What were three men with FDR emblazoned on their T-shirts doing at a FreedomWorks event? FreedomWorks is an activist organization that is partnered with tea party groups across the country. FDR is hardly an icon of the right.

Upon closer examination the T-shirts revealed that FDR didn’t stand for Franklin Delano Roosevelt but Frederick Douglas Republicans and the three African American men wearing them had a message for the group, they came to bring us the trump card to the race card.

One of the three, K. Carl Smith, said that you can’t be called a racist if you are wearing a Frederick Douglas T-shirt. That may be true, but what is behind the shirt? Frederick Douglas was a staunch Republican and most African Americans embrace many of the values of the tea party and he outlined how Douglas saw them.

RESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION
“What, then, is the Constitution?  I will tell you.  It is no vague, indefinite, floating, unsubstantial, ideal something; colored according to any man’s fancy, now a weasel, now a whale, and now nothing . . . The American Constitution is a written instrument full and complete in itself.  No Court in America, no Congress, no President, can add a single word thereto, or take a single word therefrom.  It is a great national enactment done by the people, and can only be altered, amended, or added to by the people.”—Frederick Douglass, March 26, 1860

RESPECT FOR LIFE
…I expose slavery in this country, because to expose it is to kill it.  Slavery is one of those monsters of darkness to whom the light of truth is death. —Frederick Douglass

BELIEF IN LIMITED GOVERNMENT
…What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. —Frederick Douglass

BELIEF IN INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
…And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also.  All I ask is give him a chance to stand on his own legs!  Let him alone…your interference is doing him positive injury. … I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs.  Man’s greatness consists in his ability to do and the proper application of his powers to things needed to be done. —Frederick Douglass

Smith then gave us a little side by side comparison of Frederick Douglas and Barack Obama.

• Frederick Douglas respected the constitution, Barack Obama wants to rewrite the constitution
• Frederick Douglas was pro-life, Barack Obama is pro-abortion
• Frederick Douglas was for limited government, Barack Obama is for massive government
• Frederick Douglas was for self reliance, Barack Obama is for reliance on government

So why do blacks not embrace conservatism? Smith explains it this way. In the 1950s it was conservative Democratics that fought against the civil rights movement. So when blacks hear “fiscal conservative”, “Reagan conservative”, “social conservative”, what they think is “fiscal racist”, “Reagan racist”, “social racist.” Mr. Smith’s prescription is to say Frederick Douglas Republican instead of conservative.

While I am not ready to stop calling myself conservative, Mr. Smith has a point. I will start weaving the term Frederick Douglas Republican into my lexicon and I will refer to myself as such where the situation warrents. Give Mr. Smith’s website a look at www.conservativemessenger.com.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

To hear the progressives talk about the public sector unions in Wisconsin and other locales you would think collective bargaining was enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We have a right to bargain collectively. The unions are fighting for their rights. The Bill of Rights was won through the fighting of a bloody revolution. The right for all citizens to vote was won through the passage of an amendment to the Constitution. So, naturally, the right of public sector unions was won through a similar groundswell of popular support, right? No. Actually it was started by one man, fighting for his political life, in the shadow of Tammany Hall.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

President was a champion of organized labor. He was a champion as long as the organizing was done in the private sector. When pushing legislation to make it easier for unions to organize and operate, the public sector was specifically excluded. Here is what Roosevelt said:

“… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.” — FDR

Roosevelt is considered by progressives to be the greatest president in the history of the United States. But against his admonitions of Roosevelt, we have seen the militant tactics of going to the homes of the governor and other Republican elected officials, to the point where the police had to be called to clear the street. We have seen doctors fraudulently write excuse notes so that union members could continue to draw their pay from the public while not serving the public. We have seen the Hitler signs, the comparisons to Mubarak, and the shouting down of news reporters, such that they have to continue interviews inside of news trucks instead of in the public square. Why do the unions say they are fighting for rights, while doing everything possible to make sure the rights of their opponents to speak freely is drowned out?

Public Sector Organizing

So how did the rush to public sector unions happen? It started in 1958, in New York City. The mayor at the time, Robert Wager who happened to be the son of the Senator who authored the Wagner Act, was running for re-election. Things were going badly for him. All five of the borough Democratic leaders were against him. He needed a bold stroke to turn things around and that stroke involved a pen. He signed an executive order allowing public sector workers to organize. That’s it, one man, one pen, one order and it was done. No debate, no deliberation, no vote of the people or their representatives. 

The public sector workers were thrilled, remember the 1950s were the peak of union membership in this country, and they poured out for Wagner in gratitude. Wagner was reelected and the floodgates were opened. In 1962, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, picked up his pen and signed an executive order allowing federal employees to organize.

So two men, not a groundswell of the American public, wrote two executive orders allowing public sector employees to organize. It seems strange then, that when a politician tries to pass a law to rollback not eliminate their bargainig power, as they will still be allowed to bargain for pay, it is painted as an attack on fundamental American rights. In 1959, Wisconsin passed laws rather than an executive order allowing public sector unions, and now after the public voted in a new legislature and governor they are seeking to modify those laws.

Have the collective bargaining gains over the past fifty years gotten out of control? Ask John E. Nelson, a municipal bus driver in Madison, Wisconsin. In 2009, his salary for driving a bus totaled more than $159,000. Another half dozen bus drivers also earned over six figures. Try to tell the struggling private sector workers who are paying this bus driver that taking away the ability to drive his salary and benefits still higher is grossly unfair.

There are two issues that are really at stake here. Sure the unions have said they will agree to the health and retirement contributions that Governor Walker is asking for in return for backing off on the collective bargaining issue. The two reasons are, the unions will use their clout, through the collection of union dues from all members regardless of their political point of view, to defeat the Republicans and put back in power their Democrat friends. Once accomplished, they will use collective bargaining to restore all of their givebacks, and their grateful Democrat allies will be happy to comply. Next step, raise taxes on everyone in the state, that have chosen to remain in the state, to pay for them.

California will be interesting to watch. Jerry Brown, the last time he was governor, gave public sector unions the ability to organize on his first day in office. He now is dealing with a massive budget problem and has to fix it. What goes around, comes around.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

The public sector unions have succeeded. They have been so successful they are on the verge of bankrupting the country. Like the private sector unions, who at one time were a key advocate for unskilled and semi-skilled workers, they don’t know when to declare victory and go home.

However, in the private sector market forces are actively in play. As low skilled jobs move offshore and are replaced by higher skilled jobs, the individual knowledge worker brings a stronger value proposition to the table than the previous generation. Employers have learned to both see and reward that value and the worker has taken responsibility for their own compensation. As such, the need and, to the worker, the benefit of unions has dwindled as has union membership to about 7% of private workers.

But the public sector’s story was very different. True there were some cases where public sector employees were not paid very well, but the real reason for organizing public sector workers was political. It was a devil’s bargain from the outset. The politicians would help the unions organize and the unions would become the political machine of the pols.

In New York City, mayor Robert Wagner allowed public sector workers to organize in 1958. This was opposed by the leaders of the five boroughs in New York, so Wagner turned to his newly organized workers to help win reelection in 1961. President John Kennedy, who won by a razor thin margin in 1960, followed Wagner closely and with the stroke of a pen he signed Executive Order 10988 that allowed federal government employees to organize. There was no groundswell of support for doing this, no long hard fought campaign promise that had to be kept. Simply two executives, Wagner and Kennedy, who just decided to do it. Consider this views of the concept a generation earlier.

“a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1937

an infringement on democratic freedoms that threatened the ability of government to represent the broad needs of the citizenry. – New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia

 Where We are Today

 Today, we have public sector employees making more money than the average private sector worker. There are over 170,000 federal employees that make over $150,000 per year. Twenty percent of all federal employees, nearly 400,000 make over $100,000 per year. We have a number of states that are destitute owing to unfunded public sector union pensions. Not only do they make good pay, they will be very well cared for after they retire. All paid by you and me. Meanwhile you have to provide for your own retirement, work at a company that has to be profitable to be able to continue to employ you. But you have virtually no control over how much these public union employees are paid, but every raise comes out of your pocket.

So as someone struggles to make ends meet on $50,000 per year, he faces increased taxes so that some government employee can get a raise on top of their $100,000. That public sector employee will then work furiously to make sure Democrats are reelected so they can get another sweetheart contract.

It’s time for Congress to undo Executive Order 10998 and tell the highly paid government workers, “You are on your own.”  In other words, each and every one of you will have to prove your own value to your employer to get a raise or keep your job and the unions will have to do without millions of dollars of coerced union dues to help Democrats get reelected.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

The 26^th annual Martin Luther King, Jr. National Holiday celebration sponsored by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) held at the New York Sheraton last night was a remarkable event in the midst of all the babble about discourse and civility.  Of course it was civil; it would not be any other way, but considering the venom that has flowed in the past year with charges from racism during the health care debate to causing the Tucson shootings it struck a very different and positive tone.

The first sign of this was the choice of Andrew Breitbart as Master of Ceremonies.  Mr. Breitbart was in the middle of the firestorm of controversy surrounding claims of using the “N” word during a demonstration by Nancy Pelosi, marching to the Capital to pass ObamaCare without regard for the nation’s dissatisfaction.  Mr. Breitbart offered a reward of one hundred thousand dollars to anyone who came forward with proof that such a slur was said.  He was called just about every name in the book because of his stand.  The reward money remains unclaimed.

The Tea Party and Blacks

The significance of Mr. Breitbart’s role in the event tied into the theme of the evening, “Living the Dream.”  The speakers demonstrated how fundamentally congruent was Dr. King’s message and the message and actions of the Tea Party.  Dr. King’s belief in non-violent protest is confirmed by the actions of the Tea Party where hundreds of thousands have gathered to express their message without bricks, bottles, firebombs, or broken windows.  There are many on the left, who use those very tools, who search mightily to find evidence of racism at Tea Party rallies but who come up short.

So where is the opportunity for blacks and the Tea Party to come together?  Roy Innis, National Chairman and CEO of CORE said that minorities had made a big mistake, not once but twice in the past.

We made a terrible mistake from 1865 to 1932 when we supported the Republican Party exclusively, at a 95% rate. I wasn’t around in those days. Almost. But if I was, I would have made the same statement that I am making tonight and that I have made for the last forty years, which is that we have to break up the one party participation in politics of African Americans.

Since 1932, when somehow black Americans got confused and started believing that FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was really Abe Lincoln in disguise.  We’ve been going with the new Abe Lincoln, FDR, even up to this day.

We live mostly in large urban centers, one party systems, in those areas. Most of our complaints should be going to the leadership of those urban centers. But who do we blame? We blame everybody else but. We blame those who we are told to blame.

He described the serious condition of the inner city, but says how blacks learned their politics from those same people who created the problems. 

We let them tell us who are enemies are. That’s why we were not able to maximize the Reagan Revolution. I know some of you must think I’m crazy that we should have maximized the Reagan Revolution. As quiet as it is kept, a lot of black businessmen who did maximize the Reagan Revolution and they are doing very well for themselves.

He then pointed out that Allen West and Tim Scott, recently elected to Congress, did so with the support of the Tea Party.  To those blacks who are afraid of the Tea Party, Dr. Innis said, “Don’t be foolish and let your enemies, designate your enemy. You should have been the Tea Party, before the Tea Party.”  He continued that the Tea Party should be praised rather than scorned because “they turned the politics in this country around in a few short months.”

Herman Cain

Following Dr. Innis to speak was Herman Cain.  Dr. Innis introduced him with a strong push for Cain to run for president.  In his speech he pointed out that Dr. King’s creed was the same as the Declaration of Independence and it’s reference to inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. He spoke of the connection between Dr. King and Ronald Reagan. Reagan argued for fighting for our freedom or we will lose it.  He concluded by saying that he did not want to have that conversation with his grandchildren talking about the days when Americans were free, but said that it wasn’t going to happen on our watch.

Reverend Samuel Rodriguez

The leadership award went to Rev. Sam Rodriguez who gave an impassioned speech. He began by talking about a new civil rights movement and he explained where our rights come from.  He said:

To the enemies of Life and Liberty we remind them if God giveth, only God can take it away…  It is  God is over man, and man over government and when government tries to shift that paradigm and go on top and become the Alpha and the Omega what we have is chaos, despair and hopelessness. We must fight to keep the ideals that made us great, it is God over man and man over government and not the other way around.

He then went on to explain the Hispanic community. The Hispanic community are natural conservatives. He asked the question, “Why are we here?” and then answered his question. He began by breaking down Hispanic into it’s parts. His, panic.

We are not here to teach America how do dance the Macarena. We are not here to increase the wealth of holders of portfolios who have invested wisely in Taco Bell. We are not here to make you press “1” for English and “2” for Spanish. It’s not why we’re here, amigo. We are here to bring panic to those who oppose Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Wrap Up

Andrew Breitbart returned to the podium to wrap up the night and he did so with a powerful message.  He talked about the GOP and the Tea Party.  He said, plainly, the GOP sucked.  He said the Tea Party is lousy at public relations.  He then spoke directly to the audience.

The Tea Party needs you, period. Allen West and Tim Scott did not get elected through the leadership of the Republican Party. They got elected because of the Tea Party and I have been to Tea Parties all across this country and the people who move the crowds, they’re not invited to speak, they just show up and they’re the people that possess the crowds, and that is African Americans; and that is Hispanic Americans who understand that this country has been divided along the grounds of race and creed and we have been pitted against each other by this multicultural model that is nothing short of cultural Marxism.

He concluded by saying the Tea Party is there for the taking, that the left wants minorities to stand on the sidelines, but the Tea Party needs and wants them. It is about the creed not the color of their skin.

Pretty powerful stuff and if the message sinks in, there could be a tectonic shift in the politics of this country that could last for generations.  Maybe that is why there is a sense of panic on the left.

You don’t have to go too far to find a story about people suffering in these tough economic times, and your heart goes out to them.  Some have lost houses, are living in cars, really tough stuff.  But there is another story under the surface that reflects common attitudes developed growing up in the nanny state kicked into high gear by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In the midst of these tough economic times, instead of getting out of the way by cutting taxes and red tape, the Obama administration is focused on piling on more government programs.  Worthless stimulus packages, health care reform, and efforts to push cap and trade have not moved the unemployment needle a whit.  They extend unemployment benefits and keep whistling past the graveyard hoping they won’t get swallowed up.

Personal Responsibility

Since the Great Depression and the growth of the nanny state, more and more people have bought into the myth that the government can provide all, and our responsibility is to enjoy the ride.  An article in today’s New York Times writes about people benefitting from a government program to keep them in their houses if they face becoming homeless.  But there are some subtleties in the hard luck stories that give me pause.

There is the case of Antonio Moore who lost his job as a mortgage consultant that paid him $75,000 per year.  He lost his 3-bedroom house with a Jacuzzi and his Lexus sedan.  He is now faced with eviction from his apartment.  The article doesn’t go into details, but in most cases you don’t lose your house and car if they are all paid for.  Again, it doesn’t say if Mr. Moore bought his car new or used, but when I think of a car like a Lexus I usually don’t think that fitting in the budget of someone making $75,000 living in the San Francisco Bay area.  Had Mr. Moore purchased a Toyota Corolla instead of the Lexus would he be in better shape?  Again, I don’t know the details.  I am just wondering.

Then there is the case of Dawn Martin.

Ms. Martin is mortified to be asking for help. She grew up wealthy, with vacations spent on Caribbean cruises. “I had everything I ever wanted,” she says.

She and her husband have a painting business that until 2008 was grossing $100,000 per year, but in this tough economy it dropped to $38,000.  That’s hard.  But then here is the between the lines story:

Her father has money to help if it really comes down to it, she acknowledges.

“I don’t see him letting his grandkids land on the street,” she says, “but he’d hold it over our heads for a long time. That would lower me to a level that I wouldn’t want to go.”

So she is here, at Samaritan House, filling out the paperwork for the homeless prevention program.

So because of her pride, she turns to your family and mine, through higher taxes to fund a government program, to help her through her rough spot before she will turn to her own family.  But don’t worry.  When our money is gone, she will turn to Dad.  The painting business is picking up so Ms. Martin is confident they will be able to sustain themselves.  She is able to take our money to tide her over and still maintain her pride. 

But what did Ms. Martin learn about money when “growing up wealthy”?  Is Dad responsible for not teaching her or was she a rebellious child who ignored him and perhaps that is why he would hold it over her head for a long time.  Will she do something different this time around or hope for another government program?

Perhaps I was a little torqued before reading this story by another in the Wall Street Journal that wrote about the homes underlying the Goldman Sachs fraud case.  This article talks about a Ms. Onyeukwu, a 43-year old nursing home assistant with pre-tax income of $9,000 per month.  She is having trouble paying her $688,000 mortgage at $5,000 per month which is 56% of her pre-tax income.  Her solution?  Refinance it with a $786,250 mortgage.  But hey, the interest rate is lower so her payments of $5,000 per month will stay the same.  What is she thinking?  I could be way off base here but I’ll bet she could get a nice apartment for significantly less than $5,000 per month.  Sell the house, live within your means.

Government as Savior or Government as Pusher?

This is a tale of two government programs and personal responsibility.  We had or still have a massive government program that uses threats, goals, and sleight of hand to help millions achieve the American dream of home ownership.  This is not through thrift, like our parents did it, but by the government threatening banks with charges of racism (there’s the race card again) if the banks didn’t lower their lending standards.  As the housing market took off, the feeding frenzy intensified and everyone was trying to buy houses or finance them with less and less money down.  The Community Reinvestment Act, HUD, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac were all players in this debacle, but don’t expect our elected officials to wade into that swamp to see what happened.  No, they will pile the blame on the banks and Wall Street, while they take Wall Street’s massive donations and do nothing but pass meaningless “reform legislation”.  Now we need new government programs to keep these people hanging on.  How similar is this to the drug pusher who gives you your first hit for free to get you hooked and dependent on them forever.

What About Personal Responsibility?

Unlike the people in the articles, I believe I have responsibility first and foremost for my actions.  If I need help beyond myself I turn to my family and then the charity of my church.  I believe many conservatives share my views, which is why on average conservatives give 30% more to charities than liberals.  It is why I gave the moniker “Buck a Day Biden” to Vice President Joe Biden because in his financial disclosure forms he reported give only about $300 a year to charity.  Here is a man who has been drawing six figure salaries from the taxpayers for years, is a millionaire, but will not reach very deep into his own pocket to help his fellow man, but has no problem reaching into your pocket and mine to create some government program to give your tax dollars to someone else.

There is a man named Dave Ramsey, who was a millionaire in his mid-twenties but later lost it all and declared bankruptcy.  He now teaches others how to live without debt and take responsibility for their financial lives.  It is a lesson all of us should learn and if we do, I’ll have to find something else to write about that sets me off.  But in the mean time we have a lot of work to do.  First we have to stop the federal government’s runaway train.  Next, we have to shrink government.  Then we have to go back to being responsible for ourselves and wean ourselves off the government.

When will our President come to the realization that the government does not have any money save that which is provided by its citizens?  If he understood that, he wouldn’t have said this:

“Just as it would be a terrible mistake to borrow against our children’s future to pay our way today, it would be equally wrong to neglect their future by failing to invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century,” Mr. Obama said at the White House.

Let me posit a translation: we shouldn’t borrow against our children’s future, so we should borrow against our children’s future.  And let me add another pet peeve and that is how the statists have redefined the word “invest”.  What they really mean is spend, but invest sounds so much more grown up.  However, most intelligent people understand invest to mean when you put your money into something with the belief you will get all your money back plus a premium.  You don’t invest in the stock market with the idea you will never see your money again and will subsequently put more money into it next year.  You invest in a house with the idea that you will sell it later for more money.  You don’t invest in a house if you expect it to go down in value.  But our elected representatives would have you believe that pouring money down a rat hole is an investment.

Immature and Irresponsible

Like a child caught standing over his mother’s prized china lying shattered on the floor, President Obama wants us to believe it’s not his fault, no, we are going to have trillion dollar plus deficits for the next ten years because of Bush and the Republicans.  He is one year into his presidency.  This is his budget, not Bush’s.  If he can’t handle the job he should resign and turn it over to, er, Biden?  Check that.  Perhaps he can just go watch television in the White House for the next three years and leave the rest of us alone.  Doing nothing would cause less damage than what he has planned.  He jacked up spending 24% and then “courageously” instituted a freeze on that spending for three years.  Think about it.  If I gave you a 24% raise on Monday and then came back on Friday and said, “Gee, I’m really sorry to have to do this, but times are really tough.  I’m going to have to freeze your new salary for the next three years.  Can you ever forgive me?”  Could you not burst out laughing?

We’re Going to Make Some Tough Decisions…Next Year

We are in a fiscal crisis, but don’t think for a moment you are going to see any tough decisions in an election year, particularly when so many Democrats are in danger of having to find jobs in the real world.  So this year is tough talk.  Next year we get busy!

Democrats or Republicans or maybe the Tea Party movement is going to have to act, sooner rather than later.  Here is how the federal government breaks down:

• Medicare and Medicaid — 33%
• Social Security — 21%
• Interest on the Debt — 8%
• Defense — 20%
• Non-Defense Discretionary — 18%

The first three items continue to grow with no signs of slowing and interest will really take off when the Fed stops the easy money program.  Defense can shrink as Iraq and Afghanistan stabilize, but not a lot as this is still job number one for the federal government.  So do you see the problem?  You can thank Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson for the first ticking time bomb above.  You can thank Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt for the second ticking time bomb.  You can now thank President Barack Obama for what is becoming the third ticking time bomb and that is without his Health Care, and Cap and Trade.

So how is President Obama going to “solve” this problem?  By tinkering with the last item, Non-Defense Discretionary spending.  But don’t worry, he will also tax those evil rich and make sure they pay their fair share.  But before he goes too far down that path I have a suggestion for him:

1. Listen closely to the Beatles song “Taxman“
2. Ask yourself why the members of the band moved to the United States?

High tax states like New York and California are finding that a significant number of their wealthy citizenry are moving to lower tax states, exacerbating those states’ fiscal problems.  If you look at the percentage of the population that pays the lion’s share of the taxes you will quickly see that if a relatively small percentage of the population, who can afford to live anywhere, actually decide to leave the United States of Tax the Rich, the resulting fiscal problem will be very, very severe. Obama can only poke his tax stick in that cage so long before he gets a nasty reaction.

We’re All Standing On the Third Rail

Social Security has been called the third rail of politics, but the reality is that we are all standing on the third rail trying to keep our balance and if anyone slips and touches the ground, we’re all fried.  We have to suck up the courage to address Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  If we can’t slow the growth of these programs so that they take a smaller amount of the budget pie each year, we are toast.  None of those programs is in the Constitution, but the liberals/progressives created them with empty promises of benefits without costs.  This should have been the first clue:

“Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.”

Ida May Fuller was the first recipient of monthly S.S. checks when she retired in 1940. She lived to be 100.

She almost got paid back in full with her first check. She got 926 times more than what she paid in. That’s a 92,600% return on “investment.” Not bad, huh?

She got back almost everything she paid in with her first check.  Instead of ringing alarm bells all over the country, politicians patted themselves on the back for the great system they created.  We sent Bernie Madoff to jail, why should Congress be exempt?  What Bernie Madoff did was child’s play in comparison.  Where he fell short was that he couldn’t force people to participate through payroll taxes, and he couldn’t print money.  So why is what he did criminal and what Congress is doing not?  He had to get his participants to voluntarily turn over their money.  He promised returns of 40% per year.  Ida may got 92,600% return on her investment.

Burn the Ships

There is the story of a general who landed on a beach to face an formidable enemy.  He ordered that the ships that brought them there be burned.  By doing so, he knew his men would fight ferociously because there was no escape, either they fought to win or they died.  Perhaps we should do the same with Congress and President Obama.  Fix Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid or you join Bernie Madoff in Cell Block “C”, for running a massive Ponzi scheme.  What has kept Congress from fixing this in the past is the fear of not getting reelected.  Let’s raise the stakes so that not getting reelected would pale in comparison to incarceration.  It’s time our elected officials started paying attention to the people and not their perks.  The disaster train is going downhill and picking up speed, headed for a cliff.  It’s time ALL politicians put the country first and fixed this problem that, after all, they created.  It’s fun to give out the goodies, but this is a crisis that cannot be shunned.  It must be dealt with head on.