Right News and Views

You’ve seen all the popular books labeled this or that “for Dummies.” Well, that’s what Social Security is: “Retirement for Dummies.” Here is the introduction to the book I ought to write:

Retirement for Dummies: Social Security

Thinking about retirement? Why? Allowing government to take care of you through Social Security is so easy you literally don’t even have to think about it at all! Just give up your right to think for yourself and let government do the planning for you.

The Benefits

By allowing Social Security to provide for you you’ll be able to enjoy all these benefits:

~ The weight of the responsibility to be accountable and to take care of your family is given to people in Washington, DC to worry about! And we all know we can trust them!

~ The carefree, activity free, enjoyment free life of sustenance living on your small Social Security check.

~ Enjoying leisurely hours at home (because you certainly won’t have enough money travel anywhere on your Social Security check).

~ The security of being debt free (because if you’re not debt free when you retire and all you have is Social Security then you’re in big trouble).

~ Not having to worry about helping your pesky grandchildren with college or even buying them birthday or Christmas gifts (because your Social Security check barely covers the basics for your existence).

Sarcasm aside, Social Security is a fools hope- unless, of course, you want just a very, very basic existence paid for off the labor of others younger than you who are trying to provide for their own families. It may have had its place in its day, but its day is past and gone forever.

For women, I would suggest checking out this piece from womenspersonalfinance.net. Though it doesn’t attack the real problem of Social Securities existence, it at least explains that you can’t depend on it.

I also recommend reading this and this if you still labor under the false impression that Social Security is best for you.

It is a shame that the consequences to Iraq and the world if we abandon the war are not evident to all but it is nevertheless true. As Bush correctly points out, a nuclear powered Iran could, and very likely would, lead to a holocaust.

Granted, you can ignore I’mademonjihad (Ahmadinejad) and his threats. You can ignore his statements that he wants to see Israel wiped from the face of the earth. You can stick your head in the sand and passively allow the slaughter of untold millions. Or, you can stand firm with President Bush- not a perfect man, by any means – but a man who is right on this point- that terrorism and radical Islam must be destroyed.

Republican Sen. Larry Craig, if guilty of the charges, must be removed from office. There is no room for perverts in Congress. Period.

As good an explanation as any as to why Democrats keep getting elected…

They don’t come much wiser than Thomas Sowell. I’ve followed his column for years and am never disappointed in his insight and his clear and simple way of explaining whatever topic he is discussing. In his latest column, An Investment in Failure, Thomas lays out the problem that infects the very heart of so-called progressives: their desire to attack rather than to seek actual, sustainable success for those they claim to care about.

If the poor escape poverty, Thomas contends, they become “nothing” to the Left. Put simply, the Left’s success depends on the failures of others.

Failure, of course, is part of the human condition. We all experience it at times. Where the Left errs is in its attempt to remove the consequences of failure. Most people will feel sympathy for someone who has made a mistake and will hope they can somehow not have to suffer for it. The shoe, after all, could one day be on their foot.

But the Left takes this to the extreme. Failure on one person’s part, they believe, grants them the right to reach into someone else’s wallet to pay for the mistake. No learning occurs in such an environment – as adults are not so far removed from children as we would like to suppose.

Without consequences for failure there is no incentive for improvement. Yet a guilt-free, accountability-less society is the dream of the Left- a dream that will end in misery and ruin for untold numbers of people.

Kenneth T. Walsh’s The Dems’ Security Insecurity: New efforts to counter the GOP lead on national defense discusses the challenges that face Democrats in their efforts to fool Americans into believing they understand the threat of terrorism and are willing to act on that understanding.

The piece quoted Karl Rove: “Perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”

Well said, but President Bush put it best when he noted that “The stakes in this war are high, and so are the stakes this November. Americans face the choice between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror. Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on American homeland in our history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction, and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run.”

And, if they did not immediately grasp the seriousness of the situation after 9/11 then there is no doubt they still do not grasp it.

The terrorists are not stupid- just insane. It does not stretch credible reasoning to suppose they are even now plotting to attack us as much as possible after the upcoming election in anticipation of a Democratic victory. They know there will be less resistance to their onslaught if the “party of cut and run” is in power. How could they not grasp this, considering that the man so determined to fight and destroy them has been challenged so often, so loudly, and so vehemently by Democrats?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Put simply, the enemies of President Bush are unwittingly (at least I hope it is unwittingly) helping terrorists

I just finished reading the final book in the Harry Potter series. I noticed a couple of things. First, early in the book, Harry considers his Uncle Vernon’s trust in “the establishment,” even the establishment of the wizarding world (which he usually despises all things concerning), and is not surprised. Harry’s uncle, aunt, and cousin are in danger and it is this establishment, Vernon believes, that should do something. It is a clear dig at socialists who believe government is the answer to every problem.

Secondly, and repeatedly, J.K. Rowling brings up “the greater good” as it relates to not only Lord Voldemort’s plans but even revealing that, in his youth, the wise and kindly Albus Dumbledore once subscribed to the idea of pursuing the greater good, despite the costs to the freedom, even lives, of the few. Of course, Dumbledore eventually realized the mistake in his thinking.

I won’t reveal any more than that for those that may as yet not have completed the book. But it’s in there; Voldemort and his followers are a mixture of Nazi’s and communists.

’Starve the Beast’ Doesn’t Work is a great piece by Clive Crook. It explains why cutting taxes to limit government spending just doesn’t work. I had never really thought about it because borrowing money is something, with the single exception of the purchase of my home, I just don’t do. But that’s exactly what government does. Either way, as Crook points out, government is going to feed- if not on tax revenues then through borrowing.

What I believe we have to do is cut spending, and adjust taxes accordingly. Wipe out Social Security for everybody 40 and under, eliminate welfare and other government “give-me” programs, utterly do away with all pork spending, and get government out of about 80% of the rest of the “duties” it has assumed for itself.

If we can’t starve it, we can at least beat it into submission by sending to Washington beast handlers who will cut spending to achieve lower taxes. As Crook noted the arguments in his introduction: lower taxes will not only spur growth but they are simply desirable in their own right as “people should keep as much of their income as possible.”

That’s for sure.

In this weeks column I make some general observations about the state of affairs.

Here is a side of the abortion issue I never considered before: the money side. Abortion is, according to Alicia Colon, a billion dollar a year industry. “Ever wonder why those who formerly opposed abortion, such as Vice President Gore and the Reverend Jesse Jackson, switched positions?” she asks. That pretty well sums up why many politicians and activists who understand abortion ends a human life nevertheless support the atrocious practice.

But the core of Colon’s column discusses a forum on the subject of “What’s So Bad About Abortion?” Gee, I don’t know. You tell me what’s so bad about having a knife stuck in the back of your head and having your brains sucked out. If you can tell me what’s so bad about that then I can explain what’s so bad about abortion. But for those who want to buy “I had an abortion” tee shirts the slaughter of unborn life is a sacred right to be practiced and preached as much as possible.

But here’s the thing/propaganda/lie. It’s not abortion. It’s “a woman’s right to choose.” It’s not ending a human life. It’s the “me” culture of doing your own thing. It’s not slaughtering your own child. It’s not having to be accountable for your actions. It’s not murder. It’s claiming an unborn baby is not human– sort of like the way the Nazi’s convinced themselves that the Jews were not human.

The piece is brilliant but the Left’s ability to call a thing something different that what it is- hiding the truth behind a clever turn of phrase – explains their success in fooling much of the American public and why many just won’t understand Colon’s position. I’ve even had people argue with me that abortion can’t be murder because it is legal. This would be laughable were it not so serious a subject. I recall to mind that what Hitler did in Germany was “legal” according to German “law.” These “laws” were passed by the Nazi’s but the holocaust was not only murder but mass-murder (“legal” or not). But Jews were not considered human and the laws of Germany allowed the “final solution” so – poof – instant, guilt-free innocence.

Sadly, the Left will go right on believing such garbage concerning its own holocaust.

Democrats in Congress just can’t seem to deliver what their base wants despite desperate attempts to surrender in Iraq. Thankfully, it seems they can’t even fail when they want to.

How silly. In a recent debate Des Moines Register report/columnists David Yepsen pressed Republican presidential candidates to raise taxes (“yes,” I can hear him scream in his own mind- “take more of my money!”). He must have a much larger salary than mine. But I digress.

He asked Rudy Giuliani: “Is this Republican dogma against taxes now precluding the ability of you and your party to come up with the revenues that the country needs to fix its bridges?”

Yes, of course, one bridge falls and it is because the liberals did not squeeze enough out of the hard-working citizens of this nation. I honestly believe that there is nothing a liberal believes cannot be fixed if they can just raise taxes a little bit more and assume a little bit more government control over our lives.

“Tax and spend” and “government is the answer to every problem” are the only two bits of dogma I see here.

It’s not that we should be negligent in making sure our bridges are safe (though I challenge anyone to recall from memory - without doing any research - the last time a bridge just collapsed*) but to expect action – and especially to blame – either Republicans or Democrats, the President or Congress, for such an occurrence is lunacy. Your state? Your city? Your county? Then it is your bridge and your concern.

Of course, such a loss of life is sad - especially so in such a startling fashion – but how many more die every single day due to drunk drivers or normal accidents? Should we stop driving completely to save those lives? No, of course not. Life has no guarantees except that it is not fair, you will die, and that you will pay taxes.

*It was in Ohio in 1969- almost 40 years ago.

Here is an interesting comment on the environmental whackos who want you to modify your lifestyle (or get government to force you to modify your lifestyle) yet have no inclination to make much of a difference themselves.

Not to lend any credence to the whole Global Warming scare by acknowledging that it is all the rage to the rich and stupid, of course, but as the writer points out: “how desperate could the planet’s plight be if the people who present themselves as most concerned about it consider flying first-class commercial an unacceptable sacrifice?” A great question- how desperate indeed?