to sacrifice their incomes and property for the greater good of society. Such an immoral philosophy obviously pushes the country further to the left towards totalitarianism and serfdom, if in fact, the country isn’t already there.
The majority of Americans today stand somewhere in the middle politically, at or near the center— a 4 or a 5 on the graph. Yet the government is still much further to the left. What accounts for this difference? It is because the individual voters only matter in an election year. This can be seen when all the candidates running for office make a mad dash towards the center of the political spectrum during the campaign trail and then back to the left after the election is over. A good example of this was witnessed during the 2008 Presidential elections when the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate, Barrack Obama, reinvented himself as a moderate and made appeals to the political center vying for moderate votes. Now that he is President he is governing from the left. The same can be said for President George Bush who ran for President on so called conservative principles but once in office he began a campaign of spending and government expanding programs including the massively expensive social “Drug Prescription Plan” for seniors. Bush’s spending and expansionism is only outdone by Obama.
Once the elections are over it is back to business as usual which is catering to special interests. To further illustrate my point, there is a deception being perpetrated here—or at least a misconception. Have you ever stopped to think about who is benefited and who is harmed by the bailouts and stimulus packages? Big Business wins out and the individual taxpayer—the working class—is the loser. So tell me, who is government more beholden to?
Anytime a group or movement or industry seeks protections or subsidies from government and is granted them, forces are unleashed that drive the nation towards totalitarianism. This is because more government, more spending, and more coercion of the taxpayer are needed to fund and administer the new programs.
Regardless of where the pressure is coming from, whether it is from big business, the environmental movement, oil, agriculture, or defense industries, etc, it doesn’t matter. When government grants these groups with special privileges, bestowing upon them protractions from competitors, giving them taxpayer backed insurance (FDIC), price controls, or subsidies—or quite frankly anytime the government creates a new program it creates a special interest—such actions either create a new special interest or expands an existing special interest who in-turn begin seeking more favors from government which puts government on a dangerous and reckless course towards totalitarianism as government grows, new taxes are levied, and power is centralized.
As government moves increasingly further to the left, individualism finds less relevance in society and individual rights are regarded as secondary to the rights of the state.
When freedom-loving segments of the population protest such abuses they are labeled as extremists. Take the recent media attacks on “Tea Parties” for example. The further to the left the government trudges the more the folks on the right seem extreme in their views.
This new view of the right is amply illustrated in the DHS report on “Extreme Right Wing” threats, where the DHS redefined what constitutes a potential threat. Basically what the report implies is that any ideology that is not consistent with their new found mores is a threat to government and ultimately to society. The report identifies Iraqi Veterans, gun owners, people who buy ammo, opponents of abortion, tax protesters, and just about anyone else who disagrees with the current administration. By the way the DHS report is consistent with Missouri’s own report who identifies people who display bumper stickers with third party candidates such Ron Paul or Bob Barr as potential threats—I wouldn’t be surprised to see some law enforcement agencies profiling folks driving four-wheel drive pickup trucks displaying NRA stickers.
To further illustrate this point: Recently a Louisiana man was pulled over, detained, and questioned by law enforcement officers, for having a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker displayed on his vehicle. He was subsequently warned by the police officers of the "subversive" message it sent.
Basically what we are witnessing is a paradigm shift away from patriotism and individualism, replacing it with statism and collectivism. This is echoed in the words of former Sec of State Colin Powell when he said, “…people want more government in their lives not less”—so be careful what you whish for because you just might get it. In our strange new world people who are vocal about their individual rights, favor constitutional restraints on government, and oppose spending and unfair taxes are people to be loathed by government (and the left) and profiled as potential threats.
Of course there are some who welcome this shift as liberating. Abraham Lincoln once made an enlightening observation:
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
Big government is intended to help people, taxation is a means for a benevolent government to afford to help people, the bailout plan is intended to save our financial institutions, the stimulus package is intended to save and create jobs, support for organized labor is intended to help to protect American workers, etc.
The unfortunate reality is each of these points also has unintended consequences. For example big government centralizes and consumes power—perhaps the most dangerous consequence of all. Taxes are taken from one group of people and redistributed to another group of people which diminishes property rights and feeds class warfare. Our current economic crisis was due to failed government policy, corporate favoritism, and Wall Street greed perpetuated by their government allies, the bailout plans and stimulus packages benefit the corporate elites. Unionized labor—perhaps at one time relevant—in today’s society of world markets and international competition makes American companies less competitive.
For those who wish to remain a free people need to recognize the philosophies that are inherently malignant to freedom. The philosophic combatants are “reason and logic” on one side and “pragmatism” on the other. It is the ability to recognize and interact appropriately with an independent reality. It is the ability to recognize the unintended consequences and their causes.
Unfortunately “pragmatism”—which ignores independent reality when it is inconvenient—has been winning the battle.
For instance, how many of you have come to the realization that there is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans philosophically? The difference between modern Democrats and Republicans is so insignificant that it could be said we are nearing a one party system. For all the rhetoric between them at the core they are both fascists pushing our country dangerously close to totalitarianism.
As a measure to understand the relationship between causality and consequence—cause and effect—of this philosophic “nationalized pragmatism” to compare where we once were to where we are now, and to see where we are heading politically as a nation, imagine if you will, a horizontal line-graph numbering 0-10; 0 being the far extreme political “left” and 10 being the far extreme political “right”. Also, 0 represents totalitarianism and at the opposite end of the spectrum is a 10 which represents anarchy.
To illustrate; the original colonists prior to the constitution, under the “Articles of Confederation,” were about an 8 or 9 on this graph. Later when the Constitution was ratified, with added governmental controls, the colonists were at about a 7 on the graph.
Today we find our society tittering at the ragged edge of totalitarianism at about a 2 on the graph. Why? The philosophies and agenda of both the Democrat and Republican parties are fundamentally the same, they both embrace the same moral philosophy which is synonymous with “altruism” and in politics altruism is practiced as “collectivism.” In order for collectivism to be initiated and maintained government has to coerce individuals to sacrifice their incomes and property for the greater good of society. Such an immoral philosophy obviously pushes the country further to the left towards totalitarianism and serfdom, if in fact, the country isn’t already there.
The majority of Americans today stand somewhere in the middle politically, at or near the center— a 4 or a 5 on the graph. Yet the government is still much further to the left. What accounts for this difference? It is because the individual voters only matter in an election year. This can be seen when all the candidates running for office make a mad dash towards the center of the political spectrum during the campaign trail and then back to the left after the election is over. A good example of this was witnessed during the 2008 Presidential elections when the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate, Barrack Obama, reinvented himself as a moderate and made appeals to the political center vying for moderate votes. Now that he is President he is governing from the left. The same can be said for President George Bush who ran for President on so called conservative principles but once in office he began a campaign of spending and government expanding programs including the massively expensive social “Drug Prescription Plan” for seniors. Bush’s spending and expansionism is only outdone by Obama.
Once the elections are over it is back to business as usual which is catering to special interests. To further illustrate my point, there is a deception being perpetrated here—or at least a misconception. Have you ever stopped to think about who is benefited and who is harmed by the bailouts and stimulus packages? Big Business wins out and the individual taxpayer—the working class—is the loser. So tell me, who is government more beholden to?
Anytime a group or movement or industry seeks protections or subsidies from government and is granted them, forces are unleashed that drive the nation towards totalitarianism. This is because more government, more spending, and more coercion of the taxpayer are needed to fund and administer the new programs.
Regardless of where the pressure is coming from, whether it is from big business, the environmental movement, oil, agriculture, or defense industries, etc, it doesn’t matter. When government grants these groups with special privileges, bestowing upon them protractions from competitors, giving them taxpayer backed insurance (FDIC), price controls, or subsidies—or quite frankly anytime the government creates a new program it creates a special interest—such actions either create a new special interest or expands an existing special interest who in-turn begin seeking more favors from government which puts government on a dangerous and reckless course towards totalitarianism as government grows, new taxes are levied, and power is centralized.
As government moves increasingly further to the left, individualism finds less relevance in society and individual rights are regarded as secondary to the rights of the state.
When freedom-loving segments of the population protest such abuses they are labeled as extremists. Take the recent media attacks on “Tea Parties” for example. The further to the left the government trudges the more the folks on the right seem extreme in their views.
This new view of the right is amply illustrated in the DHS report on “Extreme Right Wing” threats, where the DHS redefined what constitutes a potential threat. Basically what the report implies is that any ideology that is not consistent with their new found mores is a threat to government and ultimately to society. The report identifies Iraqi Veterans, gun owners, people who buy ammo, opponents of abortion, tax protesters, and just about anyone else who disagrees with the current administration. By the way the DHS report is consistent with Missouri’s own report who identifies people who display bumper stickers with third party candidates such Ron Paul or Bob Barr as potential threats—I wouldn’t be surprised to see some law enforcement agencies profiling folks driving four-wheel drive pickup trucks displaying NRA stickers.
To further illustrate this point: Recently a Louisiana man was pulled over, detained, and questioned by law enforcement officers, for having a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker displayed on his vehicle. He was subsequently warned by the police officers of the "subversive" message it sent.
Basically what we are witnessing is a paradigm shift away from patriotism and individualism, replacing it with statism and collectivism. This is echoed in the words of former Sec of State Colin Powell when he said, “…people want more government in their lives not less”—so be careful what you whish for because you just might get it. In our strange new world people who are vocal about their individual rights, favor constitutional restraints on government, and oppose spending and unfair taxes are people to be loathed by government (and the left) and profiled as potential threats.
Of course there are some who welcome this shift as liberating. Abraham Lincoln once made an enlightening observation:
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
Friday, May 1, 2009
Waging War Against the Right-Race Baiting Part 2
Today, the conservative philosophy of individualism, personal responsibility, and limited government spending is being touted as racist, even being compared by some as tantamount to Neo Nazism. Of course conservatism is about free markets, individual freedom, and limited government and Nazism is about political and economic totalitarianism which are complete polar opposites.
In "Waging War Against the Right-Race Baiting" (Part 1) I discussed how important the Republicans were to the civil rights movement and how over inflated the democrats role has been portrayed. In this installment I will show how a political shift occurred in black political affiliations.
Prior to the 1930’s blacks were predominately Republicans, however, today 90-95% of blacks vote Democrat. What brought about this paradigm shift in political ideology?
Patronage!
During the Great Depression FDR sponsored a barrage of massive spending projects. Some of these were programs such as the AAA, FERA, CCC, and the gargantuan WPA, which provided government jobs for millions of people who were out of work... But these jobs became a tool for silencing opposition to New Deal programs as well as for targeting large blocks of voters.
It was James Farley—chairman of the DNC and Postmaster General—along with Emil Hurja—deputy director of the DNC—job to mine data on the political effects of “Patronage” and exploit it for political purposes. The results were stunning, one news article in the Chicago Tribune reported, “When such vast streams of federal moneys are flowing over a land it is probably beyond human nature to give a sincere opinion on broader issues…” and likened it to “…It is Santa Claus with his pack that has been endorsed rather than any definite program of recovery or reform.” Norman Thomas, the head of the American Socialist Party, made a particularly interesting observation when he commented, “One doesn’t shoot Santa Claus.” In fact it was so effective, for example, in one black neighborhood in Chicago, which was 90% Republican, turned 95% democrat virtually over night. Similarly, the same affect played out across the country especially in larger urban areas. One could easily conclude that these “New Deal” policies were used to take advantage of susceptible populations giving them government subsidies in exchange for votes.
Today federal money is still being used for political gain by those who wish to gain and stay in power and by those who wish to keep them in power. Although, the programs differ somewhat form FDR’s day they are still used in the same way and paid for by taxes. In other words “patronage” is still being carried out today under the guise of various wealth redistribution programs.
So the liberal argument goes that any threat to the redistributive powers of government is an attack on the disadvantaged: the elderly, the children, the environment, and the poor who are largely ethnic minorities. The liberal logic here is anyone who would dare propose stemming the tide of government money poring over the land, despite the harm it does to property rights and individual liberties, must be selfish and racist.
What this emotional argument says is that man is a sacrificial animal whose material well being is all important—i.e. welfare, government jobs, free education, free healthcare, etc—man’s private property and freedom is strictly secondary. The altruist and those seeking to take political advantage of this philosophy rely heavily upon government spending which lends itself to coercive infringements upon the tax payer. When the tax payer complains a heavy dose of social ridicule and scorn is then applied to alienate and shame him into silence as we have seen time after time especially against the most productive in society, and most recently leveled against the “Tea Party” supporters by liberal media commentators and people like Jeanine Garofalo. So, although standing up for the moral principles of individual rights, personal responsibility, and limited government has nothing whatsoever to do with being mean, selfish, or a racist, that is what the left whishes it to be, so that is the self-made alter-reality they’ve created and continue to proselytize in hopes to legitimize their false reality.
In "Waging War Against the Right-Race Baiting" (Part 1) I discussed how important the Republicans were to the civil rights movement and how over inflated the democrats role has been portrayed. In this installment I will show how a political shift occurred in black political affiliations.
Prior to the 1930’s blacks were predominately Republicans, however, today 90-95% of blacks vote Democrat. What brought about this paradigm shift in political ideology?
Patronage!
During the Great Depression FDR sponsored a barrage of massive spending projects. Some of these were programs such as the AAA, FERA, CCC, and the gargantuan WPA, which provided government jobs for millions of people who were out of work... But these jobs became a tool for silencing opposition to New Deal programs as well as for targeting large blocks of voters.
It was James Farley—chairman of the DNC and Postmaster General—along with Emil Hurja—deputy director of the DNC—job to mine data on the political effects of “Patronage” and exploit it for political purposes. The results were stunning, one news article in the Chicago Tribune reported, “When such vast streams of federal moneys are flowing over a land it is probably beyond human nature to give a sincere opinion on broader issues…” and likened it to “…It is Santa Claus with his pack that has been endorsed rather than any definite program of recovery or reform.” Norman Thomas, the head of the American Socialist Party, made a particularly interesting observation when he commented, “One doesn’t shoot Santa Claus.” In fact it was so effective, for example, in one black neighborhood in Chicago, which was 90% Republican, turned 95% democrat virtually over night. Similarly, the same affect played out across the country especially in larger urban areas. One could easily conclude that these “New Deal” policies were used to take advantage of susceptible populations giving them government subsidies in exchange for votes.
Today federal money is still being used for political gain by those who wish to gain and stay in power and by those who wish to keep them in power. Although, the programs differ somewhat form FDR’s day they are still used in the same way and paid for by taxes. In other words “patronage” is still being carried out today under the guise of various wealth redistribution programs.
So the liberal argument goes that any threat to the redistributive powers of government is an attack on the disadvantaged: the elderly, the children, the environment, and the poor who are largely ethnic minorities. The liberal logic here is anyone who would dare propose stemming the tide of government money poring over the land, despite the harm it does to property rights and individual liberties, must be selfish and racist.
What this emotional argument says is that man is a sacrificial animal whose material well being is all important—i.e. welfare, government jobs, free education, free healthcare, etc—man’s private property and freedom is strictly secondary. The altruist and those seeking to take political advantage of this philosophy rely heavily upon government spending which lends itself to coercive infringements upon the tax payer. When the tax payer complains a heavy dose of social ridicule and scorn is then applied to alienate and shame him into silence as we have seen time after time especially against the most productive in society, and most recently leveled against the “Tea Party” supporters by liberal media commentators and people like Jeanine Garofalo. So, although standing up for the moral principles of individual rights, personal responsibility, and limited government has nothing whatsoever to do with being mean, selfish, or a racist, that is what the left whishes it to be, so that is the self-made alter-reality they’ve created and continue to proselytize in hopes to legitimize their false reality.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The argument against Altruism
If I had a dime for every time I heard someone say the government doesn’t do enough to help people I would be in a higher tax bracket. I especially hear this around the issue of healthcare.
The other day I had a conversation with someone who said the government should provide free healthcare to everybody. I answered by saying, how about we go down to the bank and open an account so you can contribute money to pay my health care costs since I don’t want to pay for insurance anymore. She looked at me with a puzzled look in her eye. I continued, what’s wrong with that? Do you really think there is any difference between me demanding you pay my costs or the government demanding it? I cannot use force to make you do it without violating the law but the government can. Such is the essence of providing free healthcare to everyone.
The moral to this story is giving people things for nothing is an act against freedom since it uses force to violate the rights of others.
The other day I had a conversation with someone who said the government should provide free healthcare to everybody. I answered by saying, how about we go down to the bank and open an account so you can contribute money to pay my health care costs since I don’t want to pay for insurance anymore. She looked at me with a puzzled look in her eye. I continued, what’s wrong with that? Do you really think there is any difference between me demanding you pay my costs or the government demanding it? I cannot use force to make you do it without violating the law but the government can. Such is the essence of providing free healthcare to everyone.
The moral to this story is giving people things for nothing is an act against freedom since it uses force to violate the rights of others.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Dangerous Philosophies
The fact is that there are some philosophies that have very real and dangerous consequences. These philosophies fail because they ignore the essential characteristics of reality. In effect, people who follow these philosophies bury their head in the sand to the contradictions, denying causality of the unintended consequences. These failures are readily predictable for anyone with some linear thinking ability.
We are seeing these philosophies being played-out in the stimulus package and the Omnibus bill. They are being played out by injecting altruistic ideology into the legislative processes.
Government benevolence always backfires with unintended consequences. Authoritarian programs designed to make the economic system fair, have brought us to the brink of economic collapse. Just look at the “Community Reinvestment Act”, created to protect low income borrowers from discriminatory credit practices. This was the spark that ultimately led to the housing crash. How many Americans are being hurt by this crash?
While both Congress and the media rage a crusade to crucify corporate leaders for their corporate jets, hiring contractors to renovate posh office suites, and giving big bonuses to their executives. No mention is ever heard of Nancy Pelosi flying her family, friends, and personal employees around on military jets which she demands to be at her beck and call 24 hours a day.
What is also ignored is that these corporations, who buy their own jets, hire contractors to improve the aesthetics of their offices, and give out bonuses actually help to stimulate the economy. These practices are job friendly and that is what we need right now isn’t it?
Speaking of job friendliness, Barrack Obama signed a not so job-friendly executive order that discriminates against 84 Percent of the construction workforce. This new order basically calls for large-scale federal construction projects to be carried out by union labor eliminating over 80 percent of non-union contractors. When Clinton called for higher wages, benefits and collective-bargaining, for union contractors resulted in the costs nearly doubling. Of course it is the tax payers who absorb these higher costs.
Obama says he wants to create jobs but this policy does the exact opposite because 84% of American builders and contractors do not belong to unions. In every case union only contracts drive up costs by limiting bidders and forcing construction users to use union workers who represent less than 15 percent of the workforce.
“Union-only PLAs drive up costs for American taxpayers while unfairly discriminating against 84 percent of U.S. construction workers who choose not to join a labor union,” added Pickerel. “All taxpayers should have the opportunity to compete fairly on any project funded by the federal government.”
And how have Unions affected the auto industry?
According to a Fortune magazine article “Behind Ford's scary $12.7 billion loss” organized labor has created a disadvantage to American auto makers trying to compete with non-unionized competitors. Not to mention the fact it increases the cost of the car.
It is only common sense that states what is anti-business is anti-job.
We are seeing these philosophies being played-out in the stimulus package and the Omnibus bill. They are being played out by injecting altruistic ideology into the legislative processes.
Government benevolence always backfires with unintended consequences. Authoritarian programs designed to make the economic system fair, have brought us to the brink of economic collapse. Just look at the “Community Reinvestment Act”, created to protect low income borrowers from discriminatory credit practices. This was the spark that ultimately led to the housing crash. How many Americans are being hurt by this crash?
While both Congress and the media rage a crusade to crucify corporate leaders for their corporate jets, hiring contractors to renovate posh office suites, and giving big bonuses to their executives. No mention is ever heard of Nancy Pelosi flying her family, friends, and personal employees around on military jets which she demands to be at her beck and call 24 hours a day.
What is also ignored is that these corporations, who buy their own jets, hire contractors to improve the aesthetics of their offices, and give out bonuses actually help to stimulate the economy. These practices are job friendly and that is what we need right now isn’t it?
Speaking of job friendliness, Barrack Obama signed a not so job-friendly executive order that discriminates against 84 Percent of the construction workforce. This new order basically calls for large-scale federal construction projects to be carried out by union labor eliminating over 80 percent of non-union contractors. When Clinton called for higher wages, benefits and collective-bargaining, for union contractors resulted in the costs nearly doubling. Of course it is the tax payers who absorb these higher costs.
Obama says he wants to create jobs but this policy does the exact opposite because 84% of American builders and contractors do not belong to unions. In every case union only contracts drive up costs by limiting bidders and forcing construction users to use union workers who represent less than 15 percent of the workforce.
“Union-only PLAs drive up costs for American taxpayers while unfairly discriminating against 84 percent of U.S. construction workers who choose not to join a labor union,” added Pickerel. “All taxpayers should have the opportunity to compete fairly on any project funded by the federal government.”
And how have Unions affected the auto industry?
"The unions for decades have been making steeper and steeper demands on the auto industry through efforts of strikes, a form of legalized extortion. Making demands that simply could never be lived up to in the long run. Pensions alone that the auto industry owes union members exceed $14 billion dollars - and that is to people who no longer produce anything for the companies. It is basically a system similar to how our social security system works, where the workers of today are supposed to provide for the workers of yesterday. Both are doomed for failure.
So now we have the US auto industry going to the United States government and asking for taxpayer dollars to bail out the costs associated with these union groups demands. It is another form of redistribution of wealth, where Americans are asked to pay money so that the unions can benefit.”
According to a Fortune magazine article “Behind Ford's scary $12.7 billion loss” organized labor has created a disadvantage to American auto makers trying to compete with non-unionized competitors. Not to mention the fact it increases the cost of the car.
“What’s more, not only is the union work force a terrible expense for the auto industry it’s just flat-out less productive than it’s non-union counterparts:
...nonunion U.S.-based auto assembly plants made 1.1 million more vehicles in 2005 than they did in 2001, while production at unionized plants fell by 1.1 million, he said.
Of course, one way to look at that statement is to say that the non-union automakers (Toyota, etc.) are just selling more cars than the union automakers. And that’s probably true, but it still proves the point that a union labor force is bad for business. Companies like Toyota are selling more cars because their cars are cheaper (thanks to lower labor costs) and better made (thanks to better workers). Both of those facts are an indictment of the union workers.
And it also exposes a larger truth. The more we foist costs like health insurance, high taxes and heavy regulation on American businesses the worse they’ll do in competing with their international counterparts. Something that will drive jobs and economic growth overseas.”
It is only common sense that states what is anti-business is anti-job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
