A Real Shocker

You may want to sit down for this one: A new study shows Republicans start saving for retirement earlier--and save more for retirement--than Democrats.  In a nutshell, Fiscal Conservatives start saving for their old age starting in their 20's and early thirties--while those on the Left tend to wait until later in life, when the opportunity to have more saved up is lost.

The study doesn't list specific reasons for this trend.  They toss out the usual factors: Republicans are "rich to being with", Conservatives tend to be more organized than Liberals and that the retirement savings trends match the individual belief in the role of government in our lives.  Personally, I feel the last of those reasons is the most likely explanation.

We should really give both sides credit for practicing what they preach.  Those of us in the Personal Responsibility camp would look pretty foolish if we were all reaching retirement completely dependent on Social Security and Medicare to get us through our Golden Years.  And those in the Government Can Solve All of Your Problems group would appear hypocritical if they didn't actually need those monthly checks to get by.

Imagine how different the Fiscal Cliff debate would be if early retirement savings were the norm for all Americans--and not just those of us on the Dave Ramsey plan.  Would increasing the Medicare eligibility age threaten to "kill people" as some alarmists on the Left would have you believe if all of those daily $4 Latte Mocha Grandes had been converted into mutual fund shares for all of those years?  How many people would be howling over limits on cost of living adjustments for Social Security payments if all those new car payments had instead been able to go into 401(k)'s?

What you would actually have is outrage over the proposed increases in Capital Gains taxes as more Americans would see that retirement savings eaten away by Uncle Sam.  And those who put away just 300-dollars a month starting at the age of 25 would be faced with their heirs getting hit by the new lower qualifying standards of the estate tax, because they would multi-millionaires by the time they hit 65.

Actually, we probably wouldn't be at the Fiscal Cliff to begin with--because early retirement savings would have given more people the financial cushion they would have needed to weather the "Great Recession" without government programs.  Of course, there wouldn't have been a "Great Recession" either, because you wouldn't have had the over-borrowing to purchase over-priced real estate that was bundled into the derivatives that bombed when people who didn't have any money to begin with couldn't pay their mortgages anymore.

So enough of talking about Fiscal Responsibility.  I'll let you get back to working on your budget--or picking up your $5 cup of coffee--whichever you choose.

Hope For the Next Generation

For those of you concerned that we are raising a generation of mindless future Americans who will be willing to accept Government control of their lives, a ray of hope is shining through the gathering clouds.  And it's coming from an unexpected place: the school lunchroom.

This week, students at Mukwonago High School and Middle School are boycotting the hot lunch program because they are not being given enough to eat.  As I covered in a previous "My Two Cents", http://jonathankrause.blogspot.com/2012/08/im-going-hungry.html the Federal Government has set new standards for school lunch programs--and those standards include a caloric limit on what kids can eat.  As I predicted, kids involved in sports are hardest hit by the limit--as they burn far more calories during the day than they can replace in the lunch line.  Meaning the "healthier" hot lunch standards actually make them unhealthier.

The Mukwonago boycott is one of many reported across the country as kids (and parents) come to realize that they are going to be underfed for 180-days a year--and that there is nothing they can do about it.  Well, as long as Michelle Obama is serving as the nation's unofficial Dietician-In-Chief.

So as our children are going hungy at school, they are learning a very important lesson: that Government doesn't always know what's best for you.  Kids quoted in a Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article on the boycott already get it, as they point out the 250-pound senior lineman shouldn't be treated the same as a 100-pound freshman girl.  Hopefully, as their stomachs growl in seventh period Algebra, these kids will form the life-long belief that Washington shouldn't tell us what we should eat, or what kind of cars we should drive, or how much we should be allowed to make in income or what kind of health care coverage we should have.

Consider it Hope and Change for personal responsibility.

The Grasshoppers Are Killing the Ants

It's beginning to look like "My Two Cents" is going to become an on-going series of reactions to the War On Personal Responsibility being waged in Washington.  First, it was increased health insurance premiums so your co-workers' 25-year old "kids" can be included on your company's plan, and so that those who absolutely cannot contain their urges can get free contraceptives and so that those with cirrhosis of the liver from excess drinking and lung cancer from smoking can be guaranteed coverage for their self-inflicted chronic conditions.  Then it was the use of tax dollars to keep people in houses they can't afford and never should have thought about buying.  Then it was new lower limits on Flex Accounts and increased taxes on Health Savings Accounts.

Now the next front will be opened on our retirement funds.  The American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries (doesn't that sound like a bunch of fun people to hang out with?) is out with a warning that the Fiscal Cliff agreement could include an end to the tax-exempt status of 401(k)'s.  http://www.cnbc.com/id/49976741

Currently, 401(k) contributions are pre-tax.  It was set up that way as an incentive for people to save for their own retirement--rather than depend on Social Security and Medicare to provide for their every need beyond the age of 65.  But the ASPPA fears (and rightfully so) that Democrats will take away that tax exempt status as it sees a giant pot of money available for "redistribution".  And we can pretty much assume that the tax code won't be changed to make the 401k) withdrawals in retirement tax-free, meaning that we will be DOUBLE TAXED on our contributions!  What's more, most 401(k) contributions are made during our periods of highest income, meaning we are paying the highest tax rates we'll ever pay--as opposed to the lower rates many of us will pay in retirement.

The unfortunate reality is that this "new revenue stream"--as this tax increase will be sold to us--still won't come close to offset the increased spending already approved in Washington--so Democrats will have to look for other options.  The next logical choice would be to end the tax-exemption on Roth IRA distributions.  Here is another giant pot of money just waiting to be "redistributed".  The logic will be "these are capital gains that aren't being taxed--and that's not 'fair'"  And with increased capital gains taxes already on the table from the Obama Administration, the incentive to put money away for the future becomes less and less powerful for every generation.

It's obvious that Aesop wasn't living in a period of Democratic control of government--otherwise his fable about the "Ant and the Grasshopper" would have finished with jackasses taking the food away from the Ants to "redistribute" to the Grasshoppers.

So Much For the Accountability Factor

I had a chance to engage an Internal Revenue Service agent in an informal, off-the-record conversation this week.  I found out that morale is low at the IRS right now due to staffing cuts that are making it nearly impossible to keep up with returns and collections.  We discussed an amended return that I filed almost three months ago which still has not been processed.  I half-jokingly asked the agent how they were going to enforce the Affordable Care Act requirement that everyone must have health insurance and to collect the penalty--I mean tax for constitutionality purposes--if there were fewer auditors.  For a response I got an exaggerated eye roll and a "Yeah, like that was going to happen".

So it sounds like the hallmark legacy of the Obama Administration--a lack of personal responsibility on the part of anyone--will continue.  Based on my conversation, I'm left with the belief that someone could either falsely claim to have insurance--knowing the possibility of being audited is greatly diminished now--or just not pay the penalty--I mean tax for constitutionality purposes--since there won't be anyone trying to collect it.

And speaking of collections, it turns out the IRS is  hamstrung by language in the ACA when it come to enforcing the penalty--er, tax--provision.  The only option the IRS has is to take it out of someone's refund.  If you owe Uncle Sam on your return, the tax is added on--but there is no immediate penalty for not paying that portion.  What's more, the IRS cannot put a lien on your property or garnish your wages to collect said tax--as it can do with all other tax debts.  Their only hope is that someday you will be getting a refund--and then they can deduct what you owe.

So in effect, the Affordable Care Act has created 20-million people who are violating the "Law of the Land" as the President likes to call it every time Republicans try to repeal ObamaCare--by still not having health insurance.  And now there could be 20-million tax scofflaws as well who don't ever have to fear being "brought to justice".

Don't Be So Hard On Yourself, Bill

The legacy of former President Bill Clinton is under attack again.  And the main hatchet man is none other than William Jefferson Clinton himself.  President Clinton started his self-bashing in 2013 by attacking the Defense of Marriage Act--which he signed into law in 1996 and that required the Federal Government to not recognize the legality of same-sex marriages and did not require states to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.  That bill was passed with veto-proof bi-partisan support with Democratic lawmakers serving as proud co-sponsors.  But a certain someone Bill knows--and who also supported the measure--now needs the support of gays to win an election, so he must tear down his own accomplishments.

Now, the former President is turning his attack another major accomplishment from his term in office: the Federal "3 Strikes and You're Out" law.  This is the "get tough on crime" bill that Clinton signed into law in 1994 after overwhelming bi-partisan support in Congress.  The measure was simple, commit three violent, Federal offenses and spend the rest of your life in prison.  You have to remember, this was the time of drive-by shootings, rampant gang violence in cities and crack cocaine destroying urban areas.  Even First Lady Hillary Clinton called the measure a "well-thought out crime bill that is both smart and tough" in a 1994 interview.  She said that the crime bill would keep violent offenders locked up "so they could never get out again" and touted the "three strikes" provision specifically.  "We will finally be able to say, loudly and clearly, that for repeat, violent, criminal offenders: three strikes and you're out. We are tired of putting you back in through the revolving door," Clinton said in 1994.

But now the former President says 3 Strikes and You're Out was a mistake because too many (black) people committed the third strike and now sit in prison forever--and he is willing to shoulder the blame for that.  Clinton tells CNN "We have too many people in prison".  Really, Mr President, that isn't your fault.  Think about it, these are people who have committed THREE Federal offenses.  They weren't just given a second chance to live within the rules of society, they were given a third chance and they still couldn't abide by the laws.  But a certain someone Bill knows--and who also supported the measure--now needs the support of African-Americans to win an election, he must tear down his own accomplishments.

President Clinton's self-bashing won't end here.  Up next will be the Welfare Reform measures that he signed into law in 1996.  The bi-paritisan Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act did away with direct cash payments to welfare recipients, it required recipients to actively seek and keep work, it required job training and education to continue to receive benefits and it reduced the number of people on the dole significantly.  "This is the end of Big Government" Clinton said with a smile to thunderous applause.  But by taking people off the welfare rolls, Clinton took away Democrats main political threat for poor people "Republicans want to cut your benefits!"--and perhaps that led to George W Bush winning two elections.  President Obama has since undone many of the reforms accomplished by Clinton and put even more people on the dole.  But since someone Bill knows--and who also supported the measure--now needs the support of poor people to win an election, he must tear down his own accomplishments.

And soon after that, President Clinton will need to tear down NAFTA and all of the other free trade agreements that he signed as President as well.  Clinton supported the bi-partisan NAFTA bill whole-heartedly--in large part because his good friends in the Walton family would benefit from it immensely at their Walmart stores.  Bill just rolled his eyes when Ross Perot talked about his "giant sucking sound" in the debates and the likely loss of American textile and manufacturing jobs.  But a certain someone Bill knows--and who also supported the measure--now needs the support of big labor unions to win an election, and so he must tear down his own accomplishments.

If Hillary Clinton manages to make it all the way to November of next year as the Democratic candidate--poor Bill will have her voters believing that he was the worst President in the history of the country.  Perhaps that is her way of getting back at him for the decades of embarrassment leading up to this.

The Song Remains the Same

I'll grant you, I haven't taken a public speaking class in 20 years--but to hear some of the pundits describe President Obama's second Inaugural Address as "soaring rhetoric" has me questioning my understanding of the definition of "soaring rhetoric".  To me, "soaring rhetoric" is "With malice toward none, with charity for all" or "We shall land a man on the Moon in this decade and return him safely to the Earth" or "Mr Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!" 

The term I would use to describe yesterday's speech would be "confusing".  It sounded like the President was going to honor those who built our country into what it is today:  

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.  Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.

Reading those two lines takes me back to a better time.  A time when people were held accountable for their actions and decisions in life--rather than given handouts to deal with the consequences and told "it's not your fault--someone else is to blame for this."  And the fact that these words were coming from the mouth of someone who has taken extraordinary steps to expand the "victim culture" and the Nanny State actually gave me reason to chuckle.

But then came the real agenda of the second term: more collectivism...

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.  For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias.  No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores.  Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers didn't say to the early Americans: "Each of you build your own road between cities" or "everybody has to fight the British by themselves".  But I know for a fact that they didn't say "you have to help your neighbor pay for the house that he can't afford" and that Thomas Jefferson didn't just let everybody walk into the classroom at the University of Virginia and get a degree for free.

So while I would love to believe that Americans heard "We are all in this together" yesterday, I fear that "It's still not your fault" is what really hit home.

Like Finding a Godiva Chocolate in a Manure Pit

You may want to sit down for this one: I have actually found something to like in the Affordable Care Act.  Don't call the police to report an invasion of the body-snatchers.  Don't send an ambulance to treat a man suffering from delusion or insanity.  There is actually some semblance of intelligence in ObamaCare.

I'm talking about the measure included in the law that smokers will have to pay more for their health insurance starting next year.  Apparently one of the things that we "had to pass the bill to find out what's in it" is a 50% surcharge on insurance premiums for long-time tobacco users.  There are two things in this that I like:

1--It treats health insurance like real insurance.  Smokers already pay more for life insurance--because they are a much higher risk to suffer an early death.  Reckless drivers pay more for their auto insurance than those without traffic tickets--because they are a higher risk to have an accident.  Yet for decades, health insurers have not been allowed to charge those that put themselves (and therefore the pool) at risk for huge payouts by routinely engaging in behavior--like smoking--that is going to make you very sick.  What's more, those that have been smoking for years will pay a larger surcharge.  Why should the guy who works out, maintains his weight and doesn't smoke or drink to excess pay the same as the overweight guy who doesn't leave the couch except to get another beer from the fridge all night?  That is the way insurance is supposed to work--as a "bet" on whether your are going to need to claim more than what you pay in each year.  It's not meant to be a subsidy for everyone so that they don't have to pay above X % if their medical bills every year.

2--I don't have to pay for this.  Unlike nearly every other component of the Affordable Care Act, the taxpayer will not have to foot the bill for this extra expense.  In fact, it is written into the language of the bill--the taxpayer-funded subsidies that will account for the vast majority of the payments for the policies sold through the health insurance exchanges CANNOT be used to pay for the smoker surcharge.  Who would believe that we would find this precious nugget of personal responsibility hidden in this giant boondoggle?

The articles detailing the smoker surcharge hint at possible higher insurance rates for the obese in the future--as a means to curb the literal growth of America over the past few decades.  But don't hold your breath waiting for that one.  You see, one in five Americans smoke--but one in three Americans are obese--with more than half of the population being at least somewhat overweight.  And those are percentages that scare even the most liberal of politicians.  It's far easier to sell the idea of 1% or 20% "paying their fair share"--than it is to expect 33% or 55% to literally "carry their own weight".

The Last of His Kind

You'd better sit down for this one....I found myself gaining a small amount of respect for former President Bill Clinton yesterday.  If you didn't see it, Clinton was campaigning on behalf of his wife in New York Thursday when a group of Black Lives Matter protesters started heckling him about signing criminal justice and welfare reform bills that they believe put too many African-Americans in prison and took too many Blacks off the dole.

Clinton proceeded to put the protesters in their place reminding them that in the 90's urban areas were drugged-up killing fields and that Black poverty rates actually fell during his administration as welfare-to-work requirements went into effect.  After seeing video of the nearly 15-minute exchange (which I'm sure horrified Hillary campaign handlers) I realized that Bill Clinton will probably be the last Democrat to expect some form of personal accountability and responsibility from Americans.

You never heard Clinton use President Obama's favorite phrase "through no fault of their own" to create new groups of "victims".  He never proposed legalizing harmful drugs or practices just because "too many of a certain kind of people" were being imprisoned for repeatedly violating the existing laws.  He certainly didn't propose making things free just because enough people complained about having to pay for them.

The Democrats who have followed Bill Clinton are now returning those drug-pushers and violent offenders to the neighborhoods they used to terrorize.  And some think just giving them free college tuition will make all of their problems go away (along with free treatment of their gunshot and stab wounds).  All the while, entitlement and public assistance programs have been greatly expanded--putting more people under the control of the Government.

Yesterday's nasty little exchange shows the ever-widening gap that exists within the Democratic party as the aging Baby Boomers are challenged by the Entitlement Generation for control.  When the "establishment" Super-delegates provide Hillary Clinton with the nomination at the party convention this summer, there is no way that she gets the Bernie Sanders supporters behind her for the general election.  She made the mistake of once demanding accountability and responsibility from people--and they now expect to do whatever they want without reproach or punishment--while someone else picks up the tab.

GET OFF MY LAWN!!

I would like to thank Senator Bob Jauch and Representative Janet Bewley for providing a few laughs yesterday--on what was a very hectic and stressful day for those of us in the local news business.  Jauch and Bewley are "horrified" that armed guards have been placed at the site of the Gogebic Taconite mine--and they want them removed before somebody gets hurt.

Nevermind that the armed guards didn't show up until AFTER the mine site was vandalized by 15-people wearing masks and scarves over their faces--and after workers on the site were threatened with personal harm.  Originally, G-TAC posted signs and had "friendly" unarmed security personnel on site.  But the protesters decided to up the ante by moving into the sabotage and threatening stage--forcing G-TAC to up the stakes even more.

It's really no different than the group of neighborhood punks terrorizing the old guy on the block.  It starts with the Doorbell Ditch--and the old guy yelling "GET OFF MY LAWN!!'--and then escalates to flaming bags of dog crap left on the porch--and the old guy coming out with his shotgun--sending the kids fleeing in a panic.  Except in this case, multi-million dollar equipment is being damaged as opposed to dog poop getting on the bottom of some slippers.

What makes me laugh is that once again, the Liberals are siding with the criminals in this case.  There was no howl of protest from Jauch and Bewley after the incident in June.  But now those who committed the crimes of damaging equipment and threatening to do harm to other people are hailed as "heroes--fighting against the injustice that has been wrought upon them"--while the security guards who are exercising their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms and to protect private property are portrayed as "dangerous thugs intent on intimidating those who are 'peacefully' protesting".

Perhaps Jauch and Bewley would prefer that the local taxpayers pick up the cost of protecting the property and employees of Gogebic Taconite by posting an armed sheriff's deputy or two at the mine site 24-hours a day, 7-days a week.  It is the responsibility of law enforcement to not only investigate crimes that have been committed (which they did after the June attack on the site) but to also PREVENT crime.  And since the protesters have already demonstrated a lack of respect for the laws--and have threatened to do so again, the Sheriff would have a responsibility to have someone out there to keep that from happening.  And maybe, Jauch and Bewley should get rid of their own armed security force--the Capitol Police Department. 

I'm going to make a bold prediction: Nobody is going to get shot at the Gogebic Taconite mining site.  The security guards won't open fire on people holding signs on the road or outside of the G-TAC offices and they won't gun down the "reporters" for Indian Country TV and their "hidden" cell phone cameras.  In turn, the protesters will act like adults and no longer commit crimes against the company.

Since You Have the Time...

It turns out the Appleton protesters will not be camping out in City Park all weekend.  I expect there will be a few people who decide they are going to partake in "civil disobedience" and will still pitch a tent--for the exclusive purpose of being arrested and (they hope) making the news.  But for the rest, might I suggest a few other activities to fill your time?

Instead of just standing outside the banks and yelling about the people in suits inside and on Wall Street, why not ask the people actually using the bank if they have a personal budget?  If they do not--provide them with the knowledge they need to make one.  People who have--and stick to--a budget are far less likely to use high-interest credit cards, borrow to purchase big-ticket items like vehicles, and default on their mortgages.  Think about how "empowered" "the 99%" would feel if they were actually in control of their money--instead of sending it to those "evil Wall Street bankers" in the form of interest, late fees and overdraft charges?  If you need some information on fiscal responsibility (and I'm guessing you probably do, Mr Protester), you can find books by Dave Ramsey, Suze Orman and Clark Howard at the public library.

Looking to make a "social impact"?  Why not occupy the streets of known drug dealers?  Based on stories from other protests, many of you seem to know where the marijuana dealers are.  Here in Oshkosh, those criminals took $2.4-million from people who couldn't afford to lose that money--and sent much of it to the drug cartels that are terrorizing people in border towns down south.  I can guarantee "the 1%" didn't contribute anything to that $2.4-million--thereby widening the gap in personal wealth that you hate so much.  If you want to patrol the bars looking for drunks to set on the right path--you could do that as well.

And as you complain about the "lack of access to education"--why not take some time to make sure those with access to free education actually take advantage of it?  The vast majority of kids in K-thru-12 who fail classes and fall behind their peers are those who don't actually go to class.  "Adopt" one of these at-risk kids and make sure they are getting to school every day--not just telling their mom they are "going to school".  Sit with that kid and make sure they actually pay attention to the teacher--and that if they don't understand something, ask a question--rather than thinking it will make them look "dumb" or like a "nerd".  Watch them do their homework (and don't just give them the answers--you don't learn like that) before they settle in for a night of sitting in front of the TV or the video games or the internet.  You might want to chaperone dates as well to make sure they practice safe sex and not add to the "99%" before they can support that baby.

I'll admit, these activities aren't as easy as sitting around in a drum circle and blaming others for your problems--but they might actually earn you the respect of the rest of the 98.9999999% you claim to be "fighting for".

The State of Me

Since we are getting updates on the "State of" everything else this week.......

My fellow fiscally responsible Americans, the state of Jonathan is improving.  (STANDING OVATION)

After two years of reduced income, personal setbacks and challenges, Jonathan is coming back (STANDING OVATION).

Jonathan saw the smallest increase in his property taxes in the four years since becoming a homeowner (EXTENDED STANDING OVATION)

By the end of this week, Jonathan should know if he ended up paying less in personal income taxes--both federal and state--this year.  And if I do, how I will end up using the excess to help stimulate the economy (STANDING OVATION).

Jonathan became more energy efficient in the last year by installing new windows in his house.  And the milder winter that may be due to global climate change has lowered my heating bills as well (STANDING OVATION).

Jonathan remains debt free (LONGEST AND LOUDEST STANDING OVATION OF THE NIGHT).  And Jonathan has returned to putting money away for neccessary large purchases in the future like a new car for his wife (STANDING OVATION AS CAMERA SWITCHES TO MY WIFE IN THE GALLERY) and new carpeting in the bedrooms.

Past fiscal responsibility allowed Jonathan to refinance my house at nearly half the previous interest rate--and substantially reduce my monthly payment--allowing for even greater contributions to the savings account each month (ANOTHER LONG AND LOUD STANDING OVATION).

And who can forget the Boston Bruins ending 39-years of frustration for Jonathan by finally winning a Stanley Cup Championship.  (STANDING OVATION WITH CHANTS OF "BRUINS! BRUINS!)

Perhaps most importantly, Jonathan has trimmed three strokes off his golf handicap--and I continue to move toward my goal of becoming eligible to qualify for the State and US Mid-Amateur golf tournaments (STANDING OVATION WITH LOTS OF WHOOPING AND HOLLERING).

However, Jonathan is still facing challenges.  I am about five pounds over my ideal weight (CONCERNED GRUMBLE).  Jonathan has also passed the two year mark in waiting to adopt my first child.  And Jonathan is still looking at not getting a raise anytime in the near future--as costs for gas, food and other necessities continue to rise.

Things are getting better for Jonathan, but we must remain ever vigilant and resist the temptation to go back to ways that set us back in the past.  Thank you and ON WISCONSIN! (FINAL EXTENDED STANDING OVATION).

Civil Disobedience--Conservative Style

As we wait to find out if one of President Obama's supporters will be charged after spitting in the face of a Mitt Romney supporter last week, I hear conservatives say things like "Well, you would never see one of 'our people' doing something like that!"  While that is certainly not true--I'm sure a search of the internet would find a conservative spitting on a liberal somewhere at some time. (Didn't Nancy Pelosi claim that happened as Democrats marched en masse into the Capitol to vote on the [Not So] Affordable Care Act a few years ago?)  It probably happened outside an abortion clinic as well.

Civil disobedience is difficult for most conservatives.  We were raised to believe that police officers and soldiers were to be respected--not attacked.  And that even if you don't agree with a law--you still obey it, because a nation of laws that ignores its laws is just anarchy.  Plus, many of us have jobs that don't allow us to use fake sick notes to miss work in order to attend mass rallies and protests.  In fact, in our circles that would lead to immediate termination--no grievance hearing, no appeal, no lawsuits, no mediation hearings, no collecting a severance package, no collecting unemployment for two years.  And our employers tend to look upon lengthy arrest records and missing work for jail sentences as anything but a source of pride.

So those of us on the right have to be sneaky.  For instance, I have stocked up on incandescent light bulbs.  I hope to continue to use them for as long as possible--even after they are legislated out of existence.  The promise of CFLs lasting longer has proven wrong (we replace ours at least once a year--just like the regular bulbs)--and I enjoy sitting in a well-lighted room without getting a headache.  I also try to fill up my low-miles-per-gallon SUV at stations that sell ethanol-free gas.  I'd rather eat my corn than drive it, thank you.  In addition, I get 3-5% better mileage with the 100% gas.  And if I ever go to New York City again, I'll be sure to order two of the largest sodas possible at McDonalds just to circumvent Mayor Bloomberg's ban on drinks that are "too big for our own good".

But the biggest way that I seek to undermine the liberal agenda being foisted upon us recently is in the area of personal finance and responsibility.  I contribute the maximum amount allowed by the law to my Health Savings Account.  That way, President Obama won't be able to come to Oshkosh and point to me and say "Jonathan Krause here, he had to choose between paying his mortgage or getting reconstructive surgery after blowing out his knee playing basketball because the evil health insurance company didn't want to pay for the procedure--and that ain't fair."

I also contribute 15% of my gross income to my Roth IRA and 401(k).  That way, AARP can't scare me with its "Paul Ryan seeks to end Social Security and Medicare--putting American seniors at risk" TV ads.  (I'm SHOCKED that the "pushing Granny's wheelchair over a cliff" ad hasn't been playing every other break since Ryan was selected as VP.  They must be waiting for closer to election day.) 

Are these acts of civil disobedience going to get me on the national news?  Probably not.  But it's the least I can do to save America.

What Impresses the Left

It must be an election year--Cool Obama is back. Cool Obama is the President's alter-ego--the basketball-playing-Al-Green-singing-late-night-talk-show-skit-star Barack--all style and no substance.  

Cool Obama was on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon last night "slow jamming" his campaign talking points (you shouldn't have to pay for anything--the rich should have to pay for all of that stuff)......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/obama-slow-jams-the-news-with-fallon_n_1450968.html

I'll admit, the skit was funny--but the last time I checked, being a stand-up comedian was not part of the President's duties.

Another example of Cool Obama coming back is an email sent out by his campaign this week.  Apparently, when you register to cover a campaign event (as I did back in 2008) the Obama campaign assumes you also want to contribute money (Hey, he's a reporter--he must be a liberal!) and I've been getting soliciations from BarackObama.com since the day after the Inauguration.  Anyways, here is what Cool Obama is offering his supporters:

Jonathan--

I'll be going to a special event at George Clooney's house in a few weeks, and two grassroots supporters and their guests will join us.  The only thing we've still got to figure out is whether two spots belong to you and your guest--or somebody else and theirs.  So let's nail this down: Any donation you make today will automatically enter you and a guest to win.  Once you decide who you're inviting to join you, we'll be all set.  The Campaign will take care of your airfare and hotel for you.  Please pitch in $3 or whatever you can today, and keep your May 10th clear!  Hope to see you soon.  Barack

No wonder the President gets so many "grassroots contributions"--he's running a sweepstakes!!  In fact, the end of the email is all of the fine print telling me that "no purchase is necessary" and that contributing does not improve my odds of winning--just like a Powerball ticket.

And I guess I was supposed to be impressed that the most powerful man in the world (when he isn't capitulating to third-world dictators) HANGS OUT WITH GEORGE CLOONEY!!!  AT GEORGE CLOONEY'S HOUSE!!!  AND HE WANTS TO TAKE ME ALONG!!!  OMG WHAT AM I GOING TO WEAR???

Forgive me for being so "old fashioned" but my vote will be going to the guy with the best plan to lower the deficit, protect our country from foreign threats, preserve my personal liberties and rewards those who take responsibility for themselves--not the guy who tells the best jokes and hangs with the biggest Hollywood stars.

L'avenir Appartient au Stupide

My thanks to "My Two Cents" fan Barton Pritzl for providing me with the story that inspires today's feature:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2012/10/15/french-president-pushing-homework-ban-as-part-of-ed-reforms/

Children in France are on the edge of their seats with excitement, as their President--Francois Hollande--unveils his new education reform platform--and it includes a ban on homework.  Yes, French kids could be freed from the scourge of childhood--having to do math problems, book reports or science assignments before plopping down in front of the TV for six hours.

And why does Hollande want to ban homework?  Not because French students are already in school eight hours a day (8:30 to 4:30) four days a week.  Not because kids are getting back injuries hauling all of their textbooks home every night.  Not because seven year olds can vote in France.  No, he believes homework is unfair to low-income kids.  You see, the generally-held belief is that children from upper-class families (The Bourgeois) get help from their parents at night--while kids from working-class families (The Proletariat) are on their own to figure things out.

(Wait a minute, I thought the Social Democracy of France had eliminated the "lower-class".  They have high tax rates on the rich, health care for everyone, government subsidies for everything and everyone--not to mention renewable energy and high-speed rail.  How can their still be low-income families?)

President Hollande is even quoted as saying “An education program is, by definition, a societal program. Work should be done at school, rather than at home,”

And there you have the roots of the liberal belief on education.  "Don't try to teach your kids anything at home.  We are the experts here.  Trust us to teach your kids what they really need to know--like the Founding Fathers were rich bigots, polar bears will die if you drive a gas-powered car, and if you want to have sex at the age of 12, we will give you the condoms and the 'morning after' pills without you having to tell your parents."

What's more, homework is as much about additional learning as it is about learning to handle responsibility.  I don't remember my college professors telling us to do all of our reading and assignments during class hours only.  No wonder freshman failure rates are so high in college today.

And believe it or not, a lot of us adults have to do work at home.  I remember my father getting phone calls throughout the night to deal with computer issues at the office--or logging onto the internet to fix problems from home.  Both my wife and I have spent hours catching up on stuff that we couldn't get done during the regular work day.  (Of course, this may be why we aren't "economically disadvantaged")

So while kids may rejoice at the idea of getting an extra hour or two of video game playing time after school, parents should be concerned about this "no homework" idea--because the only thing we'll be teaching them is that personal accountability is somehow inherently "unfair".

Don't Go Pattin' Yourself On the Back

I'm still trying to wrap my head around President Obama's comment last week that successful business owners "didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen."  Was he taking a micro-economic look at business success and saying that customers are the only reason businesses succeed or fail?  Was he saying that employees make or break a business?  Or was he saying that some benevolent government official or program is the only reason a private business gets off the ground?  Or does he believe there is a "Business Fairy" that sprinkles gold dust on some companies--and poison on others?

The one thing we can safely say is that the President did not draw upon his own business success in making that statement because--well--the President has never actually worked for a business (post college).  And he's certainly not referring to the experience of any of his top economic advisors either--because they never worked in the private sector either.  And I doubt he got that line from conversations he's had from his big business cheerleaders like Warren Buffett or Bill Gates.  (Gates may be a poor example--he did pretty much steal everything from Apple and re-package it for MicroSoft)  Both of those guys would be pretty adamant that their respective companies wouldn't be anywhere near as successful as they are without the hard work and direction they provided from the very beginning.

But when you think about it, the President's comments are actually right on point with the main theme of his term in office: "It's not your fault".  If a person on the low end of the economic scale can't blame their lot in life on any of the personal decisions they made in the past (or continue to make)--then how can someone on the other end of the spectrum take credit for the decisions they made (and continue to make) for their success?

Rather than reading economics textbooks by John Maynard Keynes and thinking up ways to spend more government money to "help" the economy, President Obama should be reading up on the quotes of successful people.  You know, gems like "The harder I work, the luckier I get." (Samuel Goldwyn) "A real entrepreneur is someone without a safety net below them" (Henry Kravis) "Big pay and little responsibility are circumstances seldom found together" (Napoeon HIll) and "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work" (Thomas Edison).

Or was someone else responsible for all of their success as well?