Peoples Press Collective » socialism

Senator Tom Coburn’s Annual “Wastebook” Released

Bob Adelmann — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 18:52:51 +0000

Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) introduced his annual report, “2011 Wastebook,” noting, “This report details 100 of the countless unnecessary, duplicative, or just plain stupid projects spread throughout the federal government and paid for with your tax dollars this year.” He added, “Over the past 12 months, Washington politicians argued, debated and lamented about how to reign [sic] in the federal government’s out of control spending. All the while, Washington was on a shopping binge, spending money we do not have on things we do not need, like the $6.9 billion worth of examples provided in this report.”

Of the 100 projects covered, three are especially egregious, and reflect the “spend spend spend” mentality prevalent in the halls of Congress. “The Super Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska is one of two projected bridges which became notorious during the 2008 presidential campaign.

The Knik Arm Bridge is designed to connect residents in the southern part of the Matanuska/Susitna Valley, or “MatSu,” with Anchorage, which would save them an hour’s driving time each way. The bridge would be 2.7 miles long and cost between $650 and $700 million (some estimates are much higher). The only problem is that there are very few residents living in MatSu, hence the bridge is named in Coburn’s report. Corburn complained, “At least $15.3 million was spent on the project this year alone. In total, more than $65 million in federal taxpayer money has been directed to various aspects of the project, including $57,390 for a 14-minute video, ‘The Knik Arm Crossing: Bridge to Our Future.’ ”

And $1 million of that money was spent just for staff salaries to promote the project.

Continue reading Senator Tom Coburn’s Annual “Wastebook” Released

Trump Claims He was Blackmailed by Republicans

Bob Adelmann — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:55:00 +0000

Donald Trump’s announcement on YouTube on Tuesday night that he was cancelling the Republican presidential candidate debate scheduled for December 27 tried to pin the blame on the Republican Party. A lot of the candidates aren’t coming to his debate “because they think I’m going to run for political office, something I can’t do now…. But around the middle of May I’ll be able to do whatever I want and I could run as an Independent. The Republican Party doesn’t want me running as an Independent. So they’ve made this debate pretty impossible…”

Trump claims he wants to keep his options open just in case the Republicans pick the wrong person to run against President Obama:

Continue reading Trump Claims He was Blackmailed by Republicans

Harvard Professor Calls OWS Protesters “Inchoate”

Bob Adelmann — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:34:37 +0000

After being asked about the walkout of a few of his students from his Economics 10 class on November 2, Harvard professor Greg Mankiw responded with an open letter in the New York Times. The walkout involved only about 30 or 40 of the 750 students who usually attend, he noted. In addition, some other students entered his class as a “counter protest,” and at least one of the original protesters returned to his class because he didn’t want to miss his lecture.

His biggest disappointment, he said, was “at how poorly informed the…protesters seemed to be. As with much of the Occupy movement across the country, their complaints seemed to me to be a grab bag of anti-establishment platitudes without much hard-headed analysis or clear policy prescriptions.” He allowed that perhaps the protesters “were motivated by an inchoate feeling that standard economic theory is inherently slanted.” (Emphasis added.)

“Inchoate” is defined as “imperfectly formed or formulated.” And indeed that is the proper descriptor of the Occupy Wall Street movement. From its de facto website one learns such “anti-establishment platitudes” as

OWS is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations…. [OWS] aims to fight back against
Continue reading Harvard Professor Calls OWS Protesters “Inchoate”

Happy Hour with Author of Shakedown Socialism!

amanda — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:28:52 +0000

Ever wanted to explain to someone precisely why socialism doesn’t work? Why not take a few pointers from someone who has lived it?!

Join us for a special “Bonus” happy hour event on Monday, August 29th as we are joined by Oleg Atbashian, author of Shakedown Socialism, and the creator of www.ThePeoplesCube.com.

When: Monday, August 29, 2011 from 7-9 PM
Where: Choppers Sports Grill | 80 S. Madison Street in Denver

There will be trivia, group discussion, a brief talk followed by Q & A, and of course, lots of social networking and beer drinking!

More info about Oleg:

Oleg Atbashian was born and raised in the Ukraine; he has been a teacher, a translator, a freelance journalist, and at one time a propaganda artist, creating graphical agitprop for the local party committee in Siberia. In 1994 he emigrated to the USA hoping to live in a country that was ruled by reason and common sense. He is the creator of ThePeoplesCube.com and author of Shakedown Socialism. He will have autographed copies of his book available for purchase.

Wake up, Amy!

Al Maurer — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 05:18:50 +0000

In a new report by a Denver newspaper blog, Monument Rep Amy Stephens said that her healthcare exchange bill, also known as “Amycare,” is not dead. She says,

The bill is still alive. I think everyone has to calm down.

Somehow, I don’t think that resurrection of this Frankenstein is a reason to calm down. The report goes on to state:

A broad and unlikely coalition of Colorado businesses, doctors, consumer groups and insurance brokers joined together to support the bill.

The report goes on to list the organizations: Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, Colorado Competitive Council, Colorado Concern and the National Federation of Independent Business. Business groups, yes. Doctors, no.

I don’t see a consumer group in the mix. Admittedly, the Healthcare for All Colorado group, a left-wing single-payer advocacy group, is one such supporter.

The business support is not at all surprising, as they will be the beneficiaries of the bill: in the case of business, they will be relieved of having to provide healthcare coverage; in the case of healthcare organizations, government-run healthcare ensures them a steady stream of government income and possibly a monopoly. It’s win-win for the looters.

The losers are Colorado taxpayers who will fund the health insurance and Colorado citizens who will find their health insurance choices increasingly limited until they are left with the government single-payer option under Obamacare. State healthcare exchanges must meet federal guidelines by 2014, no matter how they originated.

Stephens reportedly,

…sounded weary of trying to explain the issue to some Tea Party activists.“You’ll never satisfy some of them because there’s always some new conspiracy,” Stephens said. “I’m elected to be a leader and find solutions.”

This sounds suspiciously like left-wing rhetoric: the Tea Party activists just aren’t smart enough to know what’s good for them, like she does. She talks to citizen groups but she carefully avoids discussing the issues with them. On the other hand, she seems quite chummy with socialist Democrat Senator Betty Boyd:

But Boyd said she and Stephens had come to a new understanding.

Indeed. Yet it is not just the ignorant hoi polloi of the Tea Parties who think exchanges are a bad idea. Heritage has a mixed message on them. Cato is against them, as is the American Enterprise Institute. Most recently, Reason magazine published an article entitled Why States Are Shying Away From ObamaCare’s Health Insurance Exchanges. New Mexico’s governor just vetoed it, the Oklahoma legislature killed it, as did the South Carolina legislature. Florida and Idaho won’t touch it. Utah’s exchange–much touted by Stephens as a model–has failed.

In analyzing the effects of state exchanges, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels lists four concerns:

Federal regulations –NO timetable
Existing state models –NO value
Administrative burden –NO money
Demand (estimates) –NO clue

The Amycare bill answers none of these concerns. In fact, in true Obamacare fashion, the bill itself gives no details whatsoever of the exchange that would be created by the bill. It simply creates an exchange whose details will be written by the administrators, overseen by a board appointed 7-2 by Democrat single-payer advocates.

I thought we may have gotten through last week when Stephens offered and amendment that

would have said the exchanges could only take effect if Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, secured a waiver from the federal government opting the state out of the federal health care law, something Hickenlooper said he would not do.

That amendment is apparently off the table now, as her handlers wouldn’t go for it.

When is Rep Stephens going to start representing her constituents? It seems she is more beholden to business and healthcare special interest groups.

Wake up, Amy! Is this the issue you’re willing to end your political career for?

Euthanasia

Al Maurer — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 20:49:40 +0000

Saturday was a very sad day for my wife an I: we had to put our oldest cat to sleep. Guiness was almost fifteen, a respectable age for a cat. He’d been sick for quite some time. We had taken him to the vet, put him on antibiotics and tried everything we could. He had lost more than half his body mass; he was almost literally nothing but skin and bones. In the morning, he wasn’t eating or drinking and he could barely stand on wobbly hind legs. He meowed pitifully. Clearly it was time.

And yet, we found it hard to do. We know as Christians that animals are not people. People, being made in God’s image, have an immortal soul; animals do not. To put an animal down–especially to end its suffering–is the morally right thing to do. And yet, we found it hard. We knew we would miss him but it was him that we should be thinking about, not us. Still, it was hard. He was a bit of an odd cat: loved to be around my wife but hid from everyone else, including me. I still found it hard to let him go.

Why am I writing about this on a political blog? It occurred to me that if we were the heartless conservative monsters we’re being told we are, it should have been easy. That it was not is a testament to the fact that liberal socialists have been telling lies about us. We conservatives understand that the Author of Life wants us to respect life: That’s why murder and suicide are wrong. That’s also why abortion, euthanasia and withholding treatment are wrong.

Yet Obamacare includes abortion, euthanasia and withholding treatment (the “Death Panels”). Christianity as well as other religions believe that God has given us life and it is only God’s decision, not ours, when it should end. Socialists–especially Fabian socialists–believe that life should end when we are no longer useful to the collective or when the treatment is too costly for the collective to bear. The government will decide which treatments are allowed and under what circumstances. Antibiotics for a cat? Are we kidding? Impossible! Veterinary care is not included in the Obamacare bill. Yet. It is already being discussed.

No, it is not the conservatives who are the heartless monsters–it is the socialists who passed this healthcare law. It is not only unconstitutional because of the individual mandate, it is also immoral for its soul-killing provisions.

Guiness the Mighty Hunter

Unions are Obsolete

Al Maurer — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:58:15 +0000

That’s probably a headline you haven’t heard before.

All the union anger and protesting that has been going on in Wisconsin and across the country notwithstanding, the Ohio senate last week passed a bill similar to the Wisconsin one. The reasons are simple: as played out first in New Jersey, the unchallenged “rights” of public sector unions have been a driving factor in bankrupting the states that have them. To be sure, it’s not the only problem and Colorado is facing budget problems without a public sector union drag.

The issue is not just the matter of contributing to their own pensions and health care plans. The crux of the problem is that when public sector unions negotiate, there’s really no opposition to negotiate with. The taxpayers are represented only by their state government representatives–and these representatives have not been serious in keeping costs under control. There has been a conspiracy of sorts whereby the unions get their increases and the politicians get their campaign contributions and support. The taxpayers? They get the bill.

So when Wisconsin asks the unions to help balance the budget, the unions refuse and the Democrat senators leave the state rather than make the hard decisions. Their claim that this is all about collective bargaining rights is a bit disingenuous: after all, it was collective bargaining that got the states in trouble in the first place and if those rules don’t change, the states will be right back to square one in a few years. Insanity is indeed doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

The unions are really angry because they are afraid. Consider: the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that union membership in 2010 is down to 11.9% of the workforce from 12.3% just a year ago. In numbers of people, it is 612,00 fewer workers. Union membership declined in 33 states. No wonder the union bosses want “card check” and forced unionization. Their empire is crumbling.

Well more than 100 years ago during the industrial revolution unions made sense as a way to secure a livable wage and decent, safe working conditions. Today those basics are enshrined in law and public sector unions, in particular, are also regulated by a host of additional protections; federal workers also are supported by the Civil Service. Public sector union members at 7.6 million outnumber private sector members at 7.1 million. Restricting public sector unions strikes at the heart of union power.

With basic rights won, what do union do for their members? Sadly, they enforce conformity, limit productivity, prevent innovation, and reward “time in grade” over achievement. When I taught in the public school system, although I was not forced to join a union, I was forced to buy health insurance I didn’t need and a tenure system ensured that my previous teaching experience not with the school district would count for nothing. Many teachers are trapped working for a particular district because they would lose tenure if they moved. When enrollment made layoffs necessary, the rules ensured a strict seniority method was used.

The thing I think that most union members don’t realize is that when the workers unite in today’s unions, they are simply replacing one set of chains with another. It’s time to free the workers and let them become masters of their own destinies. Unions are obsolete.

Obamacare Unconstitutional!

Al Maurer — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:00:49 +0000

Who’s really surprised by this? Still, it is a milestone and a welcome one at that. It will go to the Supreme Court where Attorney General Suthers predicted last summer that this ruling would be upheld 5-4. On something this clearly unconstitutional the only shame is that the vote will not be 9-0.

The ruling highlights some interesting facts. The suit was brought by 19 states initially; by the time of the ruling 7 more had joined so that the total is 26, a majority. Missouri and Virginia passed laws essentially “opting out.” Oklahoma is introducing a bill (HB 1276) to nullify Obamacare. In all, 38 states have taken action to block Obamacare. There has never been less than a majority of the American people who want this bill repealed.

And yet the far left socialists in Washington and elsewhere–like Denver–will fight tooth and nail to keep it. Governor Hickenlooper and his administration are planning on moving full speed ahead to establish health care exchanges and are trying to get federal money to do it. It is questionable whether the slim Republican majority we elected to the state House will act to block them. We are watching closely.

Meanwhile the Obama administration last December exempted over one hundred organizations from having to comply with the law’s mandates. Today CNS News reports that HHS has given 28 waivers to unions–groups that contributed over $673 thousand to Obama’s 2008 campaign. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) recently told CNSNews he believed a congressional investigation will show the waivers were politicized.

This whole situation–the way the law was passed literally in the middle of the night, the public opposition, the lawsuits, the exemptions–highlights that this administration and the Democratic Party are attempting to rule, not govern, as if there were no Constitution. It is the rule of men, not the rule of law.

We the people sent them a strong message in November and the courts are siding with us. This is a great victory in our battle to regain our country.

Unemployment Benefits

Al Maurer — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:41:28 +0000

As the Congress debates whether to extend tax cuts and who to “give” the tax cuts to, the issue of unemployment benefits is being thrown into the mix.

The first point I’d like to make is the whole language the government and the press uses around the subject of taxes. They speak of “tax cuts” and whether we (meaning, in this case, the government) can “afford” the cuts, and who “deserves” to have their taxes cut and whether a particular group of citizens “can afford” to pay taxes. This is totally backwards.

Once and for all: it’s our money, the government has no inherent right to it and they (again, the government) are not the judges of whether we’re worthy to keep our money or not. Taxes are forced extractions. Judge Learned Hand was right and Joe Biden is wrong.

The truth is, Congress is not debating tax cuts but rather a tax increase.

But back to the topic of unemployment benefits: The administration wants an extension of them beyond the almost unprecedented existing 99 weeks as a concession to allowing us to keep our own money. The term being suggested is another year. That means almost three years of unemployment benefits.

Why does the administration want this? Well, the president’s Council of Economic Advisers said that without the extension, the recovery is in peril. Say what? That position statement goes a long way to show why we’re in this mess in the first place. A few points the Keynesian economists in government might like to know:

People on unemployment are not productive; they are consuming goods and services, not creating them.
Very long-term unemployment benefits is, in essence, pays people to remain idle.
There is no money to pay unemployment benefits: it’s all just increased debt.

The administration would like us to believe that they care about the unemployed and want to help them out, especially at Christmas time. Really? Or do they feel just a little bit guilty that their economic policies have prevented a recovery so far? Or are they just trying to keep these people on the dole in the hope that they will continue to vote Democrat in the hopes of securing ever more benefits? The answer, I think, depends on how cynical one is.

Let the government stop trying to create “state capitalism”–otherwise known as fascism–in this country and we will need neither higher taxes nor more unemployment benefits.

Democrat Senators Plan to Steal Americans’ Retirement Funds

PerlStalker — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:08:00 +0000

Not content to steal money out of Americans' paychecks, Senate Democrats are now looking to steal it directly from their retirement funds.

Democrats in the Senate on Thursday held a recess hearing covering a taxpayer bailout of union pensions and a plan to seize private 401(k) plans to more "fairly" distribute taxpayer-funded pensions to everyone.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee heard from hand-picked witnesses advocating the infamous "Guaranteed Retirement Account" (GRA) authored by Theresa Guilarducci.

In a nutshell, under the GRA system government would seize private 401(k) accounts, setting up an additional 5% mandatory payroll tax to dole out a "fair" pension to everyone using that confiscated money coupled with the mandated contributions. This would, of course, be a sister government ponzi scheme working in tandem with Social Security, the primary purpose being to give big government politicians additional taxpayer funds to raid to pay for their out-of-control spending.

Seizing a person's 401(k) is the same as breaking into a person's bank account and stealing their money. There is no difference. They may as well confiscate the contents of a person's savings account ... and it wouldn't surprise me if they're considering it.

(h/t @KatyinIndy)