Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, January 29, 2007
Star Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
More politics of envy from the Democrats
by Star Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


In a Newsweek column titled "How Dems Can Win White House," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., opines about the difficulties that the Democratic Party has had in defining itself.

The senator wonders, enviously, how Republicans have been able to "identify issues that connected to their deeply held values," reduce them to a few words - eight according to Schumer - and communicate to the American people.

"What are our eight words?" the senator asks.

But Democrats have a very clear picture of who they are. And newly elected Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, who his party picked to give their response to the president's State of the Union address, knows his party's message and communicated it clear as a bell.

Aside from the senator's criticisms about the war in Iraq, the entire substance of his thoughts about what is going on in our country was about differences in earnings. Specifically, about the differences in earnings between CEOs and the "average worker." "When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times."

So, Schumer, listen to your newly elected colleague. He has succinctly summed up what your party is about. I call it the politics of envy.

Wealth, of course, is produced by individuals going to work. Not by politicians getting them ticked off that their neighbor is making more than they are.

But the latter is what the Democratic Party is about.

Webb's remarks were an extension of a column he wrote in The Wall Street Journal shortly after he was elected in November. In that column, he talked about our country drifting "toward a class based system." And then, of course, contrasted minimum wage earners with the "average CEO of a sizeable corporation" who "makes more than $10 million dollars a year. . . ."

But do large CEO earnings say that we're now a class based society? Where do these guys come from?

How about the legendary and recently retired CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch. His father was a train conductor. I think a survey of America's CEOs would show that most of these men, and women, come from middle class working families and got where they are through hard work.

How about Stan O'Neal of Merrill Lynch? O'Neal pulled in a whopping $48 million last year. Somehow, in Webb's "class based" society, this black man managed to become CEO of this Wall Street monolith.

Here's something about O'Neal's background from a profile in Fortune Magazine: "Raised on a farm in rural Alabama during segregation, he was educated in a schoolhouse built by his grandfather (a man who was born into slavery and whom O'Neal recalls with deep emotion)."

Regarding Webb's claims that most Americans are not participating in our thriving economy, the same Bloomberg news article reporting that Stanley O'Neal's $48 million payday was up 30 percent from the previous year, reported that the "five largest Wall Street firms paid their employees a total of more than $60 billion last year, up more than 32 percent from 2005. . . ."

All evidence I see is that Wall Street, a barometer of the nation's health, is booming, that the black grandson of a former slave is running one its largest firms, and that all the employees of the firms there are sharing equally in the boom.

But this message doesn't sit well when playing to envy, that base human emotion, forbidden by the Tenth Commandment, is your strategy for grabbing onto political power.

And why is Webb obsessed with $10 million CEOs, who actually are producing something (Stan O'Neal is in charge of a firm with 50,000 employees that produces $50 billion in revenue)? Why isn't he concerned about the 42 NBA players who earn more than $10 million? How about the top ten movie stars, all of whom earn well more than $10 million?

Where, of course, the Democrats' politics of envy mindset also takes us is to wonder about how the rest of the world might look at all Americans. The World Bank defines poverty as earning $1 a day. That means that a minimum wage earner in the United States earns 40 times as much as the world's poorest people.

How many people on this planet earn $1 a day? About 320 million. More than the whole population of the United States.

What we need, in this country, and around the world, is freedom and hard work. Not envy.

The problem of the party of Webb and Schumer is not communicating their message. It's having the wrong one.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE, the Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Envy
That's what the dems stand for. It's the only thing they can use to talk people into voting for them. Envy of wealth and earnings, envy of status, envy of education or lack of, envy of benefits provided at a real job, envy of other countries, (using twisted info).
They don't use facts to argue points when you watch them debate. As soon as facts are used by anyone who doesn't agree with them, they resort to calling names and making accusations of every sort.
If they came right out and called their goals for this country what they really are, a socialism, they would be behaving honestly and may even still get votes. At least in VT and NY.

Star Parker does it again

As usual, Star Parker has seen through the partisan polemics and obfuscation to get right to the heart of the matter. She can be relied upon for clear thinking and excellent writing. She deserves a far larger following.

Translation
This phenomenon known as envy translates to:
1. I'm too dmn lazy to study hard, work hard, make myself presentable, avoid drugs abd alcohol to excess...
2. You have miraculously "Won Life's Lottery", without working abstaining from pleasures and spending long hours at yur business.
3. And, I WANT SOME.

Why aren't more blacks
listening to you Star? You use facts to point out the lunacy of voting for those that really only want to keep blacks depressed to use as political footballs. Their facetious emotional appeals sound like compassionate policies that will help people, when in fact, their policies do nothing to help and much to cement the current status-quo in place so that there is a perpetual supply of down-trodden minorities that "need" the Demon-crats help to survive.

Keep shining the light of reason on these issues, we need all the intelligent people we can get.

Politics of sand
High CEO salaries are a symptom of the breakdown of the American system of publicly held companies. The CEO and the board work together to syphon off some of what should be shareholder profit to themselves.

amelia
I agree with the posters here so far that Ms. Parker has hit another home run and you state that she deserves a larger following. I agree completely. Can we nominate her to be the new black leader and replace Jackson and Sharpton?

My question for the Schumers and Webbs of the world is this: exactly how have the salaries of the CEOs impoverished a single person? I have studied this for some years now and cannot find a single person whose pocket was picked by a millionaire CEO. Rather, the poor have a better hope for a job because of them - jobs are the opposite of poverty.

liberalgoodman
You've made all these arguments before and have refused to listen to any reason. When you have learned the smallest bit of economics and business management, try again. Something you may want to bear in mind is that often, a substantial portion of a CEO's income is stock an dividend based. To reduce that income would reduce the dividens of all stockholders.

Another option would be for you to work hard and qualify yourself to be a CEO. I'd bet that if someone was paying you 48 million you'd stop arguing about cheating the stockholders and start arguing that you weren't compensated nearly enough for all the hard work. I've seen it happen to several liberals.

liberalgoodman
Who is to say what is too much for a CEO to make?

If he/she is making a profit for the shareholders, if they are taking the company in the right direction, more power to them.

Your class envy is showing. My CEO bro-in-law has several advanced degrees and about 35 YEARS of business experience and runs his own company. He is at work 24/7, literally ON CALL even at 0300! No time card for him

The CEO is the tip of the spear and can be fired w/o any notice by the Board of Directors for any reason. Think that you could handle that lifestyle?

I wonder what the disparity
in earnings between CEOs (or at least a very limited and select sample of them) and the "average Senator" are compared to what they used to be. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that this is what really's got Chuckie would you like some whine with that cheese and Webb's knickers in a knot. After all, Senators are way more important and contribute for more to America than corporations and CEO's.

Of course I forgot to mention
that without a doubt Webb and Schumer don't consider themselves average. I would certainly agree that they are 2 if not 3 standard deviations from the norm.

REPUBLICIAN ECONOMICS
“TAXCUT AND SPEND” REPUBLICANS had absolutely no fiscal responsibility or accountability when they controlled Congress! The last time we had a balanced budget and pay-as-you-go legislation Bill Clinton was President and the Democrats instituted these Congressional controls. So much for Republican conservative values. Furthermore, Bush’s supply-side economics has not conserved our nation’s economic future.

SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS… has sold our kids and grandkids down the river!

George Bush’s $3 trillion dollar tax giveaway to the rich has been a disaster for average Americans. Supply-side (trickle-down) economics is a bogus theory promoted by those who benefit from it. In a mature capitalist system, supply side never rules, it’s always the demand side of the equation that governs growth and well-being. Think about the 1930s Depression, General Motors had plenty of supply, but demand evaporated.

Previous U.S. recessions have been cured with only $200 billion in tax cuts targeted to the middle class, because the consumer (the great middle class) spends that tax cut and primes the economic pump. But George Bush has raised the debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay from almost $6 trillion to almost $9 trillion for this current recovery, which is uniquely without wage gains, and which has shrunk the middle class that makes America strong and great.

Corporations (the supply side) are now loaded with cash, but there’s no place to spend it because they don’t see any demand. So many corporations are using that cash to buy back their stock – WOW, isn’t supply side wonderful in how it fulfills America’s needs? As the rich-poor divide increases, we’re headed toward previous shining examples of trickle-down economics: South America of the recent past and feudalism in the Middle Ages (South America and feudalism also had no wage gains).This is such good evil by our Christian conservative President and his myriad of engorged friends.

JohnCitizen & Like-Minded
Just for the record, based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts, since 1940, federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) has averaged 55.7%. The high point was in 1946 when the federal debt equaled 121.2% of GDP. The low point was in 1981 when the federal debt equaled 31.3% of GDP. This percentage rose steadily after 1981 reaching its next zenith of 65.3% in 1995. Since 1995, the ratio of the federal debt to GDP has fallen slightly to 61.3%.

So, the federal debt to GDP ratio today is half of what it was at its largest since the beginning of WWII, is less than it was each year from 1993 through 1998, inclusive of the Clinton (Democrat) administration, but is still slightly higher (5.7 percentage points or about 10% larger) than the average since the beginning of WWII.

By any reasonable historical standard or economic standard, our official federal debt is, literally, no problem.

Furthermore, we were told by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) the capital gains tax cut would "cost" the Federal Treasury $5.4 billion in fiscal years 2003-2006. Thus, the initial Capital Budget Office (CBO) forecast (January 2004) forecasted capital-gains revenue to be $42 billion in 2003, $46 billion in 2004, $52 billion in 2005, and $57 billion in 2006. The total: $197 billion. Add in the amount the JCT says the tax cuts cost us and the projected total without the tax cuts is about $202.4 billion.

Well in what could now be considered the worst forecast in modern times The CBO announced last week that the capital gains tax collections were actually $51 billion in 2003, $72 billion in 2004, $97 billion in 2005, and $110 billion in 2006. For 2005 and 2006 collections nearly doubled the initial forecast.

Stated differently, the CBO predicted total capital-gain tax revenues of $197 billion from 2003 thru 2006, or $202.4 billion if we add the amount the JCL said the tax cuts would cost the treasury. However, after the tax cuts the total capital-gain tax revenues actually collected totaled $340 billion, or $133 billion (two-thirds) more than the CBO had predicted.

In addition, the economy is strong, unemployment is as low as it can reasonably go in a dynamic economy, real annual compensation across the board is up, not to mention, that the proportion of tax paid by the richest Americans is higher than ever while the proportion paid by the bottom half of the income spectrum is the lowest ever (at least since WWII).

And yet, Dems and libs (and some ignorant conservatives) want to raise taxes. Why don't their heads explode?


Senators contribute more?
Ha! That's a laugh. I know you were being sarcastic.

I wonder where LoyalDemocrat is on this one. It would be great to read his/her thoughts on this.

Fletch
Great post.

Also, what a lot of the leftist stooges fail to realize is that a lot of CEO's future is tied to the future of their company! Many of them, my bro-in-law included, have plowed a ton of THEIR OWN MONEY back into the company.

While lib weenies are home watching American Idol, drinking beer, and buying lotto tickets, these folks are out making it happen.

Fletch
If libs took Economics 101 AND passed, they'd become Republicans.

Thus, it'll never happen. The world is a utopia that COULD BE in their twisted gourds, if we just all paid more taxes, redistributed OPM (other people's money), and sang Kumbaya together every Saturday night.

Politics of Envy
Absolutely correct. Movie "stars" and men playing kids games are given a pass but those in charge of multi-billion corporations producing profits for shareholders and employment for thousands are somehow "overpaid". Webb, Schumer and the rest of the socialists need to get out and earn a living. Then maybe they could speak with some authority. Otherwise, they need to shut up!

Fletch
I like your style and thoroughly enjoy your point-by-point fisking of the drivel presented by the economicaly illiterate and innumerate. It does not seem to help those you are fisking (they seem to be beyond reach), but I am sure many other readers who are now as well informed on economic issues as you are, learn from your posts.

Keep up the fight!

Oops!
That should read "...readers who are not as well informed..."

Sorry.

Gunny and Fletch
Gunny G- of course noone ever sees the other side of that big paycheck- the missed recitals, anniversaries, birthdays, etc. They cannot comprehend the enormous, life-dominating responsibility these CEOs bear. They are too used to "putting in their eight hours" and going off to play softball or whatever. They will never understand.
Fletch- I have had to deal with some of this crap in local editorials. I got so sick of hearing about the "tax cuts for the rich" and how the middle class " will put the money back into the economy" that I responded. Why is it that these libs can not understand that buying a new appliance, car, or whatever is not as important to a company as buying their stock? Am I wrong on this? If I buy a new Ford, they see a small profit, but if I invest 30 large in Ford stock, they have money for product development, new factories and hiring more workers. Am I wrong? Why is this so hard for libs to understand?

John Citizen
Nice cut and paste job. I remember it from not so long ago. Try to come up with something original so Fletch and Mr. Doyle can be put to the test. You are making it too easy for them.

CVN65
BINGO!

I have a friend who retired from the Corps and went to work doing security for an agency. It was not long before he was moving up in the heirarchy and now he is white-collar!

When other guys were whining about doing overtime, his reply, as he told me was, "let me grab a cup of coffee and take a pizz."

Working hard and getting ahead is a concept quite unknown to the leftists.

Wake up liberals!
Corporate boards are not government entities. They are private. What the board of directors pays anyone is no one's business unless you are a shareholder of that corporation. The big bucks are generally paid to directors who make their corporation a success.

GunnyG, Fletch, CVN65
You guys are all right on the mark. Nothing succeeds like hard work. Gunny, you mention your friend from the corps. I also have a good friend that called me the other day. He has just been appointed president of the company at which he has been employed since 1999. It's not a really big company - probably around 35million. He started in 1999 as the janitor because he had just sold a little company he had started that wasn't going to make it and he needed a job to support his wife and daughter. Nothing they asked of him was too much, nor was it "not my job." One could argue his diligence and attitude have been modestly successful. It's what makes this the greatest country in the world.

Great post Fletch, but.....
Fletch writes: There NEVER WAS any "pay-as-you-go" legislation during Clinton's tenure. The surplusses that appeared on Clinton's watch he NEVER predicted in any submitted budget until they actually appeared and were caused by the booming economy he inherited. During this time he passed a tax hike that was one of the major contributors to the RECESSION. The surpluses were NEVER sustainable becasue of the dangerously high taxes (greater than 20% of GDP).
-------------------------------------------------

Great post Fletch, but you made one error that seems to be common among most people; there was NEVER A SURPLUS under Clinton. There were rosy PREDICTED surpluses that never materialized. The last 4 years of the Clinton Administration over 450 billion in surpluses were predicted, when all was said and done they ran over 500 BILLION in deficits. They did come close in FY 2000, with only an 18 billion deficit (an outstanding achievement but still not a surplus), but with the crashing markets and the start of a recession the deficit ballooned to 130 billion in FY2001 the final budget year for Clinton.

The press seems to be testing the theory of repeating the same lie enough times will make it the truth.



http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

Mr. Right
I have another gent in my neighborhood who told me that he could TRIPLE the size of his cleaning business but getting solid reliable workers is a problem! He has even offered limited partnerships but most people want a free ride and the ability to call in sick when Oprah has an interesting guest scheduled!

I am currently helping my in-law to get on the GSA schedule for security needs and then...

WATCH US GROW!

GunnyG
But . . . but . . . but THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY!! The evil CEOs have taken all the money. How can this be????

I would wish you luck but you probably don't need it because you seem to be in the habit of making your own. I will wish you all success!

On a somewhat related note, I'm from West Michigan. I noted with dismay last week that the Grand Rapids Press is changing its distribution system so that it will be virtually impossible for a kid to have a paper route. That is their take on the effect the changes will have. In my youth, most folks had a relative on a farm somewhere to which they could send the kids summers to help them learn responsibility and hard work. Paper routes are also magnificent tools for teaching young kids that, whether you feel like it or not, the job needs to be done. If you are incapable for some reason, you still need to see to it that the papers get delivered. That teaches more responsibility than most anything else a kid can do. Where, exactly, are youngsters supposed to learn the kind of work ethic that will enable them to succeed in life if not for those kinds of opportunities? I know that the military can make men out of boys but will it be enough?

We need another Churchill...

This is what he said, "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."

Mr. Right
I had summer jobs like working the nets on a herring boat! Thanks to Dad, I learned the meaning of busting your butt. It was WAY worth it going back to Colorado in Aug, tanned and with a fat wallet! haha.

My stepdad, not a slug either, believed in gainful employment in his construction business! haha. ALL of the rest of the year!

I have a friend who came in the Corps from a daily farm in Wisconsin. He laughed in bootcamp having to sleep "in" until 0530!

I think that liberals don't like pursuing a dream since sometimes you fail. Like I told my kids, Thomas Edison failed over 10,000 times before he invented the ligth bulb!

Hockey Goon
That site is pure GOLD!

Way to immediately and totally refute any libdolt's whine that Velcro-Fly had it going on economically.

I seem to remember my stocks heading south like Bubba cutting and runing from Somalia around 1999/2000 but libs don't want to believe that.

Kudos.

GunnyG asks
"Who is to say what is too much for a CEO to make?"

Answer: the shareholders. I own lots of stocks (being a rich liberal) and get proxy forms all the time. I've never voted on a CEO salary.

liberalgoodman
Actually, it's the Board of Directors that set the CEO and other officers pay.

In fact, the AFL/CIO's own site bears this out.

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/

1st sentence, paragraph three.

"Boards of directors are responsible for setting CEO pay."


liberalgoodman
You need to sit on the board to vote on CEO compensation. You may, however, vote with your pocketbook. If you think a CEO is making too much, sell the stock and buy something else. Is there a listing on the stock exchange for fair trade coffee? Greenpeace paying good dividends these days? Maybe the UAW is a better investment.

Mr. Right
IN the future, PLEASE post a SPEW ALERT FIRST! Some of us drink coffee all day long!

"Maybe the UAW is a better investment." FUNNY!

Only if you're betting on them putting the Big Three out of business soon.

GunnyG
And everyone knows that the CEO's and boards of directors are in it together.

"The CEO and the board work together to syphon off some of what should be shareholder profit to themselves."

You should know this. Just ask your brother-in-law! He'll tell you in between bites of his cereal with children's fingers mixed in. They sit around and figure out how to shaft the shareholders and the workers out of millions of dollars just so that they can sleep on beds of dollar bills and cr@p on gold toilets.

It doesn't matter that the CEO's salaries of these mega-corporations is often in shares of stock, and even in dollar terms comes to fractions of a penny per share.

Redhead
WHO leaked that info?

I thought that only a select few knew that CEO's dine on such cereal. I love visiting since I not only eat THAT cereal, we also bring poor people in and eat thick steaks in front of them and throw the "T" bones at them to gnaw on. Then we toss them out into the cold weather. If it's summer, then they go in the freezer that we keep on hand for just that type of fun.

GunnyG
Got the info from my brother, who knows all the evils of corporations. He told me over Christmas dinner last year. He's read all of Michael Boore's books, after all.

CVN65
“If I buy a new Ford, they see a small profit, but if I invest 30 large in Ford stock, they have money for product development, new factories and hiring more workers. Am I wrong? “

I am not a stock analyst, by any stretch (my own investment record is pretty dismal), but I think that the majority of the stocks that you buy are pretty well removed from the company. The only time the company makes money off of the stocks is on a stock issue. After that time, most of the buying and selling is between individual investors. The company does not receive the money when you buy the stock, except in that the board of directors and employees own some stock, as individuals, or as part of a retirement package.

Our resident economist could better clear this up.

GunnyG and Redhead
Yeah, yeah - a lot more people know about the cereal than you think. What most folks don't know about is the hunting preserves where we shoot the poor folk. The only part of Cheney's accident that was an accident was the fact that he hit somebody with money!! After all, where do you think we get all the fingers for the cereal!!

OK, now I've gone far enough that I should go do something useful for the rest of the day. Where are those darned kids hiding!

Mr. Right
I haven't reached the point where I get invited to the reservations, yet, or even the dinners. Still holding onto my VRWC membership, though. I hear you can buy them canned from China.

The uproar over the finger found in the salad at Wendy's was clearly because the wrong person got the order, not that there was a finger in it! Now I've figured (fingered?) it out!

GunnyG and Redhead
Stop It! I'm laughing so hard I'm about to embarass myself!

Spew Alerts
It was too late, guys! Some of us DO drink coffee all day long...my new shirt is now a spotted shirt!!! These posts are awesome...
And don't forget the national debt is down and tax revenues will be going up again...just a guess!! :)

Economics 101 graduate
Gunny G,

It happened to me.

Raised a Reagan-hating liberal, I took Economics in College and took a serious look at my pro-abortion leanings. I'd been pitting liberal rhetoric against solid logic and ended up confused. The rhetoric must be true, but it doesn't square with "reality". Hmmm, obviously something must be missing which would make reality jive with the rhetoric.

I drifted until an ultra-liberal friend discovered a Rush Limbaugh tape in a used car he'd just bought. Everything slammed into place. There wasn't anything missing. The rhetoric was WRONG! I reached what the Sanity Squad calls my "Tipping Point"

Now I'm a solid Pro-life Reagan Conservative.

'Fletch
If libs took Economics 101 AND passed, they'd become Republicans.

Thus, it'll never happen. The world is a utopia that COULD BE in their twisted gourds, if we just all paid more taxes, redistributed OPM (other people's money), and sang Kumbaya together every Saturday night'

Nee
Just got back from some productive work. Boy, am I exhausted! But why do you need a spew alert? These posts are serious stuff!

But I, as usual, have the answer to your self-control problem. You need to invest in a coffee colored wardrobe. They also make keyboard skins to protect them from unintended spew. And when you're spending that money, some corporate executive somewhere has more money to blow. For example, if you are an executive, you need to spend a lot of money on hand sanitizer. Few people realize that. But if, heaven forfend, you actually have to shake hands with one of the riff-raff, you need liberal doses of hand sanitizer, probably more than once. It's more effective if you use it while still in the presence of the riff-raff. Then there is the special cologne to mask the unmistakable scent of poverty. We could probably wipe out poverty with what we spend on that stuff alone but where would be the fun in that? CEOs are actually a victim class. They just have a bit of trouble getting folks to buy into that. Maybe a new PR firm . . .

Kaos Klerik
Welcome home! I was never far from conservative but the first time I heard Limbaugh my first thought was, "Hey! I'm not the only one who thinks like that." His topic was welfare and the fact that the real welfare queens are the social workers whose jobs disappear if enough people get off welfare. Why did I never hear anyone on the radio saying that before? But there is certainly a peace that sets in when you realize that this is the truth, isn't there?

Mr. Right...Kaos
You are right again...coffee-colored wardrobe is the answer...are you sure you don't want to run for office. You are so logical and rational...
(and using my best Budweiser "I love you,man" voice)Mr. Right, I Love yeww, man! From one serial conservative to another!
KK, Congrats on coming into the light...if only we could enlighten "The Others!"

Piling on
I am going to pile on to what Fletch started.

Re: Clinton:
Not only did Clinton never predict any surpluses, but the total national debt actually INCREASED every year he was in office, which means after the Congress balanced the budget (by cutting the military) Clinton managed to overspend anyway.

Re: Everyone is better off because of the Bush tax cuts: (1) Taxes are down for EVERYONE. (2) Revenues to the Treasury are way UP. (3) The "rich" are paying a higher portion than ever of the total tax bill.

This is what you call a win-win-win situation...unless you're a Democrat or liberal who is more concerned about political power than in actually doing some real good.

Re: The Depression of the '30's:
Government around the world caused and/or contributed to the Great Depression with overly restrictive import/export tariffs and bans. Countries with surpluses of certain goods were restricted in how much they could sell in countries where these goods were in demand because of local or domestic shortages. The left contends that "demand" must rule (not entirely true) but has no objection when government interferes and dampens or even voids demand with bans, boycotts, and/or tariffs (which are taxes, the libs favorite word).

PR for CEO's
I hear that Naomi Wolf is looking for work. Perhaps she could help those bemoaned CEO's become Alpha Males. Also, when filming those commercials, be sure to start filming as you welcom the poor folks into the house, and stop BEFORE your servants serve you, and not them.

Side note to Nee. If you aren’t a CEO, GET BACK TO WORK!
(I work for a gov’t contractor, and am exempt from work.)

Kaos Klerik:
Welcome to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Remember, with a $1000 donation, your free can from China is on the way.

It's very simple
Back in the day, if you ran a franchise store, you still had to manually reconcile stuff at the end of the day, manually count the money yourself, and draw up your report. Inventory was done manually, and the totals were manually tabulated and gone over for anomalies.

Nowadays, a lot of stores are "company stores" where inventory, accounting, etc. are done by computer. The manager mostly sticks around all those hours because he or she is exempt, and every hour the manager works is less they have to pay an hourly employee. It takes less skill to manage a Target circa 2007 than it did to manage a Target circa 1987, and the pay reflects this.

Hmmm...
I Star's column, she points out that Stan O'Neil makes $48 million on $60 billion in revenues.

According to my handy-dandy calculator, O'Neil is paid 0.10% of revenues.

My brother-in-law, as the owner of his own company, makes about $250,000 on annual sales of $10 million. I believe that works out to about 2.5% of revenue.

Either my brother-in-law is drastically overpaid... or O'Neil is really getting the shaft!

Excellent thoughts
Excellent thoughts and well elucidated. Thanks, Ms. Parker!!

Re-Distribution of
wealth is one of the Lefties prime mantras. Equality for all etc. Well let me ask you Liberals a question. What do you think would happen to America and it's economy. If the government suddenly gave each and every man, woman and child a million dollars each, tax free?

Cereal Conservative
Nee,
Regarding your post of 4:43 PM "From one serial conservative to another!"...you really need to work on your spelling skills. It's 'cereal' conservative, not 'serial' conservative!


Not
that I want to knit-pick or anything.

I'm just sayin...

NOTICE: For all you liberals, yes I KNOW it's nit, not knit. Get a life.

Overpaid in Hollywood?
Ms. Parker makes an interesting point when she asks why liberals have such a problem with huge CEO salaries, while ignoring the obsene (by their standards) salaries made by so many in the entertainment business, most of whom ARE liberals. It's equally interesting that those Hollywood liberals don't see the irony in their own harsh critisms of "corporate America." Who do they think THEY work for? Of course, in their case, liberalism is based not so much on envy as on guilt. Let's not forget the guilt factor when discussing the allure of liberalism!

Two small correction to Fletch
Only two small mistakes:

1) You say demand-side (Keynesian, I assume) economics have been abandoned for 60 years. To which I must say, you haven't visited a university lately, have you? Keynes and his descendants are alive and well in academia. Where else would Democrats get the idea to call taxes "investments"? That is a purely Keynesian deception.

2) The Great Depression was due to the Fed contracting credit as you state. My correction is more of an omission than an error. At the time there were a number of accords tying world currencies to the dollar rather than gold or silver. When the Credit Anstalt of Austrian failed it created a series of runs on European banks. In an effort to shore up those banks, the Fed belatedly tried to correct the excessive credit extended by not only US banks but European as well. And, as you say, this sudden contratcion resulted in a dramatic economic downturn. (Why it lasted so long is another story. It is quite possible to argue that all of FDR's steps to "fix" the economy made the depression longer and more severe than would ahve been the case had he done nothing at all...)

Typo
"of Austria", not "of Austrian"

The Irrelevance Factor
One of the most glaring observations which can be made at this point is that those on the opposite side of good are perplexed, and even fearful that people like Star Parker are having a pronounced impact on the debate they have fought so long to control.


This phenomena is due in large part to the ability of those like Star to be able to offer alternative considerations to being subservient to the current make-up of the Democratic Party.

Consider the Senator from Illinois who is being offered as the "Last great hope" for them to maintain the power they wield over the black population. They certainly do not want the average black citizen to hear the things Star, and other real Americans like her have to say.

A real investigation of the liberal mind set would sufficiently indicate to anyone who is possessed with right thinking that the majority of the people in the greatest free enterprise system in the world have begun to awaken to the hypocrisy of the left, and are declaring them irrelevant. This, of course, is what they have actually always been in the scheme of things American.





GrabbyBaby Grandstanding
Those who have small children, or who have ventured into FAO Schwarz to buy gifts for small children, have seen the kids at the Brio Table. There's always one, usually a girl, whose sole interest is in grabbing everything in reach, circling her arms around it, and screaming MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! in that ear-piercing whistle that would make the most hardened A-Qaida member confess to spiking the Christmas punch. These brats don't want to play with the stuff -- they just want to control it. They don't want it -- they just don't want YOU to have it.

This is the younger generation of the Democratic Party in action.

The older generation, of course, is out in front of the Capitol spray-painting the dirty words they learned in 1964, about the time they discovered the fascination with their wee-wees that has taken up most of their attention for the past 40 years.

Time for Momma to be elected President -- or perhaps Grandmama. As P.J. O'Rourke once observed, there's not a thing wrong with [this country] that could not be fixed by Grandma with a mop and bucket, a smile and a gun.

Serpent's Tongue

.....Star ...

.....To paraphrase Geronimo ..."Democrats speak with forked tongue" ...

....They will preach that they want to achieve energy independence from Middle East oil and then they will do everything in their power to prevent us from achieving this goal ...from prohibiting drilling in Anwar and the Continental Shelf ...to preventing the construction of new refineries ...coal powered utilities and nuclear power plants ...

.....they will fantasize about novelty alternate energy sources such as solar, wind, hydrogen and ethanol which, if combined, would produce less than a quarter of our energy needs ...so what is their real goal? ...as my dear departed grandma used to say ..."judge them by their actions not their words" ...

.....they want to collapse our economy and overthrow our Republican Government and replace it with a Socialist State with themselves in charge ...

.....their message is loud and clear .....COLOSSUS

Econ
I make about $60,000 a year. Do I qualify as rich?
Adjusting for inflation, I've been making about the same amount for 20 years. When Clinton's 1993 "tax cut for the middle class," that he promised us while he was running in 1992, turned into the biggest tax HIKE since WW2, I had to borrow $4,000 to pay the increase in my taxes.

Technically, you might say that I no longer owe that money to anyone. Technically. Then again, I haven't been debt-free since: it keeps getting combined with other debts that I pick up along the way, as I could barely afford to put food on the table while making the monthlies on that $4,000. The last two re-finance events in this sordid tale involved my mortgage. I am now 54 and have 27 years left to pay on that mortgage. But that's all right - we're moving into a smaller house as soon as we can get our present house sold (wish us luck - in Michigan, where the Democratic governor has raised taxes again and the housing market has collapsed.) Whenever we manage to sell, and buy another, the 30-year clock will start over.

I didn't know, in 1992 or 1993, that I was so "rich" that my taxes had to be raised so high.

I'm not looking for sympathy - just lower the d@mned taxes!!! Best of all, let's try the National Sales tax.

Stinkin' commies
Their goal: the elimination of disparity among economic classes by redistribution of wealth via government programs. A blissful utopia!

One BIG problem: the only way to eliminate said disparity is by making EVERYONE poor.

Notice that everyone getting government hand-outs (farm subsidies excepted) is poor. It has become a classic chicken/egg conundrum; a self perpetuating system.

The bottom line is that governments do not posess the ability to create wealth. They can, however, destroy the opportunity, ability and incentive for their citizens to do so.

Quote from someone
maybe it's from Winston Churchill. Then again, maybe from someone farther back in history.

"He who is not a liberal at 16 has no heart. He who is not a conservative at 60 has no head."

In other words, all the prattle from the liberals stirs up the emotions, and "helping the less fortunate," especially with money from "those who have won life's lottery" sounds so sweet and nice. How could anybody say that it's bad?

Nearly everyone - at least it used to be nearly everyone - figured out, by the time they're 60, that this re-distribution of income didn't really help the poor. It's not so much that the re-distribution of income is bad - it's just that it doesn't work. President Lyndon Baines Johnson declared a War on Poverty some 40 years ago; well, what progress have we made? The numbers don't add up the way we - all of us who truly want to help the poor - would all like. Instead, the best thing to do for the vast majority of the poor is (would be) to get them educated AND motivated. As some other posters here have already noted, it is thoroughly possible to start with next to nothing - growing up poor, on a farm in Alabama, for example - work hard, and become rather wealthy. Is it easy? No. Nothing worth having ever comes easy.

Frey
I have to agree with you that the semi-fiat currency FDR introduced (foreign financial institutions and governments could still redeem paper currency for gold, only US citizens were forbidden the holding of monetary gold)... Anyway, I agree this was a bad move on FDR's part. The "gold window" to foreigners allowed it to continue functioning as a sort of de facto gold standard, as the foreign redemption requirement prevented wholesale inflation. Only when the gold window closed with the Smithsonian Accords (1971-1973) did unbridled inflation take palce, giving us the lovely 70's with "stagflation" and "whip inflation now".

If you haven't read it, I do suggest Benjamin Anderson's history of American financial institutions of the first four decades of the 20th century. Gives a nice insider's view on the destruction of American banking.

Oops
I cited the wrong decades for Anderson. TRhe title is "Economics and the Public Welfare: A Financial and Economic History of the United States, 1914-1946." So I guess it spans the second through fifth decades of the twentieth century. My mistake. Been a while since I read it, and sometimes it overlaps with "Breaking the Banks" and "The Case For Gold", and I forget which era each covers.

Beachmom - Monday, 8:16
Economically, you're absolutely correct: the only plan the Democrats have is to stir up envy. Politically, there is at least one more: the environment.

As I said in my last post, Liberals play on emotions. They (tried to) play on everyone's emotions when the snail darter and spotted owl, as well as other species, were discussed. Oh, they're so ________ (fill in the blank: cute, lovable, majestic, .....) - how can anyone be in favor of destroying their habitat? Worked well for the spotted owl - until someone saw spotted owls making nests on top of parking lot lightposts in suburbia. Destroying their habitat, are we? Hmmmmmmmmm...

The scene from Bambi in which a hunter kills Bambi's mother (do I remember the details right?) stirs up (nearly) everyone's emotions against hunters. There's a correspondence here: replace Bambi and his mother with poor people and their children who are growing up poor, hungry, so deprived (sniff, sniff), and replace the hunter with eeeevil Big Business. Ta-da! Democratic political strategy!

The reality for Bambi and his kin is never considered: overpopulation of deer, and starvation. For the modern reality, also consider road kill; I live in Michigan, and I see plenty of carcasses on the pavement every year. Then there's the reality, at least when the Bambi story was originally written, that some people depended on venison meat to get them through the winter; if the deer are going to die anyway, is it better to let them die slowly and painfully, by starvation - or more quickly by hunting, and help some people in the process? Nevertheless, anti-hunting is part of the Democratic campaign platform, too.

I have to go and make some money, now.

Michael
My wife is from Kalamazoo and wants to move back there from Utah (despite MI's third-world economy) because of the low housing cost and the ponzi scheme they're running in giving away college tuition to people who have paid property tax there for 7+ years.

I always reply (mostly kiddingly, if that's a word) by saying that I love her, but not enough to follow her to Michigan.

We live in Utah. Wages aren't as high here as they are in Michigan, and housing is one of the worst values in the country, but it's a right-to-work state and the unemployment rate is 2.5%.

The dirty little secret is...
... that Dems don't really oppose people making alot of money or having alot of power while leaving the vast majority dependent and relatively "poor".

What they have a problem with is letting people do it that are not beholden to them or are opposed to their gov't power grabs. Big business, big labor, and big gov't collude with Dems in power to suppress small business and individual wealth creation. They like things that are easy to control and regulate... and don't mind have rich people who kowtow to them and give to their liberal causes in charge.

Anyone who believes that Dems have been the party of the poor, downtrodden, or "common man" in a very long time is delusional.

Fletch said:
"In one of the great ironies of the period, Roosevelt is frequently given credit for creating the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) in order to provide work for the unemployed. Of course, those working for the CCC were doing so at below the wage thresholds that Roosevelt had tried to maintain (though a federal minimum wage was not officially set until 1938) ... that were the major cause of the unemployment in the first place."

That's pretty much the liberal method of gaining control in America in a nutshell. Restrict rights then "save" the people through programs necessitated directly by the restrictions on freedom. Confiscate rights and sell them back to the people as privileges for either votes, money, or power.

They've even gotten more slick about it by confusing the mass of Americans about the difference between a "right" and a "privilege"... which was of course necessitated when they ceased to accept "rights" as inalienable and endowed by a Creator greater than man himself.

Do CEOs really work hard?
The neoconservative ideology is perplexing. Force on everyone a religious philosophy that tells people that material wealth is not important. Then turn around and worship big-business CEOs -- the people with the most material wealth on the planet!

Let me offer this liberal perception of business CEOs and executives: I have all the respect in world for company FOUNDERS who actually put in the sweat and tears to build up a business from scratch -- I hope they make all the money they can. However, in this day and age, my picture of the typical CEO or high-level executive is someone who either inherited his or her position or otherwise gained it via the paper-pushing management ladder without having to put in all of this "hard work" that neocons continually preach about but is actually done only by the lower-level employees.

What leaves a bad taste in my mouth is that the wealth received by big-business executives is actually generated by the same lower-level employees who are called lazy by most posters on this board for making minimum wage or close to it.

My philosophy is that those who reap the most benefits from society have the greatest RESPONSIBILITY for that society. You would find that more liberals would respect capitalism if we had a big-business culture in which executives actually RESPECTED the working class.

spoken like a good little liberal
"George Bush’s $3 trillion dollar tax giveaway to the rich has been a disaster for average Americans."

Ahh, yes, spoken like a good little liberal, cuz only a liberal would conclude that actually letting people keep money that was their's to begin with is a giveaway. FYI, it isn't. Taking their money against their will and giving it to someone else who did nothing to earn it is a giveaway, which, ironically(or maybe hypocritically is better), you seem to have no problem with.

You need to draw another picture then
"However, in this day and age, my picture of the typical CEO or high-level executive is someone who either inherited his or her position or otherwise gained it via the paper-pushing management ladder without having to put in all of this "hard work" that neocons continually preach about but is actually done only by the lower-level employees."

Thanks for proving why some people are actually qualified to earn CEO pay, and most others, like yourself, are not.

I think's it's hilarious that people who probably struggle putting together a kid's birthday party think it's a piece of cake to run a multi-national corporation.

Leading them into
Sin.

Ex 20:17
Thou shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."

If you are leading people into SIN you can't be a good Christian no matter what comes out of your mouth!


GoodOnPaper writes:
"My philosophy is that those who reap the most benefits from society have the greatest RESPONSIBILITY for that society."

And what exactly else would you have them do? One of the gentlemen mentioned in the article is responsible for the employment of 50,000 people. You would find that more liberals would respect capitalism if we had a big-business culture in which executives actually RESPECTED the working class. Considering that he makes roughly $50 million per year... the company is paying him roughly $1,000 per $40K-$50K per year job.

I'd say he is fulfilling his responsibility to society far more than politicians who keep people on the dole for doing nothing other than voting for them. The one is paying people to enrich our society as a whole. The other is paying people to be parasites and make our society poorer.

GoodOnPaper writes again:
"The neoconservative ideology is perplexing. Force on everyone a religious philosophy that tells people that material wealth is not important. Then turn around and worship big-business CEOs -- the people with the most material wealth on the planet!"

Please cite evidence of conservatives who are trying to force a religious philosophy onto others... especially concerning wealth. Most of the things you'd consider a case of "forcing" religion on people is actually a case of resisting the left's efforts to force their value set onto society through the arm of gov't.

I actually part company often with people like Dr Dobson on the use of gov't to achieve Christian aims that are rightly achieved only by persuasion. These well meaning but misguided folks are actually hurting the cause of biblical Christianity by legitimizing the use of gov't to enforce values and change societal views.

For every legitimate case of "force" used by religious conservatives, I am sure I can cite 5 used by secular liberals to force society to accept their viewpoint... and often they do it undemocratically through left wing jurists.

Hard Work
CEO's have been demonized often enough. Star Parker deserves praise for telling the truth.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.