By Doug Knickrehmis

Once upon a time, in the years after Lyndon Johnson’s creation of the Welfare state in America two cousins were born. These two are related figuratively and quite possibly, literally. Each grew up in a working class neighborhood. During their early years these two cousins saw the world as they knew it falling apart. Drugs, violence, sex, and sloth infiltrated their once promising neighborhood. As their parents and grandparents aged, the attitudes of responsibility faded from the area as a new era of entitlement was ushered in with help from The Great Society.

These cousins knew better than to rely on the government. They understood America as a nation of social mobility and rejected the notion of statically remaining a part of their crumbling surroundings. One cousin took to books and writing. The other, who never was fond of school but had a mind for business, decided entrepreneurship was his path to success. Due to his outstanding record in school and enthralling essays the scholar won acceptance at a prestigious university where he majored in political science. Mr. Entrepreneur used his business sense and ruthless temperament to abolish competition on his rise to power.

By age 22 each cousin had reached what seemed to be the pinnacle of success with respect to his field. The scholar graduated with a degree in political science summa cum laude. Concurrently the entrepreneur’s company expanded due to the rapid sales of a new product.

At this point the entrepreneur began to have legal troubles due to a new government program intended to curb his field of business. The political science major was rising steadily in his career as a politician. In his run for city council, he railed on the effort to imprison those engaged in the business in which his cousin was affiliated. He called the government’s war on drugs racist and detrimental to the community he represented. However, he never called for drugs to be legalized—because that would thwart his cousin’s business operation. Instead, he rallied the community to petition for more funding. The funding could be for anything. It mattered not, because in his city all that was needed for election was a promise and enough substance on that promise to get by.

The 80’s were coming to a close and the drug dealer was finally released from prison after a three year stint. He still managed to run his operation from his cell, and therefore had his throne ready upon return. The streets changed during his time incarcerated. A usually business first drug world, in which the best product sold, turned into a violent pursuit of the same customers. Always cold-hearted, this troubled him in the least bit. With carefully planned executions of rivals, his crew maintained their prowess.

Rampant violence alarmed the public, and the politician knew he had to call for action. He conceived the idea of banning handguns from his city. With his pitch of social justice, which always seemed to be government dependent, he easily obtained passage of the law. Contrary to his belief that reducing law abiding citizen’s right to defend themselves would quell the violence, murders continued to occur at alarming rates in his city. The drug dealer’s operation felt no pressure from the law because he ran an illegal business and never felt the need to arm his crew with legal firearms.

By the late 90s the cousins decided to get together at the politician’s beach house. They reminisced on their childhood and paths to success relative to their interests. At this point the crack epidemic cooled, so the dealer decided to retire a multi-millionaire. His cousin, however, felt the city council awarded him too little power and was plotting his run for the House of Representatives.

They were enjoying two premium filet steaks, and engaged in a dialogue that had never occurred in their lifetime. Similarities between each cousin’s rise to power, wealth, etc were discussed at length. Overall they concluded both held the same view of their community, success, and work. Both rejected the government’s attempt to hold them static as members of the proletariat. They employed their strengths to earn success. Neither felt bad about their acquired wealth, but agreed not many from the neighborhood could accomplish half of their achievements. Therefore, government aide was needed for the less fortunate stated the politician. The dealer retorted he was expected to meddle in a dead end job and depend on the government his whole life, but chose a different road and if he could do it anyone could as long as they use their God given talents to the fullest. Finally, they realized the system they rejected on their roads to success was the same one the politician championed in every single election and the dealer took advantage of to earn millions. Like a sign from Above they felt a feeling in their chest that told the same thing: “I left my community only to ruin it with the same system I rejected.”

A sip of wine, a puff from cigars, and the conversation turned to the upcoming election……..

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Doug Knickrehm lives in the Bronx, NYC where he is a student at Fordham University. His issues of interest include race, economics, and drug laws. Despite being white, he spent much of his time as a child on the streets in what some would call “the hood”. As a result of growing up in the inner city it has afforded him the chance to see a side of things many people don’t see.

By David Frum:

All around us we see the losers and victims of the crash of 2008: the foreclosed homeowners, the unemployed managers making a substitute office out of a Starbucks table. It was Michael Lewis’ brilliant idea to study winners: investors who shorted the housing market when the shorting was good. He made a brilliant book out of his idea too, as you likely don’t need me to tell you: The Big Short perched for many weeks atop the bestseller lists, and deservedly so.

The book is everything you’d expect from Lewis: vivid, funny, smart and ironic. His characters are fascinating oddballs: three recent college graduates betting their own dollars and pleading with Wall Street banks to disregard their unimpressive sublet premises atop Julian Schnabel’s studio in Greenwich Village; a hedge fund manager who dropped out of medical school because he discovered he didn’t actually care about helping people; a stock picker so disgusted by what he learns of the subprime mortgage market that he ends up a supporter of ACORN and other radical causes.

But here’s the thing you might not expect. At the end of his book, the winners have won tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet they don’t feel like winners. The years of being on the receiving end of Wall Street’s scorn and disregard were not smoothed by their moment of triumph – in part because in every case, the major institutions they bet against were able to mobilize government to save themselves, even reward themselves.

Read More: http://www.frumforum.com/how-wall-street-got-off-the-hook

By Dennis Sanders

Via Solomon Kleinsmith, the Washington Post’s Charles Lane thinks that there is going to be a crack-up within both major parties between their activist and pragmatic wings:

Insurgent Republicans keep winning: Rick Scott defeated Bill McCollum yesterday in the Florida gubernatorial primary, James Lankford came out on top in Oklahoma’s congressional runoff, and Joe Miller is edging out Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Clearly, the Tea Party is as much a revolt against the allegedly insufficiently conservative Republican establishment as it is a revolt against Obama.

If the GOP takes the Senate — admittedly still a big if, but increasingly thinkable — I wonder how Mitch McConnell plans to control the likes of Miller, Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey. Wouldn’t be at all surprised if they fuel a run for majority leader by Jim DeMint.

As the split between right and center-right accelerates within the Republicans, I expect an internal Democratic bloodletting if that party loses Congress, between the left and the center-left. How much longer can these two aging party structures contain the contradictory forces within them?

This post builds off an earlier post where Lane says there has always been four parties patterened after our forebearers from the British Isles:

You might even say that the four parties I’m talking about correspond roughly to the four political cultures first identified by historian David Hackett Fischer in his classic book Albion’s Seed. That book traced the main currents in American political ideology to the folkways and notions of liberty imported from four British regions that provided the population of early America.

East Anglia gave us the Puritans of New England, with their emphasis — “liberal,” in today’s terms — on community virtue. The Quakers who settled the Delaware Valley established a society and politics built on problem-solving and compromise. Southern England gave us the Virginia cavaliers, founders of a conservative, aristocratic tradition. And the Scotch-Irish who settled the Appalachian backcountry produced a populist, anti-government, “don’t tread on me” mentality.

Now, however, under the Internet-intensified pressure of recession, terrorism and global uncertainty, the four parties are breaking out of the two-party mold that had previously contained them. On the Democratic side, President Obama finds himself torn between progressives demanding an ideologically pure health-care program, among other agenda items, and a pragmatic wing desperately attempting to hold together 60 Senate votes by whatever means necessary. On the Republican side, it’s unclear whether the party’s right wing is angrier at Obama or at its own leadership. Certainly the fury of the Tea Party and similar groups threatens here and there to overwhelm more conventional conservatives (just ask Charlie Crist in Florida).

So is there going to be a crack up? On the one hand, I’m a little wary of a so-called “centrist caucus” forming, partly because…well, most talk of all things centrist tends to be just that…talk.

But I also think that in this age of the internet, where we tend to associate around like causes and beliefs, mass groups like our two large parties may no longer be relevant in today’s world. I think one of the reasons people are looking at the GOP again after booting them out of power in 2006 and 2008 is that the Dems went a bit too far to the left in regards to the stimulus and health care reform. If the GOP makes big gains or even takes Congress in this fall, expect that they will feel the wrath of voters if they focus on investigations of the Obama Adminstration instead of the economy.

I think there is a big group of people in the middle that would like to see things done. Where I tend to disagree with the “centrist caucus” folks is that the center doesn’t agree on everything or even how to get things done. While both parties have pragmatists, they are still tied to some ideology.

That said, it would be nice to see both the Dems and the GOP split up. That way we could have a more pragmatic conservative party ala the Conservatives in the UK and a pragmatic liberal party maybe more like the Liberal Democrats in the UK or the Free Democrats in Germany.

I’m all for more competition in the American political spehere.

Last  month, the International Monetary Fund and the African Export-Import Bank made $800-million in credit available to Zimbabwe.

This initiative is meant to help the country restore its ravaged economy. But for Zim and other nations that lack the basic institutions required to build wealth, simply loaning or giving them money is not an effective strategy for reducing poverty. What’s needed instead are programmes that foster the conditions that cause long-term prosperity and well-being.

A report just released by the Legatum Institute, an independent development think tank, helps identify some of those conditions.

The 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index was developed by a group of 13 distinguished economists and policy experts. The study ranks 104 nations by their level of prosperity.

Of the 15 countries that ranked lowest on the Index, nine are in Africa - even though many African countries, from the small Guinea Bissau to the relatively large Ethiopia, were excluded from the rankings due to a dearth of data. Overall, 55% of Africa’s population, and 90% of the world’s population, is covered by the Index.

Africa’s dismal performance can’t be attributed to a lack of aid. The region received a total of $716-billion in international assistance between 1960 and 2006, after adjusting for inflation. Yet many countries in the region have failed to achieve sustained economic growth. In 1981, 53.7% of Africans were living below the poverty line. Today, that number is virtually unchanged - it’s still above 50%.

While Africa’s poverty has not diminished, other countries have become richer, creating an ever-widening degree of global economic inequality. In 1960, the average person living in Asia, for instance, was poorer than the average African. By 2003, the average Asian was almost 2.5 times richer than the average African.

For policymakers, then, the big question is as follows: If 50 years’ worth of aid hasn’t had much effect, what will?

The Index points the way to an answer. It identifies nine ‘building blocks’ of prosperity - economic fundamentals, entrepreneurship and innovation, education, democratic institutions, governance, health, personal freedom, security, and social capital.

Nations lacking in these areas are at a serious disadvantage when it comes to achieving both wealth and happiness. Viewing Africa through this lens, the nature of the region’s problems becomes clearer. Look at Kenya, which ranked 95th on the Index. Almost a quarter of Kenyans live on less than $1 per day. The country’s plight is exacerbated by a disastrously high incidence of HIV/Aids, with close to 5% of the population infected.

Traditional aid hasn’t helped Kenya because it doesn’t address the country’s systemic problems. Kenya is plagued by high rates of assault, homicide and theft, due to frequent civil conflicts often caused by its repressive and corrupt government.

Or take Nigeria, which came in at 98th overall. The technology infrastructure in that country is very poor, with less than one personal computer per 100 people. Only 63% of Nigerian workers have attended primary school, and less than a third of the country’s students have a secondary education. Nigerian elections are poorly regulated, and there’s no independent judiciary. The result has been severe political instability that’s crippled this nation of over 140-million.

Contrast the state of these two countries with South Africa which, at 51st, is the highest ranking African country on the Index, and would be higher were it not for its high crime and security concerns. South Africans have relatively robust civil liberties, including the right to freely associate with political and civic organisations; 70% of the country’s citizens report being satisfied with freedom of choice in their daily lives.

SA has exceptional entrepreneurial activity, with over 41,350 new businesses registered in 2007. And the SA school system has one teacher per 30 students - a good ratio relative not just to Africa, but to the world.

Another African success story is Botswana, which ranked 56th on the Index. Botswana has experienced consistent economic growth over the last few years. In fact, since it gained its independence from Great Britain in 1966, the country’s economy has grown faster than China’s by some measures. Botswana would have ranked even higher if it were not suffering from one of the world’s worst Aids epidemics.

The country’s progress is partially attributable to the fact that it’s relatively democratic  - 84% of Botswanans report that they’re confident in the fairness of the judicial system, and 91% believe that the country’s political elections are honest.

The Prosperity Index makes clear what many already know about prosperity: in order for any society to flourish over time, people need to feel safe, and have the freedom to express themselves, start businesses, practise their religion, keep healthy, and develop meaningful social connections.

Growth is absolutely vital for Africa. The last 50 years of development policy have shown that money alone, especially money donated, can’t bring the region out of poverty. What’s needed is a holistic approach that focuses on the building blocks that empower Africans to help themselves.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS: * Roger Bate is the Legatum Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC. Thompson Ayodele is the Executive Director of Initiative for Public Policy Analysis, a public-policy think tank based in Lagos, Nigeria. The 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index, available at www.prosperity.com , was released on October 28. ]]> http://hiphoprepublican.com/feature/2010/09/05/planting-the-seeds-of-prosperity-in-africa/feed/ http://hiphoprepublican.com/feature/2010/09/04/harlems-republican-fighter-jolinda-ruth-cogen/ http://hiphoprepublican.com/feature/2010/09/04/harlems-republican-fighter-jolinda-ruth-cogen/#comments Sat, 04 Sep 2010 17:23:37 +0000 HHR http://hiphoprepublican.com/?p=14886 “The cuffs are off,” says JoLinda Ruth Cogen with a smile and sigh of relief. On June 30, Cogen wrote her last correspondence as president of the 32nd Precinct Community Council. After five years of leading many of Harlem’s community activists, her hands are now free to take on different activities in this new phase of her life.

“I have always been impressed with JoLinda’s commitment and connection to our community,” says Franc Perry, who as chairman of Community Board 10 has known Cogen for many years. “She truly wants the best for Harlem and works to see that we get the best.”

During the last 15 years, Cogen has played a key role in creating opportunities for Harlem residents to learn and contribute to their community. She introduced programs such as the Harlem Toastmasters and the district’s first Community Emergency Response Team. As a black Republican woman, Cogen has been criticized as being out of touch with local political ideals. Her reputation is mixed among officers at the 32nd Police Precinct. Her critics say she is pushy and too outspoken. Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of Harlem’s residents support and applaud Cogen, first electing her as vice president of their police community council, then as president for two terms. Along with religion, this has given her the strength and motivation to keep defending her beliefs.

Now that she will be spending less time advocating, a lot of Cogen’s energy will be focused on her new career, working for Prudential Douglas Elliman as a licensed real estate salesperson and Harlem specialist. In early August, four months after obtaining her licence, Cogen’s grin is up to her ears when she finds out she will soon be planning her first open house.  “If you fail to plan, you plan to fail,” she says. “I have plans for this new phase of my life, and I’m excited about them.”

Although Cogen spent time in Harlem during her childhood and today lives near Dorrance Brooks Square, she is not originally from Upper Manhattan. Born in Brooklyn on March 4, 1956, she was raised in Flatbush on Sterling Street by a police officer and a paraprofessional teacher’s aide. In 1974, while her younger brother joined the U.S. Marines, Cogen received a scholarship and studied political science at Boston College.

“I wanted to be an attorney, but I would have been too arrogant,” she says, taking the last bite of her pizza at a popular Italian restaurant on Amsterdam Avenue. Humor aside, she explains law school would have been too expensive; her undergraduate education was funded though her college’s Black Talent Program, which helped around 80 percent of underprivileged black students graduate from her class in 1978.

“Back when I met JoLinda, there were few black women who demonstrated that kind of leadership and success,” says Leroy Baylor, WHCR radio talk show host who met Cogen at a training seminar for inspirational speakers. “JoLinda was never a follower. She’s a person who speaks her mind and who is dedicated to what’s right.”

Indeed, lacking a graduate degree did not stop Cogen from making her way to the top. She excelled as a sales representative for such Fortune 500 companies as Xerox, AT&T and Wang Labs. She purchased a house in Somerset, N.J., at age 27, and enjoyed all of what New York had to offer a thriving young professional. Although she had been a Democrat in college, Cogen registered with the Republicans when they rang her doorbell. “I was making money and identified more with those values,” she says. “I didn’t vote for Obama. I didn’t think he would be a good leader, and I still don’t. Palin would have done a better job dealing with this oil spill.” It’s no secret Cogen voted for Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the last presidential elections.

Not all Democrats in her community see her political stance as negative. “Of course the fact that JoLinda is a registered Republican automatically sets her up for criticism,” says Baylor. “But it’s a good thing JoLinda works for black people’s needs from the other party. It gives balance. I’m happy she’s a Republican.”

Due to the economic recession in the early ‘90s, Cogen could no longer afford her house and moved into a smaller apartment in New Jersey. “I’ve been outsized, rightsized, and downsized five times,” she says, tightening her face. “You learn a lot from people who try to minimize you so they can equalize you.”

Her independence and strength stems from skills she learned from her father, with whom she was very close. “I’m a daddy’s girl and a man’s woman,” she says. “I’ll admit this has gotten me in trouble more than once.” Cogen does not deny being a flirtatious woman; this afternoon her coquetry helped get better restaurant service and extra cheese on her pizza.

The most important man in Cogen’s life was her father, a dedicated police officer who took risks to help others. “He was at work one day when a woman came in with her infant, asking for her welfare check,” Cogen recounts. “When the woman found out the check wasn’t available yet, she threw her child far and high up in the air.”

Cogen’s father leaped across the room and caught the baby, breaking several bones in his upper body. He was put on disability for two years, suffered from depression and alcoholism, and died three days before his 55th birthday. Cogen was deeply affected by his death, but found appeasement in religion on April 23, 1983.

“Growing up I was not very religious, even though I went to Catholic school,” she says. “I had a couple of meaningful relationships with men until I was 30. Then I found Jesus as my personal lord and savior and was celibate for 10 years until I met Michael. If I had learned about the glory of virginity early on, I would have waited for marriage. Or I would have gotten married earlier.”

On most Sundays, Cogen and her husband attend the 10:30 a.m. service at the Christian Cultural Center on Flatlands Avenue in Brooklyn. A coach bus leaves Harlem at 9 a.m. sharp from 125th Street and Lenox Avenue, giving the community’s evangelical charismatic Christians around an hour to catch up or read the newspaper before arriving at the complex. Cogen is usually part of the conversation, making jokes and having a good time with her friends.

“JoLinda always goes out of her way to introduce herself to people and to make them feel comfortable. She’s extremely social,” says Nicole Lyte, who for several years has been sharing these Sunday rides with her.

Cogen met Michael at her godfather’s cleaning business on West 140th Street. “On our first date she chose a low-key restaurant, like a Friendly’s, so if she needed to bail she could,” says her husband of 15 years. After four decades of being single, she had finally found a man who accepted her desire to be a devoted wife, while remaining the same independent and active woman she has always been.

Michael Cogen’s support has been crucial to his wife during the past decade, especially as she became increasingly involved in local politics. “My relationship with the police had become very difficult around a year ago,” says Cogen. “They didn’t appreciate my involvement in their business. I was close to resigning my volunteer position but then decided to stay on board as president for a little while longer.”

Given Cogen’s communication and advocacy skills, she often places 311 calls on behalf of her neighbors to report late-night noise complaints. “I didn’t realize they keep records of the callers until recently,” she explains. “So now I’m known as the crazy caller.”

However, the support from her peers is undeniable. “JoLinda has always fought against ongoing or potential wrongs to her community,” says Sgt. Keith Taylor, her neighbor for the past 10 years. “She has never felt that Harlem should be given less respect or resources than any other New York City community.”

One of Cogen’s goals as community council president was to help Harlem become less isolated. She founded the Harlem Toastmasters club, which meets twice a month at the Harlem State Office Building and teaches individuals how to enhance their communication and business management skills. With the rise of gentrification, Cogen saw the importance of offering Harlem residents the opportunity to become more competitive professionals in both the local and global marketplace. “The image in you is the image you’ll do”, she believes. “I enjoy helping others gain confidence; by enhancing their image, they improve their lives.”

Cogen is looking forward to improving her own life by pursuing more of the activities she had to put aside. For example, she is writing a book on relationships and will lead new “for singles only” motivational sessions. “I’m not single anymore,” she stresses. “But I was single long enough to give good advice on that topic.”

A big fan of John Wayne movies and World War II documentaries, Cogen intends to use some of her new downtime to relax in front of films. “I watch everything related to Nazism because history always repeats itself,” she explains. “Like the situation in Harlem. Hopefully things will change, but for now, black people are again being pushed out. That’s been happening forever.”

She accepts that with freedom comes accountability. “My new title is JoLinda. Just JoLinda. I’m going to stay in the background.” One could have doubts about Cogen’s ability to remain on the sidelines, but it is quite clear that throughout her life she has been nothing but open to change.

Source: http://neighborhoodbeatbox.org/2010/08/28/harlem-community-leader-begins-a-new-chapter-of-her-life/

JoLinda Ruth Cogen Contact: http://beta.prudentialelliman.com/real-estate-agent/jolinda-ruth-cogen/2738

By Andre Harper

He can be reached at www.AndreHarper.com

By Raynard Jackson

Be very weary of people like Beck.  They have become like the sounding brass or the tinkling cymbal, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. 

NOTE: The picture is of  me and Bernice King—M.L.K.’s daughter

 
Raynard Jackson is president & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC., a D.C.-public relations/government affairs firm. He is a contributing editor for ExcellStyle Magazine (www.excellstyle.com). For those who use skype (www.skype.com), please add him.  The name there is:  raynard jackson

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Calling state Rep. Jennifer Carroll a patriot and a decorated Navy veteran, Republican gubernatorial nominee Rick Scott officially welcomed her to the GOP ticket as his choice for lieutenant governor while standing in front of Naval Air Station Jacksonville on Thursday morning.

 Carroll, 51, became the first black female Republican elected to the Florida Legislature and was re-elected four terms as the District 13 representative in the state house, representing Duval and Clay counties.

 Carroll, a 20-year military veteran, is a political veteran who served as executive director of Florida Department of Veterans’ Affairs under Gov. Jeb Bush. Carroll, who was born in Trinidad and immigrated to the United States as a child, lives in Fleming Island. She is married with three children.  

If elected with Scott, she’ll be the state’s first black lieutenant governor.

Read More - http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/sep/02/021536/scotts-running-mate-will-be-state-rep-carroll/news-breaking/

He continues his commentary: “The War on Drugs discourages young black men from seeking legal employment. Because the drugs’ illegality keeps their price high, there are high salaries to be made in selling them — not at first as a low-level runner, but potentially as one rises in the hierarchy. This makes selling drugs a standing alternative to legal employment, especially if one has a poor education. The idea that selling drugs is the only choice available is refuted by the simple fact that immigrants, including black ones, regularly make do — as do plenty of black American men who happen not to ‘go the wrong way.’ Was the man who installed your cable TV a white guy with a degree from Vanderbilt? Did the last security guard you saw have blond hair?”

More commentary from Mr. McWhorter: “The War on Drugs brings firearms into black lives. Policing turf for drug sales entails guns, which then become tools for maintenance of the pecking order, including settling petty scores. A striking difference between surveys of black ghettos before the War on Drugs and today is how common guns have become. The War on Drugs lends a badge of honor to spending time in prison. Enduring prison time, regarded (with some justification) as an unjust punishment for selling people something that they want, is seen as a badge of strength. The ex-con becomes a hero rather than someone who went the wrong way. If there were no War on Drugs, this would be a non-issue.”

By Chris Ladd

On any given day two kinds of mail show up in my box.  Netflix, and useless crap.  My bills are posted to a website and paid online. My mother sends me nice email messages instead of letters.  I can’t remember the last letter I wrote.  It was probably sometime before 2002. 

Useful deliveries arrive at my door almost exclusively from FedEx or the brown truck.  They include regular care packages filled with Tony Chachere’s seasoning, Zatarains fish fry (great for onion rings), Steen’s ribbon cane syrup, and other necessities from the homeland.  None of them, besides my Texas Parks and Wildlife magazine arrive by USPS.

And increasingly, even my Netflix are delivered straight to my TV through my Wii.

Currently the US Postal Service is posting quarterly losses of about $3.5billion.  That’s quarterly, not annually.  You as a taxpayer are set to spend (borrow, actually) at least an additional $14billion this year for the privilege of maintaining an institution whose purpose in our day and age in entirely ambiguous. And that doesn’t include the cost of the USPS’s bloated pension liabilities.

The time has come to phase out free daily door-to-door mail delivery and sell the Postal Service.

Impossible?  The British are well ahead of us, with the new Tory government making plans to sell off the union-hobbled Royal Mail.  Japan is also considering it.

The Postal Service has one heck of a successful history behind it, dating back before the Declaration of Independence.  But its relevance today is comparable to the telegraph (which still exists, by the way). 

A history is not a future.

Continuing to fund the money sink that is our postal monopoly is a symptom of the nastiest problem of modern government - no government program, no matter how ridiculous or archaic, can be terminated.

In spite of the government subsidized mail monopoly, private delivery services have been able to thrive.  They could compete to take over the remaining valuable elements of the USPS, including mailbox services.  And the taxpayers could experience a brief windfall, perhaps enough to fund a portion of our liability for postal workers’ pensions.  And the losses would end.

There is no way to make a useless, anachronistic service cost-effective.  We continue to underwrite the postal service because it has a massive, powerful union and we often lack imagination. 

Selling off the postal service and ending its most outdated functions would be an intelligent way to show that government can be made effective.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Chris Ladd is a Texan who is now living in the Chicago area. He has served for several years as a Republican Precinct Committeeman in DuPage County, IL, and was active in state and local Republican campaigns in Texas for many years.

“We are honored and feel privileged to be able to add Damon Dunn to our ever-growing roster of special guests,” said Yolando Mitchell Brown, producer and visionary of the show. “Every Way Woman was thrilled to interview Damon and hear about his childhood – how he rose from rags to riches – a true American success story. We are eager to learn more about his political aspirations and future goals.”

Dunn is a graduate of Stanford University, a successful entrepreneur, real estate agent, former NFL football star, local celebrity and presently a Secretary of State hopeful for the upcoming 2010 mid-term elections.

About Every Way Woman (EWW):

Every Way Woman is a talk show that was created by women, for women. Every Way Woman is fair, balanced and friendly. It focuses on real women with real conversations and real solutions by discussing the issues that matter most with the help of Every Way Woman co-hosts. Founded in 2008, Every Way Woman encompasses viewpoints from women of all colors, creeds, political affiliations and religious backgrounds by helping empower them with a voice to be heard. (www.everywaywoman.com )

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson has steered thousands in scholarship dollars to relatives and the children of top aides, a Texas newspaper reported today.

The Dallas Democrat, a nine-term member of the House, awarded 15 Congressional Black Caucus scholarships to her grandchildren and great-nephew, among others, The Dallas Morning News reported Sunday.

The CBC, which Johnson once chaired, has anti-nepotism rules that prevent directing funds to caucus members’ relatives. Furthermore, the scholarship recipients live outside her Dallas district, another violation of the caucus’ rules.

Johnson first skirted the question of favoritism when asked by The Dallas Morning News. Days later she issued a statement saying she “unknowingly” violated the rules and said she would work to “rectify the financial situation.”

This is just the latest in bad news for black members of Congress. Several CBC members have been under investigation in the past year — most visibly Reps. Charles Rangel of New York and Maxine Waters of California, who are both in the middle of high-profile ethics committee trials.

Read More: http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0810/Texas_Dem_under_fire_for_nepotism.html

By Mark Ciavola

“How can health care for everyone be a bad thing?”

Several months ago, one of my friends uttered this quote in an attempt to combat the negative press surrounding President Obama’s health care bill as it was being considered by Congress. The answer to that question, of course, is that health care for everyone is not a bad thing, it is a great thing. Sadly my friend missed the point, and so did many Americans: How do you pay for it when we’re $13 trillion in debt? Health Care Reform gripped the nation as yet another non-partisan issue was politicized for the sole purpose of damaging political opponents. In the end there was no winner; only losers: The American People.

Every issue has an upside and a downside. In 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act required hospital emergency rooms to treat anyone in need of care, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. The upside was that patients were not turned away from needed health care. The downside is that “about half of all emergency services go uncompensated.” The best intentions of government resulted in a huge unfunded mandate to emergency departments nationwide and a loss of $4.2 billion in revenue in 2001 according to the American Medical Association. Nobody wants to see patients denied much-needed care, but how can the government pass laws that help some people and completely destroy others?

Health care reform divided the nation along lines defined by views of big government versus small, and compassion versus fiscal responsibility. At a time when the economy was the top concern for Americans, not health care, Congress unveiled a $940 billion bill which was passed into law on March 23, 2010. Republicans were once again labeled “obstructionists,” even though they didn’t have enough votes to stop the Democrats from passing the bill. Democrats called Republicans the usual names, accusing them of being racists, hating the poor and defending the rich.

Today, 60% of Americans favor repeal.

It seems as if every issue where Democrats and Republicans disagree ends with more Americans believing that the GOP is racist, anti-poor and pro-rich. Why are Democrats so good at convincing Americans of these stereotypes? I believe it is because Democrats tend to politicize with emotional buzzwords and headlines, while Republicans do it with logic. So, are Republicans heartless to oppose a bill that would extend health care benefits to 32 million Americans? Well, let’s consider some of the objections.

The government is notoriously inefficient. In a previous post I went over the resume of the U.S. Government in detail, including the tremendous successes (read: failures) of Amtrak, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, the Ryan White CARE Act, and Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Even recipients of government funding like Planned Parenthood operate without oversight, as they apparently can’t account for $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars received over the last decade. This isn’t a partisan problem. The government is inefficient under EVERY administration, which is why a majority of Americans prefer a smaller government. As it is, the bill is already estimated to cost $115 billion more than anticipated, and it hasn’t yet gone into effect.

It is simply a bad law. The health care law is designed to increase access to health care and lower costs so more Americans can afford to purchase health insurance. Correct? Does taxing the manufacturers of medical devices and brand-name prescription drugs help lower the cost of health care? Those increased costs will undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer, who is now forced to carry health insurance because of the mandates in the health care law - no matter what the cost! In fact, nothing in the new law controls the rising costs of health care. It does, however, force businesses to file a 1099 form for every vendor transaction of $600 or more, which creates a pile of paperwork for even the smallest businesses. What purpose does this serve in a health care bill? None! It has nothing to do with health care.

Going forward, individuals will no longer be able to claim medical expenses on their taxes that exceed 7.5% of their income. The new number is 10%, resulting in roughly $800 less in deductions for someone earning $25,000/year. President Obama said those earning under $250k/year wouldn’t see their taxes increase by a “single dime,” but if you can’t claim an additional $800 in medical expenses on your tax return, I think you’re out more than a dime. Medicare payroll taxes are also going up 2.35% for those earning more than $200k, and revenue from the increase in Medicare taxes will not be going to help save or fix Medicare. Medicare, in fact, is being cut by $500,000,000,000.00!

Then there are the mandates. Individuals will now be required to carry health insurance, whether they can afford it or not. Your coverage must also meet minimum government standards to “qualify” as an acceptable health care plan. The penalty for not complying will be as much as $750 per year for an individual, $2,250 for a family, or 2% of your income - whichever is higher. The employer mandates could cause some series damage. Employers who cannot afford to offer health insurance to their employees will pay fines, which could amount to $3,000 per employee, per year. This will unquestionably cause jobs to be cut and businesses to close. That’s a fact that cannot be ignored.

Of course we can’t forget luxury health care plans, called “Cadillac Plans.” These are plans that cost more than $8,500 per year for an individual. They’re great plans, but there will now be a 40% excise tax on them. Yes, that’s right - 40%. It is designed to go after the rich, but it is not indexed for inflation, which means in 10 years when all plans cost $8,500/year or more, everyone will be paying the 40% tax. Many union-negotiated plans are considered “Cadillac Plans,” but if you’re in a union you don’t have to worry about it. President Obama exempted unions from this 40% tax. For the record, only 8% of Americans are in unions.

The new law also allows the Department of Health and Human Services to create “qualified non-profit health insurance issuers” to offer health insurance, with federal grants, and exempt from federal taxes. It requires health care coverage information to be reported to the IRS, and provides funding to hire 16,000 additional IRS agents to ensure compliance with the individual and employer mandates.

What’s not in the bill? Tort reform for starters. We live in a lawsuit-happy society, and doctors must carry expensive insurance policies to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits and mega-million dollar settlements. Those costs get passed on to patients, contributing to the high costs of health care. Republicans wanted tort reform included. Democrats argued it would not result in a significant savings, however it should be noted that trial lawyers donate almost exclusively to the Democratic Party. Another provision not included in the bill was the ability to purchase health care plans across state lines. This would increase competition and help lower costs, as we’ve seen happen in the auto insurance industry. Again, Democrats refused to include it after it was proposed by Republicans.

The House of Representatives requires 218 votes to pass a bill into law, and when the health care law was passed 253 were Democrats. The Senate requires 51 votes to pass a bill into law, and when the health care law was passed 57 were Democrats. Once again, I need someone to tell me how Republicans were being “obstructionists.” In reality, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi didn’t get to pass the law they wanted because conservative Democrats were pressured to oppose the bill. That’s why the far-left liberals today feel as though the law doesn’t go far enough. Republicans, who opposed the bill almost unanimously through the entire process, didn’t even have to show up for the final votes.

In the end, not a single Republican in the House or Senate voted to pass what is now referred to as ObamaCare. After the Senate passed the health care law, the San Francisco Chronicle stated, “The passage of Health Care Reform means the death of the Republican Party. Can you imagine any Republican effectively explaining to an electorate why they voted against help for the uninsured?” Help for the uninsured, at the expense of the remaining 90% of Americans? This issue is not as black and white as the Chronicle would have us believe.

Nine months later, a clear majority of Americans favor repeal and Democrats face the possibility of losing the House of Representatives. When you politicize a non-political issue like health care, emotions get in the way and eventually you have to start looking at the facts. Almost everyone agrees that our health care system is in need of reform, but if Congress is going to spend years and trillions of taxpayer dollars reforming it, shouldn’t we do it right? “It’s better than nothing,” is simply not good enough.

The simple truth is that President Obama and Democrats in Washington thought health care reform would be their golden moment, ensuring victories in 2010 and 2012. They completely underestimated the political cost of going against the majority of Americans, and I’m happy to see our nation waking up and paying attention to important issues again.

Someday we may even see Americans paying attention to the details of those issues. I welcome it.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Mark Ciavola was born in Boston, Massachusetts. He is currently a conservative blogger in Las Vegas, Nevada, and is the founder and president of Right Pride - an organization representing gay conservatives and their straight allies. He is a lifelong Republican, and strong defender of free markets, individual responsibility and liberty and prosperity for all. Mark is also pursuing degrees in Political Science and Public Administration at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

 New York Times columnist David Brooks writes a piece on how Germany and America reacted to the economic crisis differently. In the short run, it looks like the German’s got it more right.

By David Brooks

During the first half of this year, German and American political leaders engaged in an epic debate. American leaders argued that the economic crisis was so bad, governments should borrow billions to stimulate growth. German leaders argued that a little short-term stimulus was sensible, but anything more was near-sighted. What was needed was not more debt, but measures to balance budgets and restore confidence.

The two countries followed different policy paths. According to Gary Becker of the University of Chicago, the Americans borrowed an amount equal to 6 percent of GDP in an attempt to stimulate growth. The Germans spent about 1.5 percent of GDP on their stimulus.

This divergence created a natural experiment. Who was right?

The early returns suggest the Germans were. The American stimulus package was supposed to create a “summer of recovery,” according to Obama administration officials. Job growth was supposed to be surging at up to 500,000 a month. Instead, the U.S. economy is scuffling along. The German economy, on the other hand, is growing at a sizzling (and obviously unsustainable) 9 percent annual rate. Unemployment in Germany has come down to precrisis levels.

 Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/opinion/27brooks.html