Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

I’m Tired of Being Called a Racist

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." — Dr. Samuel Johnson

In Boswell's Life of Johnson the author quoted he noted author, critic and lexicographer Samuel Johnson (1709 – 1784) as claiming that Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. While there are many views and opinions on what patriotism is or is not Johnson’s quote is oft used to decry anyone who believes in their country.

Scoundrels throughout history have used patriotism as a raison d'ĂȘtre for their tyranny and excesses. Today this quote should be changed to say “Racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Today Scoundrels and idiots claim racism for just about anyone who takes a position contrary to their own. The latest examples of this are statements by Chris Matthews on MSNBC and the Congressional Black Caucus pertaining to the Tea Party.

It appears that unless every white person in this country votes for Barack Obama next November, Chris Matthews will believe it's because they're racist.

On this weekend's syndicated program bearing his name, the host smelled racism in the declining number of whites supporting the President. Matthews stated:

“First up, the very fact of President Barack Obama is a resounding affirmation these two generations later of Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream. It was 48 years ago today that Dr. King talked of an America that could truly be called a shining city on a hill. That dream seemed to be coming true three years ago today when the newly-nominated Barack Obama wove the promise of Dr. King into his appeal for the votes of all Americans.

Obama went on to win 43 percent of white votes in that fall’s election, and that may sound low but Democrats really never win a white majority. Bill Clinton got 43 percent of votes, of white votes back in ’96. Al Gore got just 42 percent, and John Kerry got only 41 percent of white votes in 2004. So Obama’s 43 percent of white votes in 2008 was on the high end.”

Exactly. Obama got more white votes as a percentage than Gore and Kerry, and the same as the incumbent Clinton, but Matthews can't reach the logical conclusion that this means racism wasn't a factor in the 2008 elections; if it was, Obama should have received less white votes than recent white candidates.

Unfortunately, as the goal of liberal media members is always to paint conservatives as racists, Matthews opted to present typical left-wing talking points rather than the obvious:

Then Matthews said:

“But last November’s shellacking of Democrats in the midterm elections came with a dramatic retreat. White voters deserted Democrats running for Congress. Democrats actually got only 37 percent of white votes last November – 37 percent.

It’s all very worrying for the Obama reelection campaign because in the most recent NBC poll, he, the president, is down to just 36 percent of whites.

So, in 2008, Obama got more white votes as a percentage than white candidates Kerry and Gore in the two preceding presidential elections, but his current lack of white support is because of racism.”

Nowhere in the next nine minutes — as he and his guests discussed how Republicans are going to use race in the upcoming campaign — was there any discussion about why Obama has lost support of white voters.

Could it have something to do with his performance the past 31-plus months? Seems like a logical question, doesn't it?

But that wasn't important to this discussion. Neither was a recent Gallup pollMatthews_2 finding that black support for Obama has dropped from 95 percent to 81 percent.

Have fourteen percent of African-Americans suddenly started hating African-Americans, or is there something about Obama's policies that is turning them off too?

This also wasn't discussed. Instead, Matthews and his guests spent over half the program talking about white racism and how it's going to impact the 2012 elections.

For liberal media members like these, any white person that doesn't vote for Obama next November is a racist. Which means that white people need to prepare themselves for constant accusations of racism in the next fourteen-plus months.

With unemployment guaranteed to remain high, and the economy teetering on a double-dip recession, the President isn't going to be able to run on his record.

This means his minions in the media are going to be playing the race card at every turn — they've got nothing else in their hand. Click here to read more and view video on News Busters.

In another case the members of the Congressional Black Caucus have called people who believe in small government and fiscal responsibility and profess a following of the Tea Party racists. “This is war” said Andre Carson the CBC whip. As the members of the CBC travel to cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Atlanta, Miami, and Los Angeles Carson is urging the CBC to declare war on the Tea Party. He said the Tea Party wants to lynch blacks and he calls for bank runs and civil unrest in their neighborhood and homes.

I can understand the rantings of Chris Matthews on the MSNBC, but the members of the Congressional Black Caucus are all federal officials having sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. How dare they threaten citizens with terror tactics because they do not agree with their policies or those of Barack Obama?

Here is what Allen West, a member of the CBC, had to say about Carson’s remarks.

First of all the so called Tea Party is not a political party, it’s a movement of people who have a similar philosophical position of how large government should be, how much they should spend and what regulations should be imposed upon the citizens of the nation. There is no one leader, there is no official party platform, and there are no candidates running under the Tea Party banner. There are just citizens of a like mind with like goals for the direction the country should take. They are all citizens like you and me.

Yes, various Tea Party organizations like the Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express, Tea Party 365, and Project 21 support Republican or Democrat candidates if those candidates stand for the principles espoused by the members. It should be pointed out at this point that David Webb, the spokesman for Tea Party 365, is a black conservative talk show host and all of the members of Project 21 are black conservatives. How can these folks be racists? It’s silly isn’t it?

I am sick and tired of being called a racist every time I do not agree with the policies of President Obama or of those of left-wing progressives and liberals. Because you are for a sound fiscal government, less onerous regulations, government by fiat, lower taxes, and personal responsibility does not make you a racist. Also if you are against Gay marriage you are not a bigot or a homophobe. Because I am against illegal immigration I am not against Mexicans or Hispanics. It is the actions, policies, and philosophies I am against, not the person’s race, gender, nationality or sexual preference.

On the other hand I support the policies and philosophies people like Herman Cain, Allan West and Tim Scott, all black politicians. I would vote for ant one of them. How can this be racist?

As stated above this will be a horrible election season. White people need to prepare themselves for constant accusations of racism in the next fourteen-plus months. To paraphrase Dr. Johnson, Racism will be the last refuge of a political scoundrel or a failed politician.

Friday, August 26, 2011

Another Job Killer from Obama

"The mission of law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect property." — Frederic Bastiat (The Law)

When the National Association of Manufacturers polled around 1,000 of its members in July about the National Labor Relations Board’s case to shut down Boeing’s South Carolina plant, costing up to 5,000 potential jobs, the clear majority indicated the union-backed case likely will, or has already, had a negative effect on America’s job creation.

As reported by the Wall Street Journal:

“Some 60% said the government’s case already has—or could—hurt hiring. Sixty-nine percent said the case would damage job growth. And 49% said capital expenditure plans “have been or may be impacted by the NLRB’s complaint.” Around 1,000 of the association’s 11,000 members contributed to the survey.”

Despite this, however, Barack Obama’s union appointees at the National Labor Relations Board are continuing their assault on America’s job creators with yet another attempt at doing union the bosses’ bidding by skirting Congress to require all employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act to post union notices in the workplace to advise employees of their ability to unionize their company.

According to a NLRB press release [emphasis added]:

“The National Labor Relations Board has issued a Final Rule that will require employers to notify employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act as of November 14, 2011.

Private-sector employers (including labor organizations) whose workplaces fall under the National Labor Relations Act will be required to post the employee rights notice where other workplace notices are typically posted. Also, employers who customarily post notices to employees regarding personnel rules or policies on an internet or intranet site will be required to post the Board’s notice on those sites. Copies of the notice will be available from the Agency’s regional offices, and it may also be downloaded from the NLRB website.

The notice, which is similar to one required by the U.S. Department of Labor for federal contractors, states that employees have the right to act together to improve wages and working conditions, to form, join and assist a union, to bargain collectively with their employer, and to refrain from any of these activities. It provides examples of unlawful employer and union conduct and instructs employees how to contact the NLRB with questions or complaints.”

With the exception of airlines and railroads, which fall under the Railway Labor Act and a few other exceptions, most private sector employers (with two or more employees) fall under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Act, which means nearly all private sector employers will have to post notices by November 14th, or be charged with an unfair labor practice.

According to Inside the Beltway from Nixon Peabody:

“Failure to post the Notice will constitute an unfair labor practice which may be filed with the NLRB by any person. Further, the failure to post the Notice will be deemed evidence of anti-union animus or motivation where employers are alleged to have interfered, restrained, or coerced or otherwise discriminated against employees to encourage or discourage union membership or activity.”

Objections to the NLRB’s posting from the employer community are, as expected, strong. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) stated in a press release:

The same week the Obama Administration announced it was making an effort to scale back burdensome rules on small businesses, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal government’s labor union advocate, demonstrated an unprecedented overreach of its authority today by issuing a punitive new rule requiring all private-sector employers to post a notice in their business informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

“Just when we thought we had seen it all from the NLRB, it has reached a new low in its zeal to punish small-business owners,” said Karen Harned, executive director of NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center. “Not only is the Board blatantly moving beyond its legal authority by issuing this rule, it is unabashedly showing its spite for job creators by setting up a trap for millions of businesses.”

Under the National Labor Relations Act, the NLRB does not have the authority to broadly impose rules, such as the one issued today. The statute only permits the Board to act when a representation petition or unfair labor practice charge is filed.

Furthermore, the rule sets up a “gotcha” situation for millions of businesses which are unaware of the new rule or unable to immediately comply.”

Whether or not the NLRB’s new mandate will be challenged in court and, ultimately, be rescinded remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, with the Obama’s union agents at the NLRB foisting their agenda on America’s job creators, there is no reason to believe that the administration is serious about growing the economy again.

The National Labor Relations Board is in the news for meddling in Boeing’s decision to build some aircraft in South Carolina rather than in Washington state. To most economists, the idea that a small regulatory board in D.C. should try to centrally plan $1 billion of private business investment is crackers.

However, the vast bureaucratic state in D.C. was built by overactive left-wing lawyers, not free-market economists. Consider that the federal government apparently has complex legal rules to determine when U.S. businesses are allowed to move investment and jobs from one state to another. The NLRB’s General Counsel Lafe Solomon said that in deciding whether it allows businesses like Boeing to adjust their production: “For us, it’s a motive analysis.”

“Motive analysis?” We’ve got obscure labor lawyers in the federal bureaucracy trying to mind-read the nation’s business executives on their huge capital investment decisions? That doesn’t sound like a very good prescription for U.S. competitiveness in the global economy.

This NLRB case highlights just one anti-growth and anti-freedom aspect of New Deal-era labor union laws. These laws–particularly collective bargaining–have no place in the modern economy. The NLRB should be abolished. Indeed, the entire National Labor Relations Act of 1935 ought to be repealed, according to Professor Charles Baird in his essay at Professor’s Baird’s essay is well worth the time to read. It details the history, corruptness, coerciveness, and ties to the Democrat Party the unions have had over the past 80 years.

As I pointed out in a previous post unions are coercive and no longer fill a need in our society. As an example: Person A is offered an opportunity by person B to sell his labor (property) to person B. Before A and B reach an agreement person C (the union) enters the room and demands person A join the union and pay person C part of his compensation and that person B will act as the collector of the union dues. Person A says he does not want to join the union so person D (the government) enters the room and says person A has no choice, he has to join the union. Person C then takes the money he receives from person A and gives some to person D so person D will support them in more negotiations. Person A will have no say in how the money is used, even if it for political candidates opposed to his or her beliefs. This, in the words of Fredric Bastiat, is called plunder. It’s the plunder of person A by persons C and D using the law as the weapon of plunder.

Economist Ludwig von Mises noted that “collective bargaining” is a euphemism for “bargaining at the point of a gun.” The system is not based on voluntarism and freedom of association. Voluntary unions would be fine, but current labor laws allow the creation of monopoly unions, which are inconsistent with a free economy and a free society.

This new NLRB fiat requires every business employing two or more workers, with the exception of airline and railroad workers, must post this notice notifying the employees of their union organizing rights. Does this mean my little neighborhood dry cleaners or Chinese take-out joint needs to post the notice? Or how about my brother’s law firm? Do attorneys have the right to organize or will it only pertain to the non-professional staff.

The civil engineering firm I was part owner off had 800 plus employees when I retired. About 300 were unionized field surveyors and it did not matter whether or not if they were “professional” engineers or surveyors, as licensed by the state, they still had to join the union to work in the field. The same professionals working in the office were not required to join a union and I can guarantee 99% of them would reject the union if they tried to organize them. They all felt they were professionals and needed no union to dictate their work rules, status or who they should support with their dues. These employees sold us their labor and we negotiated a fair and acceptable compensation with them. If we did not they could easily find one of our competitors who would. For several years running we were named one of the 400 best civil engineering firms in he nation to work for, as determined by our employees.

My firm was in a free market competition for the labor of our experience and qualified employees who would allow us to grow and better serve our clients. Without our employees would lose clients and go out of business. If we went out of business the employees would not have a job and the compensation that goes with it. Neither of us needed a third party to interfere with this relationship, a third party who would take come of the employees’ compensation for their own largess. We did not need government and their body of regulations to run our business, the marketplace dictated the rules

Now, according to a report in Newsmax the unions, specifically, AFL-CIOUnions Politics President Richard Trumka told reporters that the nation’s largest labor federation will scale back their involvement with the Democratic Party in advance of the 2012 elections.

Evidently Trumka, a frequent White House visitor, is disenchanted with Obama’s efforts to force more and more union tyranny on American business. The article states:

In 2008, unions spent over $400 million for Obama's election. Asked if the AFL’s move is a huge blow to Obama, Democratic pollster Doug Schoen told Newsmax.TV: “Absolutely. Obama needs to get labor back and I think he’ll be courting them furiously in the weeks and months to come."

While Trumka had nothing but scathing words for the tea party movement, he laid out a scenario that very much mirrored the tea party’s grassroots structure and its clout in the GOP. The vision is for big labor to wield the clout that it once had inside the Democratic Party and on the liberal end of the spectrum in American politics.

Trumka made it clear that his plan will cost the Democrats both contributions and labor volunteers in many districts almost immediately. That would cripple key Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts in many swing districts on Election Day.

“We’re going to use a lot of our money to build structures that work for working people” Trumka said, according to Politico: “You’re going to see us give less money to build structures for others, and more of our money will be used to build our own structure.”

Too bad for Trumka and his tyrannical AFL-CIO. With union membership falling off in traditional manufacturing job Trumka has focused on the service industries and the public sector. This is where the largest increases in union membership have occurred. Even the traditional union members in the building trades are not pleased with the growth in government unions and the large liabilities they are forcing on municipal and state governments. Trumka and his AFL-CIO organizers invested quite a lot in the recent Wisconsin recall elections with little to show for their efforts.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Obama’s Hypocrisy on Jobs

“Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom.” — Friedrich August von Hayek

A few days ago President Obama sat on a panel with Jeffrey Immelt the CEO of General Electric. They both had a good chuckle when Obama said that his shovel ready jobs weren’t so shovel ready, ha, ha, ha.

Immelt heads up Obama’s so called Jobs Council; a group of academics thatobama-immelt have never created one job in their lives. Immelt has also been a strong supporter of Obama.

In his efforts to create jobs in the United States Immelt, Obama’s buddy, has done two things that go virtually unreported in the main stream media. Firstly he moved GE’s X-Ray Division from Waukesha, Wisconsin to Beijing, China. On July 26, 2011 the Wall Street Journal reported:

“General Electric Co. said it is moving its X-ray business headquarters to China to accelerate sales in the country's fast-growing health-care market, the latest sign of China's growing importance to the giant U.S. conglomerate.

The X-ray unit will be the company's first business to be based in China.

The business has already begun the move—which includes the unit's chief executive and three other members of its executive team—and expects to complete the process by year end, said Anne LeGrand, vice president and general manager of GE Healthcare Global X-Ray. The senior leadership team's move to Beijing is aimed in part at helping develop more medical equipment specifically for the Chinese market, Ms. LeGrand told a news briefing Monday.

GE said it doesn't expect the move to result in any job losses in the U.S., where the unit has been based in Waukesha, Wis. The Wisconsin X-ray division has 120 employees. The company also said it is too early to say how many employees it will hire for the unit's new Beijing headquarters.

"As the company grows more global, it's increasingly important for us to become close to our customers," Ms. LeGrand said, adding that she expects 20% to 25% of GE Healthcare's X-ray products to be developed in China during the next three to five years for sale around the world.

As China's market has boomed for a range of products, a small but growing number of companies have moved senior executives to the country or sent them for extended stints. Intel Corp. in May said Sean Maloney, one of its best-known senior executives, would move to China from Silicon Valley to oversee the chip giant's operations here. Bayer AG unit Bayer Healthcare moved its general medicine headquarters from Germany to Beijing in March, and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc. of the U.S. temporarily moved its headquarters to Shanghai for five weeks starting last month.

GE has long placed high hopes on China, with CEO Jeffrey Immelt in 2008 calling it the company's "second home market." In January, the company finalized a deal with state-owned Aviation Industry Corp. of China to inject much of GE's civilian avionics business into a 50-50 joint venture based in China.”

If this wasn’t enough Immelt then announced GE has struck a billion dollar deal with the Chinese state owned aircraft industry to export GE’s sophisticated avionics business to China for the manufacture of the COMAC C919 airliner that will compete with Boeing, a company battling he NLRB to build their Dreamliner in South Carolina with American workers. The Business Courier reports:

“When GE Aviation Systems signed a joint venture agreement last month with a state-owned Chinese conglomerate, plenty of questions were raised about transferring aviation electronics technology and intellectual property to what will be a China-based company.

The 50-50 joint venture will develop avionics for new commercial c919airplanes, beginning with the Chinese-built COMAC C919 that’s due to enter service in 2016. Avionics are a plane’s central information system and related applications such as cockpit displays. Officially, the joint venture is the GE AVIC Civil Avionics Co.

Skeptics cite examples of China exploiting foreign companies to gain access to technology in order to build its own capabilities. The country’s desire to create its own globally competitive industries – including aviation – is hardly a secret.

GE officials acknowledge that protection of the company’s intellectual property is a concern, but they insist the AVIC joint venture includes adequate safeguards.

For GE Aviation, the real issue is this: There are huge opportunities in the Chinese aviation market, poised for rapid growth in coming decades.”

Here we have a person Obama has appointed to a council for creating jobs in the United States exporting jobs offshore to China while his NLRB fights Boeing’s move to South Carolina where they will create good paying jobs in Charleston. GE’s move will also take commercial aviation business away from Boeing, thus reducing jobs in the United States.

GE one of the largest exporters of jobs and a company that has paid no corporate taxes is one of Obama’s favorites and one of his largest contributors to his presidential campaign Until this year when Comcast took over GE owned the cable network MSNBC Obama’s biggest mouthpiece. These are the guys Obama hangs out with while he tells us to sacrifice and pay more taxes.

There is another aspect to GE’s deal with the Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China (CACC) and that’s the national security issue. GE will be giving sophisticated avionics technology to the Chinese that can be used in commercial aircraft and fighter planes and guided missiles. An article in Daily Finance by Peter Cohan states:

“General Electric (GE) plans to sell its aircraft electronics to ChineseChinese-Stealth-Fighter companies, and if you don't have a problem with that, maybe you should. After all, China just flight-tested a prototype stealth fighter (pictured), it continues to build up its military -- and we can only hope it's not planning to expand its territory in ways that threaten the U.S.

But if China does decide to get aggressive with the U.S., GE will have provided it with the aircraft technology it will be using.

According to The New York Times, GE is signing a deal to sell avionics technology -- electronics that control an aircraft's basic in-flight operations -- to Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China (CACC), which aspires to build commercial and military aircraft. GE will do this through a joint venture with a Chinese company, Aviation Industry Corp. of China (Avic). Avic makes avionics for CACC and for China's military -- including its stealth fighter.

Sure, GE is based in the U.S., but that doesn't mean its shareholders expect it to be loyal to U.S. interests. Still, selling technology it developed for U.S. companies like Boeing (BA) to Boeing's Chinese competitors -- which are trying to build a competing aircraft company -- may be going too far. The question facing American policymakers is how to keep GE from crossing the line before it's too late.”

Mr. Cohan continues:

“Officially, this GE/Avic venture will be making a commercial aircraft for CACC. The Times reports that together, they'll build CACC's C919 -- a single-aisle plane capable of carrying up to 200 passengers and designed to compete with the Boeing 737 and Airbus 320 -- to be delivered in 2016. The avionics technology that GE/Avic will supply is the same as GE is providing to Boeing for its 787 Dreamliner, an industry-leading concept vehicle that is proving awfully hard for Boeing to deliver.

Is GE betraying its customers and its country? I think so. And the reason it's doing so is simple: GE believes that China will be a $400 billion market for its aircraft products over the next two decades. To be fair, GE is making all sorts of noises about how China's aircraft industry isn't sophisticated, so it won't be able to make use of all GE's advanced technology against Boeing or the American military. GE also claims it briefed the U.S. government before selling this technology to China, and that its joint venture will keep a Chinese Wall (pun intended) between its commercial and defense units.”

Mr. Cohan concludes:

“All this corporate maneuvering raises an important question: Who's in charge? To me, it looks like big-company CEOs are making the decisions that will determine America's fate. These execs may live in the U.S., but they're making big money by selling our best technology to China. And since China is lending America $907 billion through its government bond holdings, our nation's financial system is also under China's thumb.”

Television host Bill O’Reilly has long been skewering General Electric and its CEO Jeffrey Immelt for his company’s corruption and double standards. He really let loose on a recent episode of "The O’Reilly Factor," bringing in several researchers who claim that GE, the company for which Ronald Reagan was spokesman from 1954 to 1962, was heavily involved with a corrupt charity called “Oil-For-Food” in Iraq that benefited Saddam Hussein and got American soldiers killed.

Immelt, besides being the CEO of GE, is also President Obama’s jobs czar. He has consistently lectured businesses in America to pay up and create more jobs regardless of tax and regulatory burdens.

On the show, O’Reilly highlighted how GE had been fined by the Securities and Exchange Commission almost $24 million for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

In the segment, O’Reilly asked Dr. Tom Borelli, who is the director of The Free Enterprise Project, if it is unfair to attack GE specifically for its malfeasance if many other companies were involved.

Borelli answered, “Absolutely not, because there has been a pattern of corruption at General Electric.”

Borelli then went on about how GE had been “cooking the books” to create the perception of higher earnings, which also forced them to settle with the SEC.

This scandal is only one in a long line of offenses both of corruption and hypocrisy that have riled up O’Reilly, and conservatives especially.

Back in July, Immelt got up on his high horse to lecture business owners at a Chamber of Commerce meeting. He said, among other things, that companies must “double the number of engineering interns taken from colleges and universities.” This, of course, doesn’t coincide well with Obama’s plan to crack down on unpaid internships.

He then complained of a lack of skilled U.S. workers. “There are thousands of open jobs in the advanced manufacturing and health care fields, but our training programs have not evolved to keep up with changes in technology or the needs of employers.”

Immelt told business owners in the room, “The people who are part of the business sector, the people in this room, have got to stop complaining about government and get some action under way. There's no excuse today for lack of leadership. The truth is we all need to be part of the solution.”

While Immelt’s theme at the conference was basically, “American jobs for American workers,” GE shortly thereafter announced that the company will move thousands of GE Healthcare jobs over to China.

A spokeswoman from GE said that the move away from “Waukesha, Wisconsin, was made two years ago and will be completed by early fall.”

In part this move, like many others that GE has made, will allow it to avoid paying taxes. In 2010 GE didn’t pay any federal taxes at all. It did this by hiring an army of lobbyists and tax lawyers, and by shifting businesses overseas.

Worse than the simple act of moving jobs overseas, which is what many other businesses must do to compete in a heavily taxed environment, is the sharing of innovative technology secrets with China. GE has decided to sell highly sophisticated aircraft technology to the Chinese government. The technology being sold is the kind that goes into the military aircraft built by Boeing.

The path that GE has been taking is a far cry from the days when Ronald Reagan was the company’s spokesman. For years before he really entered politics, Reagan traveled around the country speaking positively about the company and its workers. It was from these lectures and his countrywide travels that he crafted the famous “Time for Choosing” speech in the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign, thereby launching his national political image.

With the corrupt actions of GE and the hypocritical language of its CEO, who is closely aligned with President Obama, it is no wonder that many conservatives have turned against the company.

The Battered Wife Syndrome of the Black Voter

“A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.” — Friedrich August von Hayek

Black voters remain defiantly loyal to Obama, despite suffering from his mishandling of the economy and Maxine Waters' complaints about his focus on wooing white independent voters for his reelection. But of course, Democrats have long taken blacks for granted. This loyalty in the face of bad treatment is reminiscent of battered wife syndrome (BWS).

Unfortunately, the vast majority of black voters have been bitch-slapped so for so long by the Democratic Party that many seem to be afflicted with the battered voter syndrome (BVS).

Psychologists tell us that BWS is a physical and psychological condition characterized by violence and learned helplessness in women who are repeatedly abused by their husbands. BWS is used to explain why abused women do not seek assistance from others, nor fight their abusers, nor leave the abusive situation. Victims believe that the abuse is not the fault of the abuser; rather, the abuse originates from sources not related to the abuser. They often become aggressive or abusive to others who attempt to offer assistance. Victims will repeatedly seek out their very abuser for comfort after each incident of abuse. This is the height of cognitive dissonance.

Similarly, the relationship between black voters and the Democratic Party displays many of the clinically diagnosed pathologies found in BWS: decimating abuse of the black family perpetrated by 40 years of Democratic Party welfare legislation; learned helplessness, making it nearly impossible to fight the abuse or escape the abuser; profound belief that the source of the abuse originates from sources other than the Democratic Party; aggressive and abusive treatment of others — the so-called "Uncle Toms" and white racists — who attempt to offer assistance; habitually seeking out the Democratic Party for succor from the very abuse perpetrated by the Democratic Party.

As the battered wife is fiercely loyal to her abusive husband, so are black voters fiercely loyal to the Democratic Party and to Barack Obama, the "African-American" leader of the Democratic Party. Is there any wonder that Maxine Waters could rant with impunity before an approving audience of job-seeking supplicants? "As far as I'm concerned — the Tea Party can go straight to hell." The California congresswoman knew her demagoguery would be favorably received by helpless victims of the battered voter syndrome.

Yet Rep Waters has done nothing for the Black community she represents, but has done a great deal for herself and her husband.

Maxine Waters has held dominion over the black people of Watts, CA for over twenty years, and Watts is worse now than it was when she began representing them. This is despite Waters' and others in the Congressional Black Caucus' $17 trillion dollar War on Poverty dating back to the Great Society — the time when black pimps voted for the racist Democratic president LBJ, who said to "give them [uppity Negroes] just enough to get by, but not enough to make a difference."

Telling the Tea Party to "go to hell" was the easy applause line for Waters. It gave her relief, approval. She returned to her mansion, and her constituents remain high from their hit of the political crack of hatred.

In a recent meeting in Miami, Waters grilled an Obama sycophant, Don Graves, Executive Director of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, who had been dispatched by Obama to quiet the natives.

“Graves said to a group of black church-goers that "certain communities have been hit harder than other communities."

"Let me hear you say 'black,'" said Waters the queen of poverty pimps, as the crowd erupted in cheers.

Waters treated Graves like he was the president. I give Graves credit for having the guts that Obama doesn't have.

At one point, Graves commented, "You all don't need to go through me to get to the president."

Graves later added, "You may not feel like the president is listening to you, but he hears you loud and clear."

Waters, who last week in Detroit blasted the half-White House for not having a jobs strategy in the black community, did not seem satisfied and commented:

“I'm 72 years old I've been elected by the people, served in the legislature, now in the Congress, and if I'm reduced to having you take my message to the president, I should go home.”

Waters ain't going anywhere. Why would she live under the laws of everybody else, instead of those special laws that Congress gets. Negro, please! Waters knows the perks.

Waters is the woman who "arranged a meeting" between the bank and aPHO-10Aug02-241784 federal regulator where, ultimately, millions of dollars in funds went to the bank where Waters' husband remains a stockholder and is a former director. Coincidence, she claims.

While most blacks in Waters' district can't qualify for a loan from an EZ Loan center, Waters is stealing money from taxpayers and giving it to her husband. The sad part is that at $12 million, Waters got a fraction of what white Democrats stole in the financial windfall known as TARP.

Waters has been listed as one of the most corrupt members of Congress three years (2005, 2006, and 2009) by Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington (CREW), and rightfully so. And Maxine knows she's in trouble. She must make the natives restless in order to keep the focus off her, and it stinks that there is no viable white Republican around. Thank God for the Tea Party!

It's that wretched Tea Party that is wrecking Obama's plan to provide all black people 40 acres and a Lexus for doing absolutely nothing. It is the job of the crooks that make up the Congressional Black Caucus to continually promise something and deliver nothing.

Where has the $17 trillion from the War on Poverty gone? Why don't all black people have a Lexus or BMW and a record label by now? Because a few black overseers get to live large.

Maxine Waters loves the high life. She has assured it for her children, who have benefited from her unscrupulous practices. Jesse Jackson, Sr. did it for his son. Carolyn Kilpatrick tried to do it for her son Kwame, but he was the stupid one and blew it. Charlie Wrangle was convicted of ethics violations for tax evasions, but still retains his House seat.

Waters should fear the Tea Party. It is the one group that has the possibility of emptying the piggy bank for low-class thieves like her and other members of the CBC. The Tea Party is not preventing businesses from coming to black neighborhoods. The Tea Party is not withholding TARP funds from businesses. The Tea Party is not responsible for uneducated black kids. The Tea Party is not responsible for the high rate of teenage pregnancy among blacks. The Tea Party is not foreclosing on black homeowners. The Tea Party is not putting black people in prison. The Tea Party is not responsible for unemployment in the black community. The Tea Party is not shipping drugs into black neighborhoods. The Tea Party is not allowing illegal immigrants to steal jobs and critical services from blacks.

A few days ago Bill O’Reilly went off on the failed policies of the “Great Society” to end poverty. According to his rant Blacks have fared far less than the rest of society even with all of the government spending.

The black crooked elite couldn't care less about the blacks they serve up, but they will take care of their own.

No amount of demagoguery, however, can deny that liberalism has had disastrous consequences for black America. For example, take the Davis-Bacon Act, which mandates that "prevailing wages" be paid on all federally financed or assisted construction projects. This racist legislation has been on the books since 1931. It is a pro-union law that had the original intent of driving black workers out of the construction and building trades industries. During the 1931 congressional debate, Rep. Clayton Allgood, D-Ala., stated: "Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. This is a fact. That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country." In 2011, Davis-Bacon still serves the purpose of discriminating against non-union black construction contractors and black construction workers because it prevents rural and inner-city laborers and contractors from working on federally financed construction projects in their own communities.

Periodically, Davis-Bacon comes up for repeal by Congress because of its racist intent. Incredibly, the Congressional Black Caucus typically stands at the forefront of defending the indefensible! In a letter to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce dated April 13, 2011, the Congressional Black Caucus, as a co-signer of the letter, outrageously attempted to revise the racist history of Davis-Bacon in the following:

“Prior to the enactment of Davis-Bacon in 1931, there were many shocking examples of abusive practices and wholesale exploitation of female and minority workers on construction sites. For the last 80 years, the Davis-Bacon Act has protected the wages of all construction workers, including minorities and women, who are particularly vulnerable to exploitation.

We believe that Davis-Bacon has been instrumental in bridging the wage gap for historically disadvantaged sectors of our society. In the face of decaying social and economic opportunities, this measure provides women and minorities with an important tool to achieving greater parity with their mainstream counterparts. The direct and indirect positive effects of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage regulations make them a prudent and beneficial policy. Additionally, Davis-Bacon prevailing wage have no adverse economic impact.”

When I was in business running a civil engineering and land surveying firm we were constantly plagued by the Davis-Bacon Act. When we worked on public sector contracts we had to prove we were paying prevailing wage. As our field crews were members of the Operating Engineers Union this was no problem for us as the union wage represented or was above prevailing wage. This, was however, a problem for people, especially young people who wanted to obtain entry level positions. Due to our union contract we were not allowed to use non-union interns on our field crews unless they would join the union or were accompanied by a union employee all day. Obviously the client would not pay for double employees so we did not hire these wanabe engineers or surveyors. As for joining the union it was near impossible for these youngsters. If you checked the union roosters you could count the number of black apprentices on one hand. While Davis-Bacon is good for those inside the system it severely prevents inner city Blacks from entering the system.

Davis-Bacon should have long ago died a rightly deserved ignoble death, along with rest of the Jim Crow-era anti-black legislation. Rather, Barack Hussein Obama, with the enthusiastic participation of the Congressional Black Caucus, not only rejuvenated this abomination to its original racist vigor, but he and they put Davis-Bacon on steroids. According to an All-Agency Memorandum issued by the Department of Labor, Davis-Bacon now applies to all "projects funded directly by or assisted in whole or in part by and through the Federal Government." In other words, this malignancy is metastasized. Projects that are only partially funded by ARRA must now obey the racist mandates of Davis-Bacon.

Equally disgusting as Davis-Bacon in Obama bitch-slapping black voters to curry favor with the unions is the Project Labor Agreement (PLA). A PLA requires all contractors, unionized or not, to subject themselves and their employees to unionization in order to work on a government-funded construction project. In order to receive a federal contract, a contractor must sign the agreement and subject its employees to union control. Obama signed this job-killing executive order on February 6, 2009, less than 3 weeks after assuming the office of president ostensibly to "promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement"

It's not surprising that Harry Alford, CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, would denounce PLAs with his statement: “Show me a PLA and I will show you Jim Crow employment plus a locking out of most Black-owned firms that happen to be nonunion most of the time. A Project Labor Agreement is a license to discriminate against Black workers.”

As an aside to this post what right does government have to tell someone they have to join a union to work. For the contractor, like my firm was it was no problem, we simply used union employees and passed the increased cost on to the client. For the worker it amounts to tyranny. If a worker wants to sell his property (his labor) to another it should not be government’s business to step in and force him to join a union that will restrict his opportunities. If person A wants to sell his labor to person B at an agreed upon price why should person C enter the negotiations and tell person A that he must sell his labor on person C’s terms and then give a portion of his compensation to person C. This sounds more like fascism than liberty.

The proof of Obama and the Democrats bitch-slapping black voters is in the pudding. According to CNN, 96 percent of blacks voted for Obama in 2008. However, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, of the total 9.1 million construction workers in 2010, only 491,000 (5.3 percent) were black. Construction and building trades unions are loath to reveal the racial composition of their membership, but it's easy to surmise that finding a black union construction worker is only slightly less challenging than finding a chicken with lips or one of Paul Krugman’s aliens. The BLS informs us that only 13.1 percent of all construction workers belonged to unions in 2010. Being generous by using the same percentage against the 491,000 black construction workers, you arrive at a highly unlikely 64,000 total black union construction workers in all of the United States of America. Even this figure does not withstand anecdotal credibility, as evidenced by anybody driving through a federally financed construction zone on our nation's streets and highways and taking a head count of the number of non-white workers. Black contractors don't fare any better than black construction workers. According to Harry Alford of the NBCC, only 1.4 percent of federally funded highway construction contracts go to black contractors. Of those 1.4 percent no doubt 90 to 100 percent are to sub-contractors fulfilling their minority participation requirements.

The minority participation program is another scam created by the Democrat Party. Providing civil engineering and land surveying on government contracts for 25 years I saw this scam perpetrated over and over again. Here’s how it worked. A major engineering or construction firm wants a contract for a large public works project. The contract requires a percentage of minority participation, usually an aggregate of minority-owned, women-owned and veteran-owned up to 20 or 30 percent. The big firm is only concerned with the expertise and experience of the sub-contractors, not the color of the worker’s skin.

So a Black, Hispanic, or Women goes into business with a white experienced partner with the minority or woman owning 51% of the business. They then hire a bunch of experienced and qualified white folks with good resumes so that can get the contract. Everyone benefits except the minority workers in he community. The agency issuing the contract gets a gold star for meeting the minority goal and the politicians are happy. They can crow to their constituents how wonderful they were in bringing jobs to the inner city. The big firm gets a gold star and a good experience record for meeting the minority goals set forth in the contract as these goals are monetary, not an employee head count. The minority owned business gets the contract and makes a profit, and bunch of experienced white guys have a good paying job. The only ones left out in the cold are the people this political and stupid policy are supposed to help.

Given the Obama and Democratic Party's racist exclusion of blacks from the construction industry, is there any question why black unemployment is currently at the "official rate" of 16.2 percent with real unemployment above 30 percent? One needs look no further than the masochistic devotion of black voters to being bitch-slapped by Obama and the Democratic Party.

The Tea Party is three years old, Maxine — you've been serving for over twenty. Many of the CBC have been serving even longer. I say you and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus need to look in that mirror for the people to blame. You will know that mirror when you see it, because it says: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear.

Maxine and her CBC pals, along with their fellow travelers in the Congress and the liberal press have been touting these failed policies for years, policies that have hurt the Black community more than they have helped. If Maxine and her minions want to do something for their Black constituents they should tell them the truth, remove the entitlements, and preach personal responsibility. Liberty is the solution, not more statist tyranny that will insure the longevity of the plantations they oversee.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Why Do We Call Liberals Liberals

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigues of supporting it." — Thomas Paine

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Classical Liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe, and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy required as a result of the Industrial Revolution and urbanization. Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith, a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberals established political parties that were called "liberal", although in the United States classical liberalism came to dominate both existing major political parties. There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman.

Economic Liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism. It is one the main components of the ideology of capitalism. It is an economic philosophy that supports and promotes laissez-faire economics and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberalism can be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition. Economic liberalism opposes economic planning as an alternative to the market mechanism. Economic liberalism contrasts with mercantilism, state capitalism, socialism, market socialism, and fascist economics (Corporatism)

Economic liberalism opposes government intervention on the grounds that the state often serves dominant business interests, distorting the market to their favor and thus leading to inefficient outcomes. Ordoliberalism and various schools of social liberalism based on classical liberalism include a broader role for the state, but do not seek to replace private enterprise and the free-market with public enterprise and economic planning. For example, the social market economy is a largely free-market economy based on a free price system and private property, and includes government regulation to promote competitive markets and social welfare programs to address social inequalities that result from free-market outcomes.

Theories in support of economic liberalism were developed in the Enlightenment, and believed to be first fully formulated by Adam Smith, which advocates minimal interference of government in a market economy, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods with what constitutes public goods originally being seen as very limited in scope. These theories began in the eighteenth century with the then-startling claim that if everyone is left to their own economic devices instead of being controlled by the state, then the result would be a harmonious and more equal society of ever-increasing prosperity. This underpinned the move towards a capitalist economic system in the late 18th century, and the subsequent demise of the mercantilist system.

Social Liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes the legitimate role of the state includes addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual. Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or center-left.

A reaction against social liberalism in the late twentieth century, often called neoliberalism, led to monetarist economic policies and a reduction in government provision of services. However, this reaction did not result in a return to classical liberalism, as governments continued to provide social services and retained control over economic policy.

The term "social liberalism" is often used interchangeably with "modern liberalism". The Liberal International is the main international organization of liberal parties, which include, among other liberal variants, social liberal parties. It affirms the following principles: human rights, free and fair elections and multiparty democracy, social justice, tolerance, social market economy, free trade, environmental sustainability and a strong sense of international solidarity.

From the three examples cited above you can see the deviants in the term “Liberal.” Is your philosophy more in line with Classical Liberalism, Economic Liberalism or Social Liberalism?

Our Republic was founded on the principles of classical liberalism. Founders such as Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Mason were classical liberals who believed in small government, private property, minimal government interference, and the free market. the Constitution is proof of these beliefs.

After the Civil War we began to fall into the path of social liberalism. This trend continued, albeit minimal, until the beginning of the 20th century when the progressive movement, under Theodore Roosevelt and Robert Lafollette.

It was not until the election of Woodrow Wilson that the progressive movement began to dominate our political scene. Wilson’s internationalists foreign policies, his entrance into World War II and his support of every growing government be began to move the Democrat Party to the left of center.

With the election of Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Depression the Democrat Party began to define itself as a party more dedicated to social justice than classical liberalism. The Democrat Party had discovered the key to power by their populous stances on many of the social issues of the day.

By the end of World War II the government had grown to a sized never envisioned by our Founders. The federal government had gained control over many aspects of our life and Roosevelt’s social justice programs were becoming larger and larger, especially in the areas of farm subsidies and welfare programs.

When John Kennedy was elected, although a Democrat, he was not an advocate of social liberalism. He had grown to age under his father, Joseph, a wealthy businessman and political boss. He lowered taxes, taxes that had grown to an obscene rate of 81% and was loath to get into the civil rights issues. I believe Kennedy was an economic liberal.

When the Texas Democrat Lyndon Johnson assumed the presidency after the assassination of John Kennedy he began his cynical policies leading to the Great Society. This is when the Democrats learned to really adopt the policies of social liberalism and adopt the term “Liberal.”

Today people and politicians we refer to as liberals are not classical, economic, or social liberals. They are some sort of mutant of a social liberal with an interjection of fascism, Marxism, and statism.

Here are a few examples of what today’s “liberals” espouse.

Take the Gay community for example. Why they call themselves Gay is a mystery to me. I don’t see how being a homosexual is gay. Gay means happy, delighted, ecstatic, and thrilled. This is how our society has introduced euphemisms into our lexicon. The Gays will tell you they do not want anyone to tell them what to do in the privacy of the bedroom (or in San Francisco a public park). They don’t want government or anyone else telling them what to put in their butt. On the other hand they want government to tell us what we can put in our mouths. No salt, no burgers, no cigarettes, and no fast food. I wonder what government would say if they put a cigarette in their butt?

The gays claim they don’t want government in their lives until they contract Aids, then they want government (us) to pay the bill. In other words personal responsibility for thee but not for me.

In another example we have the “liberal” women. They want government to keep their hand off their bodies and want abortion on demand, at any stage. But, they expect government to pay not only for the abortions, but also for birth control. Once again they want their will to be done and anyone who disagrees with them is demonized. Personal liberty ends in the pocketbook.

“Liberals” love to engage in class warfare. They tell us the rich should pay more, especially those with planes and yachts. But who has the planes and yachts? Yes the liberals like John Kerry and the Kennedys. President Obama tells us we need to sacrifice yet he vacations with his very wealthy liberal friends and donors on Martha’s Vineyard. It’s okay to be rich, but don’t demonize those of us who want to be rich. This is reminiscent of the old Soviet Union where the apparatchik and party bosses lived in their dachas on he Black Sea while the proletariat stood in line at the GUM Department Store all day for a pair of ill-fitting shoes. Once again socialism is for the people, not for the socialists.

Liberals like Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. decry the iPad and other technologies as killing jobs. They cannot see the jobs and opportunities created by technology. If you told them if we wanted to create jobs we could eliminate bulldozers and only use shovels on construction jobs. Their response would be that’s irrelevant. Liberals do not believe technology in the hands of the free market can create jobs, They believe that only the government can create jobs. This is in part due to the lack of education in the inner city where unemployment is 20% and among Black youth as high as 40%. They cannot accept the fact that the lack of personal responsibility and bad choices such as dropping out of school, having babies out of wedlock, a devotion to a gangsta culture, and drugs has anything to do with this high unemployment rate. They have dumbed down the public school system, even after pouring billions of dollars into it, to such a state that these youth can longer compete for good paying jobs in the free market. They believe government will put forth all the solutions, which they haven’t been able to do for the past 60 years.

Liberals will claim it’s for the children, the poor, the underprivileged, and the middle class. Yet when asked to define what they mean they are vague and cannot explain why for six decades these policies have failed. When you challenge their views or policies they will demonize you, call you selfish, call you racists, and say you don’t care about your fellow man. It was Frederick Bastiat who called their game some 150 years ago when he wrote:

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

Liberals believe government can solve all the problems of mankind if they just have enough time and money. They believe all rights come from government, not from God. In fact they don’t really like God. You see God has laws that have been around since Moses. It’s these laws they don’t like. They say they are too clack and white and too judgmental. Liberals don’t like to be judged, but they like to judge. Just ask one and they will tell you what is wrong with you and your evil, selfish conservative thinking. After all isn’t the Tea Party evil for wanting the government to reduce spending so our grandchildren will have a country to live in without being crushed by debt.

So what should we call these people, and politicians? That’s hard to define. Do we call them liberals? Do we call them Marxists? Do we call them progressives? Do we call them Mutants or do we call them statist? Perhaps statist is the term that fits them best, but we will have to educate the public to that term and what it means in today’s body politic.

Today’s liberal (statist) is not very liberal at all. He is a tyrant who believes in social justice and using the power of government and their fellow travelers in the media to crush opposition by demonizing and demagoguery. All they really want is power and they will ignore all lessons of history to obtain that power.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

The Expansion of the Dependent Class

“Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.” Frederick Bastiat, The Law.

While at the checkout counter in my local supermarket today I witnessed a classic example of the misuse of food stamps. There was a lady and her daughter checking in front of me. They spoke Spanish to each other and very broken English to the clerk. The lady began separating all of the items for the clerk. She put all of her food stuffs including meat, milk, bread, canned goods, diapers, doughnuts, and candy bars in one pile and her beer, wine, soft drinks, and snack food in another. The clerk rang up the foodstuffs and the lady pulled out her EBT card and paid for those items. She then pulled out cash and paid for the beer, wine and snacks. After walking away from the counter she went to the lotto machine and bought some lotto tickets.

After the lady left and I was being checked out I asked the clerk if this was unique. The clerk rolled her eyes and said no. She said she saw this on a daily basis. I reserved my comments, but thought why couldn’t they use some of their cash for the food, not buy the beer and wine and save the taxpayers some money.

These folks know the system and how to make the most of it. In a recent post I wrote about the scam of the SNAP program by quoting a woman on the program:

“As a recipient of the federal food stamp program, I now eat far better than I ever did when I was working and scrimping by on $100/month budget for my children and me. Besides the substantial $525/month I receive as a family of three, I was shocked and appalled to learn what the tax payers are providing for my unworking ass.

Your taxpayer dollars will pay for energy drinks such as Red Bull. I also can purchase ANY candy or gum product. Gum is a food product, right Michelle? I also may purchase any mixers (strawberry daiquiri/margarita drinks) without alcohol in them. People always drink margarita mix as a substantial nutritional beverage, right?

One of my favorite things about this is that I may go to the deli or bakery section and get fresh donuts, customized party cakes, party subs, fresh salad bar, deli salads, etc. – all things I could not afford when I worked for a living. I also can purchase soda (which has a deposit in my state) and then return my empty cans to make some actual cash. Thanks guys! Keep paying your taxes!”

Altogether, there are now almost 46 million people in the United States on food stamps, roughly 15 percent of the population. That's an increase of 74 percent since 2007, just before the financial crisis and a deep recession led to mass job losses.

At the same time, the cost doubled to reach $68 billion in 2010 — more than a third of the amount the U.S. government received in corporate income tax last year — which means the program has started to attract the attention of some Republican lawmakers looking for ways to cut the nation's budget deficit.

According to a recent report by Reuters; Genna Saucedo supervises cashiers at a Wal-Mart in Pico Rivera, California, but her wages aren't enough to feed herself and her 12-year-old son. The Reuters report states:

“Saucedo, who earns $9.70 an hour for about 26 hours a week and lives with her mother, is one of the many Americans who survive because of government handouts in what has rapidly become a food stamp nation.”

The Reuter’s report continues:

“While there are clearly some cases of abuse by people who claim food stamps but don't really need them, for many Americans like Saucedo there is little current alternative if they are to put food on the table while paying rent and utility bills.

"It's kind of sad that even though I'm working that I need to have government assistance. I have asked them to please put me on full-time so I can have benefits," said the 32-year-old.

She's worked at Wal-Mart for nine months, and applied for food stamps as soon as her probation ended. She said plenty of her colleagues are in the same situation.

So are her customers. Bill Simon, head of Wal-Mart's U.S. operations, told a conference call last Tuesday that the company had seen an increase in the number of shoppers relying on government assistance for food.

About forty percent of food stamp recipients are, like Saucedo, in households in which at least one member of the family earns wages. Many more could be eligible: the government estimates one in three who could be on the program are not.

"If they're working, they often think they can't get help. But people can't support their families on $10, $11, $12 an hour jobs, especially when you add transport, clothes, rent." said Carolyn McLaughlin, executive director of BronxWorks, a social services organization in New York.

The maximum amount a family of four can receive in food stamps is $668 a month. They can only be used to buy food -- though not hot food -- and for plants and seeds to grow food.

Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all made efforts to raise awareness about the program and remove the stigma associated with it.

In 2004, paper coupons were replaced with cards (Electronic Benefit Transfer cards) similar to debit cards onto which benefits can be loaded. In 2008 they were renamed Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits though most people still call them food stamps.”

Whiles this story plays on your emotions and like all such tales in the liberal press it is anecdotal. Why is a single mother of 32 working for $9.70 an hour? Where is he father what education did she have? These are questions not answered in the Reuters’ article.

The Reuter’s article continues by stating the SNAP is a wage support system:

“Over the past 20 years, the characteristics of the program's recipients have changed. In 1989, a higher percentage were on benefits than working, but as of 2009 a higher percentage had earned income.

"SNAP is increasingly work support," said Ed Bolen, an analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

And that's only likely to get worse: So far in the recovery, jobs growth has been concentrated in lower-wage occupations, with minimal growth in middle-income wages as many higher-paid blue collar jobs have disappeared.

And 6 percent of the 72.9 million Americans paid by the hour received wages at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour in 2010. That's up from 4.9 percent in 2009, and 3 percent in 2002, according to government data.

Bolen said just based on income, minimum wage single parents are almost always eligible for food stamps.

"This becomes an implicit subsidy for low-wage jobs and in terms of incentives for higher wage job creation that really is not a good thing," said Arindrajit Dube, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, whose research shows raising the minimum wage would spur

As Bastiat wrote:

“Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property. But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.”

The Obama administration is busy expanding the exact type of vicious, ungrateful underclass which recently exploded in London. An administration program will expand free school meal coverage to millions of young people who are not even supposed to be eligible.

A stated goal of the program is to eliminate the stigma of getting a free lunch. But that stigma is one of the only things separating dignified free people from wretched government dependents. There is a lot of gray in between, but the Obama program would take students from a young age and nudge them in the wrong direction.

Here's how the program works: if 40% of students at a school qualify for public assistance, then every student in the school will get free food. That's free breakfast, lunch, and a snack. If that sounds like arbitrary welfare waste, it is. Sixty percent of the student body could be above the poverty line, ineligible for welfare, or even upper-class — it doesn't matter. Every student magically becomes entitled.

This welfare trap is named the Community Eligibility Option, part of President Obama's Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. Three states will be involved in a pilot program starting now, and more states will be phased in over time. By 2014-15, the option will be available in all states, if this law is kept on the books.

Any student at a school with 40% of the student body on welfare is going to get his free lunch, whether he needs it or not. That 40% can be made up of students already eligible for programs like Food Stamps or welfare (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families – TANF)). Interestingly, the category of eligibility also includes "migrant youth." So illegals can get in on the boondoggle as well. If 5% of students are "migrant youth, and an additional 35% of students are on some form of welfare, the remaining 60% are automatically entitled if their school opts in.

Entire school districts, like Detroit's, will receive free food for every single student in all grades, K-12. The policy is coming into effect right as we learn that Michigan, for instance, recently kicked thirty thousand college students off food stamps for abusing the system.

Some of you might be asking, if you are already eligible for food stamps, then why do you need free lunch as well? Of course, people can buy groceries with food stamps. People could be making lunch for their children to bring to school. But that would be asking too much. The brown bag is probably considered a mark of caste. We need to make everyone feel good by creating mass dependency.

This is a perverse and wasteful policy. Not only will it entrench the existing lower class, but it will pass a contagious sense of entitlement around the entire school. Students who had no need, and whose families had no desire, to receive this welfare will now receive it. They will be exposed to the coercive influence of dependency and the politicians will benefit.

But not to worry — the policy is well-greased. If the free food option kicks in at a school, then there will be no need for parents to make individual applications anymore. You don't even have to think about asking; not one bit of reflection or hesitation to trouble you. Everyone will receive the food, like manna from the skies.

The rationale behind this policy is spectacularly foolish: "One of the primary goals of this program is to eliminate the stigma that students feel when they get a free lunch, as opposed to paying cash," said a Detroit Public School official. "Some students would skip important meals to avoid being identified as low-income. Now, all students will walk through a lunch line and not have to pay. Low-income students will not be easily identifiable and will be less likely to skip meals."

For fear of stigmatizing the few, we will enfeeble the many. But stigma exists for a very good reason. It directs behavior along morally desirable paths. People should have a sense of shame for taking handouts, even when they really need them. Stigma upholds a strong work ethic and self-sufficiency. These used to be our shared moral standards. But we don't have shared moral standards anymore — just a desire to be nonjudgmental and "compassionate." Because we don't want some children to be stigmatized, we're going to make all children dependent.

This policy is defined by welfare-state paternalism, which breeds and nurtures immoral, undesirable people. This policy shows a reckless disregard for the consequences of dependency, which will be terrible. Everything we need to know about entitlements comes from the great English prison psychiatrist Anthony Daniels, (who writes under the pseudonym Theodore Dalrymple) who worked face-to-face with the most severe dependents in Western society. Daniels said that government entitlements create one of two attitudes towards society: either ingratitude or resentment. If you receive what you're entitled to, there is nothing to be grateful for because you're entitled to it. Or, if you haven't received an entitlement, then you're resentful because you haven't received what you feel you are entitled to. Daniels said:

“The doctrine of rights, while it can prevent certain abuses, also gives rise to a sense of entitlement, which in turn means that people veer between ingratitude if they receive what they believe they are entitled to or outrage if they do not. Neither of these states is attractive to others or beneficial to the person himself. In short, complaint has been privatized into mere querulousness.”

A few disgusting examples of this attitude can be seen in news interviews with government dependents in Clayton County, GA that have to be seen to be believed.

It's a mystery how anyone could honestly believe that strengthening the chains of dependency will produce self-sufficient citizens. Fourteen point four percent of Americans use food stamps. Of the households using food stamps, one in three is black, according to the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Getting free food from Nanny State surely takes the sting away from fatherlessness — and adds to the pressure for cradle-to-grave welfare.

We have no reason whatsoever to think that giving people food stamps will make them better. Free government meals are not going to create stakeholders in society. Instead, we will be taking a mass of young people, who up until now have not been deemed aid-worthy, and marking them as aid-worthy. Surely this is going to create an unhealthy adjustment in their own attitudes and expectations.

Conservatives will see in this policy the early stages of a dependency epidemic. Liberals, on the other hand, will emote about compassion. Everyone should be able to eat, they say, the assumption being that the government is the necessary provider. Liberals genuinely want society to produce healthy people. But didn't society produce healthy people in the past? If so, how did we do it without welfare?

The people in our society who are charged with making good judgments about social policy and group behavior are actually the most ideologically blinkered among us. The utopian are leading the ignorant.

With this policy, the Obama administration has taken a silent but significant step towards mass welfare dependence. Worst of all, it will push the welfare mentality on to more students and families, including those who are not truly disadvantaged. More people will suffer the devastating moral corruption that comes from dependence.

The result will be to rob more people of their work ethic, drive up the financial burden on government, and destroy even more of this nation's productive wealth. The human result will be an expanded pool of ungrateful and entitled people, ready to riot and destroy if their new handouts are ever jeopardized by fiscal reality. If we expand the ranks of dependents in this country, we will reap a whirlwind.