By DAVE BARRY
McClatchy Newspapers
 
  
It was the kind of year that made a person look back fondly on the Gulf oil spill.
 
It was a year in which a significant earthquake struck Washington , D.C. , yet failed to destroy a single federal agency.
 
It was a year in which the nation was subjected to a barrage of highly publicized pronouncements from Charlie Sheen, a man who, where you have a central nervous system, has a Magic 8-Ball.
 
But all of these unfortunate developments would not, by themselves, have made 2011 truly awful. What made it truly awful was the economy, which, for what felt like the 17th straight year, continued to stagger around like a zombie on crack.
 
Nothing seemed to help. President Obama, whose instinctive reaction to pretty much everything that happens, including sunrise, is to deliver a nationally televised address, delivered numerous nationally televised addresses on the economy, but somehow these did not do the trick.
 
Neither did the 37 million words emitted by the approximately 249 Republican-presidential-contender televised debates, out of which the most memorable statement made was “oops.”
 
As the year wore on, frustration boiled over in the form of the Occupy Various Random Spaces movement, wherein people who were tired of a lot of stuff finally got off their butts and started working for meaningful change via direct action in the form of sitting around and forming multiple committees and not directly issuing any specific demands but definitely having a lot of strongly held views for and against a wide variety of things.
 
Incredibly, even this did not bring about meaningful change. The economy remained wretched, especially unemployment, which got so bad that many Americans gave up even trying to work. Congress, for example.
 
Were there any positive developments in 2011? Yes:
 
- Osama bin Laden, Moammar Gadhafi and the New York Yankees all suffered major setbacks.
 
- Despite a prophecy by revered Christian radio lunatic Harold Camping, the world did not end on May 21.
 
That last development wasn’t totally positive, not when we consider all the other things that happened in 2011. Let’s take one last look back, starting with …
 
 
JANUARY … which sees a change of power in the House of Representatives, as outgoing Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi hands the gavel to Republican John Boehner, who has it checked for explosives.
 
In the State of the Union address, President Obama calls on Congress to improve the nation’s crumbling infrastructure. He is interrupted 79 times by applause, and four times by falling chunks of the Capitol ceiling.
 
In Egypt , demonstrators take to the streets to protest the three-decade regime of President Hosni Mubarak after revelations that “Hosni Mubarak” can be rearranged to spell “A Bum Honks Air.” The movement grows in …
 
 
FEBRUARY … when anti-government protest demonstrations spread from Egypt to Yemen, then to Iraq, then to Libya, and finally to the streets of Madison, Wis., where thousands of protesters occupy the state capitol to dramatize the fact that it’s warmer in there than outside.
 
In Europe, the economic crisis continues to worsen, especially in Greece , which has been operating under a financial model in which the government spends approximately $150 billion a year while taking in revenues totaling $336.50.
 
Greece has been making up the shortfall by charging everything to a MasterCard that the Greek government applied for using the name ” Germany .”
 
In a historic episode of the TV quiz show “Jeopardy,” two human champions are swiftly dispatched by an IBM supercomputer named Watson, which combines an encyclopedic knowledge of a wide range of subjects with the ability to launch a 60,000-volt surge of electricity 25 feet.
 
In sports, two storied NFL franchises, the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Green Bay Packers, meet in Super Bowl XLV, a tense battle won at the last minute by Watson, the IBM supercomputer.
 
Speaking of shocking, in …
 
 
MARCH … the European economic crisis worsens as Moody’s downgrades its credit rating for Spain after the discovery that the Spanish government, having run out of money, secretly sold the Pyrenees to China and is now separated from France only by traffic cones.
 
Nationally, Newt Gingrich, responding to a groundswell of encouragement from the voices in his head, reveals that he is considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination. He quickly gains the support of the voter who had been leaning toward Ross Perot.
 
Speaking of leaning, in …
 
 
APRIL … The economic outlook remains troubling, as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, in a rare news conference, consumes an entire bottle of gin. Things are even worse in Europe, where Moody’s announces that it has officially downgraded Greece’s credit rating from “poor” to “rat mucus” after the discovery that the Acropolis has been repossessed.
 
On the political front, the field of Republican contenders considering running for presidential nomination continues to expand with the addition of Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Gary Johnson, all of whom pose a serious threat to gain traction with the Gingrich voter.
 
The month ends as millions of TV viewers around the world watch Prince William and Catherine Middleton get married in a wedding costing the equivalent of the gross domestic product of Somalia .
 
Speaking of joyous, in …
 
 
MAY … the big story takes place in Abbottabad , Pakistan , where Osama bin Laden, enjoying a quiet evening chilling in his compound with his various wives and children and porn stash, receives an unexpected visit from a team of Navy SEALs. After due consideration of bin Laden’s legal rights, the SEALs convert him into Purina brand Shark Chow; he is laid to rest in a solemn ceremony concluding upon impact with the Indian Ocean at 125 miles per hour.
 
While Americans celebrate, the prime minister of Pakistan declares that his nation is very upset about the raid, and had no idea that the world’s most wanted terrorist had been living in a major Pakistani city in a large high-walled compound with a mailbox that said Bin Laden.
 
In domestic affairs, Arnold Schwarzenegger reveals that he fathered the child of a member of his household staff; incredibly, he does not follow this up by announcing that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty announces his candidacy but winds up withdrawing from the race about midway through his announcement speech when he realizes that his staff has fallen asleep.
 
Meanwhile, followers of Christian radio broadcaster Harold Camping prepare for the Rapture, which Camping prophesied would occur May 21 at 6 p.m. But the fateful hour comes and goes without incident, except in New York City , where, in yet another setback for the troubled production of “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark,” the entire cast is sucked through the theater ceiling, never to be seen again.
 
The drama continues to build in …
 
 
JUNE … when the Republican field does in fact continue to grow as Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, “Mitt” Romney, the late Sonny Bono and somebody calling himself “Jon Huntsman” all enter the race.
 
In Washington , Congress is under mounting pressure to do something about the pesky federal debt, which continues to mount as a result of the fact that the government continues to spend insanely more money than it actually has.
 
Congress, after carefully weighing its three options — stop spending so much money; get some more money somehow; or implement some combination of options one and two — decides to go with option four: continue to do nothing while engaging in relentlessly hyperpartisan gasbaggery. Incredibly, this does not solve the debt problem.
 
Perhaps the month’s most disturbing development is in the Middle East when Iran, which is believed to be close to developing nuclear weapons, test-fires 14 missiles, including some capable of threatening U.S. interests, as becomes clear when one of them plunges through the theater roof during a matinee performance of the troubled musical “Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark.”
 
Speaking of disturbing, in …
 
 
JULY … the eyeballs of the nation are riveted on Orlando, Fla., where Casey Anthony is on trial on charges of being an attractive young woman who is definitely guilty of murder, according to millions of deeply concerned individuals watching on TV.
 
In a shocking verdict, Anthony is acquitted of murder and set free, only to be attacked outside the courtroom and have large clumps of her hair yanked out by outraged prominent TV legal harpy Nancy Grace.
 
Speaking of drama: In Washington, as the deadline for raising the federal debt limit nears, Congress and the Obama administration work themselves into a frenzy trying to figure out what to do about the fact that the government is spending insanely more money than it actually has.
 
After hours of negotiations, and a nationally televised presidential address, the Democrats and the Republicans announce that they have come to an agreement under which the government will continue to spend insanely more money than it actually has while a very special congressional committee — a supercommittee — comes up with a plan that will solve this problem.
 
On a positive note, NFL owners and players settle their dispute, thereby averting the very real danger that millions of Fantasy Football enthusiasts would be forced to get lives.
 
Speaking of threats, in …
 
 
AUGUST … Wall Street becomes increasingly jittery as investors react to Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke’s surprise announcement that his personal retirement portfolio consists entirely of assault rifles.
 
In political news, Texas Gov. Rick Perry announces that he will seek the Republican nomination with a goal of “restoring the fundamental American right to life, liberty and a third thing.”
 
But the early GOP leader is Michele Bachmann, who scores a decisive victory in the crucial Ames , Iowa , Straw Poll, garnering a total of 11 votes. In what will become a pattern for GOP front-runners, Bachmann’s candidacy immediately sinks like an anvil in a duck pond.
 
As the end of the month nears, a rare 5.8-magnitude earthquake, with its epicenter in Virginia, rattles the East Coast, except in New York, where a theatrical set depicting a building topples over onto the cast of “Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark.”
 
Speaking of disasters, in …
 
 
SEPTEMBER … the worsening European debt crisis worsens still further when Italy , desperate for revenue, establishes a National Tip Jar.
 
Meanwhile, in the U.S. , Herman Cain surges to the top of the pile with his “9-9-9″ plan, which combines the quality of being easy to remember with the quality of being something that nobody thinks will ever happen. Seeking to regain momentum, Rick Perry also comes out with a tax plan, but he can remember only the first two nines. Adding spice to the mix, “Mitt” Romney unexpectedly exhibits a lifelike facial expression, but is quickly subdued by his advisers.
 
Later in the month, an anxious world looks to the skies, as a NASA satellite weighing more than 6 tons goes into an uncontrolled re-entry, breaking into fiery pieces that fortunately come down at sea, where they do no damage other than sink a passenger ship that had been chartered for a recuperation cruise for the surviving cast members of “Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark.”
 
The downward trend continues in …
 
 
OCTOBER … which sees yet another troubling development in the world economic crisis when an International Monetary Fund audit of the 27-nation European Union reveals that 11 of the nations are missing.
 
In the Arab world, Moammar Gadhafi steps down and receives an enthusiastic send-off from his countrymen, who then carry him, amid much festivity, to his retirement freezer.
 
On the political front, Sarah Palin announces she will not seek the Republican presidential nomination, noting that the field is “already funny enough.”
 
In sports, one of the most exciting World Series in history is won by some team other than the New York Yankees.
 
Humanity reaches a major milestone as the United Nations estimates the population of the Earth has reached 7 billion people, every single one of whom sends you irritating e-mails inviting you to join LinkedIn.
 
The month ends on a tragic note when Kim Kardashian, who only 72 days earlier had a fairy-tale $10 million wedding to the love of her life, professional basketball player whatshisname, files for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences in height.
 
Speaking of fairy tales, in …
 
 
NOVEMBER … the congressional Supercommittee announces that, in the true “can-do” bipartisan Washington spirit, it is giving up.
 
Undaunted, Democratic and Republican leaders move forward with the vital work of blaming each other.
 
In yet more political news, the Republican Party is rocked by polls showing that 43 percent of all likely voters — nearly 55 million people — claim to have been sexually harassed by Herman Cain.
 
With Mitt Romney continuing to generate the excitement level of a dump fire, the GOP front-runner becomes none other than that fresh-faced, no-baggage, anti-establishment Washington outsider: Newt Gingrich.
 
The month ends as Americans pause to observe Thanksgiving very much as the Pilgrims did in 1621, by pepper-spraying each other at malls.
 
Speaking of pausing, in …
 
 
DECEMBER … Herman Cain announces that he is suspending his presidential campaign so he can go home and spend more time sleeping in his basement. This leaves the Republicans with essentially a two-man race between Gingrich and Romney.
 
Abroad, the member nations of the European Union, in a last-ditch effort to avoid an economic meltdown, announce they are replacing the “euro” with the “pean,” the exchange rate for which will be linked to the phases of the moon.
 
The economic outlook is also brighter in Washington , where Congressional leaders, still working night and day to find a solution to the problem of the federal government spending insanely more money than it actually has, announce that they will form another committee. But this one will be even better, because it will be a Superdupercommittee, and it will possess what House and Senate leaders describe as “magical powers.”
 
So the nation is in good hands, and as the year comes to an end, throngs of New Year’s revelers, hoping for better times to come, gather in Times Square to watch the descent of the famous illuminated ball, followed by the rise of what appears to be a mushroom cloud from the direction of “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark.”
 
No need to worry: The president plans a nationally televised address. So everything will be fine. Happy New Year!

by Roger Hedgecock [former Mayor of San Diego]

12/09/2011

I live in California. If you were wondering what living in Obama’s second term would be like, wonder no longer. We in California are living there now.
California is a one-party state dominated by a virulent Democratic Left enabled by a complicit media where every agency of local, county, and state government is run by and for the public employee unions. The unemployment rate is 12%.

California has more folks on food stamps than any other state, has added so many benefits and higher rates to Medicaid that we call it “Medi-Cal.” Our K-12 schools have more administrators than teachers, and smaller classes but lower test scores and higher dropout rates with twice the per-student budget of 15 years ago. Good job, Brownie.

This week, the once and current Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown had to confess that the “balanced” state budget adopted five months ago was billions in the red because actual tax revenues were billions lower than the airy-fairy revenue estimates on which the balance was predicated.

After trimming legislators’ perks and reducing the number of cell phones provided to state civil servants, the governor intoned that drastic budget reductions had already hollowed out state programs for the needy, law enforcement and our schoolchildren. California government needed more money.

Echoing the Occupy movement, the governor proclaimed the rich must pay their fair share. Fair share? The top 1% of California income earners currently pays 50% of the state’s income tax.

California has seven income tax brackets. The top income tax rate is 9.3%, which is slapped on the greedy rich earning at least $47,056 a year. Income of more than $1 million pays the “millionaires’ and billionaires’” surcharge tax rate of 10.3%.

Brown’s proposal would add 2% for income over $250,000. A million-dollar income would then be taxed at 12.3%. And  that’s just for the state.

Brown also proposed a one-half-cent sales tax increase, which would bring sales taxes (which vary by county) up to 7.75% to [as much as] 10%. Both tax increases would be on the ballot in 2012.

The sales tax increase proposal immediately brought howls of protest from the Left (of Brown!). Charlie Eaton, a sociology grad student at UC Berkeley and leader of the UC Student-Workers Union, said, “We’ve paid enough. It’s time for millionaires to pay.”

At least five other ballot measures to raise taxes are circulating for signatures to get on the 2012 ballot in California. The governor’s proposals are the most conservative.

The Obama way doesn’t end with taxes.

The governor and the state legislature continue to applaud the efforts of the California High Speed Rail Authority to build a train connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco. Even though the budget is three times the voter-approved amount, and the first segment will only connect two small towns in the agricultural Central Valley. But hey, if we build it, they will ride.

And we don’t want to turn down the Obama bullet-train bucks Florida and other states rejected because the operating costs would bankrupt them. Can’t happen here—we’re already insolvent.

If we get into real trouble with the train, we’ll just bring in the Chinese. It worked with the Bay Bridge reconstruction. After the 1989 earthquake, the bridge connecting Oakland and San Francisco was rebuilt with steel made in China. Workers from China too. Paid for with money borrowed from China. Makes perfect sense.

In California, we hate the evil, greedy rich (except the rich in Hollywood and in sports, and in drug dealing). But we love people who have broken into California to eat the bounty created by the productive rich.

Illegals get benefits from various generous welfare programs, free medical care, free schools for their kids, including meals, and of course, instate tuition rates and scholarships too. Governor Perry, California has a heart. Nothing’s too good for our guests.

To erase even a hint of criticism of illegal immigration, the California Legislature is considering a unilateral state amnesty. Democrat State Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes has proposed an initiative that would bar deportation of illegals from California.

Interesting dilemma for Obama there. If immigration is exclusively a federal matter, and Obama has sued four states for trying to enforce federal immigration laws he won’t enforce, what will the President do to a California law that exempts California from federal immigration law?

California is also near fulfilling the environmentalist dream of deindustrialization.

After driving out the old industrial base (auto and airplane assembly, for example), air and water regulators and tax policies are now driving out the high-tech, biotech and even Internet-based companies that were supposed to be California’s future.

The California cap-and-trade tax on business in the name of reducing CO2 makes our state the leader in wacky environmentalism and guarantees a further job exodus from the state.

Even green energy companies can’t do business in California. Solyndra went under, taking its taxpayer loan guarantee with it.

No job is too small to escape the regulators. The state has even banned weekend amateur gold miners from the historic gold mining streams in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

In fact, more and more of California’s public land is off-limits to recreation by the people who paid for that land. Unless you’re illegal. Then you can clear the land, set up marijuana plantations at will, bring in fertilizers that legal farmers can no longer use, exploit illegal farm workers who live in hovels with no running water or sanitation, and protect your investment with armed illegals carrying guns no California citizen is allowed to own.

The rest of us only found out about these plantations when the workers’ open campfire started one of those devastating fires that have killed hundreds of people and burned out thousands of homes in California over the last decade.

It was said after California’s Proposition 13 in 1978 cut property tax rates and was copied in other states, that whatever happened in California would soon happen in your state.

You’d better hope that’s wrong.

By: Walter E. Williams

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/

National Transportation Safety Board Chairwoman Deborah Hersman has called for states to mandate a total ban on cellphone usage while driving. She has also encouraged electronics manufacturers — via recommendations to the CTIA-The Wireless Association and the Consumer Electronics Association — to develop features that “disable the functions of portable electronic devices within reach of the driver when a vehicle is in motion.” That means she wants to be able to turn off your cellphone while you’re driving.

With very little evidence, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration claims that there were some 3,092 roadway fatalities last year that involved distracted drivers. Americans ought to totally reject Hersman’s agenda. It’s the camel’s nose into the tent. Down the road, we might expect mandates against talking to passengers while driving or putting on lipstick. They may even mandate the shutdown of drive-in restaurants as a contributory factor to driver distraction through eating while driving. You say, “Come on, Williams, you’re paranoid. There are already laws against distracted driving, and it would never come to that!” Let’s look at some other camels’ noses into tents.

During the legislative debate before enactment of the 16th Amendment, Republican President William Taft and congressional supporters argued that only the rich would ever pay federal income taxes. In fact, in 1913, only one-half of 1 percent of income earners were affected. Those earning $250,000 a year in today’s dollars paid 1 percent, and those earning $6 million in today’s dollars paid 7 percent. The 16th Amendment never would have been enacted had Americans not been duped into believing that only the rich would pay income taxes. It was simply a lie to exploit American gullibility and envy.

The fact of the matter is that the founders of our nation so feared the imposition of direct taxes, such as an income tax, that Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution says, “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” It was not until the Abraham Lincoln administration that an income tax was imposed on Americans. Its stated purpose was to finance the war, but it took until 1872 for it to be repealed. During the Grover Cleveland administration, Congress enacted the Income Tax Act of 1894. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1895. It took the 16th Amendment (1913) to make permanent what the founders feared.
Another camel’s nose in the tent lie that’s threatening the economic collapse of our country is the Medicare lie. At its beginning, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Lyndon Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion. That’s nine times Congress’ prediction. Today’s Medicare tab comes to $523 billion and shows no signs of leveling off. The 2009 Medicare trustees report put the unfunded Medicare liability at $89 trillion. The 1966 Medicare cost estimate was simply a congressional and White House lie to get the American people to buy into their agenda. But not to worry; the real Medicare crisis won’t hit the nation until today’s beneficiaries and political supporters are dead. It’s today’s children who’ll bear the burden of our profligacy.

But back to the proposed cellphone ban. NTSB Chairwoman Hersman said: “It’s going to be very unpopular with some people. We’re not here to win a popularity contest. We’re here to do the right thing.” C.S. Lewis warned us about people like Hersman, saying: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

 Andrew Roberts Historian

ANDREW ROBERTS received his Ph.D. at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, where he is also an honorary senior scholar. He has written or edited 12 books, including A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900, Masters and Commanders: How Four Titans Won the War in the West, 1941-1945, and The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War. The following are excerpts from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on October 7, 2011, at the dedication of a statue of Ronald Reagan by Hillsdale College Associate Professor of Art Anthony Frudakis. The defining feature of Ronald Reagan was his moral courage. It takes tremendous moral courage to resist the overwhelming tide of received opinion and so-called expert wisdom and to say and do exactly the opposite. It could not have been pleasant for Reagan to be denounced as an ignorant cowboy, an extremist, a warmonger, a fascist, or worse by people who thought themselves intellectually superior to him. Yet Reagan responded to those brickbats with the cheery resolve that characterized not only the man, but his entire career. What is more, he proceeded during his two terms as president to prove his critics completely wrong . . . . During Reagan’s presidency, America enjoyed its longest period of sustained economic growth in the 20th century. Meanwhile, in the realm of foreign policy, the Reagan Doctrine led to the defeat of the worst totalitarian scourge to blight the globe since the defeat of the Nazis in World War II. By the time he left office, the faith of Americans in the greatness of their country had been restored. In retrospect, Reagan’s was a great American success story. Born in rented rooms above a bank in Tampico, Illinois, he ended his days as the single most important American conservative figure of the last century. Not bad for an ignorant cowboy. From his own reading and observation of life, Reagan understood that the doctrines of Marxism and Leninism were fundamentally opposed to the deepest and best impulses of human nature. Enforcing such doctrines would require vicious oppression, including propaganda, secret police such as the KGB, a debased and corrupt judicial system, huge standing armies stationed across Eastern Europe, children spying on their parents, the Berlin Wall, a gagged media, a shackled populace, a privileged nomenklatura, prisons posing as psychiatric hospitals, puppet trade unions, a subservient academy, and above all, what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn dubbed a “gulag archipelago” of concentration camps. In sum, the entire apparatus that Reagan characterized so truthfully in a March 1983 speech as an “evil empire.” Yet he was immediately accused—not just in Russia, but also here in the West—of being mad, bad, and dangerous. He was written off as stupid, provocative, and oafish by huge swaths of the Western commentariat. Today, thanks to his published correspondence, we know that he was anything but. Indeed, he was very widely read and a thoughtful man, but it suited his purposes to be underestimated by his opponents. The cultural condescension of those experts and intellectuals who denounced his evil empire speech as unacceptably simplistic—even simple-minded—might have been despicable, but it worked to Reagan’s advantage. Although history was to prove him right in every particular about the true nature of the U.S.S.R., none of his critics have ever admitted as much, at least publicly, let alone apologized. What helped to make Reagan great was that he couldn’t care less what his critics thought of him. He knew the image of the swaggering cowboy was very far removed from reality, but if his opponents chose to be mesmerized by it, all the better for him. It was he, not they, who in 1987 would stand at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin and demand: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” The Left’s strategy of détente had been tried for 40 years, and it had led to ever wider Communist incursions, especially during the 1970s, into territories across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The Reagan Doctrine, by contrast, marked a turn away from the doctrine of containment, adhered to by every president since Harry Truman. Reagan bravely declared that communism’s global march would not merely be checked but reversed. For decades the Politburo in the Kremlin had been testing the West’s defenses, looking for weakness. Where it encountered strength and willpower, as during the Berlin airlift and the Cuban missile crisis, it pulled back. Where, as was all too often the case, it instead found vacillation and appeasement, it thrust forward until whole countries fell under its control. Under the Reagan Doctrine, non-Communist governments would be supported actively, and Communist governments, wherever they were not firmly established, would be undermined and if possible overthrown. Reagan did not act in the name of American imperialism, as his opponents predictably alleged, but rather in the name of human dignity. As he fought the Communists, he received gradually more and more support from the American people. He supported anti-Communist movements in Poland, El Salvador, and Guatemala, as well as open insurgencies in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Laos, and Nicaragua. The Kremlin soon recognized that in Reagan it had a powerful and committed ideological foe on its hands, one who took seriously JFK’s words in his Inaugural Address, that the United States “shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, and oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty.” Believing in American exceptionalism, Reagan deployed an extensive political, economic, military, and psychological arsenal to confront the Soviet Union. And he did so mostly through proxies: Except for the Caribbean island of Grenada, where American citizens were in danger, he did not commit American troops to the battle . . . . * * * In the 1980s, Americans felt confident enough in their country’s future to spend, produce, and consume in a way they hadn’t under Jimmy Carter and don’t today. Reagan genuinely believed, as the 1984 campaign slogan put it, that it was “Morning in America.” His confidence in the country and its abilities spread to the American people and to the markets. After all, strong, confident leadership is infectious. There can be a virtuous cycle in economics, just as there can be a vicious one. Reagan’s Economic Recovery Act and his Tax Reform Act were the twin pillars of America’s renaissance in the 1980s. He reduced the highest marginal tax rate to 28 percent and simplified the tax code. He deregulated industry, tightened the money supply, and reduced the growth of public expenditure. By 1983, America had completely recovered economically, and by 1988, inflation, which had been at 12.5 percent under Carter, was down to 4.4 percent. Furthermore, unemployment came down to 5.5 percent as 18 million new jobs were created. In one area, however, Reagan knew that he had to increase public spending dramatically, if the global threats to America were to be neutered. The overly cautious, nerve-wracked, and humiliated America of 1979 and 1980—when 52 American diplomats were taken hostage in Tehran for 444 days and were paraded, hooded and blindfolded, in the streets—was about to give way to a virile and self-confident America. It was no accident that, on the very day of Reagan’s inauguration, the Iranian regime released the hostages rather than face the fury of the incoming President. It was the last smart thing that regime ever did. When Reagan entered office, defense spending had fallen to less than five percent of GDP from over 13 percent in the 1950s. His belief that the Soviet system would eventually crack under steady Western pressure encouraged him to increase defense spending from $119 billion under Carter to $273 billion in 1986, a level that the U.S.S.R. simply could not begin to match. The Left criticized what they believed to be wasteful spending, but this expenditure led to a massive savings once the U.S.S.R. no longer posed the global existential threat it once had. America had achieved a huge technological advantage by the 1980s, which allowed Reagan to embark on the controversial Strategic Defense Initiative, nicknamed “Star Wars” by its opponents. The system was based on the idea that incoming ballistic missiles could be destroyed over the Atlantic or even earlier. Though the technology was still very much in its infancy, judicious leaking of suitably exaggerated test results further rattled the Soviet leadership. As Vladimir Lukin, the Soviet foreign policy expert and later ambassador to the U.S., admitted to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 1992: “It is clear that SDI accelerated our catastrophe by at least five years.” Besides SDI, Reagan pursued rapid deployment forces, the neutron bomb, the MX Peacekeeper missile, Trident nuclear submarines, radar-evading stealth bombers, and new ways of looking at battlefield strategies and tactics . . . . In response to the deployment of these weapons, the Left issued strident denunciations and organized massive anti-American demonstrations all across Europe. These were faced down with characteristic moral courage by Ronald Reagan, ably supported by Margaret Thatcher. “Reagan’s great virtue,” said his former Secretary of State George Shultz, “was that he did not accept that extensive political opposition doomed an attractive idea. He would fight resolutely for an idea, believing that if it was valid, he could persuade the American people to support it.” . . . In the words of Margaret Thatcher, Reagan helped the world break free of a monstrous creed. He understood that, in addition to being morally bankrupt—as it had been since the Bolshevik Revolution—the Soviet system was also financially bankrupt. Numerous so-called five-year plans had not delivered, because human beings simply will not work hard for an all-powerful state that will not pay them fairly for their labor. By contrast, Reagan believed that low taxes, a minimal state, a reduction in bureaucratic regulation, and a commitment to free market economics would lead to a dramatic expansion of the American economy. This would enable America to pay for a defense build-up so large that the Soviets would have to declare a surrender in the Cold War. That surrender began on September 12, 1989, when a non-Communist government took office in Poland. Within two months, on the night of November 9, the people of East and West Berlin tore down the wall that had separated them for over a quarter of a century. This was the greatest of Reagan’s many fine legacies. The extension of freedom to Eastern Europe was not merely a political or military or economic phenomenon for Reagan; it was a spiritual one, too. Reagan believed that America had lost its sense of providential mission, and he meant to re-establish it. Beneath his folksy charm and anecdotes was a steely will and a determination to re-establish the moral superiority of democracy over totalitarianism, of the individual over the state, of freedom of speech over censorship, of faith over government-mandated atheism, and of free enterprise over the command economy. As the leader of the free world, he saw it as his responsibility to defend, extend, and above all proselytize for democracy and human dignity. Reagan understood leadership in a way that I fear is sadly lacking in the West today. “To grasp and hold a vision,” he said in 1994, “that is the very essence of successful leadership. Not only on the movie set where I learned it, but everywhere.” Indeed, in some ways the world is an even more perilous place than it was in Reagan’s day. For all its undoubted evil, at least the Soviet Union was predictable, and it was fearful of the consequences of mutually assured destruction. By contrast, President Ahmadinejad of Iran is building a nuclear bomb while publicly calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. We know from the experience of 9/11 that Al Qaeda and its affiliates would not hesitate to explode a nuclear device in America if they got the chance. As the IRA pronounced when it narrowly missed murdering Margaret Thatcher in 1984: “You have to be lucky every time, we only have to be lucky once.” Yet, when looking at the dangers facing civilization today, there is this one vital difference from 30 years ago: I can see no leaders of the stamp of Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher presently on hand to infuse us with that iron purpose and that sense of optimism that we had in the 1980s. Indeed, some of our present-day leaders only seem to make matters worse. This is why it is all the more important to erect splendid statues like this one. “The longer you can look back,” said Winston Churchill, “the further you can look forward.” The point of raising a statue to Ronald Reagan is not just to honor him, although it rightly does do that. A statue inspires and encourages the rest of us to try and emulate his deeds, to live up to his ideals, to finish his work, and to “grasp and hold” his vision. Reagan wrote in his farewell message to the American people in November 1994 announcing his retirement from public life: “When the Lord calls me home, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future. I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America, there will always be a bright dawn ahead.” Though characteristically upbeat, it will only remain true so long as America continues to produce leaders with the moral courage and the leadership abilities of Ronald Reagan, one of America’s greatest presidents. ——————————————————————————– | More ——————————————————————————– Copyright © 2011 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.

November 2011 Phil Gramm Former U.S. Senator

CURRENTLY vice chairman of the investment bank division of UBS, Phil Gramm served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas’s sixth congressional district from 1979-1985, and as a U.S. Senator from Texas from 1985-2002. Prior to his career in public service, he taught economics at Texas A&M University from 1967-1978. Sen. Gramm earned both his B.A. and doctorate degrees in economics from the University of Georgia. The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on October 3, 2011, during a four-day conference on “Reagan: A Centenary Retrospective,” sponsored by the College’s Center for Constructive Alternatives. What was the American economy like in the decade prior to the Reagan presidency? The 1970s, for a myriad of reasons, were not a happy time. They featured a combination of stagnation and inflation, which came to be called “stagflation.” The inflation rate peaked at just over 13 percent, and prime interest rates rose as high as 21-and-a-half percent. Although President Jimmy Carter did not use the exact words, a malaise had certainly set in among Americans. Many wondered whether our nation’s time had passed. A Time magazine headline read, “Is the Joyride Over?” Did we really need, as Jimmy Carter told us, to learn to live on less? Ronald Reagan did not believe America was in decline, but he did believe it had been suffering under wrongheaded economic policies. In response, he offered his own plan, a program for creating economic freedom that came to be known as Reaganomics. Of course, most of Reaganomics was nothing new. Mostly it was the revival of an older understanding that unlimited government will eventually destroy freedom and that decisions regarding the allocation of scarce resources are best left to the private sector. Reagan explained these old ideas well, and in terms people could understand. But there was also a new element to Reaganomics, and looking back, it was a powerful element and new to the economic debate. It was the idea that tax rates affect a person’s incentive to work, save and invest. To put it simply: lower tax rates create more economic energy, which generates more economic activity, which produces a greater flow of revenue to the government. This idea—which came to be known as the Laffer Curve—was met with media and public skepticism. But in the end, it passed the critical test for any public policy. It worked. To be sure, there were a couple of major impediments to the economic success of Reagan’s program. First, the Federal Reserve Bank clamped down on the money supply in 1981 and 1982, in an effort to break the back of inflation, and subsequently the economy slipped into the steepest recession of the post-World War II period. Second, Soviet communism was on the march, the U.S. was in retreat around the world, and President Reagan was determined to rebuild our national defense as part of a program of peace through strength. All of these factors worked strongly against Reagan in the battle to revive the American economy. Nor was it a forgone conclusion that his program would get through Congress. We shouldn’t forget that it was a tough program. For example, it eliminated three Social Security benefits in one day: the adult student benefit, the minimum benefit, and the death benefit. Reagan’s program represented a dramatic change in public policy. With his great skill in communicating ideas, Reagan got his program through Congress. And despite Fed policies and large expenditures for national defense, his program succeeded. I don’t want to bore you with statistics, but I will have to present some to make my case. Most importantly, I hope I will succeed in demonstrating what a difference good policies make to the average citizen. The evidence is, I think, overwhelming: the Reagan program, when fully implemented in 1983, ushered in a 25-year economic golden age. America experienced very rapid economic growth and only two minor recessions in those 25 years, whereas there were four recessions in the previous 12 years, two of them big ones. What exactly did Reagan do? For starters, he cut the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. And yes, high income earners benefitted from these cuts. But as I used to say in Congress, no one poorer than I am ever hired me in my life. And despite lower rates, the rich ended up paying a greater share: In 1979, the top one percent of income earners in America paid 18.3 percent of the total tax bill. By 2006, the last year for which we have reliable numbers, they were paying 39.1 percent of the total tax bill. The top ten percent of earners in 1979 were paying 48.1 percent of all taxes. By 2006, they were paying 72.8 percent. The top 40 percent of all earners in 1979 were paying 85.1 percent of all taxes. By 2006, they were paying 98.7 percent. The bottom 40 percent of earners in 1979 paid 4.1 percent of all taxes. By 2006, they were receiving 3.3 percent in direct payments from the U.S. Treasury. In the 12 years prior to the Reagan program, economic growth averaged 2.5 percent. For the following 25 years, it averaged 3.3 percent. What about per capita income? In the 12 years prior to the Reagan program, per capita GDP, in real terms, grew by 1.5 percent. For the 25 years after the Reagan program was implemented, real per capita income grew by 2.2 percent. By 2006, the average American was making $7,400 more than he would have made if growth rates had remained at the same level as they were during the 12 years prior to the Reagan program. A family of four was making $29,602 more. During the 12 years prior to Reagan, America created 1.3 million jobs per year. That number is pretty impressive compared to today’s stagnant economy. But during the Reagan years, America added two million jobs per year. That means as of 2007 there were 17.5 million more Americans at work than would have been working had the growth rates of the pre-Reagan era continued. Inflation, which had been 7.6 percent for the previous 12 years, fell to 3.1 percent. Interest rates plummeted. The average homeowner in America had a monthly mortgage payment of $1,000 less as a result of the success of the Reagan program. Poverty, which had grown throughout the 1970s despite massive increases in anti-poverty programs, plummeted despite cuts to these programs. The poverty level fell from 15 percent to 11.3 percent. These results are tangible evidence that government policy matters. This is not to say that no mistakes were made. In order to secure lower tax rates, it became good politics to raise the number and amount of income tax deductions, thereby removing about 50 percent of Americans from the tax rolls. In my opinion, that was a mistake, and I think we are suffering for it today. I believe everyone should pay some income taxes. Nevertheless, the net result of the Reagan program was good for all Americans. So how does the Reagan recovery compare to the recovery going on today? In sum, this is the most disappointing recovery of the post-World War II period by a large margin. I don’t think people understand what an outlier this recovery period is. If the economy had recovered from this recession at the rate it recovered from the 1982 recession, which was roughly the same size in terms of unemployment, there would be 16.3 million more Americans at work today—in other words, all those who say they are unemployed plus almost 60 percent of “discouraged workers” who have dropped out of the labor force. If real per capita income had grown in this recovery at the same rate it grew during the Reagan recovery, real per capita income would be $5,139 higher today. Both the Reagan program and the Obama program instituted dramatic changes. One program worked. The other is failing. In the end, government policy matters. The truth is, Americans are pretty ordinary people. What is unique about America is an understanding of freedom and limited government that lets ordinary people achieve extraordinary things. We have been getting away from that view recently, but if we can get back to that understanding, which was Reagan’s, our nation will be fine. Let me conclude by saying that the argument I am making is not just about money or GDP. It’s an argument about character. If you want to see the effect of bad government policy on character, simply turn on the news and see how Greek civil servants have been behaving recently. They are victimizers behaving like victims. Greek government policies have made them what they are. But what made Americans who we are is a historically unprecedented level of freedom and responsibility. The real danger today is not merely a loss of prosperity, but a loss of the kind of character on which prosperity is based. I occasionally hire a man to do bulldozer work on my ranch. He doesn’t know a lot about foreign policy, but he knows a lot about the economics of the bulldozing business. In his freedom to pursue that business and to be the best he can be at it, he’s the equal of any man. He’s proud, he’s independent, and he knows his trade as well as anybody else in America knows theirs. That’s what America is about. For me, today’s battle, as it was in 1980, is not just about prosperity or goods and services. It’s about freedom, and it’s about the kind of character that only freedom creates. __________________________________________________________________________________

Unbelievable but unfortunately true for many illegals..

The math is revealing.  

JOE vs. JOSE

You have two families: “Joe Legal” and “Jose Illegal”. Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California .

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash “under the table”.

Ready? Now pay attention … .

Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.0 0 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics and emergency hospitals at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose llegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps, WIC and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has 9,631 … 00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month Federal Rent Subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for car insurance. Some of that is uninsured motorist insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231..00.

Jose Illegal says, “We don’t need no stinkin’ insurance!” and still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc..

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month..

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal’s and Jose Illegal’s children both attend the same elementary school. Joe Legal pays for his children’s lunches, while Jose Illegal’s children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal’s children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal’s children go home.

Now, when they reach college age, Joe Legal’s kids may not get into a State School and may not qualify for scholarships, grants or other tuition help, even though Joe has been paying for State Schools through his taxes, while Jose Illegal’s kids “go to the head of the class” because they are a minority.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

Do you get it, now?

If you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens … You are part of the problem!
 

AMSTERDAM — The Dutch national railway has an unusual solution for passengers who need the bathroom on a train line designed without them: plastic bags.

The rail operator underlined that the bags, introduced Friday, are for use in emergencies only, when a train has stopped and passengers can’t be evacuated. The idea has been met with incredulity by politicians and the general public already unhappy with the short-haul “Sprinter” trains’ bathroomless design.

NS spokesman Eric Trinthamer confirmed Friday the “pee-bag” plan is not a joke. The bags are kept out of sight in the conductor’s booth.

The bags have a cup-shaped plastic top and contain a highly absorbent material that turns urine into a gel-like mixture. After use the bags can be sealed and thrown in the trash.

Just goes to show what a bunch of socialist, morons can do if they put their mind to it.

George Stephanopoulos, ABC News: “And a lot of anger out there. There’s so many people who simply don’t think they’re better off than they were four years ago. How do you convince them that they are?”

President Obama: “Well, I don’t think they’re better off than they were four years ago. They’re not better off than they were before Lehman’s collapse, before the financial crisis, before this extraordinary recession that we’re going through.

**************Typical lying starts below this line*************** How does the allegedly smartest man get this incredibly stupid?

 I think that what we’ve seen is that we’ve been able to make steady progress to stabilize the economy, but the unemployment rate is still way too high. And that’s why it’s so critical for us to make sure that we are taking every action we can take to put people back to work.”

By Carol D. Leonnig and and Joe Stephens,

Energy Secretary Steven Chu acknowledged Thursday making the final decision to allow a struggling solar company to continue receiving taxpayer money after it had technically defaulted on a $535 million federal loan guaranteed by his agency. Chu spokesman Damien La­Vera said in a statement that the secretary approved the restructuring agreement for Solyndra because it gave the company “the best possible chance to succeed in a very competitive marketplace and put the company in a better position to repay the loan.” Executives from Solyndra, a failed California solar panel company, come to Washington to testify on how the firm went bankrupt despite a $535 million federal loan guarantee. They are expected to invoke their right against self incrimination. (Sept. 23) The collapse of California solar panel manufacturer Solyndra raises new questions about President Obama’s push for alternative energy — and whether White House pressure played a role in a loan guarantee that has taxpayers on the hook for millions. (Sept. 16) Chu takes responsibility for loan deal that put more taxpayer money at risk in Solyndra Energy Dept. learned of Solyndra default in 2010 Top Solyndra officials take the Fifth Solyndra employees saw trouble brewing View all Items in this Story Justice urged to probe Solyndra Solyndra investment raises questions about nonprofit Administration: Giving more money to Solyndra was risky White House lags in effort to create green jobs Lawmakers question loan to solar company Lawmakers question Solyndra loan decision Solyndra execs to plead the Fifth in House hearing White House pressed on $500M loan Republican scores upset in N.Y. House race Read more on PostPolitics Also Thursday, a law enforcement official confirmed that the criminal probe of Solyndra is focused on whether the company and its officers misrepresented the firm’s finances to the government in seeking the loan or engaged in accounting fraud. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe. On the political front, Chu’s admission came as some members of Congress were asking whether Chu went too far in trying to help the company before it went into bankruptcy, leaving taxpayers on the hook for the loan. Chu, a Nobel laureate and physicist who came to the administration from academia, arrived in Washington with a mandate to push billions of dollars in stimulus funds into clean-energy companies and projects. With keen White House interest, Chu rode herd over an $80 billion showcase initiative that was supposed to spur a new “green” industry and economic growth. Solyndra was the first company approved for a loan guarantee under the Obama administration; its application originated several years earlier during George W. Bush’s presidency. Early on, there were concerns about Solyndra’s finances, but the company was still endorsed by President Obama and received high-profile support from Chu. Both visited the firm at different press events. Chu flew to California to announce the loan approval at the groundbreaking for a $750 million factory that was built mostly with funds from the loan. In announcing the Solyndra deal in March 2009, Chu boasted of the “speed at which the department can operate,” according to an agency news release. “Secretary Chu initially set a target to have the first conditional commitments out by May . . . but today’s announcement significantly outpaces that aggressive timeline,” the release said. In April 2010, the company’s auditors raised doubts about whether the company could continue as a “going concern” because of cash-flow problems. The following month, Obama visited the company to praise it as an “engine of growth.” In late autumn of 2010, company executives confided to the Energy Department that they were running out of cash and could not make a required payment to a cash-reserve account. The company was supposed to begin making the first of $5 million payments to create a $30 million cash reserve on Dec. 1. Solyndra officially defaulted on its loan that day. Chu approved a softening of the loan requirements so that the company could continue receiving loan installments. “Ultimately, the choice was between imminent liquidation or giving the company and its workers a fighting chance to succeed,” LaVera said in the statement, first reported by Politico.