THE ENTERPRISE--Another death in the family--AND A TRIBUTE TO TRUTHFULNESS
This time it's my wife's brother, Michael Hill. It was not a surprise but it's still sad. No amount of "preparation" prepares you for the death of a loved one. One thing Mike Hill always did was "call it like he saw it." He told the truth regardless of how popular it was. Telling the truth is a trait this world seldom values enough.
This edition of THE ENTERPRISE is dedicated to the late Mike Hill.
To keep our world even more interesting, the night before we left for Mike's funeral, we got a distress call from our daughter Susan and her husband Kirk--their house had been broken into and they had been robbed. That night was spent repairing a door jamb and installing heavy duty strike plates (sort of like closing the barn door after the horse is gone.)
After the funeral, we learned that Columbus was in the midst of a full blown blizzard. We stayed an extra night 1/2 way home, outside of Indy, before we could come home—only to find everything buried in 20 inches of snow--including our house, driveway, etc. This was certainly an interesting week. (Can your hands ache from shoveling snow? I'm glad I wrote most of this one before I left last week.)
Here goes...
CHANGE IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD--GOOD AND/OR BAD?
CHANGE is the mantra. Well change is a double edged sword, that can cut both ways. No candidate will tell you that, but they should. Truth is a powerful tool, but one that politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama bend to their needs. Here are just a few of the lies exposed.
THE TITLE WAS "Texas v. Ohio" THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE March 3, 2008; Page A16
THE TITLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN:
"HOW POLITICIANS LIE WHILE THEY CONTINUE MISMANAGING THE ECONOMY"
The article posted below exposes the truth about how a state can be sabotaged by its political leadership [NOTE: I've added a few subheads and some bold typeface and underlines for emphasis, but most of the words came directly from the WSJ article and are incredibly accurate.] Ohio's sabotage is now being cited by Democrats--in lies and self-serving misrepresentations. Unfortunately, a lot of the damage was done while a weak Republican governor (Bob Taft) stood by and watched it happen. I moved out of Ohio in 1992, and moved back in 2004. The tax burden went from bad to much worse. The climate for business went from terrible to unbelievably bad, as the state continued spending taxpayer dollars chasing plants with contrived deals, instead of creating a solid climate for a business in Ohio.
Unions in Ohio have created their own monster of self-inflicted damage, and now that they have Democrats in control of the state--nothing will improve--it will only get worse. UNTIL—or UNLESS—Ohio residents realize that their pain is self-inflicted and quit looking for a savior--whether her name is Hillary or his is Barack—to save them from their own misguided behaviors. Already high taxes will simply have to be raised higher yet to pay for Obama's promised largess. How? See "Barstool Economics" later on in this edition.
----------------
HERE IS THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE ARTICLE--EMPHASIS AND SUBHEADS ARE MY ADDITIONS,
(and there are a few sentences omitted for brevity)
As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton race around Ohio and Texas for tomorrow's primaries, they are telling a tale of economic woe. Yet the real story isn't how similar the two states are economically but how different. Texas has been prospering while Ohio lags, and the reasons are instructive about what works and what doesn't in economic policy.
There's no doubt times are tough in Ohio. The state has lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, home foreclosures are soaring, and real family income is lower now than in 2000. Meanwhile, the Texas economy has boomed since 2004, with nearly twice the rate of new job creation as the rest of the nation. The nearby table compares the states over a decade or so.
OBAMA'S BIG LIE
Let's start with the fact that Texas's growth puts the lie to the myth that free trade costs American jobs. Anti-NAFTA rhetoric doesn't play well in El Paso, San Antonio and Houston, which have become gateway cities for commerce with Latin America and have flourished since the North American Free Trade Agreement passed Congress in 1993. Mr. Obama's claim of one million lost jobs due to trade deals is laughable in Texas, the state most affected by NAFTA. Texas has gained 36,000 manufacturing jobs since 2004 and has ranked as the nation's top exporting state for six years in a row. Its $168 billion of exports in 2007 translate into tens of thousands of jobs.
CLINTON'S BIG LIE
Ohio, Indiana and Michigan are losing auto jobs, but many of these "runaway plants" are not fleeing to China, Mexico or India. They've moved to more business-friendly U.S. states, including Texas. GM recently announced plans for a new plant to build hybrid cars. Guess where? Near Dallas. In 2006 the Lone Star State exported $5.5 billion of cars and trucks to Mexico and $2.4 billion worth to Canada.
Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, a Democrat who supports Mrs. Clinton, blames his state's problems on President Bush. But Ohio's economy has been struggling for years, and most of its wounds are self-inflicted.
OHIO'S REAL PROBLEM
Ohio now ranks 47th out of 50 in economic competitiveness, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council. Ohio politicians deplore plant closings even as they impose the third highest corporate income tax in the country (10.5%) and the sixth highest personal income tax (8.87%). A common joke is that Ohio lays out the red carpet for companies -- when they leave the state.
(By contrast, Texas has no income tax, a huge competitive advantage.)
Ohio's most crippling handicap may be that its politicians -- and thus its employers -- are still in the grip of such industrial unions as the United Auto Workers. Ohio is a "closed shop" state, which means workers can be forced to join a union whether they wish to or not. Many companies -- especially foreign-owned -- say they will not even consider such locations for new sites. States with "right to work" laws that make union organizing more difficult had twice the job growth of Ohio and other forced union states from 1995-2005, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations.
[NOTE: A Democrat in the White House will likely stack the NLRB with labor sympathizers which will only serve to spread this kind of counter-competitive union climate across more states, all the while lamenting how jobs seem to be fleeing the country.]
On the other hand, Texas is a right to work state and has been adding jobs by the tens of thousands. Nearly 1,000 new plants have been built in Texas since 2005, from the likes of Microsoft, Samsung and Fujitsu. Foreign-owned companies supplied the state with 345,000 jobs. No wonder Texans don't fear global competition the way some Presidential candidates do.
Ohio has an economy burdened by high taxes and work rules that impose heavy costs on employers. Texas embraces free trade, keeps taxes low, doesn't impose unions on business and has tooled itself for 21st century global competition. Ohioans may not like to hear this, but for any company considering where to locate a new plant or move an existing one, the choice between Ohio and Texas isn't even a close call.
The challenge for our national economy in a world of competition is to become more like Texas and less like Ohio.
----------------
LIES ABOUT TAXES--CLINTON VS. BUSH 2
In case anyone thinks things will change for the better if a Democrat wins the White House, consider the record of the last one--who many people thought was pretty good as a President (except for his moral peccadillos.) Based on using actual tax tables (see link below), here are examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for both singles and married couples. so let's check if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich. <http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html>http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Taxes under Clinton--1999 Taxes under Bush--2008 $ and % Reductions
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500 $3900 46%
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 $1500 11%
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 $4500 19%
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000 $7800 46%
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 $2250 11%
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250 $7500 19%
If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people that fall into the above categories--"low to middle income"-- think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Democrats are elected in Nov., ALL of them say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the above categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money, and they don't even know what happened.
For those who think the government knows how to spend their money better than the people do, and that it's right to take money from those who earn it by their wits and hard work, and give it to those who either don't or aren't motivated enough to pay their own way--then keep on voting with those Democrats. Because they will take care of you (using "other people's money" and wasting a fair bit of it along the way. Things will CHANGE! How? Keep readin'.
LIES ABOUT HOW TAXES WORK--SHARE THIS WITH YOUNG FOLKS WHO ARE OBAMA FANS.
BAR STOOL ECONOMICS
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on e day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. ' I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
The bottom line is that Obama has almost sewed up the Democratic nomination--which shows the power of communications skills in this modern media age. I am almost mesmerized by him until I listen to what he is promising, and consider his record as the most liberal voting Senator in the Senate--further left than John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. We could very well have a massive movement of young voters enchanted by Obama's spell of unlimited government fixes for all the ailments of the poor and downtrodden in the US, paid for by the efforts of those who work and create value.
Somebody simply has to break through and explain things to them. Part of that falls on you and I. Our kids, anyone who is in the Obama camp, won't want to listen to us "old fogeys"—and that includes John McCain—but we simply must get through to them. Perhaps if everyone who is supporting an Obama enthusiast required them to pay their own way--just for a while--they might understand (but probably not).
An Obama Presidency will certainly mean change. As much as I long for positive change in Washington, I fear that his kind of change Obama wants to bring will be a devastating return to the days of Jimmy Carter and the "pain index" of the 1970's and early 1980's. Obama's pitch is a bigger snow job than we got in Ohio this week. I am open to suggestions, ideas, and input on how to avoid what might turn out to be a "dreamy sounding American disaster."
Best, John
Comments