Our president is a poser

O made a remark the other day about not being born with a "silver spoon" in his mouth, for a twofold benefit: 1) establish a connection with others in his audience who weren't born into wealth, who had worked for a living, and 2) to distance himself and his audience from Mitt Romney, who many believe was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

The family into which Romney was born was indubitably wealthy. His dad was George Romney, highly successful auto industry businessman and Michigan's governor. But I read recently in an Ann Coulter column that Mitt gave away the wealth he had inherited, and the fabulous wealth he has today - he earned it. He worked for it.

Coulter points to O's young adult years as a counterpoint to Romney. She points out that O moved from Occidental College to Harvard University, when O has said that much of his time at Occidental was spent smoking marijuana, and points to affirmative action as being the silver spoon that aided O's career.

Sounds credible. But it's just one more attempt by O and his campaign strategists to buffalo everyone who's prepared to be buffaloed, particularly those who don't pay sufficient attention to public issues, and will blithely return to the fold in November, still hopeful for hope and change.

The other day, I heard for the first time O referred to as an empty suit, a politician with undeniable charisma, grace and speaking skills, with a fairness and equality agenda that is the hallmark of the community organizer, achieved byusing other people's money.

O is an empty suit into which David Axelrod, admittedly a very smart man, poured an image. And, without much additional information about candidate Obama to support an informed decision, and a compliant media to further reinforce the fanciful tale, Axelrod exploited our preoccupation with rock stars to elect one as our president.

Listen, I remember the disillusion with eight years of Republican rule, and the economic mess that we were in before O stepped into the White House. Hope and change is a powerful mantra when things were as bad as they still are.

My point: O is not the answer. He has become instead a very large part of the problem, and it will get much, much worse if he wins re-election. So go with the guy who gave away his inherited wealth, who not only managed but grew successful businesses.

O reminds me more each day of the last year or two of Jimmy Carter's presidency. Nothing seemed to go right. Carter was a big champion for human rights in countries that don't recognize such things, but it didn't net us much. Other countries need to respect us, and many of them need to fear us.

With O, you get the $820,000 GSA party in Las Vegas, replete with stunning video. With O, you get the spectacle of Secret Service agents whoring around Cartagena. Who's in charge?   Not O, that's for sure.

Let's give the job to someone who appears to be a good person, who loves this country and the ideals on which it was founded, with a proven track record of being able to manage large operations, like our fine nation.

The view from Belleville Lake - the rich are different

Much ado lately about wealthy folk in our land, and whether they deserve all that money. And part of the answer to that, goes to 1) how they earned it, and 2) whether others have a claim on it, because - why? - I guess because they don't have as much money. And the word used to justify it is fairness, or fair share - that floats off O's lips like honey during his speeches recently.

O has lately been making much of the Buffett rule, the notion that a secretary of a wealthy man like Warren Buffett should not pay more in taxes. In fact, she probably does not, although neither Buffett nor his secretary have released their tax returns, to my knowledge. That wouldn't fit the narrative. 


Now, Buffett's effective tax rate may be less than hers, because of laws we consciously have put in place to encourage investment. Capital gains taxes, which comprise a considerable share of Warren Buffett's annual income, are taxes on increases in the value of investments. It is in fact money that as ordinary income has already been taxed, so in paying capital gains taxes Buffett is paying taxes on the income twice, albeit at a lower rate the second time. 


We put these laws in place for reasons, and then politicians like O use use them as targets when it is politically advantageous. It is the worst sort of pandering, because it assumes that you, John or Judy Q. Public, is ill-informed and gullible. That you don't pay attention. That even if you did, you wouldn't understand complicated issues like taxes or subsidies for oil exploration.

Understand this: the top 10 percent of earners pay 70 percent of the taxes in this country. O is not looking for fair; O is instead looking for equality of outcome, though he dare not say it, particularly in an election year - particularly when less than half the populace thinks he's doing a good job.

Equality of outcome allows government to re-position the contestants after the race has begun. Your imagination, drive and hard work go for nought, in the name of - again, that word - fairness.

So much of the appeal of this proposal, and doubtless more to follow, depends on how you view the rich. If you view them as having arrived at their station in life through dumb luck, then maybe you wouldn't be opposed to taking more of their money. "It is easier for a wealthy man to pass through the eye of a needle, than it is to enter the Kingdom of Heaven," is how your reasoning might go. Or the Marxist saw: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I view it differently, and some of it derives from pontoon boat rides on Belleville Lake. I've been lucky enough over the years to have had several friends who live on the lake, and once in a while during the summer we get together for a leisurely, sun- and water-filled ride around the lake, accompanied by delicious snacks and cold drinks.

As we ride, we look at the lakefront homes on the shore, many of them 20 or 30 feet above us.

The houses are large and handsome, and I've wished more than once that I had a home on the lake. In fact, one of my favorite "the one that got away stories" is the lakefront home on East Huron River Drive that I let get away.

During our sojourn, we sometimes talk about the families who live in the homes. Invariably what they do for a living comes up in the conversation, and I've never once heard, "Oh, he's fabulously wealthy, and it's all inherited. He himself is an indolent, self-serving drunken scalawag with no redeeming values."

No, what I hear is that "He's a dentist." "She owns a store in town." "He's a successful real estate agent." "He's general manager of a company. "She's a chief engineer at Ford." And so on. The talk is about people who are hard-working, who get up every day at the crack of dawn, or work well into the evening, on holidays - whatever it takes to be successful. You can rest assured they've earned their money. And good for them.


And the people with whom I ride in the boat? Same good story.

But O would confiscate a "fair" share of their earnings, and hand it to someone. People who are smart enough to have earned this money are also smart enough to shield it from the government, using the government's own rules, or to simply wind down their daily production in some manner, creating less wealth for all of us.

That, my friends, is what happens with confiscatory tax rates on the wealthy. The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world - 35 percent - but it's not enough. It has the third-highest capital gains tax rate in the world - before the implementation of the Buffett rule - and still it's not enough.

When is it enough? It is enough when you rise up and vote in November, deny O's underlying philosophy that the vision of our beautiful country has never worked, really, and that we must transform it into his vision. Yeah, I say - when pigs fly.

I stand with the unborn

Let’s talk about abortion. I know it’s a difficult subject, for a myriad of reasons. But the stakes are so high, it seems to me, that not talking about it would be irresponsible and, worse yet, a conscious act of high moral turpitude. If we are to get props from the world and from ourselves for being responsible adults, we are called upon to work out these issues in a responsible manner.

I’ll cut to the chase: I’ve decided to actively support an end to the practice of abortion in this country. And here are my thoughts on the issue, and the reasons, the basic premises for my conclusions:

It’s quite a serious issue, not only because of the consequences on the unborn child and its parents, particularly the mother, but it partly defines who we are as a civilization. Does the 1973 decision in the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, and the 50 millions of abortions that have ensued, mark us as civilized?

Now, with respect to what my wife and I concluded in our younger days, we’ve always been clear with each other: we have the baby. We could no sooner prematurely end the life of an unborn child than we could abuse a household pet. 

But I’ve struggled with the politics of the issue for years. In my 20’s and 30’s, I was OK with a woman’s right to choose – her body and all that, and the specter of being further victimized by rape or incest, or something she didn’t consciously impose on herself.

Now, I knew that most abortions were not to fix those problems. And the range of reasons for having to consider an abortion is varied. The common denominator, I guess, is that the couple (or at least the mother newly with child) feels trapped, and that the resulting quality of their lives, the trajectory of their very futures has been jeopardized.

So a decision is called for. There is no abdicating choice in this. You are cornered.

I have thought about this issue for 40 years. And yet the single thing to prompt me to conclude my thoughts, to write and to act on it was the public flap early in February, when the Susan G. Komen foundation for breast cancer at first made, and then reversed a decision to stop donating about a half-million dollars each year to Planned Parenthood, who regularly provides advice of the highest import to women, many of them good and decent and generally responsible people, who must feel horribly cornered by an unplanned pregnancy. That advice very often results in the death of an unborn child, and there’s a fee involved. There’s profit involved.

It was emotionally difficult and sobering to see much of the media and Facebook friends exult in a decision that would result in more deaths of unborn children. Where’s the glory in that? Some victory. Adults 1, unborn 0.

I thought, do you understand what you’re celebrating? 

Here are my first principles, my premises, as it were. Ayn Rand often warned thoughtful people to check their premises, and it’s great advice:

·         Life begins at conception

·         To abort an unborn infant is to kill an innocent soul. A choice should not be available to do such a thing.

·         It is morally wrong, and the best of our morality, of our goodness, of our ideals, should find its way into law.

·         Adults, and here I’m also referring to those who haven’t yet reached moral maturity but still want the benefits,  the sizzle and the steak, as it were - must be responsible and face consequences.

·         If you don’t want the child, give it up for adoption. Let that child live; make another set of parents happy with the unfolding miracle you have conceived.

I know there are probably countless negative, highly personal consequences to legislating an end to legal abortion, or at least to imposing very narrow limits. But I can no longer kid myself about this: I stand first with the unborn. The personal consequences, the social consequences are secondary. The life of the unborn is the first principle, and with it follows the second: adults must be responsible, and face the consequences if they’re not.

Soon, possibly sometime during this Easter season, I will become personally involved in the struggle to end the option of abortion.

Jerry LaVaute is a special writer for Heritage Media. Follow his blogs “Pa’s Blog” and "The eye of the storm" at  http://jlavaute.blogspot.com. He can be reached at glavaute@gmail.com or call 734-740-0062. 

Morning hits April 12, 2012

From Rush Limbaugh, re the Buffett Rule:


"The Buffett Rule, they've run the numbers, they've crunched the numbers. The Buffett Rule is going to generate $5 billion. And when that figure got out earlier this week, Obama and the Democrats switched their tune. They said, "Well, the point of Buffett Rule is not to raise revenue and reduce the deficit. The point of the Buffett Rule is 'fairness' and make sure rich people pay their fair share." Don't forget the AMT is the first Buffett Rule, the first millionaires tax. This is purely a campaign device of class envy, or class warfare. But it's not gonna affect Buffett or Gates or anybody else who does not have earned income as opposed to investment income.


And Buffett, by the way, owes close to a billion dollars in back taxes anyway, and he's fighting it. He's fighting it! So this is a tax increase named after a guy fighting the IRS over his tax bill."


From the National Review, re the Buffett Rule:


If the Democrats wish to revoke the tax benefits given to long-term investments — say, on Americans’ retirement accounts — then let them do so openly, in the light of day, rather than furtively, based on a platform of what we might charitably call myths, if not outright lies. That reducing Americans’ ability to invest and save for their own futures would leave them more dependent upon Social Security, Medicare, and the like surely is not lost on Democrats, who profit from the increasing servility of the electorate. Americans should not be distracted by the Democrats’ class-warfare sleight-of-hand from the fact that the Democrats here are contemplating a purely punitive measure that will add yet another level of complexity to the tax code and create a new arterial blockage constricting the flow of the lifeblood of our economy.


From The Wall Street Journal, in an interesting piece about the conservative message and how it embodies compassion:

"To me, the principle of subsidiarity . . . meaning government closest to the people governs best . . . where we, through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities, through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community, that's how we advance the common good. By not having big government crowd out civic society, but by having enough space in our communities so that we can interact with each other, and take care of people who are down and out in our communities.

"Those principles are very, very important, and the preferential option for the poor, which is one of the primary tenets of Catholic social teaching, means don't keep people poor, don't make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life. Help people get out of poverty out onto a life of independence."

Related Video

Deputy Editorial Page Editor Dan Henninger on the Obama campaign's war of rhetorical destruction.

Subsidiarity—an awful but important word—attempts to discover where the limits lie in the demands a state can make on its people. Identifying that limit was at the center of the Supreme Court's mandate arguments.

Quick hits April 11, 2012

From Thomas Sowell, in the National Review Online:


"In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensations for injustices — leading to worsening behavior by the recipients."


A little harsh, until you recall the recent riots in several cities in Europe when government largesse was pared back, because it was no longer affordable.


From the Wall Street Journal:

"The Buffett rule is really nothing more than a sneaky way for Mr. Obama to justify doubling the capital gains and dividend tax rate to 30% from 15% today. That's the real spread-the-wealth target. The problem is that this is a tax on capital that is needed for firms to grow and hire more workers. Mr. Obama says he wants an investment-led recovery, not one led by consumption, but how will investment be spurred by doubling the tax on it?

The only investment and hiring the Buffett rule is likely to spur will be outside the United States—in China, Germany, India, and other competitors with much more investment-friendly tax regimes. The Buffett rule would give the U.S. the fourth highest capital gains rate among OECD nations, according to a new study by Ernst & Young, to go along with what is now the highest corporate tax rate (a little under 40% for the combined federal and average state rate). That's what happens when politicians pursue fairness over growth."

The follow-on clause to the fairness, redistribute-the-wealth argument that's implied but never actually said is: And when we take it from the rich, "We will give it to others. Why? Because we think so, that's why."

And from NJ Governor Chris Christie, from NJ.com:

"Christie spent most of his 30-minute speech on New Jersey budget issues, but brought up national policy toward the end. He said it is the least optimistic period he’s ever seen for the nation.

"It’s because government’s now telling them, stop dreaming, stop striving, we’ll take care of you. We’re turning into a paternalistic entitlement society. That will not just bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally," Christie told Bush, Henry Kissinger and an assortment of Republican governors in a theater at the New York Historical Society.

"When the American people no longer believe that this is a place where only their willingness to work hard and to act with honor and integrity and ingenuity determines their success in life, then we’ll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check," Christie said."

Situational Ethics

Author's note: the following is excerpted from a column that I wrote in 2006, when I worked for Ford Motor Company. In it, I talk about ethical issues, and how our view is at times affected by our personal circumstances:

When I lived in the City of Belleville, in the house on the northeast corner of West Columbia and Edison, across from St. Anthony Church, my neighbor was a forthright, self-reliant individualist who drove a compact Nissan pickup truck.

 In those days, probably 20 years ago at this point, to drive a Japanese import in the Midwest was unusual, and to brag about it was unheard of.

 “Real Americans Buy What They Want” was what the bumper sticker, placed on the rear window of the pickup, read.  He was unhappy with the quality of domestic vehicles, and wasn’t afraid to say it.

 As an employee of a company which designs and manufactures domestic vehicles, I wrestled with his attitude. He was knowledgeable about cars, that’s for sure, and he had every right to his opinion, and to the freedom he claimed to buy an alternative.

 I supported that back then, and was proud to live in a country that permitted him to say and to do that. I believed in the First Amendment.

 But I must admit that I secretly rejoiced when the pickup began to rust. It had a seam in the middle of the quarter panel sheet metal, and the unsightly spots and blemishes of rust that appeared and festered gave me furtive delight – God knew, and God was on my side.

 Lately, however, I’m beginning to wonder if my attitude is changing, or has changed altogether, toward Americans who buy and drive vehicles designed and made by manufacturers whose primary operations and headquarters are offshore. I’ve become, it seems, less tolerant, and that bothers me.

 In a larger context, what really bothers me is whether I’m guilty of situational ethics, where my views toward right and wrong are based on my particular status in life. Or can I still claim the moral high ground on ethical issues?

 As a Philosophy major in college, the issue is important to me. Am I philosophically consistent?

 When I was in college, mind growing like a mushroom, I read a book titled “The Evolution of Liberalism,” by Harry Girvetz. I’ve long been a sucker for Political Philosophy, and was captivated by his defense of modern liberalism, where the state takes an active role in righting social wrongs.

 I shared his ideas with my mother, who pronounced it “rubbish.” Interestingly, it was the same word GM used to describe New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s controversial statement that, the sooner that Toyota takes over GM, the better off we’ll all be.

  At that point in my mother’s life, in her 40’s, she embraced the spirit of rugged individualism that is the hallmark of modern conservatism, and dismissed Girvetz’s, and my, ideas.

 Interestingly, however, as decades passed, each of us wound up embracing the polar opposite of the political philosophies we supported when I was in college.

 She became a Democrat, and hated George W. Bush to the point where, when he appeared on television, she would avert her eyes – she wouldn’t look at the man. And I voted for him – twice.

 She thought O.J. Simpson was innocent. When he was acquitted of the criminal charges against him, I had to write a note to her acknowledging I was wrong. Before she died almost four years ago, she made a point of returning it to me, so I would forever be reminded that she was right. I still have the note.

 I wondered at this transformation in her, and concluded it was because she had moved past the stage of life where you just want the government to get out of your way, manifested most clearly in an antipathy toward taxes.

 Now, she was dependent on government largesse, receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits. She relied on tax receipts from all of us to make her life more comfortable. She felt she was safer with Al Gore or John Kerry as President.

 Will my attitudes evolve in the same way? Will I slowly become, God forbid, a Democrat, who believes in a powerful state to take care of its citizens, as if we were children?

 Only time will tell. I hope I can remain on the moral high ground of ethical consistency that continues to value personal freedom at the expense of dependence on a powerful state.

 But these attitude changes have a life of their own, it seems, and when you have a personal stake in the potential outcome, the instinct for self-preservation sometimes trumps the forum of lofty ideas.

An open letter to Mitt Romney

OK, you've captured the nomination as the Republican candidate for president, for all practical purposes. For surprisingly many people including Republicans, you didn't appear to be the first choice. Either those who sat out the race, like Christie, Daniels, Huckabee, Rubio; or those who ran and fell by the way , like Pawlenty, Perry, Bachmann, didn't survive. And now it's you.

Time to get to work, Mitt. You cannot blow this. This is too important an election. As O says, there will be a clear choice: more government, more free stuff, stagnant growth, wealth transfers, whistling past the graveyard on serious financial issues, or: a slowing of government growth, a gradual return of decision-making that affects our daily lives to elected officials, and not to unaccountable bureaucrats who promulgate the real rules of Obamacare, and economic growth spawned by freeing entrepreneurs to create, motivated at least partly by their unquenchable desire to make lots of money. 


Bring an end to class warfare, to the divisiveness that O now sows on a daily basis. He has become a divider, not a uniter, and he will tear this country apart to get re-elected. There's nothing wrong with wealth. 


Return responsibility for social welfare issues to the states. Local solutions for local problems. Someone has to be sensitive to the ebb and flow of revenue and cost, of limits. Impose serious penalties for failing to act responsibly as elected legislators, like not passing a budget in over 1,000 days. Promote responsible competition in education. Limit collective bargaining by public employee unions. 


Unlike private enterprises that are unionized, like the one I admittedly and gratefully benefited from for three decades, and continue to benefit from, there is no competition in government to act as a check to the raison d'etre of a union: to improve benefits for its members. Absent the auto bailouts, an issue with which I still struggle, the price for not being competitive on cost and quality is decline and perhaps extinction. Everybody associated with the private enterprise gets the message: clean up your act, rewrite those labor contracts, control your costs.


But that dynamic is missing in public enterprises like schools and governments. A relationship operates between public employees, unions and politicians wherein everyone wins except taxpayers. We have begun to see the limits of this habit, and, sadly, the taxpayers' willingness to pay more seems to have reached a limit. 


Mitt, get to work on how you wrest the political initiative from the commander-in-chief. He is a smart man, surrounded by smart people. But he and they are wrong, and especially wrong for our country. Spend two hours each day with your staff preparing for the day's salvo, and use generous dollops of pointed humor. Go on the attack early and often. Newt Gingrich might not be electable, but his eloquence and his commitment help to provide broad direction on the correct strategy to defeat Obama in November.

O cannot run on his record. Don't fall for the distractions that will be thrown into your path each day by O's team. Understand just how clever, unprincipled and ambitious campaign adviser David Axelrod is.

Pound O on national security, his shameful record on lack of U.S. support for Israel, his obeisance to dictators, his appointments during congressional recesses in clear violation of the law. Obama's real agenda for a second term can only be imagined, but given another four-year opportunity for him to make sweeping and possibly irreversible changes that will create an America of which his wife Michelle can at last be proud, it will bankrupt us, will divide us as a nation, and will threaten our very security as a freedom-loving beacon to the rest of the world.

America is exceptional, and it should continue that way, not only for ourselves, but for the rest of the world. Yes, we've got problems; we'll work them out, in a context of discussion, disagreement and occasionally bitter rancor, but we will work them out as Americans, not as supplicants of an increasingly imperial federal government.

Time to get to work, Mitt. Godspeed.

The launch of a new blog

I've long been interested in philosophy, particularly political philosophy, since late in high school. I was introduced to Ayn Rand's novel "The Fountainhead" by a colleague at the Syracuse Post Standard newspaper, and it changed my way of thinking about many things.

Halfway through college in the 1970's, I became interested in current national events. This was the time of Watergate, and my heroes were U.S. Senators Sam Ervin and Howard Baker. Once each week, I would walk to the store in Auburn, NY at my girlfriend's (now wife) apartment, get the brand-new copy of Newsweek magazine that had just arrived, and would return and consume it, quickly and excitedly.

I've decided to focus my current blog, "Pa's Blog," on just about everything except politics, but particularly family, and to publish ruminations about current events and history in this new blog, "The eye of the storm."

You get more flies with honey than with vinegar, it's said, so I will mightily endeavor to avoid hyperbole, blind single-mindedness and bitterness. We need solutions, not rancor. But the slippery slope which we're currently stumbling down is genuinely frightening to me, and my emotion, anger, joy, sadness, the occasional victory - will be very evident at times.

But I'd much rather engage your thinking, and your views, so we can get to the bottom of this, together. The road, however, may be a bit rocky at times. Welcome aboard.