It’s Friday, July 20th, 2012….and before we begin, a brief personal note. You may have to wait until Tuesday for the next edition of The Gouge, as we’ll be a little tied up this weekend celebrating the wedding Saturday of our eldest son Jonathon to Miss Elizabeth “Liz” Corker:
“The Lord bless you and keep you–the Lord make His face shine upon you, and be gracious unto you; the Lord lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace.”
We couldn’t be happier God has blessed Jon with Liz; like his old man, he’s marrying far over his head. As for The Lovely Jenny, she’s losing a son, but gaining the daughter she’s always wanted. We know you join us in wishing the happy couple a hearty mazel tov.
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, David French, writing at NRO‘s The Corner, courtesy of Conn Carroll, offers Conservatives this urgent admonition:
Don’t Let the Left Claim the Moral High Ground on Poverty
I downloaded Kevin Williamson’s Encounter Broadside, The Dependency Agenda, the day it was available and devoured it on a flight from Nashville to Denver. I meant to post about the book at the time, but I was reminded to by this excellent short video from Encounter:
One of the more irritating aspects of public debate over poverty policies is the almost bulletproof sense of moral superiority oozing from every pore of both the secular and religious progressive elite. They’re the only ones who care.They’re the only ones who “seek justice.”We’re the ones who sum up our entire world view with a single sentence, “Greed is good.” (By the way, it’s astonishing how many leftists seem to view Oliver Stone’s Wall Street — brick phones and all — as some sort of combination of documentary and divine insight into the conservative mind.)
As Kevin’s book makes clear (and the video outlines), Lyndon Johnson went to war against poverty, and poverty won. It is not “compassionate” to spend trillions more dollars on programs that are more social flypaper than trampoline. And you are not “protecting” the poor by preserving failed polices from budgetary limits. If “social justice” looks like the permanent poverty spawned by the Great Society, then consider me opposed. (We too!)
If anyone should hold the moral high ground in the poverty debate, it should be conservatives (not that the moral high ground is all that meaningful). In a world where stigma too often substitutes for argument, we cannot permit the Left to stigmatize our level of concern for the poor and the “least of these” in our nation and culture.
How can Liberals truly claim to care about the poor when their supposed solutions have progressively worsened the situation by any rational measure?Because in their hearts the only thing Liberals really care about isn’t the poor, but assuaging their own guilty consciences with a sense of self-gratification, peculiar to Progressives, that comes from throwing other people’s money at problems.
That….and the fact Liberals are so much smarter than the rest of us.
Next up, Thomas Sowell’s thoughts on the brief bit of candor which offered many previously unenlightened Americans their first real glimpse of The Obamao:
Obama’s Rhetoric
Barack Obama’s great rhetorical gifts include the ability to make the absurd sound not only plausible, but inspiring and profound. (Though such supposed rhetorical gifts are lost on us.) His latest verbal triumph was to say on July 13th, “if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.” As an example, “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Let’s stop and think, even though the whole purpose of much political rhetoric is to keep us from thinking, and stir our emotions instead.Even if we were to assume, just for the sake of argument, that 90 percent of what a successful person has achieved was due to the government, what follows from that? That politicians will make better decisions than individual citizens, that politicians will spend the wealth of the country better than those who created it? That doesn’t follow logically — and certainly not empirically.
Does anyone doubt that most people owe a lot to the parents who raised them? But what follows from that? That they should never become adults who make their own decisions?
The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists — which is to say, to take away our freedom. They do this in stages, starting with some group that others envy or resent — Jews in Nazi Germany, capitalists in the Soviet Union, foreign investors in Third World countries that confiscate their investments and call this theft “nationalization.”
Freedom is seldom destroyed all at once. More often it is eroded, bit by bit, until it is gone. This can happen so gradually that there is no sudden change that would alert people to the danger. By the time everybody realizes what has happened, it can be too late, because their freedom is gone.
All the high-flown talk about how people who are successful in business should “give back” to the community that created the things that facilitated their success is, again, something that sounds plausible to people who do not stop and think through what is being said. After years of dumbed-down education, that apparently includes a lot of people. (Which was the goal all along.)
Take Obama’s example of the business that benefits from being able to ship their products on roads that the government built. How does that create a need to “give back”? Did the taxpayers, including business taxpayers, not pay for that road when it was built? Why should they have to pay for it twice?
What about the workers that businesses hire, whose education is usually created in government-financed schools? The government doesn’t have any wealth of its own, except what it takes from taxpayers, whether individuals or businesses. They have already paid for that education. It is not a gift that they have to “give back” by letting politicians take more of their money and freedom.
When businesses hire highly educated people, such as chemists or engineers, competition in the labor market forces them to pay higher salaries for people with longer years of valuable education. That education is not a government gift to the employers. It is paid for while it is being created in schools and universities, and it is paid for in higher salaries when highly educated people are hired.
One of the tricks of professional magicians is to distract the audience’s attention from what they are doing while they are creating an illusion of magic. Pious talk about “giving back” distracts our attention from the cold fact that politicians are taking away more and more of our money and our freedom.
Even the envy that politicians stir up against “the rich” is highly focused on those particular high income-earners whose decisions the politicians want to take over. Others in sports or entertainment can make far more money than the highest paid corporate executive, but there is no way that politicians can take over the roles of Roger Federer or Oprah Winfrey, so highly paid sports stars or entertainers are never accused of “greed.”
If we are so easily distracted by self-serving political rhetoric, we are not only going to see our money, but our freedom, increasingly taken away from us by slick-talking politicians, including our current slick-talker-in-chief in the White House.
Benjamin Franklin was right: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Nor will they ultimately have either.
Then there’s this bit of related commentary from Jennifer Rubin, courtesy of the WaPo and George Lawlor:
Obama lets the cat out of the bag
There are two ways to respond to an onslaught of negative, vicious attacks. One is to say they are negative and vicious and to try to disprove them. But like birthers, the ones making the attacking continue to claim there is an “open question.” The other is to go on offense.
Romney seems to have seized the opportunity to pivot away from talking about when he resigned and his tax returns to this revelation about Obama’s underlying philosophy. In a speech in Pennsylvania he hit his stride:
There is a reason the Romney campaign is highlighting this. Combined with the real possibility that we are heading to 1 % (or less) growth, Obama’s rag on individual merit allows Romney to combine two critical points: the economy is terrible and Obama is making it worse. The reason why Obama has to go, he can argue, is that he’s soaked in the toxic philosophy of anti-capitalism. (Which, Ms. Rubin can’t bring herself to say, is pretty much like Socialism.)
There is a moral case to be made here as well. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), picking up where he left off in his interview with Jim Pethokoukis, took to Facebook. It’s worth reading in full, but here is the core of the argument:
The President recently suggested that a central government — not individuals — deserves the credit for building successful businesses. This sentiment makes for terrible economics, but also reveals a confused morality. In a free community, everyone co-operates by voluntarily offering unique gifts: some invent, some invest, others labor, or sell while customers reward the best producers and providers by buying their products and services. . . . A free economy and strong communities are the best means to reward effort with justice, to promote upward mobility, and to build solidarity among citizens. The President’s vision of a government-centered society — reflected in both his troubling rhetoric and his failed policies — belittles fair rewards for labor and enterprise.
There it is — the argument against Obama’s collectivism. Whether Ryan is on the ticket or not, he is already articulating the best message Romney can deliver, made possible by the president’s own words.
This is not an isolated Obama “gaffe,” of course. Obama’s philosophy has been spelled out again and again. Recall the “Life of Julia” Web site in which the Obama campaign tooted its own horn in the “make them wards of the state” department.
And he has repeatedly argued individual effort is swamped by collective action with government as the driving force. In his bore-a-thon in Cleveland he declared at one point during the 54-minute ordeal: “We constructed railroads and highways, the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. We did those things together. We sent my grandfather’s generation to college on the GI Bill — together. (Applause.) We instituted a minimum wage and rules that protected people’s bank deposits — together. (Applause.) Together, we touched the surface of the moon, unlocked the mystery of the atom, connected the world through our own science and imagination.”
Before Congress in his jobs speech in September 2011, Obama set forth one of his infamous strawmen arguments:
But what we can’t do — what I will not do — is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades. (Applause.) I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety. I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients. I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy. (Applause.) We shouldn’t be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards. America should be in a race to the top. And I believe we can win that race. (Applause.)
In fact, this larger notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everybody’s money, and let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own — that’s not who we are. That’s not the story of America.
Yes, we are rugged individualists. Yes, we are strong and self-reliant. And it has been the drive and initiative of our workers and entrepreneurs that has made this economy the engine and the envy of the world.
But there’s always been another thread running throughout our history — a belief that we’re all connected, and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation.
We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. Founder of the Republican Party. But in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future — a Republican President who mobilized government to build the Transcontinental Railroad — (applause) — launch the National Academy of Sciences, set up the first land grant colleges. (Applause.) And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set.
Ask yourselves — where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways, not to build our bridges, our dams, our airports? What would this country be like if we had chosen not to spend money on public high schools, or research universities, or community colleges? Millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather, had the opportunity to go to school because of the G.I. Bill. Where would we be if they hadn’t had that chance?
No government or Obamacare. No government or another stimulus bill.You didn’t earn anything and government is everything. For an “intellectual,” he sure lacks nuance.
Alas, the strawman has come home to roost. Obama has been painting a cartoon version of opponents for years. And lo and behold he’s revealed himself to be the very caricature of the anti-business, government-is-all liberal Republicans have claimed him to be.Romney caught a break when he needed it. Game on.
Here’s another way to look at it, courtesy of Carl Polizzi:
Meanwhile, in the “Pot Calling The Kettle Black” segment, courtesy of Bill Meisen and Jim Hoft writing at Gateway Pundit, we learn….
Oops!… Obama’s Top Bundler Jonathan Lavine Was In Charge of Bain During GST Steel Layoffs
The Obama campaign blamed Governor Mitt Romney for the demise of GST Steel company in a video they released in May. The plant closed in 2001. Mitt left Bain in 1999. For some reason the Obama camp forgot to mention this…Obama’s top bundler Jonathan Lavine was in charge of Bain during the BST layoffs.
Chuck Slowe reported:
Blaming Governor Romney for any issues surrounding the failure of GST is wrong and it is a blatant lie. Mitt Romney had been long gone when the company started to fail and subsequently closed it doors. When are the President and his campaign hacks going to get the story correct? When are they going to get back to their economy and its dreadful condition? Mr. President, you can run but you cannot hide.
It turns out that Jonathan Lavine, current Obama bundler, was actually in charge, at Bain, during that period, when the layoffs occurred. Oops, that isn’t right, is it? Yes, that story is the one that needs to be reported on. Sorry Mr. President, your lies are just getting to be more than many of us are able to handle.
And, Jonathan Lavine is not your average Obama Bain donor. Lavine is one of Barack Obama’s top bundlers. ABC reported:
While Democrats assail presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital business practices, Republicans note that President Obama has not been bashful about accepting cash from Bain executives or other high-profile figures in the corporate buyout business…
…One of Obama’s top campaign financiers – Jonathan Lavine – is also managing director at Bain, bundling between $100,000 and $200,000 in contributions for the 2012 Obama Victory Fund, according to estimates released by the Obama campaign. The president has also relied on other leading figures in the private equity sector as hosts for high-dollar fundraisers and as members of his Jobs Council.
Maybe someday the liberal media will report on this.
Yeah; when….
Next, the latest from Michael Barone, Then there’s
Obama believes success is a gift from government
Perhaps the rain made the teleprompter unreadable. That’s one thought I had on pondering Barack Obama’s comments to a rain-soaked rally in Roanoke, Va., last Friday. Perhaps he didn’t really mean what he said. Or perhaps — as is often the case with people when unanchored from a prepared text — he revealed what he really thinks.
“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back,” he began, defending his policy of higher tax rates on high earners. “They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, ‘well, it must be because I was just so smart.’ There are a lot of smart people out there. ‘It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.’ Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
In other words, Steve Jobs didn’t make Apple happen. It was the work of a teacher union member — er, great teacher — and the government agencies that paved I-280 and El Camino Real that made Apple happen.
High earners don’t deserve the money they make, Obama apparently thinks. It’s the gift of government, and they shouldn’t begrudge handing more of it back to government. And that’s true, as he told Charlie Gibson of ABC News in 2008, even if those higher tax rates produce less revenue for the government, as has been the case with rate increases on capital gains. The government should take away the money as a matter of “fairness.”
The cynical might dismiss Obama’s preoccupation with higher tax rates as an instance of a candidate dwelling on one of his few proposals that tests well in the polls. Certainly, he doesn’t want to talk much about Obamacare or the stimulus package. Cynics might note that he spurned supercommittee Republicans’ willingness last year to reduce tax deductions so as to actually increase revenue from high earners, without discouraging investment or encouraging tax avoidance as higher tax rates do.
But maybe Obama’s Captain-Ahab-like pursuit of higher tax rates just comes from a sense that no one earns success and that there’s no connection between effort and reward.
That kind of thinking also helps to explain the approach taken by Sen. Patty Murray in a speech at the Brookings Institution on Monday. She wants a tax rate increase on high earners so badly she said she’d prefer raising everyone’s taxes next year to maintaining current rates. Murray was first elected in 1992 as a state legislator, who had been dismissed by a lobbyist as “just a mom in tennis shoes.” But in 20 years she’s become an accomplished appropriator and earmarker.
“Do no harm,” Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told members of Congress at a hearing yesterday, urging them to avoid the sharp spending cuts and tax rate increases scheduled for year’s end. But Murray is threatening to do exactly that kind of harm. Those prattling about how irresponsible Republicans are might want to ponder her threat.
And to consider that Republicans remember what happened to the last Republican who agreed to such rate increases, George H.W. Bush in 1990. Seeking re-election in 1992, he won only 37 percent of the vote. Republicans won’t risk that again.
The Obama Democrats seem to believe there’s no downside risk in threatening huge tax increases for everyone and in asserting that if you’re successful “someone else made that happen.” But the Wall Street Journal’s Colleen McCain Nelson reported yesterday how affluent Denver suburbanites have soured on Obama. Obama tied John McCain 49 to 49 percent among voters with more than $100,000 income in 2008, but in NBC/WSJ polls this year, they’ve favored Mitt Romney 50 to 44 percent.
Affluent voters trended Democratic over two decades on cultural issues. But economic issues dominate this year, and they may not appreciate Obama’s assertion that they don’t deserve what they’ve earned.
We for one will never appreciate anything about Obama….except perhaps his farewell address, provided it’s delivered this coming January.
On the Lighter Side….
Then there’s this classic bit of political satire forwarded by Shannon Wood….
….and this eloquent bit of doggerel from Jim Gleaves:
Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with the Restaurant Guide, and this just in from Beantown:
Boston mayor vows to keep Chick-fil-A out of city
The mayor of Boston is vowing to block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the city after the company’s president spoke out publicly against gay marriage. Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald on Thursday that he doesn’t want a business in the city “that discriminates against a population.”
Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press this week that his privately owned company is “guilty as charged” in support of what he called the biblical definition of the family. The fast-food chicken sandwich chain later said that it strives to “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.”
Atlanta-based Chick-fil-A has more than 1,600 stores nationwide but just two in Massachusetts, both located in suburban malls.
First, absent an unconstitutional law banning Chick-fil-Abased on an expression of their First Amendment rights, Menino’s patent pandering is so much hot air. Second, judging from the mayor’s girth, we think his real issue with Chick-fil-A is their failure to offer super-sized portions!
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.