PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTOR… WHAT?!

30 07 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

There is a particular incongruence bandied about by novelists disguised as journalists, pundits, reporters, and a variance of political cutthroats that just rattle my otherwise calm, cool, and collective demeanor. When discussing the nation’s fiscal balance sheet they present the economy (must have gotten this from the president) as two sectors: the private and the public one. There is only one economically producing sector, and that sector is private.

This is the identical misrepresentation senatorial candidate from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren charges when rebuking the contribution of business versus the contribution from government. The president was advised of Warren’s success and decided that not only was her explanation an excellent political argument but it was the exactness of his progressive ideal. So being the extraordinarily brilliant politician as well as orator exceptional, he thought he would give the declaration a whirl on the national stage.

In the purist disposition the public sector exists in various forms of definition and means only at the pleasure of the private; when the public sector is not restrained by the private the governance of a republic is diminished and the probability of an imposed totalitarian system enhanced.

This liberal progressive ideal however once out of the classroom has no rhetorical legs and worst of all even the non Harvard graduate can cursively scan the context of the president’s speech, (mimicking the Warren reasoning) hear the tone with which it was delivered, and actually deduce that such a comment by the president not only has no merit but is ludicrous.

The only contribution to the nation’s balance sheet induced from the public sector is (as it should be) one of liability. Now let’s deductively cogitate, all monies derived by the government should either originate directly from the profits of business, the investment (of at risk capital) of business owners so to pay for imposed fees, indirectly from the employees of business via the salary paid by business, or from the earning of businesses in the form of equity or bonds purchased by the (at risk of principle loss) investment of private monies.

The indisputable fact is that the public sector feeds off of the success of business and no matter how one may struggle with that truth by juxtaposing public employment with private employment, noting the critical role of police, fire departments, parking meter maids, or a plethora of other such job descriptive(s) everyone of those positions could be filled with private adaptation; the contrary is absolutely impossible.

Yes, roads and bridges where funded by government but for the most part build by private firms run by enterprising entrepreneurs and without a doubt the government funding resulted from tax revenues derived from a tax on business profits.

Ostensibly, the original concept of paying for government services out of annualized (forecasted) earned tax revenue and fees was thought of as the obligation of elected and appointed individuals charged with oversight while managing the apparatuses of government specifically to match the forecast with the actual cost of governing. If there was an overrun on cost then the accepted solution was to implement adjustments that must come from either increasing tax revenue or curtailing the cost of governing. 

Then came the idea of tenure for life; in other words, politicians, in the interest of retaining or attaining power promised much, much, more than could be prudently delivered. The result was creative forecasting, increase fees, taxes, and borrowing against future tax revenue. The citizens bought into the fraudulent inducement and decided that government services were nice so they took the services and stuck their collective heads into the sand.

Politician enhanced their chances of reelection by soliciting confederates that profited from ever rising tax revenues-the unions. The politicians and the unions conspired to control elections thereby controlling governing; the result was the pension obligations clearly evident today as a contingent long-tail contractual liability of the taxpayer.

The intent of original design was to finance a government to act as the knife and fork of service deliverance and with the exception of the physical protection of the State government was construed to be limit of means and capability. Today, government is quite the contrary. Indeed government is engaged in every aspect of a citizen’s life.

And unless there is a populous upheaval…such as electorally winning the executive office and congress thus initiating a wholesale changing of the liberal progressive guard change we conservatives can believe in is impossible.  





DEDICATED TO LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES

23 07 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

“I am Barack Obama and I endorse this message,” by righteous continuance should actually  say, “I know the truth of the matter (regarding this commercial) is distorted to suit focus group interpretation, well, in reality this commercial message is much more than a clever distortion of the truth — it’s an outright lie. But the folk in Peoria will not fact-check the scurrilous charge and besides, the goal is reelection not truthfulness.” The campaign for reelection is not making declarations (against or for) under oath or penalty of perjury; indeed, the statutory rules do not apply. Campaigning for elective office accepts outright lies as overstatements or understatements of the truth, understandable hyperbole, a moral and ethical ‘get out of jail’ pass; in other words, politicians are excused from the truth of the matter.  

“I am,” the president concedes, “thankful that the media is ideologically in lockstep to my political ideals and cannot imagine the challenge to my reelection if this bias in my favor was not so. Nevertheless,” the president continues, “it’s not as if the people do not understand my political and economic ideals; after all, I am a Chicago politician and I have been president for almost four years.”

I think that the liberal progressives believe that their ideology is one of enlightenment, that their understandings are above the chaos of the mundane and societal ordinary; they believe in President Obama and accept that he is a leader of vision and uncanny insight.

The president therefore acknowledges that he is a harbinger. He is duty-bound despite popular resistance and even if contrary to the constitution, he is compelled to act in the interest of the people. In his teachings (speeches) to the populous, President Obama has taught us that a majority of issues and legislative concerns are beyond the intellectual comprehension of the common citizen. Consequentially, at least half the people are instinctual followers, subordinate to the thesis of his teachings, and hence reasonable. But there is the troublesome other half or so; they do not understand what is in their best interest (the ones that pay federal income taxes) and resist the president’s decisions. They are, as President Obama has identified, contrarians for no other cause than to be difficult. The president justifiably calls these persons ignoramuses inclined to the ruse of arrogance. They are obstinately opposed to what has been decided (after careful consideration by President Obama and his confederates) to be in their best interest. The president understands their cultural and societal shortcomings demonstrated by their clinging to bibles, guns, and antiquated distinct American beliefs.

Liberal progressives and the president understand that corporate corruption is ubiquitous; that corporations are prompted by a greed quotient to the edges of the insatiable. The president is wholly cognizant that business is inclined to put profit in front of social justice. He has ordered government regulators to keep an ever firmer grip on businesses’ constancy of striving to make more money for insiders and shareholders while not paying their “fair share” of taxes. These companies — we all know which they are — lead by capitalist seeking to undermine and eventually disband unions, are resisting “change we can believe in.” They must be stopped.

The president is at the bare minimum a liberal progressive who espoused a European socialistic way of life. But no matter what he or his confederates do, they cannot put the round into the square and maintain the circle of round. Government is reliant on private businesses for taxes; if private businesses employ fewer, less individual taxes are collected. If government does not cut its cost of operating by half, the running of services rendered, whether these services are good or nonsensical, will cost more than net tax revenue. Good intentions can only print so much fiat currency before the faith in its value is eroded. 

Although reality can be deferred, it will always win over pretense and wishfulness; in the ultimate finality, the expenditures of status quo governing is unsustainable. So WAKE UP, AMERICA! Vote conservative… and end this president’s bid for reelection!





THIS CAMPAIGN IS EXPOSING MR. WRONGHEADED

18 07 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber  

President Obama, leader of the free world, commander-in-chief of the most lethal armed forces that have ever existed, chairman of an economy larger than Japan and China combined; or — known by the attentively deductive amongst the citizenry as Mr. Wrongheaded — has unabashedly revealed the inner workings of his ideological mindset. The president, emancipated from teleprompter, with a sincerity of belief heretofore suppressed presented the core of his philosophical conviction. Our president truly believes that the prime mover, the engine of human advancement, the meaningful all-essential contributor to an entrepreneur’s success is government.

The President suggests that it was government that put a man on the moon, invented the Internet, crafted science, inspired art, build roads & bridges, educated the population, and on and on and on. In other words, it is government, the not so silent, never passive partner that renders surety of purpose for the captains of industry.

This reasoning is classic liberal progressive. The argument put forth by President Obama is the basis of his rational; he thinks those that have more should pay more, and then a little more. Never mind that almost half the working population pay no federal income tax; they have no skin in the game less insuring their vote is cast for a continuance of their nontaxable status.

Well Mr. Wrongheaded, answer me this: If government is the prime mover, the all essential, where does government receive the funds to operate? Yes, that’s right. Directly from private enterprise and yes again, without private enterprise government would not exist. To be ever more specific, private enterprise must insist on making a profit; without profit there is nothing to tax.

But then it is the liberal progressives and Mr. Wrongheaded who actually believe that there should be a cap on earned income. The president once mentioned $500,000 as a number and under the banner of fairness, in the interest of the common good, monies generated beyond the capped amount should go to treasury for the government to decide where the funds should be disbursed.

This president has side stepped congress when it pleases him and renders to congress when he has no clue as to the next move. He invokes executive privilege and damns the recent former president for such action, he demands civility while engaging in scurrilous accusations, he declares transparency as the basis of American democracy but permits, aids, and assists his Attorney General in disregarding congressional oversight. This Mr. Wrongheaded is befuddled by the demands of leadership, confused as to the management of governing, baffled when facts disprove ideology and wholly unprepared to discard a predetermined belief system in favor of contrary evidence. Often the president effectively contradicts his own statements.

All he really wants to do is listen to himself speak…he loves campaigning.





OUTSOURCING — ANTI-AMERICAN OR A CRIME? REALLY?!

15 07 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

Outsourcing seems to be the bone of contention between the political clans Obama and Romney. For inexplicable reasons (well, it seems inexplicable only to me), the idea, concept, and practice of outsourcing is anti-American or counter to the working peoples of America… or something like that. The supposition is that outsourcing is counter to America’s economic interest. My assumption is that (obviously I am wrongheaded) every able bodied individual with an 8th grade education would understand that trade is international. That American companies are in every geographic sector of the world and correspondingly, international (non-American) companies are operating in America; outsourcing is not only commonplace, it is the international business norm.

American companies operating in a United Europe can only operate in those countries if they are duly licensed and compliant to domicile rules and regulations. So in Germany, IBM is a German company. The currency is €uro and the labor force is predominately German. Such is the circumstance for every country that for example Procter and Gamble operates within the global economy… Is that outsourcing?

This entire argument is totally stupid. The president willfully and with purposeful intent internationally outsource(d) stimulus funds: he invested in Brazilian oil exploration, the World Bank, and International Monetary Fund; besides the State Department spends billions in foreign aid supposedly to garner commercial support, and through the UN’s corruptive means & ways the US sends billions of dollars, willy-nilly, all over the world.

Rome is burning and Obama wants to discuss when Romney left Bain Capital… and in his defense, Romney cannot muster up the truth of the matter.

The problem within the EU is not whether austerity or growth is the answer; the problem is its policy of social solidarity since post WWII. The issue at hand is satisfying an addiction to a belief that entitlement is a basic human right. The enormous social security and entitlement promises made over successive political administrations was founded on the premise that borrowing into the future was the god sent economic surety. People wanted to believe that lifelong protection was feasible, and most importantly that such an entitlement would not infringe on their personal liberty and freedom. So they baked the cherry pie à la mode and ate it all… now what? Wait a minute, isn’t that the issue at hand here in the good ole USA?

There are those that believe that the financial burden must now fall on those that have. No matter if you attained your wealth by the sweat of one’s brow and the risk of one’s own monies, the wealthy are to share their wealth with those that have less. Ideally, this dividing of wealthy resources should go on until everyone is denominated to less rather than more. For the liberal progressives this is the perfect example of fairness…let’s call it righteous fairness.

If spreading the wealth is slowed down by those nasty conservatives, there is always inflation. Negating the U. S. Congress Act of 1792 that declared currency debasement a felony punishable by death because it constituted theft from the citizenry. These very same suggest that inflation is an alternative that either is commensurate with spreading the wealth or certainly an economic model valued enough to implement at will.

Obama and Romney both graduated from Harvard with a degree in something or other; nevertheless, one blast (knowing otherwise) outsourcing as counter to America’s economic interest and the other can’t seem to grasps the reins of deductive logic to declare outsourcing; simply put, in the interest of America as well as a by-product of international trade. I think both should sue the university and get their tuition money refunded. Neither one has learned anything at Harvard…





THE EROSION OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY

9 07 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

The Constitution of 1789 has since its affirmation been parsed, freely interpreted, redefined, and adjudicated as well as having its thesis, spirit — even its contextual edicts all together! — subordinated to whim of presidential executive order. The original ideal of limited government has been confiscated, individual liberty subjected, the power of governmental taxation judged unlimited, and for businesses the freedom to act severely curtailed by appointed regulators. This nation is evolving from a nation of laws to one of men; the amount of enforcement discretion (of existing laws) is held in the hand of a few.  

Federal agencies and departments ignore, circumvent, and deceive the orders of their congressional supervisors; process has displaced truth telling, attorneys have disabled the simplicity of truthfulness, and President Obama will make any promise, break any promise, manipulate half-truths, lie, falsify, distort, and deceive in order to win reelection.

Instead of adhering to the constitutional mandate of oversight, writing and passing a budget, congress,  particularly over the last century, has ceded much of its original constitutional authority to the executive branch. Indeed, recent history suggests that congress prefers contentious contrarianism and loyalty to political party over constructive legislative action. Federalism,  checks & balance, enumerated, implied, and expressed powers — the initial cornerstone of The Constitution — is subject not to literal interpretation but the whimsical of ideologues and the strength of their power base. Like a soap opera appealing to advertisers and the flighty emotions of a public overwhelmed by events difficult to comprehend, news reporting, more than ever before, is ideologically biased. The ‘free press’ has not only taken ideological sides, similar to a Hollywood production it writes, directs, produces, and presents the news from an entertaining opinion only perspective.

Unequivocally congress, often covertly, sometimes overtly, but always with purposeful intent, has neglected its direct responsibilities. The elected rely on legal opinions, unelected staff, a multitude of appointed attorneys, and lobbyists to write legislation; the elected need not read nor understand the very laws they vote for or against.  The administrative process is more important than what is being administrated. The game of chessman-craft has replaced Washingtonian leadership. Politicians and the gamesmanship of politics supersede good-sense; appointed regulators instead of legislators discern the meaningfulness of laws. Government apparatuses specifically designed to discombobulate transparency, purposefully create a wholly ambiguous bureaucratic process… all the while the size and power of the federal government is enhanced. The idea of statesmanship, public service in the interest of the nation, has been eclipsed by deviously crafty practitioners of politics whose only interest is retaining or attaining office.

Government has enabled an economy founded on the ridiculous premise that borrowing can substitute for organic “buy/sell” transactions; clearly, the circulation of borrowed monies derived from printing fiat currency utilizing the government as the costly intermediary distributor at the cost of rising deficits is absurd.

Government cannot create jobs — its role is much simpler: Do no harm. Nevertheless, congress led by nape-of-the-neck by the office of the presidency (of both parties) has progressively insisted on federal-funded stimuli as an economic policy. Recently, such funding was shrouded under the heading of “shovel-ready infrastructure,” public-employment support for States, and sustaining or favoring a variety of union initiatives; I say balderdash. This economic stimulus has more to do with rewarding political confederates, enabling the election of Democratic or Republican brethren, and playing a tune that placates or pays off their constituents than encouraging fiscal growth.   

What this nation requires (and that will never happen) is a constitution convention; a reestablishing of maxims that reinforce the Founders’ original intent: Limited government. However, in real terms the only true alternative to the chaos of President Obama’s liberal progressivism-socialism-elitism is to capture congress and the presidency. We’ll all see soon enough if the 50% of the voting public who pay no federal taxes, the Hispanics, Americans of African descent, and unionist favor the Obama continuance by voting for their hero…





IF OBAMA WINS, THE NATION IS AT RISK

5 07 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” A statement presented by Daniel Webster and recited by Chief Justice Marshall in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland. Webster, in arguing the case, said: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy,” 17 U.S. 327 (1819).

Chief Justice Roberts, circumventing good sense as well as the principles of federalism and the meaningfulness of enumerated powers, concocted contradicting verbiage within a majority opinion so to enable ObamaCare. The justice has unequivocally declared that the federal government has the power to tax its citizenry any amount for any reason, and such requires nothing more than the declaration of congress. This declaration has taken the concept, the spirit, the expressed limitations of government, the idea of State sovereignty, and individual liberty and thrown them under the thumb of the all-powerful federal government.

I fear for the very worse of outcomes; the genesis of this ruling has no constitutional basis…  nevertheless, the ruling is now law. This justice has legalized taxation as a method and source to be used by ‘those in power,’ to coercively alter behavior to suit a particular configuration of “in the public interest.”

Today, all Americans or certain Americans can be singled out to pay a tax to rid a government debt or to finance a future government budget. These Americans will be singled out by the powerful as a lawful means to “spread the wealth.” Following the logic of the unlimited right to tax these assessments will be voted upon by those that do not have as much money; assessments will continue until all wealth is exhausted. Sounds like a liberal progressive economic fairness deductive brought to conclusion.

Before the founding of the republic and since there has been a constancy of contesting for power, from the very beginning those in power have abused their position, and as a result this nation has matched its goodness — often disproportionately– with its wickedness. In other words, no right thinking citizen can trust government or those who manage government. It is an obligation of citizenship to consider government and those that govern with the utmost askance.

An ample example of the abuse of power was the Alien and Sedition’s Act of 1798 wherein the majority in power passed this blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional legislation solely to quell political opposition. In 1942, President Roosevelt affirmed Executive Order No. 9066 wherein Japanese-American citizens were ordered to turn themselves in to the authorities for purposes of internment. In addition to the loss of individual liberty, these citizens lost all property and constitutional rights. Remember: President Roosevelt’s political ideology was liberal progress, a president of the people… well, clearly, not all of the people.

As President Roosevelt proved, executive orders are the tools of the dangerously powerful; even revered leaders, particularly in a time of war and economic crisis, can behave as if Caesar.  It took the election of 1800 to quash the Alien and Sedition’s Act and it will take the election of 2012 to void ObamaCare.

It is time that the spirit and meaningfulness of the 1789 Constitution be reinvigorated and amended to define limited government, individual liberty, federalism, enumerated, implied, and explicit governmental powers! And while we are busy with that task, certain labor laws, civil, and criminal laws need to be either struck or watered down to favor the individual rights over government interference and general bullying.