Race in America

20 03 2008
William Robert Barber
My comments to my dangerously naive young friend:

Your entire peer group felt the same way: Well, how many of your peer group are political conservatives? Imagine if the candidate was a white republican instead of a declared black democrat; now run the action, instead of Jeremiah Wright pencil in David Duke; now tell me of your evaluation of the candidate for president. You and your peer group are utilizing an inductive analysis not deductive; aside from your naivete you are self induced by preconceived political, economic, and societal notions that befit a world that does not exist. You are however in step and in line with a leftist persuasion that encourages more government, more taxes, the policy of William Jennings Bryan, and surrender in Iraq.

Race in America
Authored by: Dave Ford

Democratic front runner Senator Barack Obama’s flawlessly run campaign ran headfirst into oncoming traffic a few weeks back. His outspoken pastor, Reverend obamawright.jpgJeremiah Wright was driving the car. Reverend Wright smashed into middle class white America. He then backed into a large crowd of thousands of Obama supporters and contributors– both black and white, young and old– while they were waving their “Yes we can” banners. Before he sped off the good Reverend yelled “God Damn America” a few times– while skidding circles around the carnage.

I have been an Obama supporter since day one and when I witnessed this massacre on Youtube last week my face sunk to a horrified state of shock.

How would the promising Senator from Illinois be able to walk away from this disaster without being permanently scarred. Conventional wisdom would convene that he would walk with a political limp for the foreseeable future. This accident appeared fatal and was sure to stop the momentum of the entire Obama movement–at least in my mind.

Yesterday, after dismissing his former Pastor from his campaign, Obama spoke at his own pulpit. Two American flags were positioned behind him. His audience consisted of the entire world.

Barack Obama took the issue of race head on. He spoke from both halves of his genetic makeup, from a white perspective and from a black perspective. He spoke of the pain of the older generations–the people in this country that lived through the days of the Civil Rights movement. Surprisingly, he did not disown the Reverend. But, he did condemn his comments repeatedly. He spoke of the plight of the white immigrant who worked hard from nothing to make something of their lives. He addressed the effect that globalization has had on many middle and working class white families. He mentioned that some whites feel like blacks live with a sense of entitlement dating back from slavery. Affirmative action–one of the most taboo issues in politics–was openly addressed assessing both a white perspective and a black one. He also walked through the sad state of inner city black schools and the lack of opportunity for the black man.

We have anger that has built up over years and years from both sides of the divide. And, this anger can be justified from a black perspective and a white perspective.

Through these important and timely words– from the only guy in politics that could possibly speak this way– Senator Obama scored. The National press gave him accolades. His supporters will continue to stand behind him. He did not just weather the storm of controversy, he walked calmly and coolly headfirst into the heart of untouchable issue and came out a winner. He got a lemon and made lemonade.

But, the Obama train did slip off the tracks. The final consequences are yet to be seen but could be massive. He will probably lose Pennsylvania because of this incident. He may lose the democratic primary as well. It is unlikely that years of racial tension can be undone by a speech. But regardless of the outcome, Obama showed his stuff yesterday. He walked into the face of adversity with confidence. It is hard not to admire the fortitude and poise the Senator showed in front of the world. He played offense where any pundit would have predicted he would be playing defense. Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, On March 18th you saw substance, courage, and heart in American politics.





Gas Tax- Does the Government Have the Ability to Act in the Interest of the Gasoline Consumer

17 03 2008
 
Ten Dollars for a Gallon of Gas
Authored by: William Robert Barber
 

I have often thought that the rising price of oil and the corresponding increase in the cost of a gallon at the pump has produced benefits for certain persons and entities. Surely, the shareholders of Exxon Mobil Corp, Royal Dutch Shell, Conoco, BP (ARCO), and Chevron Texaco to mention a few of those publicly traded companies that produce and refine this commodity are pleased at the rising price of gas.

Imagine, the appreciation of the shareholders’ holdings eventually fills the coffers of the federal government via the tax on shareholder gains; the stock rises in value and the shareholder is giving up a percentage of gains not vested capital, everyone is a winner. The corporation’s after tax profits are utilized for future investments in infrastructure, exploration, and financial sureties of differing descriptions.

There is of course the on average local, state, and federal gas taxes that consume 45.9 cents per gallon; now that is a benefit. Some states actually collect a sales tax based on a percentage of revenues; for example, California gasoline taxes during 2005 were 7.25%, the state harvested approximately $1 B due to the 6 cent increase of tax per gallon sold. The beneficiaries of these tax impositions on the gasoline purchaser are complicated and levied in various ways in different states. Some states levy a flat rate per gallon; others charge a tax similar to a sales tax in that it applies to the monetary amount of the of the gasoline purchased. In some instances, states allow local communities to levy gasoline taxes in addition to any state taxes that might be levied. The mechanics of permitting a percentage of total revenue sold facilitates the single largest user tax ever imposed in the United States of America.

As with all taxation, initially the tax is infinitesimal; in time the infinitesimal is elephantine; the imposition of helter-skelter thinking by the legislators are often reduced to a simple taxing theory: A sort of if the shoe fits form of taxing gasoline; all those claiming the authority to tax is invited to participate. At the disregard of the average Joe consumer, this insidious tax policy has drastically increased the price of filling one’s gas tank. Muted by the cries of those castings scurrilous indignation’s at the global conglomerate of publicly traded gasoline producing refineries, distributors, resellers, oil drillers, and of course those no-good foreign depositors of oil; the government imposes its tax and widens its berth in perverting the price of a gallon of gas.

Does one believe that government will ease their taxation of gasoline? Is there a consumer out there in reader-land that thinks that the state of California, Hawaii, Wisconsin, or Florida will rescind their extraordinary Sheriff of Nottingham-like tax on gasoline in favor of a reasonable tax policy? Does any citizen actually believe the government has the ability to act in the interest of the gasoline consumer? Well, we all know the answers; taxation is a method redistribution to starve off the results of over budget expenditures and there is no going back to sensibility. That’s one of the good reasons government’s got into the casino business…nothing like benefiting from a drunken citizen playing a game they cannot win. How very inspiring of our elected representatives.

Was it not just a decade or so ago that environmentalist insisted that by adding a dollar or two on a gallon of gas vehicle traffic would subside by half, public transportation would flourish, and the smog would disappear? Well, the price of gas is certainly high enough, thus, another unaccountable positive of high gasoline prices; I can only assume that at today’s value of money the tax would be a 100% of retail market average and the objectives of a decade ago would be still apply. Where are the environmentalists now?

Roughly 58% of the oil used is imported but only 40% goes into cars, SUV’s, vans and pickups; as a consequence, importation of millions of barrels of oil a day would be a requirement even if there were no passenger vehicles. Irrespective all the healthy and sensible discussions about utilizing the resources of alternative energy; Americans will be dependant on oil into the distant future. The nation has two immediate options, nuclear energy and drilling within our nation’s borders so to harvest those reserves.

Naturally, our leadership is stymied; at best case lethargic. No one will put their head on the block and take the lead; no one will cut government spending, all of the incumbents are interested in retaining power even at the cost of good sense and the interest of the nation’s citizens. After all the issue at hand is the next election and raising money to compete with the counter-party for power. Maybe they will assemble those in the oil business once again or the Democrats can blame George Bush and the Republicans can blame, hell I don’t know…somebody. Just don’t touch those gasoline taxes…





Votes For Sale

11 03 2008
 
Votes for Sale by Those Who Have Less
Authored by: William Robert Barber
 

Leftist Liberals have conspired with those who have less to lawfully take from those who have more; the success of this scheme depends on the dynamics of a political consequence that can only result from a Democratic victory in the November elections. Of course, for the political left, defining, those who have less is the difficult part; but comparatively, defining the more is no simpler than inventing the personal income revenue number that sounds sinfully high.

There is evidence that the majority of those who make less money will vote to increase the fee and tax the ones who ‘make more money.’ After all, according to those who have less, it is only fair. Where there is a need that requires funding, those who have less have a ready solution: increase the fees and tax of the ones that have the money. Simple economics!

I assume the operational methodology of the leftist-liberal administration would start with enhancing, by legislative initiatives and executive order, where applicable, the concept of progressive taxation in the taxing of all capital; naturally, the goal of such a tax plan would establish a new economic number-definition of poverty and correspondingly, eventually, define what is rich according to the leftist-liberal administration.

I do wonder where the liberal lefties think the money comes from in the first place. Do they not understand the basis of profit motivation? The reasoning of risking capital; do they not recognize that it is the many that feeds off of the few and if the few are not adequately compensated (with no guarantees of same) that there will be no small business infrastructure? And if there is no small business infrastructure there will be no private or publicly held big business?

No sane individual will work to support the many in their pursuit of government subsidized health care, union guarantees, burdensome regulation, or a restricted trade agenda; raise taxes and encourage a growing black economy that will criminalize its own citizens.

Are the leftist that stupid?





Part II The Growing Majority of Baffled Voters

3 03 2008
The voter’s attention to detail is critical
Authored by: William Robert Barber
Part II of most recent article

Because of the inherent complexities, the multiplicity of issues, and the Byzantine-like labyrinths and proceedings of Congress and its supporting infrastructure the challenge of communicating the essence-the-meaning of any political, economic, or foreign policy argument to the voter resides within the nation’s media, its pundits, political partisans-nonpartisans and editorials of in-the-know journalist. Thus for the voter, the problem of forming a sensible criteria and underwriting agenda to judge the veracity of a particular candidate’s policy or position begins by a process of listening, reading, and questioning.

Naturally, and withstanding all of the informational impute, the ideologues, the fanatics, the believers, will never be swayed by the evidence to their preconceived contrary; they are attentive only to the evidence that is aligned with their predetermined suppositions. By means of Machiavellian; by means deceptive; by dance or direct aim the goal of winning is all that truly matters to those branded to their cause. Therefore, the politician’s real audience of persuade is directed to between 33-40 percent of the electorate; this percentage I believe makes up what is known as the great undecided and uncommitted.

In the interest of attempting to match and appease; political harbingers expend more than a modest amount of time contemplating the attributes, ingredients, and distinctive chemistry of today’s great undecided and uncommitted. The question for the partisan professional as to gaining the vote of the undecided and uncommitted is quite simple: What issue, what rumor, what innuendo, what opponent’s misstep will cedes advantage to their candidate?

The election of November 2008 will be the most important election since the election of Thomas Jefferson. From economics to health care, foreign policy to education, taxation to immigration and trade the political parties are distinctively different. The voter’s attention to detail is critical. Their vote will count; they truly will receive the government they deserve.