Rebane's Ruminations
July 2013
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

51st_StateEight counties in northeastern Colorado are looking at the possibility of becoming the nation’s 51st state.  Like so many idyllic locales in the country, Colorado’s population corridor along the eastern slope of the Rockies has been successfully invaded by progressives immigrating from places like California where they have managed to soil their own nest.  And like in California, huge sections of Colorado now suffer taxation and regulation without representation from Denver.  So, these eight counties are exploring ways to again become free to pursue their own ideas of life, liberty, and property.

RR readers are familiar with the Great Divide debate that is growing across America as socialism’s autocracy reaches its tentacles into the last lairs of self-reliance and entrepreneurship.  (See the Great Divide category link in the right panel.)  The Colorado Eight are just the latest jurisdictions to express their yearning for a future not destined for a coerced comprehensive collectivism.  (more here, and google ‘8 counties, Colorado’)

These eight counties may be on to something that can help preserve the Union, albeit in a restructured way that allows the Great Experiment bequeathed by our Founders to continue.  To the idea of breakaway counties forming their own state (a la West Virginia), I offer that restructuring could come about in certain cases where such counties abut a neighboring state more congenial to the culture and values of such disenchanted populations.  In the case of Colorado, these eight counties might consider appealing to Wyoming, if such a realignment is mutually attractive.

Here in California most of the more sparsely populated inland counties already stand raped by regulations from Sacramento and Washington.  We have little in common with the liberal legions that dominate the coastal areas, and the two big metropolitan regions of the state.  The new state of Sierra(?) is beginning to look better by the day.

There is no guarantee that such a restructuring will work because socialism is a disease powered by ideological evangelism – ‘We know what’s best for you, or else.’  And it spreads virally, appealing to the under-educated with promises of redistribution and through co-opting public education to manufacture more of the under-educated.  But then again, we can dream …

[31jul13 update]  For completeness, this contribution to RR’s Great Divide category was meant to elicit inputs from the Left that illustrate what drives such a notion of self-governance in the America of the 21st century.  As of this writing it has done so in spades.


While the main implication of the Great Divide has been some new form of the Union that may include restructuring itself as a confederation of groups of more ideologically cohesive states, some considerable number of Americans have also actively been advancing proposals for the secession of their several states.  Dr Walter Williams, the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, writes in ‘Secession: It’s Constitutional’

Since Barack Obama’s re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitioners for secession have reached the White House. Some people have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861.

Secession has again emerged as an active topic of discussion on governance among Americans who reflect on the progress of the Great Experiment while we scale historical heights of ideological polarity as a nation.  In response to the pro/con commentaries and initiatives surrounding this issue, the Left has become apoplectic, as we will soon examine.  But before we get there I’d like to add to the record a thoughtful essay on the matter by historian Brion McClanahan in which he examines ‘Is Secession Legal?’

So, where are we on this current posting?  First, let’s recall that the topic I introduced above and wished readers to consider is not secession, but instead the alternative of restructuring the Union as is being variously proposed today, most recently in the reported eight counties of Colorado.  What I wanted to illustrate by this piece is the major force that motivates tens of millions of Americans to now openly talk about such initiatives and examine ways of achieving a more perfect Union.  And that force is the response of the Left which arises out of their profound ignorance about the workings of a democracy, especially as it has exercised itself over the life of this democratic republic.  An example of such a response has now presented itself in the comment stream.

While not being unique in any sense as evidenced by his like-minded brethren, I’d like to highlight the comments of Mr Steven Frisch on this topic (here and over the years elsewhere in these pages).  I pick on Steven Frisch because of the sustained virulence of his remarks (aka attacks) that illustrate the progressive mentality about the notion of the Great Divide.  As the CEO of a politically and ideologically active NGO, Mr Frisch is also viewed by many progressives hereabouts as being a leading intellect in their midst so that his words may be taken to represent a sort of pinnacle of thinking from that considerable quarter.

Nevertheless, from his remarks over the years we find that he is poorly read, for he keeps ignoring the national mood on the Great Divide and believes that the entire notion is a hare-brained idea cooked up by yours truly, alone on a forested ridge in our backwoods community.  As do all progressives looking for a fundamental transformation of America, he believes himself to be the true patriot and a cut above the rest.  From his commentary we see that he considers himself beyond enquiry about another’s arguments, and gratuitously supplies what others have really said and thought.  It is with those convenient strawmen that he likes to do battle, and over whom he then celebrates his victories.

His profound ignorance of American history and questions of constitutionality is about on par with the cohort he represents.  Samplings from such ignorance adorn his main thrust, which for reasons beyond specious is to attack the messenger for even daring to raise the topic of the Great Divide.

In his diatribe you will note that he has not understood the subject of the post, or what are the sentiments of the Coloradans in the eight counties.  In his auto-apoplectic state he instead quotes the oath taken by naturalized citizens like me, impugning that somehow introducing commentary and providing a discussion forum for what is going on in the country is treasonous and lese majesty to everything American.  And then ascending ever higher on the steps of hubris, he again invites me to go back to Estonia – “you can renounce your American citizenship and get the hell out of my country.”

Did you notice the “my country”?  In his froth he overlooks that he was born into MY country, for I was an American before him, and those like me worked hard to preserve and present him with a nation that he and his are now deconstructing.

But perhaps the real pinnacle of his ignorance is his sneering counsel to salve the grievances of the hundreds of thousands of American petitioners, including the Coloradans, by advising them, “I would have them vote George. I would have them vote.”  This as if these people have not been voting desperately all of their lives.

What the Frisches of America don’t understand is that carelessly tended democracies come to a time in their evolution at which a minority becomes permanently disenfranchised.  In short, a point is passed after which voting no longer works as the proponents and recipients of ever more comprehensive wealth transfer pogroms irrevocably tip the scales.  I believe, with accelerating technology, public education in the toilet, and systemic unemployment growing, that we may be past that point now.

What puts paid to this assessment is the unfettered control that the leftwing elites exert on an electorate with a huge and growing component of oblivians and the un/under-educated.  Nevertheless, there are at least one hundred million Americans who see the country as having gone terribly wrong, and who are desperately seeking ways to bring back the American dream which is no longer known nor shared by the majority.

Posted in , , , ,

213 responses to “The Great Divide through Restructuring? (updated 31jul13)”

  1. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Paul,
    You summed it up pretty well.

    Like

  2. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 110pm – You didn’t touch on my government control of money flow, the curtailing of which is the ONLY means of bringing back a responsive and liberal government. But then IMHO that is the litmus test between the expansive vs limited govt types – i.e. the Right and the Left.

    Like

  3. Paul Emery Avatar

    Sure George
    In the spirit of generally agreeing with your position I see little evidence in our modern history that shows any significant difference between the establishment right or left on this issue. Most recently in your view was that “curtailing” in process during the recent Bush administration and do you consider those years to indeed be a representation of the “right” as you like to categorize things? AS far as ” bringing back a responsive and liberal government” can you point me to a time when that was indeed in place?
    Did you view Romney as a strong advocate of this very serious reform concept?

    Like

  4. TheMIkeyMcD Avatar
    TheMIkeyMcD

    Best of luck to the Colorado Eight…. actions speak louder than words.

    Like

  5. Al Avatar
    Al

    Since 1913 we’ve all been captured red v. black ants pitted inside a hardhat for coarse amusement during a lunchbreak in the woods.

    Like

  6. Gregory Avatar

    “The “Libertarian” government referred to in your 11:07 will never come to pass because it would upset the control held by those with the money to control the election process.”
    Paul, the money doesn’t “control” the process. It does it’s damnedest to affect it, more or less effectively, but in California the biggest money in the room is not the likes of the Koch Bros. but rather public employee unions, estimated by some at $250 million a year spent on politics from top to bottom.

    Like

  7. Gregory Avatar

    “So George that’s a good explanation as to why we have essentially a one party system that exercises little drama every four years to try to exhibit differences so people think they have options.” Paul 1:10PM Aug 3
    So Paul, does that mean you think the CTA and other California public employee unions are the ‘ruling class’ in California and the reason we have ‘essentially a one party system’ in this state?

    Like

  8. George Rebane Avatar

    re Gregory 938am – an interesting question with an equally interesting answer to come.

    Like

  9. Paul Emery Avatar

    George, Gregory
    Sure they are a force and might be as an organization part of the “ruling class”, my loosely defined tag for those in control because of the influence of their money.
    However, if the Pubbers really wanted to challenge the Dem Dems in California they would nominate someone that’s electable. Meg Whitman? Really? She had to spend 120 mil of her own cash to play the game
    Again they threw the fight like the Pres elections in ’08 and ’12.
    The mediocrity of the Republicans in California insures Dem control.
    Gregory
    The contributions deducted from teachers in Cal is voluntary so it’s an expression of free speech right? $250 mil? Can you at all document that?

    Like

  10. Gregory Avatar

    It isn’t just teachers, Paul. All public employee unions. Google ‘union spending in california politics’ and you’ll get an eyefull; there’s a reason the unions pulled out all stops to kill the proposition that would have ended union payroll deductions and change to an opt in system.
    Public schools are union shops in California. If it’s voluntary, why are some California teachers suing to get out of paying for political spending contrary to their wishes?
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/california-non-union-teachers-sue-unions-over-coercive-political-funding

    Like

  11. Paul Emery Avatar

    They argue that the current process of deducting political funds from paychecks is already voluntary.
    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/cta-375172-members-political.html

    Like

  12. Paul Emery Avatar

    “The reverse-checkoff contribution is voluntary and flexible.
    Members are automatically enrolled in the
    default allocation of $15 to support CTA advocacy efforts and $5 to the CTA Foundation for Teaching and
    Learning. But no one is required to contribute and members have many contribution options. Please use the
    form below if you would like to make a change.”
    http://www.cta.org/~/media/Documents/PDFs/About/General%20Forms/voluntary%20optout%20form20120802.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20130804T1606259655

    Like

  13. Gregory Avatar

    “The mediocrity of the Republicans in California insures Dem control.”
    Paul, it’s the quarter billion a year funneled from public payrolls to Democratic causes that ensures the appearance of mediocre opposition.
    Yes, teachers and other employees can opt out of the political contributions, but reports are that they are given the run around when they do, and the opting out has to be repeated EVERY YEAR.

    Like

  14. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Q: How many AFL-CIO members does it take to screw in a light bulb?
    A: Four. Yous got a problem with that?

    Like

  15. Paul Emery Avatar

    Gregory
    Can you give me some details about the “reports” about how opt outs are given the run around? Fact or convenient rumor. Are you saying someone surveys the forms and calls people out?
    Actually Meg Whitman vastly outspent Jerry Brown on virtually every facet of the 2010 contest for governor, proving me wrong on this one. She campaigned like the billionaire she is, spending $177 million to Brown’s $36 million.
    The Meggers put up 125 mil of her own bucks and still couldn’t buy votes so somehow the people spoke and picked their preference.
    You can’t invent candidates as bad as Meg W, Romney and Palin. McCain was legitimate that’s why they put Sarah the babe in there to insure defeat.

    Like

  16. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Paul,
    https://action.seiu.org/page/share/ftscope
    SEIU does not accept or receive contributions in connection with elections. The union funds its electoral activity through voluntary member contributions to its political action committee, COPE, the Committee on Political Education.
    By law, our union cannot use dues for political contributions, and we fully disclose all of our political expenditures and the names and addresses of all people who contribute more than $200 per year to our political action committee.

    Like

  17. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Paul,
    http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php
    The broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.

    Like

  18. Gregory Avatar

    “The CTA began its transformation in September 1975, when Governor Jerry Brown signed the Rodda Act, which allowed California teachers to bargain collectively. Within 18 months, 600 of the 1,000 local CTA chapters moved to collective bargaining. As the union’s power grew, its ranks nearly doubled, from 170,000 in the late 1970s to approximately 325,000 today. By following the union’s directions and voting in blocs in low-turnout school-board elections, teachers were able to handpick their own supervisors—a system that private-sector unionized workers would envy. Further, the organization that had once forsworn the strike began taking to the picket lines. Today, the CTA boasts that it has launched more than 170 strikes in the years since Rodda’s passage.
    The CTA’s most important resource, however, isn’t a pool of workers ready to strike; it’s a fat bank account fed by mandatory dues that can run more than $1,000 per member. In 2009, the union’s income was more than $186 million, all of it tax-exempt. The CTA doesn’t need its members’ consent to spend this money on politicking, whether that’s making campaign contributions or running advocacy campaigns to obstruct reform. According to figures from the California Fair Political Practices Commission (a public institution) in 2010, the CTA had spent more than $210 million over the previous decade on political campaigning—more than any other donor in the state. In fact, the CTA outspent the pharmaceutical industry, the oil industry, and the tobacco industry combined.”

    From “The Worst Union in America”
    http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_california-teachers-association.html

    Like

  19. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 711pm – Did you forget to add the unions’ contributions to Brown’s measly $35M? Gregory’s 814pm is just a start.

    Like

  20. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    Does union money for political speech not fit into your opinion of what is political free speech?
    Why the public unions have been made enemy number one is because private sector unions have been dropped to their lowest levels in 80 years and what the republicans are trying to do is starve the democratic party of their funding. This has been going on for 30 years and over that 30 years the D’s have become more and more corporate if they wanted to be competitive.
    The nations largest unionized work force in the US is the post office. Look at what the republicans did to ruin USPS. What unfunded liabilities looks like when we fund them into the future. USPS is forced to fund health benefits to employees that haven’t even been born. The only business of any considerable size that is forced to do fund future liabilities and they have gone bankrupt in less than a decade.

    Like

  21. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Ben, that is because Big Government controlled the PO for decades and decades before the Pony Express and after. Same with Amtrak. Heck, if Greyhound was managed by the US Government as well, they would still lose money but continue to stay in business.
    As you would say, there are many factors regarding the demise of the USPO. Funding unfunded liabilities in advance is just a symptom. Lets get down to some of the root causes. Nah, too much time.
    Perhaps something called the internet, e-mail, cost of postage, competition from labor unfriendly mean old evil capitalism pig Fed Express. Let’s not forget Brown (UPS) who gets down with business services. Like how many post masters do we need?
    I actually picked up a pen, searched for an envelop, found my Forever stamps and mailed an old jr high buddy a heart felt letter. Felt weird, but nice and personal at the same time. In the meantime, I sent/received a truck load of e-mails, paid all bills on-line, paid the monthly nut (its on autopilot, along with PG&E, and the internet provider out here) and I still have that book of Forever Stamps that is collecting dust. The last check I wrote was for propane and they have not been by this summer.
    When I purchase things on-line, its the UPS guy that usually shows up, not the sweet funny USPO delivery woman. I like her but she just sticks a thing in my mailbox telling me to come on down, unlike Brown who gets down.
    Its not fair. You live by Uncle Sam, you die by Uncle Sam. I don’t care if Fed Express is here today and gone tomorrow. There will be someone else to fill those shoes. Whatever happened to Tiger Freight?

    Like

  22. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Bill,
    The post office was having to make some changes to stay viable but if you take out the future funding over the last few years the USPS would have been turning a profit.
    http://www.sanders.senate.gov/
    “The Postal Service is an institution of enormous importance to the American people. It must be preserved and protected. About 80 percent of the financial problems of the Postal Service are the result of an unprecedented and onerous mandate that forces it to pay 75 years of future retiree health benefits over a 10-year period. While we all understand that the Postal Service is experiencing financial problems today and that changes need to be made, providing fewer services and poorer quality is not the way to save the Postal Service. That is why I am strongly opposed to this legislation,” Sanders concluded.”

    Like

  23. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Bill,
    Having to fund 75 years of future employees benefits in a 10 year span would bankrupt any company who has benefits. Walmart wouldn’t have a problem since they don’t give benefits to a majority of their employee’s.
    http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=22FF840F-B76F-4E09-9E41-E33A9762D4C5
    “The Postal Service is an institution of enormous importance to the American people. It must be preserved and protected. About 80 percent of the financial problems of the Postal Service are the result of an unprecedented and onerous mandate that forces it to pay 75 years of future retiree health benefits over a 10-year period. While we all understand that the Postal Service is experiencing financial problems today and that changes need to be made, providing fewer services and poorer quality is not the way to save the Postal Service. That is why I am strongly opposed to this legislation,” Sanders concluded.”

    Like

  24. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Good morning Brother Ben!
    OK, what is the solution to the PO’s woes? Seems like junk mail is keeping them afloat and you can’t stop the tree killing junk from coming.
    I like the post office when I visit them 2-3 times a year. That is the problem. Ever consider things like “no fire contracts” appear to a problem? Closest thing to “womb to tomb” coverage I know excluding people born with severe handicaps.
    Since I have been alive they have been studying better ways to run the operation. Even solicited college students to look at the operation and have contests for new ideas. Study this, study that until a postal employee can’t walk and chew gum without violating some kind of rule. Plus Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said old people like junk mail. And old people like to get their medicines mailed to them, including Saturdays.
    The PO ain’t going away. Just like Amtrak. Heck, all the small tiny towns I have lived in (I don’t consider GV and PV and Nevada City tiny towns) have a PO and it is like the meeting place. And they have a post master with personnel. The PO ain’t going anywhere in bigger bergs like Nevada City, just some will get downsized or cut some hours of operation in the boonies.
    Look at the uproar that happened when they tried to close the Rough&Ready PO. Same with Gold Run in Placer County. The PO, like other people who can’t seem to make it in this world, has become institutionalized. My ATM sells stamps as well as the checkout person in the grocery store.
    Maybe it will be like the liquor store in Colfax that serves as a liquor store, Greyhound Bus Depot and Western Union all rolled up into one.
    We will just keep funding the PO until the end of time, with more studies and more studies, forever and forever Amen. The workers don’t seem to have missed a check.
    Yes, Ben, it ain’t fair. If you don’t care for the funding of future non disgruntled postal employee’ health bennies, call your Congressperson. Our write the committee and various sub committees that have their dirty little vile fingers on the PO. Hopefully your letters will arrive in a timely fashion, which the PO appears to have done a better job of doing than 20 years ago.. The PO is just too darn big to fail. Antiquated? Yes. Money loser? Yes. Quaint? Yes. Efficient? No.
    Its not like the Major Leagues where the season will be shortened because of a walkout. However, I agree that this injustice must be resolved. I nominate you point man. Start off with commissioning another study, hold countless more hearings and rent a larger storage shed to freshen up on all the previous studies.

    Like

  25. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 927pm – First, I think your story about the USPS only has wings in certain circles. Its excesses and shortcomings over the decades have now called out the the Left’s history revisionists for the simple reason of preserving the voting block of USPS employees and income from their union. I agree with Mr Tozer that the USPS is an established American institution simply too big to fail. If it does die some day, it will be through a closely managed slow demise.
    And sure, unions can spend their money in ‘political free speech’. But the monies spent don’t always reflect the leanings of their entire membership as claimed. This is different from a private corporation’s management spending its money for political benefit. They have no requirement to attempt to fulfill shareholder wishes. The shareholder can simply sell his shares when he thinks the corporation is inimical to his sense of values. The union member cannot opt out with similar thoughts.
    However, what will surprise the union leaderships is how the function of the union will change when socialism finally triumphs. Unions will simply become organs of the state with their leaderships acting as perfunctory apparatchiks. There was only one union in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

    Like

  26. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Bill,
    What the PO has to do is become more 21st Century. One very real idea is they can become Internet provider and service. Originally post offices were exactly what you mentioned above they were Inns, Saloons, and General Markets. Rural America is where the post offices are getting hit the worst because they are less likely to break even due to having such small volumes. I say this on RR all the time. There are some things that aren’t meant to be a profit machines, a common good. The post office is one of those common goods. It actually is a safety net against class warfare but this time it protects the rural poor. Getting business done away from major population centers. It is not profitable for mail service to go to country roads with few residents. The same goes for Fire/ Police.
    Here is the kicker, those who claim to be constitutionalists are the same people (many times) who want to privatize the Post Office. One of the reasons we have public roads is because the Post Office is written into the Constitution.
    Article I
    All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
    Section VII
    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    Clause VII
    To establish post offices and post roads;

    Like

  27. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    Brother Ben: Don’t think there are even whispers of getting rid of our Postal Service. That would be down right unAmerican. Just belly aching that it is another bloated beached whale that is hard to get moving in the right direction. Whispers of even tweaking it here and there brings out the sky is falling crowd. Oh, if they could just let the river run.
    http://adland.tv/commercials/united-states-postal-service-usps-let-river-run-2001-060-usa

    Like

  28. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George, 05 August 2013 at 09:07 AM
    I feel the same about unions influencing our government as I do corporations. Many unions would disagree but ultimately a government who sets up the rules/ laws so that everybody prospers would be most beneficial to workers. I just find it hard to understand people working full time for a living are depicted as freeloaders and good for nothings because they want to live a decent standard of living.
    We have come a long way but have began regressing about 30 years ago for labor rights. Check out the history of labor and those ruling elite laws and oppression against those trying to organize and strike for hundreds of years. It began in the what became the US in 1648 when Boston shoemakers and coopers try to organize. Really it began with the first settlements of Jamestown with their poverty stricken indentured servants and then the slave ships. This is all part of labor history. The only way we can truly understand the history of a majority of the people is to learn and understand history through the lens of laborers/ workers. Unfortunately the ruling elite are the people who control the content of our laws, texts, and history books. This is why singing and dancing becomes outlawed in an authoritarian states. Through song and stories the poor history is told.
    “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” George Orwell
    Unions in our current system are very much needed and it has been proven over and over again. So in our current system I 100% support unions. If we got special interests out of the funding of our political parties I truly believe unions wouldn’t be necessary because employees would have a secure retirement plan and health insurance. Those are the big two expenses for the working poor. Those two things should be pooled together by all working Americans to assure a Social Security Safety Net. It is best for all of America to have healthier workers and to have those who are no longer able to work financially secure for the basic necessities of living, which is shelter (heat), food, and clothing. If we would pool our money together on such programs many of the other social programs go away. 150 million people with more money in their pockets and secure futures will keep the economy running much more consistently than a few million people with more money than they can possibly spend.
    Two solutions to these issues.
    1) Transaction Tax on the International Casino called Wall St. $0.5% tax on all transactions. Why is it I pay a $2 transaction tax/ fee for withdrawing anywhere from $20- $300 at an ATM but Goldman Sachs can make millions of transactions worth billions of dollars without a tax/ fee? This tax/ fee could fund a health care system and SEC at the same time.
    We, the US government, have set up a system for people to gamble internationally. No casino sets up something such as this without the house getting a small % of the action taking place within the house.
    2) Remove the cap on FICA and have all income (long term 5 year investments exempt) taxed. If this is done we could increase benefits by 50%. As of right now I pay 100% of my FICA because I am self employed and make under $110,000. Those who make their income through capital gains pay zero into the system and those who actual earn their income stop paying into it after $110,000. So somebody who makes a million annually pays FICA on 10% and change of their income.
    If we were to both of these very simple things Medicare would either become the single payer or would be replaced thus freeing up more money towards SS or whatever retirement plan that would be set up. The wealthy might have to compensate workers a bit more fairly but in the end they will live a much more equitable and just nation.

    Like

  29. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    The duopoly, one party government, least worst, lesser of two evils, or however we want to the current system in the United States.
    Testify- Rage Against the Machine
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0
    Who controls the past now controls the future
    Who controls the present now controls the past
    Who controls the past now controls the future
    WHO CONTROLS THE PRESENT NOW?
    Something I have in common with Paul Ryan, Rage Against The Machine (RATM) is one of my favorite bands. I have gone to see them in concert at least a dozen times. The best pits I ever participated in.
    Here is what Tom Morrello of RATM had this to say about Paul Ryan and the republican party.
    “Paul Ryan’s love of Rage Against the Machine is amusing, because he is the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades.

    Like

  30. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 1022am – Ben, you are a precious poster child of the concerned, good-willed progressive. Your casino metaphor is but the latest revelation of how you believe that government is the soul and source of all wealth, and therefore deserves its ‘house cut’ of all transactions (to which, as opposed to a real casino, government contributes no value but only friction). And most revealing of all is your simple belief that “ultimately a government who(sic) sets up the rules/ laws so that everybody prospers would be most beneficial to workers.” is an existential reality sitting on the shelf just waiting for implementation. And it all starts with raising taxes yet again on certain classes.

    Like

  31. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Here is a little more from Tom Morrello OpEd about Paul Ryan and the fascist/ corporatist republican party issues. Trust me, Morrello has little more love for the corporatist democratic party as well. As you might have noticed if you watched the video showing how the two parties represent the same interests, the interests of the ruling elite.
    “I wonder what Ryan’s favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of “Fuck the Police”? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!
    Don’t mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta “rage” in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he’s not raging against is the privileged elite he’s groveling in front of for campaign contributions.
    You see, the super rich must rationalize having more than they could ever spend while millions of children in the U.S. go to bed hungry every night. So, when they look themselves in the mirror, they convince themselves that “Those people are undeserving. They’re . . . lesser.” Some of these guys on the extreme right are more cynical than Paul Ryan, but he seems to really believe in this stuff. This unbridled rage against those who have the least is a cornerstone of the Romney-Ryan ticket.”
    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-morello-paul-ryan-is-the-embodiment-of-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-20120816#ixzz2b7L3Vk18

    Like

  32. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    Can you admit the one thing all Americans have in common is the federal government and all Californians have in common is our state and federal governments?
    If we are the federal and state governments and Wall St functions primarily on the infrastructure put in place by our federal and state governments shouldn’t they have to pay into that system? Currently they profit immensely off that system and pay very little into it, which is perfectly represented in the epidemic of inequality.

    Like

  33. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 1045am – Yes, only if you mean we are in common under the power of these governments which consider us and ours as their fiefs; otherwise no.
    The monies that privately set up Wall St has provided companies and individuals over the years is what has already paid many times over (because of govt inefficiencies) for all the enabling infrastructure you care to cite. Those who get from the govt and don’t pay in have not provided for this infrastructure. But then, this is a notion that is impossible to communicate to progressives.

    Like

  34. Paul Emery Avatar

    George RE:8:54 PM
    This article covers the final numbers in the ’10 California election.
    “The campaign’s final finance statement, which was filed Monday, painted a detailed picture of the most expensive non-presidential race in U.S. history.
    The grand spending tally for Whitman: $178.5 million, including $144 million from her own pocketbook.
    Despite that massive budget, she lost to Democrat Jerry Brown, who spent $36.7 million on his campaign, almost all of it coming from outside contributors.”
    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/01/107827/meg-whitmans-campaign-spending.html#storylink=cpy

    Like

  35. Paul Emery Avatar

    Gregory RE: 5:33
    “Yes, teachers and other employees can opt out of the political contributions, but reports are that they are given the run around when they do”
    What reports? Can you give some credibility to this?

    Like

  36. fish Avatar
    fish

    Can you admit the one thing all Americans have in common is the federal government and all Californians have in common is our state and federal governments?
    If we are the federal and state governments and Wall St functions primarily on the infrastructure put in place by our federal and state governments shouldn’t they have to pay into that system? Currently they profit immensely off that system and pay very little into it, which is perfectly represented in the epidemic of inequality.

    Oh boy…..everyone sit back and grab some popcorn…..it’s time for another episode of “Young Ben Emerys Journey Through Logical Arguments”……this should be fun.

    Like

  37. Bill Tozer Avatar
    Bill Tozer

    All workers will never prosper. Never have, never will. Even the Pilgrims had farmers that prospered and some that did not. Once they got rid of that silly notion that each would get an equal share (and almost starved to death) and implemented the cut being according to one’s work and ingenuity and fruit of one’s own labor, then they had a big old Thanksgiving feast, complete with the horn of plenty.
    Funny, even some of the women folk got resentful cause they did this group laundry thing. The wife of the hard working Pilgrim got resentful that she had to wash the clothes of the slacker. Human nature Ben. Some have ambition or drive, and others are happy to just get by. All worker’s prosper? Name on country, one civilization, one non fiction story. I think it all has to do with racism myself, albeit some are shot in the butt with diamonds at birth. They are the ones with the bling.

    Like

  38. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    Let me try to explain this so your conservatarian mind can process it.
    All money that has been put into the system has been taxed. Once that money changes hands it is wiped clear of past taxation because it is possessed by a new holder. When my wife and I used to pay employees it was with previously taxed money but when that money changed hands a tax was taken. Just as when that money changes hands once again from us to the employee a tax is taken. Why should those principals not apply to Wall St transactions? Once money is invested on Wall St it has left the control of one party and put into gambling gods hands. It should be taxed/ have common fee’s and when that gamble/ investment is removed once again changing hands it should have a common tax/ fee.
    Those who get from the government are those on the bottom wrungs of the system put in place by those who have purchased the favors of our our government. Those social programs that you complain about are the liberal way of dealing with a corrupt system. Progressives want to reform the system so those social programs aren’t needed or are drastically reduced. Since the corporate world or top 1% have never done better the system is running perfectly for them but for the majority of those of us caught in the middle we are being pulled downward while the wealth is redistributed to the top.

    Like

  39. Gregory Avatar

    “Here is the kicker, those who claim to be constitutionalists are the same people (many times) who want to privatize the Post Office. One of the reasons we have public roads is because the Post Office is written into the Constitution.”
    No, Ben. Take off your blinders.
    Congress was empowered by the Constitution to spend money on Post roads and post offices, but does not require them to do so to any given level of service. There were public roads before Federal post roads… how did that happen? It also does not forbid private postal services, does it?
    Only the largest towns had post offices, and in the days when Congress only spent money on things that it had an enumerated Power to do so, the lack of mention in the Constitution would mean they could do nothing. They couldn’t build a road between post offices without that enumerated power in place. Capische?
    Towns, states and individual citizens could and did (and still do) make a public road without Congress. Imagine that. I’ve little doubt the likes of Ben Franklin would have no problem with someone other than a Federal employee touching the mail at one or more points between posting and delivery.
    The Constitution does not direct the congress to establish the “US Postal Service”, to establish it as a monopoly and forbid it to use private companies to perform some or all of the functions of a (small case) postal service.
    Where is it in the Constitution that empowers the Congress to forbid someone to allow someone other than a USPS employee to deposit mail in a mailbox purchased and maintained by the postal customer?
    Regarding Ben’s fawning for the words of a Rage Against the Machine guitarist (nice to see a Harvard grad in Social Studies who found a better job than barrista) dissing of Paul Ryan, about the funniest thing I ever saw on Saturday Night Live was Rage Against the Machine being introduced by… Steve Forbes, who was the host of the evening. ‘Suck up to the Machine’ was more like it.

    Like

  40. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Bill,
    In every segment of every categorized group there are around 10% that are slackers or scammers. A 90% success rate is about as good as we will ever get. Punishing 90% because of the behavior of 10% is very backwards way of producing the best results. In fact it exacerbates the problem and that 10% due to circumstances grows as the inequality grows.

    Like

  41. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Greg,
    Trying to be disagreeable as usual.
    “Where is it in the Constitution that empowers the Congress to forbid someone to allow someone other than a USPS employee to deposit mail in a mailbox purchased and maintained by the postal customer?”
    Who said anything about eliminating private mail services? The discussion is about guaranteeing that everybody has access to affordable mail services. A couple years ago our local radio station had a guy whining about taking 5 business days for a envelope to a same zip code address. He didn’t do any research on the subject so I did it for him. I looked up a major competitor with the same parameters he gave on air about his service. I plugged into their system and it would have cost over $14 for the same service. So $0.44 vs $14.00. The point is very few people could afford to perform daily business if it cost $14 for a basic envelope to be mailed.

    Like

  42. Gregory Avatar

    “The discussion is about guaranteeing that everybody has access to affordable mail services”
    No, your rant was against a private company doing some or all of what the USPS does, because of the Enumerated Power authorizing the Congress to establish post offices, and the truly silly idea that we have public roads because of the “post road” enumeration.

    Like

  43. Gregory Avatar

    Now, to follow up on your silly $14 claim, that’s because only the USPS can deliver an envelope from one town to another and put it into someone’s mailbox. They are a monopoly, and not de facto… by law, no one can deliver mail into someone’s mailbox (or mail slot on their front door) but the USPS. Capische? FedEx or UPS can put that letter envelope into one of their big envelopes and deliver it to your doorstep (guaranteed overnight) for a chunk of money, but that says nothing what a FedEx or UPS would charge if they wanted to do a best effort letter mail delivery to someone’s mailbox and were allowed by law to do it.

    Like

  44. George Rebane Avatar

    BenE 1107am – Nice try; no cigar.

    Like

  45. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    George,
    You choose to deny how the system actually works and that is your problem. Sorry you are on your own with feeling like paying into a system that has granted you the highest standard of living in world history is theft.

    Like

  46. Gregory Avatar

    Ben needs to believe the poor are poor because their wealth by birthright was stolen from them so he can justify a “progressive” system to steal it ‘back’.

    Like

  47. George Rebane Avatar

    Gregory 1233pm – Agreed. And that’s why the disconnect is beyond repair, but worth being aired to those still seeking to make up their minds. The whole dynamic of human behavior is IMHO totally misunderstood by the progressive mind. The trail of tears their public policies leave behind is stark evidence of it – e.g. the destruction of the black family and Obamacare are just two of countless examples.

    Like

  48. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Greg,
    What is the difference between delivering to someones mailbox or their front porch? I get the monopoly point but don’t get the mailbox point. I think a huge chunk of people couldn’t afford the $14 cost of sending a basic envelope at any regular basis. If you are saying that the low cost of the USPS is due to their built in monopoly of mailbox delivery than the question becomes does competition lower the cost to the delivery services provided or would it increase the cost not allowing access to millions of Americans who are falling into the ranks of poverty? Roads, fire, police, education, health care, and postal service is that of the commons and should remain in the control of the people. Public higher private can be useful in some scenario’s but ultimately it is the people who should control the rules in that relationship. What has happened is a small group of insane republican strategists came up with the idea of bankrupting the largest unionized work force in America, which would help them win elections or force the democratic party even further right than they are today.
    The point you inherently miss on everything is the big picture. Whose infrastructure does UPS and FedEx use? If I live out in the boonies where very little volume takes place the USPS is forced to provide a service as long as it sits on a public road. A UPS or FEDEx could say screw that it is to expensive for us to offer services to these out of the way communities. See my friend infrastructure and the commons is to assure all Americans access to necessities of the society we have created.

    Like

  49. Ben Emery Avatar
    Ben Emery

    Greg,
    “Ben needs to believe the poor are poor because their wealth by birthright was stolen from them so he can justify a “progressive” system to steal it ‘back’.”
    Not even close. The working poor are poor because those who control the levers of our government through the R’s and D’s like a divided working class killing each other verbally, ideologically, and literally. How on earth can you say someone who works full time hours but cannot afford the general necessities or standards of living we have set up isn’t a victim of a corrupted and rigged system?
    We have never realized the ideals of the founders vision but have always worked closer to it but over the last two or three decades have taken a big turn and actually have regressed instead of progressed.
    Go read some real history, not revised history made up by right wing think tanks. A perfect example of this wasn’t you but your good buddy Todd J. claiming George is a modern day to Thomas Paine. I think Todd J doesn’t realize Glen Beck is insane and a pure unadulterated propaganda artist. Thomas Paine was the biggest progressive out of all the founders and the fact that Todd would compare the two must be very insulting to George and is ignorant of the actual history of our nation.

    Like

  50. George Rebane Avatar

    re BenE’s 1243pm – Here’s another example of ‘you didn’t build that’ and ‘you don’t own that’, you only benefit from those amenities through the grace of government. And therefore, government can forever increase your taxes on using what you already paid for and are now paying to maintain. Such notions come most recently out of the Elizabeth Warren School of Communism (but still called progressivism in polite company). In sum, you see that UPS and FedEx are not part of the public, but members of the despised corporate class that freeloads on backs of the working poor. That is the part of the progressives’ “big picture” that so many of us “inherently miss”.

    Like

Leave a comment