Ending Unemployment Instantly and Permanently

Here is the text of an email I sent to President Obama, my Senators, and my congressman.  If you think that it is tongue-in-cheek… well…

Dear President Obama,

I was listening to National Public Radio yesterday, and heard an article which said that you were “open to every demonstrably good idea” to help resolve America’s high unemployment rate.

Providentially, I believe that I have hit upon such an idea, and one which will have a profound, long-term impact.  It is based on sound principles which are already accepted in government circles.

The idea is four-pronged, and works like this:

1. Pass legislation requiring every eligible American to have a job.
2. Pass legislation requiring American businesses to hire those who are seeking jobs.
3. Provide tax credits to businesses who hire the jobless – say, about 25% of the value of the average employment package.
4. For those Americans who are unable (or unwilling) to find employment with a private employer, afford a public employment option.

Of course, for humanitarian reasons, you must allow a hardship exemption to point 1 of the above-described program for those who are unable to work.  But every able American who is not exempted must be required either to find a job or pay a tax penalty – or suffer criminal penalties.  And as far as point 2 is concerned, it would certainly be wise to afford exceptions for small businesses.  It would probably be best if the number of mandatory new employees varied proportionately with the size of the hiring business.

An intelligent man like yourself will already have recognized the relationship between this plan and the current House and Senate plans for Health Care Reform.  Because of these similarities, I know that you already accept and agree with the principles which underlie my suggestion.

Think of it, Mr. President:  By signing such a bill, you would instantly and permanently end unemployment in America.  Never again would a citizen want a job and be unable to find one.  And consider the certain economic benefits of legislation of this sort:  For the first time in history, all Americans would be employed, and the combined contributions to public revenues from this condition would overflow the public coffers, and afford the opportunity for many and greater civil goods than we currently afford.  The era of burgeoning prosperity which must certainly follow such an initiative would be unrivaled in history and among the nations of the world.  The program would pay for the cost of the public employment option out of hand, and would likely eradicate the deficit, pay down the national debt, and fund the troubling future mandates of the large entitlement programs.  And there would be no delay in the benefits:  Tax revenues would begin to roll in practically the moment the program was signed into law!

If unemployment were outlawed, Mr. President, only outlaws would choose to be unemployed – and the cost of their incarceration would be small compared to the social benefits of mandatory universal employment!

Please consider this proposal, Mr. President.  It is based on principles which I know that you and the leadership of Congress already embrace – principles every bit as sound as the proposed Health Care Reform legislation currently before Congress.

I ask no recompense from you for proposing this idea.  I wish only to do good for my country.  And the idea is really yours, if you think about it, for it was you (and the leadership of Congress, of course) who proposed such a notion in the first place.  All that I require, Mr. President, is that you consider this humble suggestion on my part, and then take such action as the President of the United States ought.

Sincerely,

Change in the Weather

For many of us, the main concern about global warming (or “climate change”, as it is called now that the globe is no longer warming) has had nothing to do with the observations or the data or the conclusions from the data or the “science”.  It’s the politics.

(By the way, has anyone noticed how the global warming people have turned the word ‘science’ into some sort of shibboleth that, when flourished, ends all controversy and abrogates the need for rational debate?  ‘Science’ [or more exactly, "the science"] is now a magic word, a passkey which allows you to slip past ordinary standards of evidence or proof.  Science used to be a word associated with rational processes.  Now, it’s a token of infallibility used to evade rational discussion.)

Pardon my brief in-line rant.  Back to the main point:

As I said, it’s the politics that have been bugging me  – and, I’m sure, many other global warming “deniers”.  All along, I have been concerned about the activism of global warming:  So much of it has seemed a PR campaign designed to overwhelm the reason and provoke a panicked sense of a desperate need for action now. And what sort, what level of action are we talking about here?  Why, a 30 to 60% reduction in the standard of living of every man, woman and child on the face of the earth!

I don’t know – and I am sure I will never know – whether the globe is warming, whether it is warming in a significant way, whether this warming is an irreversible process, and whether mankind has anything to do with the alleged warming.   In fact, I don’t think that anyone knows, and I am quite confident that no-one will know the answers to these questions for decades or even centuries.

As a rational man, I have to admit that such things are not impossible.  But are they probable?  Are they true?  I don’t know.  And, as I said, I don’t think that I will know.

What I can recognize, as an experienced, aware man, is a bulldozer.   That is, I know when someone is putting heavy machinery to work, trying to push me in a particular direction.  I also know what propaganda looks like – when a supposedly neutral press is pushing a concept or idea.  And, I know a snow job, when I am being pressured to commit to something without being adequately informed or allowed time for serious consideration.

And that’s exactly what the global warming hype smells like to me:  A bulldozer, a snow job, propaganda:  If the ‘science’ is so compelling, why do we need Hollywood blockbuster movies?  Why do we need ad campaigns?  Why do we need rock star advocacy?  Why do we need to marginalize and denigrate those who are reserved or doubtful in response to the “science of global warming”?  More troubling still is the wild-eyed rush to take massive, global action now.  This is not the sort of thing I would expect from science – it’s what I would expect from a door-to-door refinancier.

So it should come as no surprise that thoughtful, experienced people smelled a rat.

And the rat has been spotted:

Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data ‘manipulation’

(See also Climate Emails Stoke Debate.  Many other such stories can be obtained at the moment.)

By rat, I don’t mean Lord Lawson (about whom I know nothing).  Rather, what has happened is that a large amount of global warmer insiders’ correspondence has been made public.  These inconvenient truths have made it plain that what many of us have suspected for some time has, at least to some degree, been going on for decades:  Scientific manipulation of data, cherry-picking data sources, conspiracies to silence dissenting scientists, propagandizing prior to significant conferences – a culture of dogmatism and group-think, closed to opposing views or serious doubts, and aimed at effecting a radical and enormous shift in the world’s power system.  (And has it escaped anyone’s notice that the best-known advocate for global warming in the world is a U.S. Politician?)

It is a truism of human nature than, when presented with a button, few men can ultimately resist pressing it.  Perhaps this explains what happened in the Garden of Eden.  Is that what happened here:  A hasty and breathless “consensus of scientists” produced a unique political opportunity which was just too tempting not to exploit?  Or is there something more sinister afoot?

As is the case with global warming itself, we may never know – because, just as with global warming (and its 70′s predecessor, Global Cooling,) the whole thing may simply, quietly… vanish.

You Lie, Nancy Pelosi!

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi recently defended the new health care legislation from charges that it will provide a completely new federal subsidy for abortion by pointing out that, according to the letter of the new law, Federal health care subsidy dollars could not be used to pay for abortions.  Individuals who receive federal subsidies will only be allowed to use the non-government portion of their health care money to pay for abortions.

Does this approach actually prevent federal dollars from being used for abortions?

At breakfast this morning I pulled a stunt on my 22-year-old daughter:  I took away her knife, fork, and spoon and replaced them with three one-dollar bills: two on one side of her plate, and one on the other.

When she sat down to eat, she looked at the money and gave me a quizzical look.  I responded that she had to buy her silverware with the money.  Each item of silverware cost a dollar, I explained, but there was one specific restriction on the use of the money:  The singleton one-dollar bill was a pacifist dollar; it must be kept separate, and may not be used to buy a knife.

My daughter, a clever young lady, quickly sorted the matter out:  She used the two dollars to buy a knife and fork, and the ‘pacifist’ dollar was used to buy the spoon.  She spent all of the money, even the ‘pacifist’ dollar, and still ended up with a knife!

Nancy Pelosi’s assurance that federal dollars can not be used to pay for abortions looks suspiciously like a decoy, a fig-leaf covering her real intentions:  It is plain that anyone participating in a federally-subsidized plan who wants an abortion will simply use their “non-federal” money to fund their abortions, and use the “federal” money to pay for health care that they would otherwise have had to forgo because they had already spent some of their health-care dollars on an abortion.  Thus, the federal money will simply fund the abortions through the back door.

Nancy Pelosi’s claim that these spending restrictions will prevent federal money from funding abortions is plainly either a failure to grasp basic realities on her part, or it is a ruse plain and simple.

It is a good general rule to make the most charitable assumptions possible about others’ mistakes.  Here, we must choose to decide one of two things:  Either my 22-year-old daughter is cleverer and wiser than Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or Nancy Pelosi is intentionally deceiving the American people.

It’s a bit of a toss-up.  But believing that Ms. Pelosi is less sophisticated and intelligent than a young woman a third her age is pretty demeaning.  Ms. Pelosi is, after all, a career politician and one of the most powerful people in the world.  It is actually probably more charitable to assume that Ms. Pelosi is morally defective rather than intellectually backward.

So in this situation, the most respectful thing we can do is to believe that Nancy Pelosi is intentionally aiming to deceive America.

So:  You lie, Nancy Pelosi!

Americans, it is long past the time to stop putting up with dishonest politicians.  Yes, we can – and we must – expect honesty and forthrightness from those we elect to office.  Why keep sending the crooks and con-men back to Washington?

No amount of Federal dollars in your pockets are worth the misery and destruction that dishonest politicians bring on us.

Take action, America!  Let’s send these lying politicians home!

Deal!

Roland Burris (for those who do not know) is a man who has been temporarily elevated to the Senate.  He is Barack Obama’s replacement, appointed by the infamous ex-Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich.

Roland Burris was also just admonished by the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee today for making inconsistent and misleading statements to Congress (pretty much what Martha Stewart went to jail for).  But he was not to be punished for his wrongdoing.

I wonder why Roland Burris got the kid gloves treatment when Martha Stewart went to jail?

Could it have something to do with the balance of power in the Senate, I wonder?  There is serious question as to whether the Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, can cobble together the 60 votes he needs to move his health care bill down the road.  Senator Burris’s vote is not merely important, it is crucial.  Indeed, it is not merely crucial, it is indispensable.

No matter how unworthy a senator Mr. Burris is, no matter how shady his appointment and how dirty his political pedigree, there remains this implacable fact:  Harry Reid needs Roland Burris’s vote. If the Senate were to send Roland Burris home, they would not have the 60 votes they need to move the juggernaut of health care “reform” along on its track.  And if they send Roland Burris home, the Democrats stand the risk of getting (horror of horrors!) a Republican replacement!

Roland Burris has the Senate over a barrel.  They pretty much have to play ball with him, no matter how crooked his Chicago past is.  What an enviable position of power – and what an irony, that a man with such a political history should wield such clout!

Rest assured, once Senator Reid is done with health care, Mr. Burris will no longer be useful or desirable in the Senate.  Then Senator Reid will take off his rubber gloves and dispense with Mr. Burris as he has always wanted to.

But for now, Roland Burris is in the deal-making seat.  And Harry Reid has little choice.  He has to swallow the pill.

For now.

You Lie, Dick Durbin!

“The Republican health care reform bill is zero pages long because it has zero ideas.” – Dick Durbin SOURCE: TheNewsTribune.com

It seems that lying about Health Care Reform is a Democratic staple.  The fact is that the  Republicans published their first outline in June, and recently presented a substantial and detailed bill in the Senate.

Too little, too late, in my opinion, but that’s hardly the point:  Dick Durbin is perfectly aware that the Republicans have presented their version of health care reform, and yet is completely cool and comfortable in publicly mouthing the lie that they do not.  And he’s not the only Democrat who has done this!

Dick Durbin – Senator Durbin – is clearly a man with no character or scruples. He lies as fluidly as a Fifth Avenue con-man. He should be ashamed of himself, but he’s not.   And he ought to be sent home at the next election – but will he be?

And shame on the voters who elected him! Only the gullible or uninformed would support such a dishonest character.   And his mother, I suppose.  But regardless of how many times Acorn registered Mrs. Durbin, she’s not likely to have voted more than a handful of times, even in Chicago.  So there must be a large number of Illinois voters who are seriously in need of better discernment.

Go home, Mr. Durbin, and let an honest man serve in your place!