So That's Why O'Neal Was Fired

Share

I watched with a sense of absolute befuddlement on Saturday morning as Tucker Carlson interviewed former Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neall.

O’Neall argued that it is the responsibility of “society” (government in his view) to care for people because they will not care for themselves, to wit retirement planning. He stated that those who have been successful should have their resources tapped so as to provide upwards of a $1 million dollar retirement nest-egg for their fellow citizens. Thankfully Carlson took him to task on this issue but I am shocked and amazed that O’Neall made the argument to begin with.

Paul O’Neall was the most outspoken Treasury Secretary every, in my recollection but he was outspoken with a purpose. He often made the case that it was not the government’s responsibility to provide for people what they can and should provide for themselves. Yet following a trip he undertook with Bono, of the Irish band U2, O’Neall became more and more accommodating to the leftist view of such matters. He backed away from his support of tax cuts and even softened his views on Social Security reform. It was not surprising then that he was the first of George W. Bush’s cabinet members to be given the Presidential walking-papers. O’Neall was invited to leave his post and amid the typical leftist conspiracy theories, the soon faded into the back-drop. Book notwithstanding.

One of the main reasons that most people are so unconcerned with saving for their own future is that they live under the illusion that some else will be there to do it for them. Charity begins with the individual. The only major role for the government in this matter is to incentivise more private charity and personal responsibility. Big-government cradle-to-grave programs are anathema to that objective.

Sri Lanka rejects help from Israel

Share

One of the first nations to organize massive relief efforts for the victims of the recent tsunami was Israel.

Israel loaded several planes with relief supplies destined for Sri Lanka along with a team of 150 medical professionals and rescue workers. On Tuesday, 28 December, the government of Sri Lanka rejected the assistance being offered by Israel. They later agreed to accept the food and other supplies but will not permit the 150 member team of volunteers to enter the country. A small team of doctors from Israel’s Hadassah University Hospital will however, accompany the delivery of medical supplies. Additionally, a separate aid package from the Israeli humanitarian organization, Latet, is sending its own shipment of over 18 tons of food, medicine and other supplies to tsunami victims.

Michael Moore is No 1 Afterall

Share

Finally Michael Moore gets the recognition he deserves.

Moore has been named No. 1 on FilmThreat.com’s “Frigid 50.” According to FilmThreat.com, "The Frigid 50 ice pack have left audiences cold with their overbearing personalities, poor career choices and chronic inability to stop making fools of themselves.” How they chose Moore with such heavyweight competition from the likes of Ben Afleck, Sean Penn and Susan Surandon, is unclear but Moore was a fine choice indeed.

They were kind enough to offer a bit of advice to the “filmmaker,”: “Remember, it's not always about you. Lose the chip on your shoulder.”

Violent Indecent Bacchanal Entertainment (The Vibe Awards)

Share

Perhaps you have heard the news that a few awards were given out last night during the taping of the second annual black-tie brawl known as the Vibe Awards.

I certainly could say more but why give these clowns any more free publicity.

The Ultimate Win-Win

Share

Former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu once observed that peace in the Middle East is beyond our reach because the world has been complicit in the duplicity of the Arabs desire to obtain a unilateral win-win situation in their acrimonious relationship with Israel. Basically, the Arabs have developed a plan wherein they can launch a war of annihilation against Israel, loose the war, then demand that Israel surrender. The Democratic Party and other elements of the American Left have obviously been reading their playbook.

The Democrats used every conceivable tool in their arsenal in an attempt to destroy George Bush and the political right. They may not have invented the ad hominem, but they certainly perfected it. Despite their best efforts, they lost resoundingly at the polls. Now, rather than accepting the decision of the majority of Americans, they are insisting that the President accept their ideas using the common “uniter, not a divider” sophistry. In other words, they started the war, lost the battle, and now demand that the Republicans surrender notwithstanding. That’s what I call hubris!

To borrow a phrase from Governor Schwarzenegger, why should we listen to losers?

"How can 59 million people have been so dumb?"

Share

For the first time since 1988, a presidential candidate has garnered a popular vote majority. The popular vote spread was nearly 4 million in fact. One British “news” paper, the Daily Mirror asks in its headline, “How can 59 million people be so dumb?” (click here to send them a few heart-felt, expletive-laden messages)

Yes, George Bush has been re-elected as President of the United States. The people punctuated that message by increasing the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, the Senate and several state governing bodies. The American people have made it clear that they will not allow the feelings, passions, and desires of the people across the pond to dictate the direction of their government.

Perhaps however, the word “dumb” is actually an acronym: Decidedly Unimpressed by Mindless Bureaucrats. In that case I consider this a rather fair question.

The vast majority of the American people know the danger of career politicians, bureaucrats if you will. Therefore, they chose to trust their future to a political philosophy that holds that government is not the solution to our problems, rather government is the problem.

George Bush and his cabinet members, in contrast to his opponents and detractors, believe that the strength of America lies in the wisdom of its politicians to get out of the peoples’ way. In America, the politicians sit in the driver’s seat to be sure. But they are not there as all-seeing, omnipotent leaders rather politicians are merely chauffeurs, taking the American people where the American people choose to go.

A better question would be: How can 55 million people have been so foolish?

Reader Question - Social Security Reform

Share

Will the President’s social security reforms include putting members of Congress into the same plan the rest of us will have?

In short the answer is, “No.” The President’s plan for Social Security reform does not include a provision to place members of the U.S. Congress under same. This is a matter of law, not a matter of policy.

One of the most important doctrines implied, though not expressed, in the Constitution is the doctrine of the “separation of powers” between the Legislative and Executive branches of government. That being said, the President does not have the authority to propose legislation that would affect Congressional members. Additionally, the Legislature is the only body with the authority to actually draft legislation. Therefore, even if the President desired such a change, it would still be left to the discretion of the Congress as to the scope thereof.

Part of the legislative changes adopted by the Republican-lead Congress following its 1994 electoral victory was to agree that Congress would not enact legislation to which it was immune. This was part of the Contract With America. In principle this means that they should take the initiative and apply to themselves whatever changes are implemented. I can think of a plethora of legal and fiscal reasons why this should not be done however it is still valid, in principle.