Bring change yourselves, America

A promising title for an article I read on the Freep this morning by Mitch Albom. That's nothing new for Mitch. His articles many times sound promising (you know - fair, objective, no bull, no bias, etc.). Same is true with his radio talk show ("The Mitch Albom" show) that I listen to now and again if I happen to be driving between 5-7pm (it's on WJR-760AM). But his articles, as well as his many observations on his talk show veer left. And I mean VERY quickly. I always get a reminder in my head when I react to most of what Mitch sais. Remember the old SNL (back when it was good), where Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtin play adversaries in a show called "Point/Counterpoint" and argue about various topics? The classic line from Akroyd's mouth was "Jane you ignorant slut!" See here.

In any case, when I listen to Mitch on the radio, I often get a reaction that can be best exemplified by the statement "Mitch you ignorant liberal!" Mitch begins by asking "what are we so happy about?" Now I know he must be talking about his buddies at the freep, because I know he is not talking about me. Or many people that I know. Must be nice to be in an echo chamber of liberal ideology (also know as 'the cacoon'). Mitch continues:

"Our schools are in disarray. Our stock market is sick. Our environment is
taking a pounding. We face threats from Russia and a big shadow from China."

Yes, our schools are in disarray. Our government-run schools anyway (private schools and the homeschool movement are performing just fine, btw, as I wrote about just last week). Of course, the solution is to open schools up for competition, which liberals vehemently oppose. Instead, they want to throw more money at the problem, which has helped DPS tremendously (well, didn't it?). The incoming administration will not be friendly to giving control of children's education back to the parents where it should always belong. So there's that. Nothing to be happy about there!

The stock market is sick. Yes it is! Why? The housing market. The bubble that burst. How did that happen? I recently wrote a pretty extensive piece about this also. In short, the housing bubble was created by the subprime mortgage mess, which in turn was created by democrat attempts at social engineering in the banking system. Such is the case with so many failures in our past, and more yet to come. And the new administration wants to do more of this! So no happiness there either.

Our environment is taking a pounding? Really? Is this that silly global warming/CO2 thingy again? As global temperatures have decreased in the last year? The same global temperatures that haven't risen a single anything since 1998? That environment? A pounding? From what? No matter the platitudes in the face of science, the new administration was cap-and-trade installed, which is basically saying "more taxes" without using those exact words. Impact on the environment? Negligible to zero. The impact on the economy? Priceless (I mean, really - they can't come up with a number big enough yet). No happiness there.

We face threats from Russia and a big shadow from China. Yeah, but I think indirectly from Russia as they tend to give support to terrorists. It is the terrorists that pose a big continuing threat these days. Remember them, Mitch? 9/11? Thousands dead on our soil? And why a big shadow from China? Well, since we make it almost impossible for companies to do business for a profit here in the U.S. (highest corporate tax rate in the world, union domination in many sectors, etc.). The new administrations solution? Card check. Union thugs with lead pipes. More union control. Higher cost of doing business in the U.S. The China shadow grows.

"Why does it feel that inaugurating Barack Obama as our 44th president has already become a mini-Olympics of self-congratulation, parties everywhere, singing and dancing everywhere, exultations of near biblical frenzy?"

Uh, because it has. Like, since Nov. 5th? Unending gushing over Obama by the MSM to such a degree that every citizen slips in it when a tv is turned on within earshot?

"Any sane mind knows the economy moves with little regard for who sits in the White House. And Middle East wars proceed no matter who serves as America's commander in chief."

I guess we have a lot of people not 'sane' by Mitch's definition here. Where was any of this when the MSM blamed Bush for everything possible? Too many hurricanes? Bush! Too few? Bush! The housing bubble that's been growing for decades? Bush! In good economic times? Don't mention Bush (find something else to talk about and blame Bush!). Mitch's statement here is basically correct. Clinton got credit in the 90's for the economic boom, but had nothing to do with the underlying cause of that boom - computers and the internet (note that no one blamed him for the dot-com crash when that occurred at the end of his second term). The one thing that presidents can do to alter the economy is to alter taxes. Reagan came into office and slashed taxes dramatically. The economy rebounded dramatically. FDR raised taxes to launch a bunch of social programs in the 1930's and the depression continued for 8 years (until WWII). Taxes is pretty much the only thing the prez can do, for good or ill.

And the Middle East will continue to fight regardless. It's not a problem of territory. It's that one side doesn't believe the other should even exist! How do you solve that? What's a compromise? Eliminate only half the Jewish population by public execution? Not happening.

"If the Republican can see the celebration of Democrats and say, "OK, it's not my party, but it's my country, and it's good to give someone new a chance" -- then we'll have done something."

Excuse me, but where was this when Bush was first inaugurated in 2001? Where were the MSM calls to 'give him a chance?' What happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism? The tune sure has changed quickly, eh? (is this the whole 'change' thing that Obama talks about?)

"If the rich say, "I've had it good for a long time, and if the country needs
money so that we all have opportunity, OK" -- then we'll have done something."

Silly me. I always thought that the rich already pay the lions share to the federal loot. You can find plenty of info on who pays what via Google, but here's just a snipet: "From 1986 to 2004, the share paid by the richest half increased from 93.5% to 96.7%, and the share paid by the richest 1% increased from 25.75% to 36.89%. At the same time, the amount paid by the poorer half decreased from 6.5% in 1986 to 3.3% in 2004. While the poor's contribution was cut in half, the richest Americans saw their contribution increase by nearly 50%. When you get past the propaganda, for the last two decades the rich have been paying more and more while the poor have been paying less and less." That's a heck of a "progressive" scale already, eh comrade?

"If the poor minority says, "You know, I've always blamed this country for
picking on me, but it's time to drop that complaint and take responsibility for
what I do" -- then we'll have done something."

Not. Going. To. Happen.

"In the coming hours, we will gush over Obama to incredible levels. Nobody does celebration the way America does celebration, and, let's be honest: we seem to be extremely proud of ourselves for having elected him... ...he will not always say what is popular."

In the coming hours? Sorry, Mitch, but the gushing has been at obscene levels since BHO came onto the scene. Nobody does celebrations the way America does, or the way Barack is doing it? (read here, here and here) And he will not always say what is popular? Tax the rich? Give tax cuts to those that don't pay them? Tax evil corporations? Evil oil? Card check? Shall I go on? The guy's rhetoric is purely populist, and at worst obfuscates his true intentions, and the real results that might come to pass. I don't think many will be happy about those.