Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Exploring the redistribution of wealth concept

I got an email today from a friend, and can't resist the temptation to share in my museum. It's a sort of  comedy, but I can feel the sarcastic tint trailing my own laugh after reading. I don't know if myself would be the beggar or the waiter under the new government for it all depends how Uncle Sam picks the cutoff line, which seems coming down in recent days. Here's the email and enjoy it.

This was sent to me via a close friend who is a Pastor in South Carolina. It has made the rounds to thousands of people and it seems to be really hitting home with many that read it....

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed, as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to some one whom I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn, even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

A Liberal Supermajority - Wall Street Journal Opinion 10/17/08

A Liberal Supermajority
 
Below is an article from October 17, 2008 Wall Street Journal | Opinion. Above is the link. I found the reading very interesting and educational. It helps shed light into this year's American Presidential Election from an abroader and  longer-term view of its possible impact on America's political and ideological landscapes, and some feasible outcome scenarios.  
 

A Liberal Supermajority - Wall Street Journal | Opinion, October 17, 2008

Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.

 

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

 

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

 

The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.

 

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

 

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

 

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

 

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

 

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

 

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

 

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

 

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

 

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

 

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

 

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

 

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

  

It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.

 

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Are we delusional or coward?

This election is very unusual and bothers me a lot in what direction this greatest nation on earth is taking long term, beyond the current financial crisis, beyond this economic down turn, through the next decade and beyond. I think the will and determination of this nation to uphold those fundamental principles and beliefs on which this nation was found is going to be tested once again.  Are American people open up to embrace something new that government should be given the arbitrary power to pick the cutoff of winner and loser, redistribute the wealth created by the successful to achieve economic equality, and generate even more of entitlement rather than of contribution? Instead of helping elevate the bottom, are we Americans visioning equality by suppressing the successful. I’m not rich by any standard, and I’m working hard to realize the inner potential the creator trusted in me.  It won’t be fair to be panelized should I ever realize my potential some day, isn’t it?

Gilbert Chesterton wrote in 1920 in his “What I Saw in America”: “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence.” The American ideology is found on individualistic rather than a collectivist view of society: individual rights, including political freedom and private property rights; equality of opportunity (not distribution as my understanding); and limited, democratic government. These ideas are set forth in the great documents of American political life: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and such great speeches as Lincoln’s Gettysburg and Second Inaugural addresses. The dominance in the US of such a distinct political ideology has precluded certain political solutions and ordained others. This underlying bias shows clearly in America’s approach to economic questions. In the world history, the United States stands as a striking exception that socialism has never been strong in this country.  Why? In part, because the intense individualism derived from classical liberalism has been resistant to the collectivism central to all forms of socialism. American people in majorities in every income, occupational, and educational group, has repetitively rejected ideas of various forms of income limit, because such a financial limit undermines our individual opportunity and achievement.  

Are we not holding up this anymore? If we allow being leveraged by the financial led economic turmoil to believe that Sen. Obama holds the magic wand who can let all our problems go away by taxing and redistributing, we are either indulging self-delusion or acting coward economically, socially and morally, in my view.  Majority rules, which is democracy all about. If the majority of our generation willingly and consciously abandon the creed this nation was found, I have nothing more to say. The question is if we are sure and aware about the choice and its historical consequence.  Although the Republican option is not the best choice either, I have to say it’s the choice doing no or less harm than the Democratic alternative.