Prosperity Economics: Building an Economy for All

A political flyer landed on my doorstep the other day that identified an Orange County Democratic candidate for Congress as a supporter of a plan to DO AWAY with tax deductions for existing 401(K)s and a plan to FORCE WORKERS & EMPLOYERS to contribute to a new government run 401(K) IN ADDITION TO Social Security.The flyer cited a source (*) so I decided to check it out.  Here’s what I found.

Prosperity Economics:

Building an Economy for All

By:

Jacob S. Hacker and Nate Loewentheil

·         Quick Overview

·         Executive Summary

·         Full Report

“Prosperity Economics” by Jacob S. Hacker and Nate Loewentheil, is endorsed by Campaign for America’s Future, AFL-CIO, Center for Community Change, Economic Policy Institute, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Council of La Raza, SEIU and more.

Now … I don’t know about you, but whenever I see AFL-CIO, SEIU and NCLR backing something, red flags start going up for me.  In my humble opinion, when union leadership backs or endorses something, it’s not because of benevolent and magnanimous motivations.  To the contrary, it’s invariably because they see it as contributing to an increase in union membership [and member dues] and an improvement in the income and power of union leadership at the expense of non-members.

While the Hacker and Loewentheil report seems at first blush to be a logical and well thought out plan for resolving the nation’s economic woes, you’ve got to ask yourself how it is that it has only now, at this eleventh hour in the election process, been released.

As for the congressional candidate who backs yet another expansion of already “too big” government and another confiscatory grab at individual income under the guise of “social fairness for all”, I say take your socialist proclivities and stick ‘em where the sun doesn’t shine.  We already have enough problems stemming from like thinking incompetents such as our current president.

So much for my thoughts!  How about yours?  I rarely receive commentary and feedback on my blog postings so for all I know they are not even being read or just aren’t that thought provoking.  In this case, I am particularly interested in hearing your opinions of the Hacker and Loewentheil report.  Let me hear from you.

Obama's Deficit Reduction Claims - More Lies!!

As political pundits delve into Obama's poor debate performance, not as much attention is being bestowed upon what he actually said Wednesday evening. The President repeated his thoroughly debunked deficit reduction claims, claims even his own budget plan proves to be false.

Hear what he said:

Listen to what he said at “Debate Dissembling: Obama's Own Budget Proves His Deficit Reduction Claims Wrong”.  [Click & Scroll down to the video]

Accuracy: At one point in Wednesday night's debate President Obama boasted about his "balanced" plan to cut the projected 10-year deficit by $4 trillion. One problem: His own budget exposes this claim as flat-out false.

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/100412-628242-obama-massive-deficit-cutting-fib-.htm#ixzz28Z9Nxd7q

Interestingly, the link [http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets%20/budget.pdf], provided in the IBD article to Obama’s budget plan at has been taken down.  Gee … I wonder why?  No matter, I found it here. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf

Review the President’s own budget document.  For those who don’t want to wade through pages of numbers, I’ve provided a highlighted page[206] from Obama’s own budget that clearly refutes his false claim about what he's doing for reduction of the deficit from the first 2012 presidential debate.

Those who want an unbiased review of his budget complete with graphical charts can be viewed at A Congressional Budget Office Analysis of the President’s 2013 Budget.

Now … I don’t know about you, but in my view a $1.98 trillion deficit reduction is more than a little short of the $4 trillion claim made by Obama.

It’s just one more proof that he will say anything he thinks will get him re-elected.  Just whose interest is he looking out for?  Certainly not American citizens.

Handy Links To California November Ballot Propositions

Like it or not, California invariably includes a number of propositions on every statewide ballot and that always means more time to invest in an attempt to figure out what they really mean unless you just plan to use a dart board.  This November will be no different so I've assembled a few links for you to use in attempting to sort out the good from the bad and the ugly.  I've also included a few opinions of my own for what they're worth and, as usual, I'm against most anything that gives the state more money.  In my humble opinion, California is already far overextended and views it's citizens as a never ending source of funds for all manner of socialist programs.  It's time for the voters to force our elected officials to get California out of our pockets and back to fiscal responsibility.

2012 propositions	Ballot Title	Dogger's Opinion
Proposition 30	Sales and Income Tax Increase (2012)	No
Proposition 31	Two-Year State Budget Cycle (2012)	No
Proposition 32	The "Paycheck Protection" Initiative (2012)	Yes
Proposition 33	Automobile Insurance Persistency Discounts (2012)	Yes
Proposition 34	The End the Death Penalty Initiative (2012)	No
Proposition 35	Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery (2012)	Yes
Proposition 36	Changes in the "Three Strikes" Law (2012)	No
Proposition 37	Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food (2012)	No
Proposition 38	State Income Tax Increase to Support Education (2012)	No
Proposition 39	Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses (2012)	No
Proposition 40	Referendum on the State Senate Redistricting Plan (2012)	Yes
Local measures

Incidentally, my opinions as stated above are shared by Ken & John on AM640.  To see the reasoning behind their opinions, click here.

Orange County November 6 Local Propositions

§  Measure M: Coast Community College District bond proposition

§  Measure N: Fountain Valley School District bond proposition

§  Measure O: La Habra City School District bond proposition

§  Measure P: Ocean View School District bond proposition

§  Measure Q: Rancho Santiago Community College District bond proposition

§  Measure R: Rowland Unified School District bond proposition

§  Measure S: Tustin Unified School District bond proposition

§  Measure T: City of Brea Accountability Act

§  Measure U: City of Brea Open Governance Act

§  Measure V: Adoption of a Costa Mesa City Charter

§  Measure W: Fullerton West Coyote Hills Development and Nature Preserve

§  Measure X: Fullerton Sales of Fireworks in the City

§  Measure Y: City of Garden Grove Hotel Tax

§  Measure Z: Huntington Beach Levy of Property Tax for Municipal Purposes

§  Measure AA: Huntington Beach Equal Taxation and Assessments for Sunset Beach

§  Measure BB: City of Irvine "Support Our Schools Initiative"

§  Measure CC: Laguna Beach Parcel Tax for Open Space

§  Measure DD: City of Los Alamitos Utility Users Tax

§  Measure EE: Newport Beach Charter Amendments (Including a Ban on Red Light Cameras)

§  Measure FF: City of Orange Referendum on Orange Park Acres

§  Measure GG: City of Santa Ana Mayoral Term Limits

§  Measure HH: City of Tustin Elimination of City Council Pay and Benefits

§  Huntington Beach revocation of public safety employee retirement tax

Regardless of how you vote, vote!

I received an email this morning from my favorite trading and economics web source which I found most enlightening.  They had provided a series of charts about our economy which was originally published by The Heritage Foundation [Messrs. William Beach and Patrick Tyrrell] entitled 2012 Index of Dependence on Government.  Click here to read the full Heritage Foundation report, or here  [then scroll down] to see only the charts as they appeared in the email from Incredible Charts and Colin Twiggs.  Long form or short, the data clearly confirms Romney’s contention that America is rapidly becoming a nation of government dependents.

Upon visiting the Heritage Foundation site, I found one chart in particular to me most informative.  I then did a bit of additional digging to amplify the chart by adding data about which political party controlled both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives plus who the president was.  I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions.  Here is the basic data form on party control of congress and seated president from 1945 to present in table form and then overlaid onto the Heritage Foundation chart.

The two periods of relatively more conservative public policy (the 1980s and 1995–2001) stand out clearly in [the chart above]. The slowdowns in spending increases during the Reagan years and after the 1994 congressional elections produced two periods of slightly negative change in the Index. These periods saw significant retreats from the Great Society goals [of the Johnson era], particularly in the nation’s approach to welfare, but the return of budget surpluses during the last years of the Clinton Administration led to significant spending increases for all of the components, particularly education and health care. The George W. Bush years saw more leaps in retirement, housing, health, and welfare spending, and since 2009, health care and welfare spending has blasted upward like a rocket on speed. Health care and welfare now stands at four and a half times the 1980 level (inflation-adjusted). With the implementation of Obamacare in 2012, the parameters of Chart 11 will most likely have to be expanded again to fit the higher Index number in the years to come.
Heritage Foundation - "2012 Index of Dependence on Government"

Traditional American freedoms or government dependence, the choice is ours in November.  Let’s hope we get it right!

If You Value Your Freedom Of Speech

The United States should “take the necessary measures to ensure insulting billions of people – one and a half billion people – and their beliefs does not happen, and people pay for what they do, and at the same time make sure that the reflections of the true Egyptian and Muslims is well [represented] in Western media,”.  So stated Egypt’s Prime Minister Hisham Qandil on Sept. 15.  Qandil’s statement also hinted at more violence if the Islamists’ demands were not met.

In case you need a translation, he is stating the Islamic demand that the U.S. should cave to their pressure and throw our constitution out the window, specifically our First Amendment rights concerning free speech.

So … let’s back up a bit and look at some of the history leading up to that demand.  At the very least, I urge you to view the following video.  If you are pressed for time, at least view the 23 minute 30 second portion which starts at 12:44 [that's 12 minutes 44 seconds into the video] by using the slider in the video to position to that point.
  Below are several hyperlinks, arranged in chronological order, that will provide an unbiased [unless you are a committed supporter of Islam] view of historic events leading up to where we are today.

Why the U.S. Should Oppose "Defamation of Religions" Resolutions at the United Nations - 11/10/2008

Clinton Remarks at the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) High-Level Meeting on Combating Religious Intolerance - 07/15/2011

The Administration Takes on ‘Islamophobia’ - 09/01/2011

Religious Tolerance Resolution Backed by Obama Administration Aligns With Islamic Bloc’s Interests  - 12/16/2011

Nancy Pelosi Seeks To Rewrite First Amendment - 04/23/2012

Pulling The Islamic Veil Over American Free Speech 09/13/2012

They're Starting To Ask: Is It Time For Hillary To Go? - 09/18/2012

Obama's [& Hillary's] 'Cairo Doctrine' In Shambles After Libya Attack - 09/20/2012

Free speech at risk as U.S. synchronizes with Islam - 09/21/2012

Think this doesn’t concern you?  Think again!

Think this isn’t a war regardless of what Obama and the current administration would have you believe?  Think again!!

So … what are you going to do about it?

Political Proselytizing In Our Schools



Proselytizing is the act of attempting to convert people to another opinion.  While commonly thought to apply only to the subject of religious belief, the fact is that it equally applies to entrenched liberal educators that use their classrooms to force your kids what to think.  It’s time to stop it.  If the liberals of this nation can legislate God out of the classroom, it’s high time to legislate political views, preferences and proselytizing out of the classroom as well.

The most recently documented event recently occurred in Florida where college math professor Sharon Sweet, a tenured professor at Brevard Community College, has been suspended for allegedly forcing students to sign a pledge to vote for President Obama. Not surprisingly, this might violate Florida election laws:

Section 104.31, of Title IX in chapter 104, states that “no officer or employee of the state... shall... use his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election or nomination of officer or influencing another person’s vote or affecting the result thereof.”

in addition to violating the Brevard Community College policy on harassment.

Linda Miedema, Vice President Academic Affairs and Chief Learning Officer, in a written response to an email to the college expressing concern about the incident responded by stating that “ … an investigation was initiated. Any inappropriate activities will be curtailed and the faculty will be dealt with according to college policy.”  In addition she stated “The college is taking appropriate actions. We do not want any student to feel coerced.”

Her response should have been amplified with the following: “Such conduct on the part of our teaching staff will not be tolerated under any circumstances.”  Let’s hope the investigation is quick, thorough and reaches the appropriate conclusion. 

Take a moment and consider the cost of college these days. For that we get professors who are openly liberal shills.  Is it any surprise that young voters today are vehemently liberal and contemptuous of our Constitution, our nation’s history and our traditions?

Think this is an isolated incident?  Think again.  View and hear Teacher suspended after telling student he can be arrested for criticizing Obama

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to watch "2016".  I'm glad I did!  Today I found an article on the documentary in the IBD which is well worth reading.

An IBD editorial
Perspective

Why President Obama Hates America

By PAUL SPERRY

Posted 09/05/2012 05:46 PM ET



WATCH TRAILER

As the poster above says, "LOVE HIM / HATE HIM - YOU DON'T KNOW HIM".  

If the film 2016: Obama’s America preaches to the choir—as critical reviews of the movie contend—then the choir of Americans curious about Barack Obama is indeed a large one.

In spite of the prediction by Variety that 2016 would vanish without a trace, the documentary about President Obama is by the latest count No. 3 at the box office, running in 1,800 theaters nationwide. It is on track to overtake Al Gore and several Michael Moore movies. Other, cruder epithets have also been thrown at 2016, but no one has been able to challenge the facts of the documentary. “Choir preaching” is in fact the criticism most reviewers from The Washington Post to The Philadelphia Inquirer have leveled at 2016.

Depending on whether you love him or hate him it's unlikely you'll change your mind after seeing the documentary.  Most folks, particularly the "hopey changey" ones, don't like to admit to anyone that there's any possibility they may have been wrong and presenting them with facts and logic isn't going to change their views.  That was the problem back in 2008 too.  They didn't like Bush or his policies and it was "get even time" for the results of the 2004 election.  Vetting Obama was unnecessary and irrelevant.

The trouble is, it hasn't panned out quite the way they bargained for.  America's unemployment continues above 8%, we're no closer to energy independence now then when Obama took office yet he shovels taxpayer dollars at other countries with encouragement to "drill baby - drill"; "we'll be your best customer".  Doesn't sound very "green" to me.  Our military and weapons systems are at historical lows and headed lower if you can believe what he told Medvedev and our national debt just passed north of 16 trillion [that's with a T] and no limit in sight.  Judging from his political appointments, the actions of the Dept. of Justice, his assault on the states in the courts and his disregard for our Constitution, it's pretty clear he has in mind to deliver on the change he promised if given the opportunity.

So ... how are ya feelin' about that "hopey changey" stuff now.  Probably still not willing to at least look at some facts and consider what the future might look like if "2016" is right, huh? The trouble is, What if you're wrong?