Only the government wins...

Our President, and the current leading contender for the Progressive Liberal Democrat Party nomination for President in a year or so, Mrs. Clinton, have come out in favor of increasing the minimum wage for all workers in the United States.  They claim that this would at least partially solve the pressure of the cost of living for people who are apparently "stuck" in entry level positions historically known for their minimum wage levels.

They suggest two things: 1.  That the plight of these workers is the fault of the opposition; and 2, that this increase will benefit the poor and the middle class.  Both assertions are demonstrably wrong.

As to the first assertion, for the last 22 years, Progressive Liberal Democrats have held the Office of the Presidency for almost 64% of the time (14 years).  During most of that time, they controlled the Congress and had the opportunity during that period to both discuss and create an action plan to solve the now declared plight of the Middle Class.  As our current President stated with such smug, quiet impudence when he first took office and was rejecting the suggestions of the opposition regarding the health care plan, "We won."  Yet, the Middle Class has not progressed during his time in office either.  Looking, as an example, at the plight of the Black community we see that the unemployment rate for them is higher than when Mr. Obama took office.  Previously, Mrs. Clinton's husband held the office of the Presidency yet the middle class did not increase or gain economically.  The same is true for Mr. Carter's sojourn in the Oval Office.  Yet, with all that opportunity, Mrs. Clinton wants the nation to believe that the fault lies with the opposition!  That is patently absurd.

The second assertion is similarly flawed.  And the reason is so obvious that one is tempted to call the assertion a purposeful deceit.  Consider the following:

When the minimum wage is forced higher by government action, all other pay levels must be adjusted to keep the step system defensible to all employees.  When the cost of labor goes up, prices rise.  This increase in the price of goods and services, eliminates any apparent gain in wages.  It is a wash.

Well, that is not actually true...both the business sector and the Middle (and all other working) Classes lose.  Why?  Because the Federal Government Income Tax is a graduated tax...as you earn more money, you pay a higher percent of your income to the Federal Government.  So  everyone but the Government loses when wages go up.  But the Federal Government wins big time!  And they have the nerve to tell you, "Hi, I'm from the Federal Government.  I'm here to help you!"

Hypocrites all...and in this case, especially Mrs. Clinton.

Is Anarchy the only answer?

The term "good" government is fallacious; there is no such animal.  Government in any form is just the process of a few elites acquiring and exercising the power to control the "public"...the "others."  And minkind's unalienable and undeniable instinct to control others prevents any government from being "limited."

"If" government could be limited to providing for the common defense of our borders, to building and maintaining roads, power and water along with a Supreme Court to provide ultimate redress from local injustices, we could see some benefit.  But such is never the case.  It is like being a little bit pregnant...and each step of acquiring more power is presented as just a small, inconsequential step in such a reasonable manner that we sheep simply "baa" in acquiescence and later wonder where our freedom went.

And no ideology changes that.  On the one hand, providing we can keep them from bringing the country down with them, the Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Democrat-elites will fail when they run out of other people's money.  On the other hand, the Conservative-Republican-elites cannot, once in power, resist the temptation to claim more power and create larger government even as the claim otherwise.

All forms of government and all ideologies end up denying individual freedoms and being punitive to all who would preserve liberty for all.  Perhaps peaceful anarchists have it right. Perhaps Chaos Theory should be a political ideology as well as a scientific one.

Should the Tea Parties just "go away?"

The more open the government is, the more difficult it becomes to govern;  the more involved the populace wishes to be in governmental affairs, the greater the obstacles to those "great minds" and "great thinkers" who "know how the country should be run."  I can understand fully the desire of many for the Tea Party to just go away, for the people to quiet back down and allow those who "know better" to get back to work establishing  live the way it should be.  I truly understand.

There are many examples in history of associations and individuals of such great minds dealing with such difficulties:  King George on England, of course, comes to mind first; then there are Robespierre, the Czars of Russia, King Louis XVI of France and others who have "tisk, tisked" their distaste at the audacity of the common people to question "their betters."

And today, the Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Democrat-Elite mimic their forebears' reaction to popular unhappiness with disdain, both personal and ideological, as well as personal insults, with "they just don't understand" visages, and "we just haven't learned how to communicate effectively with them" comments to their Press Relations people (you know, those professional reporters from ABC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, and NBC) who nod sagely, admiring their sagacity.

When history repeats itself, as it surely will, their surprise will be absolute.  We, the poor, the uneducated, the unwashed, the "stupid" PEOPLE will not go away. I apologize for that...well, maybe not so much.  After all you will have earned everything that will be coming to you.

Palin hatred revisited...with a bit of perspective

The Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Democrat-Elite exist with the belief that those who do NOT believe as they do are stupid, un-educated, and suffer from an inability to appreciate the "nuances" of life that they themselves hold so dear to their (sometimes) bleeding hearts.  They see Palin as a threat because she succeeded while demonstrating the antithesis of what they believe deserves success.

Consider:
  1. she did not have a power base from which to start;
  2. she began in politics to get something done, instead of just grousing about it;
  3. she didn't try to pander to a power-elite, but ran against it utilizing (horrors) a grass-roots movement;
  4  she did not see her job as an entitlement, but as an obligation...and followed through;
  5. and when Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Elite groups threatened to cost her state millions and a proper response would have interfered with doing her job as Governor, she resigned to take care of business rather than make her state and it's citizens pay for defending her against the Progressive-Liberal-Socialist groups.

She did not achieve her goals by being a "token" or an affirmative action hire...she did it the old fashioned way...by earning it.  No payoffs, no promises, except to do her job.

That kind of success is impossible according to Progressive-Liberal-Socialist-Democrat-Elite lore...just cannot happen.  That it did happen needs to be hidden by them in a blizzard of lies and attacks...and that is just what they have done.  And it is why they continue even after apparently accomplishing their goal...because if the corpse ever rises, the see their own Armageddon.  To prevent that, there is no such thing as overkill.

Fewer Americans WANT to work...at all

Speaking at a little-noted event at the University of  Southern California's Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, Mr. Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the non-partisan C.B.O. (Congressional Budget Office), a federal agency within the legislative branch of our government that produces some of the most objective, "fair", and non-politicized date that we receive from our government, stated that, in some cases, Americans will choose not to work, because their needs for healthcare will be provided by the enhanced Medicaid Funding that is provided for in the Obamacare Law.  This  assessment of Obamacare by Mr. Elmendorf coincides with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's remarks last May, when she insisted that Obamacare would allow "artists" to "quit their day job" and pursue their art, free from the constraints of having to  provide for one's self, because the government would now take care of artists' healthcare benefits.

Is this a problem?  Long-term, it will be disastrous.  Humanity takes the path of least resistance and makes decisions based on the pain-pleasure principle: on the pain side, we make the decision that reduces pain; on the pleasure side, we make the decision that increases our pleasure.  Of course this is complicated a bit by the fact that different people define those terms differently and that any one person on different days will define the terms a bit differently also, but...details...

It has been suggested that 15-30% of people will always do the "right" thing:  they will obey the laws as they exist, they will strive to work hard and be fair to others just because they have been raised to believe that "it is the right thing to do."  Likewise, it has been argued that there are 10-15% of the population that will do what they want to do without regard to laws, training or "rightness."  These are what we refer to as the criminal elements of our society that cannot be "rehabilitated" because punishment and reward outside their definition has no effect.

That leaves the vast majority (between 55% and 76%) of our population who's behavior IS responsive to our laws, our moral attitudes and our perception and response to the pain and pleasure in our lives.

What does this have to do with Obamacare?

This is one more unearned reward for people.  It is another entitlement.  It is one less reason for contributing to society.  And, for those who work hard to get ahead and achieve peace of mind, it is one more thing that unfairly is given to others who haven't worked for it.

No matter what your point of view may be with regard to the economics of Obamacare, the only way the costs can be made even remotely reasonable to each of us is if the greatest number work to contribute toward the costs.  If that number falls, the burden on those of us working becomes greater and greater, decreasing the benefit to us while giving a free benefit to others.

Human nature operating on that vast middle of our population is going to decrease the contributors to the costs.  At first the decrease will be quite small.  But, as the realization sets in that there is increased pain from having to pay for others and no decrease in coverage (pleasure) from NOT contributing, there will develop a tsunami of those no longer bothering to work and pay for this benefit, leading to a total collapse of the system.

This has always been the weakness of Socialist programs:  the inherent self-interest to work and earn is destroyed by providing benefits as entitlements.  This is a disincentive to produce, which means less worth is produced and removes the fund from which Progressive-Liberal-Socialists expect to redistribute in accordance with their elite points-of-view.

This legislation expects to avoid this disaster by passing a law mandating contribution to Healthcare costs.  But there are two problems, one legal and the other human nature.  Legally, the Supreme Court of the United States could well find that mandating that a citizen buy something for no other reason that being alive is unconstitutional.  On the human nature side,  the government cannot make you pay something if you earn nothing...if more and more people figure that welfare is sufficient when it also includes coverage for illness and accidents and decide not to work but to live off the government dole, it will ultimately bring down the government.  Either it will collapse monetarily, or be removed through another revolution.  Either way...it will fail.

What is amazing is that the smartest people in the world (Congress and the President) cannot see and/or understand this.

Sharia Law

What I find so dangerous and insidious about Muslim Sharia law and Islamic attitudes generally is the assumptive trust that western liberal-progressives have in Islam. Sharia law is accepted by devout Muslims. They accept its absolute nature and the penalties dictated. Islam also calls for the elimination of non-believers where Muslims are ruling. This can be by conversion, demotion to a slave-like position in society, or by death.

What liberal-progressives hang their hats on is that the Qur'an calls for treating non-Muslims equally...the same as believers. They point to this as being proof of non-discrimination by Muslims toward other religions and other groups. And, technically, they are correct in this observation. But their reasoning is flawed. What this proves is that if Islam becomes a majority, they will apply Sharia law to everyone...equally.

That means that adultery and homosexuality, among others, will result in death. Theft will result in amputation of a limb. Women will have to wear various forms of the hijab, or more. So...there will be equal treatment...but not the preservation of different life styles. If they become a majority, they will not allow the Supreme Court or the Congress or the President to frustrate what they see to be their solemn duty as called for in the Qur'an...to insure the Islam is followed by all.

It is a mystery to me how progressive-liberals can remain so sanguine in the face of these facts. Is it that they believe that the Constitution, which they have so successfully suborned, will somehow have more force when it serves their purposes in defending against the Islamic goal? Can they be that obtuse and/or stupid? And I am confounded by the failure of those who instinctively sense the threat to not clearly enunciate the threat in the manner I have described...I haven't heard one analyst comment along the lines that I see so clearly. Am I that wrong? If so, I would dearly like someone to disabuse me of my belief. I would dearly like to be wrong.