LowDownCentral.com - Feature Article

Monday

08Mar2010

Licking the Stamp of Big Government

Monday, March 8, 2010 at 04:00AM

by Rose Pedenko

The Washington Post, bastion of journalistic excellence that it is, recently reported what most Americans already know – that the United States Postal Service is a failed government enterprise. The Postal Service estimates $238 billion in losses in the next 10 years and a drop of 26 billion pieces of mail. As most federal estimates go, that figure will likely increase exponentially under the ever coercive lawmakers, postal regulators and labor unions that want even more flexibility to compel Americans to absorb the cost of their inefficiency. They seek impossible remedies in an effort to expand government control and ultimately stifle American incentive. It’s as if the bureaucrats and liberal leaning media are tone-deaf to the mounting anger of the citizenry that want to reduce government spending--and want to reduce it now.

There was once a commonly held belief that delivering the U.S. mail was too big or impossible for private enterprise to handle efficiently. It is clear that even the Postmaster General now acknowledges that the 13% drop in mail volume last year was a result of business migrating away to faster, cheaper and more dependable delivery via the internet or other more efficient, competitively-priced services. That, of course, begs the question, why do we need the USPS?

Delivery services, like UPS and Fed-X, have been fully capable of handling comprehensive domestic distribution for years. The fact they have been subject to corporation taxes, sales taxes, vehicle license taxes and other onerous regulations, means they have also effectively been subsidizing their biggest competitor--the U.S. Postal Service. What a great country!!

The postal service lost $2.4 billion from April through June of 2009, bringing the year’s losses to $4.7 billion. In spite of a bad economy, in the 4th quarter of 2009, UPS' domestic profits increased over 60% from the previously mentioned low point in the 2nd quarter.

Rather than Congress rationally evaluating the failures of this government entity to compete in the free marketplace, it has allowed Postmaster General John E. Potter to throw good money after no money by spending an additional $4.8 million for outside consultants to provide even more ideas to further rip-off American taxpayers. At a time when other (better) products and services mean a drop in prices to Americans, as we have witnessed with cellular, cable and satellite services, the Post Office will increase prices that exceed the rate of inflation.

Another question that begs a rational answer is why we permit federal/public employees to unionize and further drive up costs to American taxpayers. Labor unions not only complicate the agency’s path to a firm fiscal footing but will inevitably prevent it from ever achieving the kind of profits enjoyed by private enterprise. The Post Office does not need to reshape how Americans send and receive their letters and packages--Americans are doing that themselves. Perhaps this bad news from the post office will be accompanied by yet another attempt by government to regulate the chief competitor to the USPS--the internet.

Congress should be asking itself “what would happen if the Post Office failed?” The answer, of course, is nothing. Private enterprise is 100% capable of delivering all of the United States mail in a time and cost-effective manner. But rather than stop the fiscal bleeding, our elected misrepresentatives will probably enact further mind-numbing legislation to prevent what should be the complete and utter demise of a badly run business. Where else have we heard this lately?

Unlike consultants paid to blow smoke up the Postmaster General’s ass, I have no interest in the Post Office reducing its costs. Americans should strongly encourage their “elected” officials to shut down the Post Office, eliminate the Postal Regulatory Commission, and while we are at it, the handful of other useless and inefficient agencies whose sole purpose is to swindle and steal from a citizenry that is quickly going postal.

LowDownCentral |

America in Neutral

Friday, March 5, 2010 at 04:00AM

by Lance Thompson

Nothing illustrates the lamentable state of the US and UK relationship better than the Obama administration’s recent betrayal of the Brits over the Falkland Islands. On March 2nd at a Buenos Aires press conference with Argentine President Kristina Kirchner, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said the United States favored a negotiated settlement over the Falkland Islands dispute working within the framework of United Nations resolutions. This sounds quite reasonable, and the appearance of reason from the Obama administration is no small feat. But Clinton’s words signaled a sharp retreat from our support for the United Kingdom, and is typical of a foreign policy that betrays allies on a whim.

The Falkland Islands, 300 miles east of Argentina, were first sighted by English sailors in the 16th Century. It was almost a century later that the first landing took place, again by an English ship seeking fresh water. The French established the first settlement in 1764. The English established a separate settlement in 1765. Both France and England claimed the Falklands, as did the Spanish, who had divided all islands in the Atlantic, discovered or not, between themselves and the Portugese in the 15th Century. The French relinquished their claim to the Spaniards in 1766, leaving the islands in dispute between England and Spain.

England withdrew its garrison in 1774, but still claimed sovereignty, as did Spain. In 1816, Argentina won its independence from Spain, and four years later claimed the Spanish colony as Argentinian territory. In 1823, Argentina granted a land concession to a Frenchman, Louis Vernet, who saw profit potential in the wild cattle of the Falklands. Aware of the British claim, Vernet also obtained permission from the British consulate in Buenos Aires.

Vernet and his partners established a colony and a successful business supplying fresh produce and meat (including seal) to ships that called in the Falklands. When North American sealers poached in the Falklands, Vernet asked for military aid from Argentina, which was unable to provide it. Vernet then sought help from the British, who established a military garrison in 1833. The British formalized their administration, established Port Stanley, brought in pioneers, businessmen and families, and built the Falkland Islands into a self-sufficient British colony.

In 1964, Argentina renewed its claim to the Falklands, but in 1968, the Falkland Islanders voted overwhelmingly to maintain their status as a territory of the United Kingdom. Great Britain and Argentina never settled the disagreement. Tensions rose throughout the 1970s, with some minor confrontations between civilian and military vessels of the two nations. In 1982, Argentinian troops made an amphibious landing on the island and captured Port Stanley. Diplomacy failed to defuse the situation, and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher assembled a naval force to drive the Argentinians out. During a brief but costly war in the spring of 1982, British troops recaptured the islands. The United States supplied critical intelligence to the United Kingdom during the conflict.

Relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina normalized in the ensuing years. But under Argentina’s President Nestor Kirchner and his wife and successor, Kristin Kirchner, tensions have risen again. Argentina has issued increasingly bellicose statements (encouraged and supported by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez) about reclaiming the Falklands, and the Obama administration has remained at best neutral.

When Clinton and Obama mention a United Nations framework, they refer to resolutions from the 1960's. Resolution 1514, passed in 1960, urged that all states which have not achieved full self-government (in other words, colonies) should move toward independence. This was known as “decolonization.” True to form, the UN created a committee (Resolution 1654) to oversee decolonization the following year, whose title is longer than this sentence. Resolution 2065, passed by the UN Security Council in 1965, called specifically on Argentina and Great Britain to reach a settlement on the sovereignty of the islands.

Clinton and Obama are probably not referring to UN Resolution 502, from 3 April 1988, which calls for the immediate withdrawal of all Argentinian military forces from the Falklands after their invasion. The Argentines did not comply with the UN directive, and the British removed them by military force, at the cost of hundreds of lives.

The UN resolutions of the 1960s about decolonization rise from the principle of self-determination–that the people of any state have the right to choose their own government. This, of course, is applied only to free nations. It is a principle never pressed upon totalitarian regimes which make up a significant portion of the UN. Nevertheless, the people of the Falklands now and always have overwhelmingly favored British governance to Argentinian. Any application of force or influence by Argentina would be a violation not only of international law but of the human rights of the Falkland Islanders.

It is not reasonable for the United States to remain neutral in the current conflict. Argentina is making a claim on the established territory of another nation. To equate the demands of an aggressor with the resistance of a peaceful territory is a despicable act of appeasement that will only encourage more of the same. During the 1982 Falklands War, the United States tried diplomatically to avert armed conflict. But once the war started, the United States and President Reagan were steadfast allies of the United Kingdom. There was no question at that time who was in the right and who was in the wrong.

Today, twenty years later, determining right from wrong is an indecipherable conundrum for the Obama administration. They never hesitate to withdraw support from our closest allies, or to offer encouragement and sympathy to our most implacable foes. They find moral equivalency between Israel and Arab terrorists, between communist China and Taiwan, between Russia and former Soviet Republics. They believe neutrality is the highest moral position a nation can occupy, when in fact it is the most dangerous.

It is the moral responsibility of any nation, and particularly the greatest nations, to support and defend the less powerful against aggression, domination, and intimidation by the all too numerous enemies of freedom. When the United States is neutral, the rogue nations of the world have no authority to heed and no consequence to fear. As Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of our one-time close ally Great Britain, so succinctly put it before the House of Commons in 1927, “I decline utterly to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire.”

LowDownCentral |

US Debt Puts Taiwan in the Red

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 at 04:00AM

by Lance Thompson

The profligate spending and irresponsible borrowing of the Obama administration has left the United States over one trillion dollars in debt to communist China. Many have speculated on what will happen if China decides to alter the terms on that debt, call for immediate payment, stop lending, or use the leverage to influence American foreign policy. None of the scenarios are pleasant, but there is at least one further possibility that could have permanent global impact.

First, let’s examine the evidence. Why does communist China continue to buy up the debt of a nation in economic strife? It’s not because they believe that American economic policies of the past year are responsible. The Chinese themselves have lectured us on the danger of unsustainable debt. Still, the Chinese hold a trillion dollars of our IOU’s, and continue to increase that amount. They must have a reason.

Communist China has never recognized the island nation of Taiwan as independent. Red China has always claimed sovereignty over the island, which was the sanctuary of Chiang Kai Shek’s Nationalists once the communists ran them off the mainland in the years after World War II. Taiwan has since grown into an Asian economic powerhouse, but the nation continues to exist under the threat of communist oppression.

The chief guarantor of Taiwan’s freedom and independence (other than Taiwan’s own military forces) has been the United States. We have resisted all moves by communist China to invade, reclaim or absorb Taiwan. We send naval forces into the area when tension are high, we sell Taiwan sophisticated weapon and defense systems, and we carry on a robust trade with the nation. We have failed them once, when in 1971 we allowed communist China to replace Taiwan as one of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. This drastically reduced the status of Taiwan as an independent nation. Since then, the United States has supported Taiwan militarily and politically.

Taking over Taiwan would be a priceless coup for communist China, giving them a vast new chunk of real estate, industry, commercial infrastructure, and political power. The communist Chinese have made no secret of their desire to take Taiwan by any means necessary, but the cost of opposing the United States and an American-led coalition has always been too high.

The Obama administration has an almost unbroken record of abandoning our allies and strategic positions. Obama’s state department warned Israel against defending herself against Iran’s growing nuclear ambitions. Obama’s administration withdrew missile defense systems from the Czech Republic which would have shielded all of Europe from attacks by enemies to the east. Obama has denied that any special relationship exists between the United States and the United Kingdom. The current administration sells out friends regularly, but seldom misses an opportunity to appease, honor and legitimize the worst of the world’s bad actors–Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Putin, and Kim Jong Il.

Communist China knows all this, and cannot have overlooked the influence of these factors on the subject of Taiwan. There would never be a better time to make an irresistible offer to the debtor American nation: communist China will forgive America’s trillion dollar debt if the United States looks the other way when the Chinese invades and subjugates Taiwan.

The Chinese know no other nation will resist the attack if the United States refuses to be involved. Taiwan cannot stand up to communist China by itself. The invasion would be costly, but only a fraction of the price the Chinese would pay if their move were opposed by the Americans. And once the Chinese hold territory, they do not surrender it.

Yes, this is an outrageous scenario. But it is no more outrageous than a nuclear-armed Iran, North Korean missiles flying over Japan, or Mexico becoming a narcoarchy. Every one of those situations is a distraction making the Chinese move even more plausible. We are stretched thin, and literally cannot afford another war on our hands.

Does anyone really think the feckless incompetents in the White House would think twice about erasing our debt by throwing Taiwan under the bus? Our enemies and allies certainly don’t. Over the past year, they have taken the measure of our president, and they know he can be bought. Taiwan may pay the price.

LowDownCentral |

1 Comment |

Email Article

Print Article

tagged

Obama Administration,

Taiwan; U.S. Debt to China; Chiang Kai Shek Nationalists in

China and Taiwan,

U.S. Debt

Permalink

Monday

01Feb2010

Mooning the American Spirit

Monday, February 1, 2010 at 04:00AM

by Lance Thompson

The last Americans to walk on the moon, Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt, did so in December 1972–thirty-seven years ago. If President Obama has his way, it’ll be 37 years before any more footprints are made in the lunar dust, and they probably won’t be made by an American.

That’s because Obama plans to cancel this nation’s manned space program. He will cut funding for the new Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles, the Orion crew capsule, and the Altair Lunar lander, on which over $8 billion has already been spent. There will be no money for a moon base, nor any reason for one, since the moon will no longer be a destination for NASA. Instead of reaching for the stars, NASA will cast its eyes downward, in a vain attempt to quantify the discredited myth of global warming. No better example of cosmic navel-gazing can be imagined.

Of course, the International Space Station will still roam the skies in low-Earth orbit, but Americans who want to get there will have to buy a seat on a Russian Soyuz capsule. That’s $51 million dollars per astronaut, not counting the baggage charge. We will thus be subsidizing the Russian aerospace program while dismantling ours.

Russia will not be the only player in the space game. Communist China’s space program has advanced significantly. North Korea and Iran are building rockets that will do double duty–lifting payloads into space or lofting warheads over their neighbors. India’s space program is just beginning. Only the United States is turning its back on the frontier that it conquered these many years ago.

In the early 1970's, when the country was facing tough economic times, the space program was a tempting target for budget cutters. We faced a recession, an unpopular war, rising unemployment, a languid stock market, an increasingly powerful Soviet Union. The shared national purpose that launched thousands of young people into science and inspired feats almost beyond imagination from our country’s aerospace and technology workers was no longer a unifying crusade. Having witnessed the ultimate fulfillment of the century’s greatest technological challenge and America’s ascendancy to undisputed master of the cosmos, all during his presidency, Richard Nixon cancelled the Apollo program.

We have a new century and a new President who doesn’t mind writing multi-trillion dollar bad checks on America’s taxpayers’ accounts to pay for thousand-page collections of earmarks, bribes and political kickbacks. But an investment that is less than what it cost for Obama to buy a controlling share of General Motors is too much to spend on keeping America first on the last frontier.

The issue isn’t money, because obviously the President doesn’t mind spending all that we have, or ever will have. It goes much deeper, into a vital aspect of the American character that Obama will never understand.

America started out as a frontier. Americans are drawn to the frontier. America needs a frontier. We are a nation of dreamers, strivers and achievers. We thrive on challenge, we grow strong in the endeavor, we redefine ourselves with each new summit conquered. Obama’s political agenda clearly demonstrates his core belief that Americans need to be taken care of. Universal health care, nationalization of private industry, redistribution of wealth all rise from the same conviction–the government must guide, regulate and manage America’s inherent restlessness, or we will face disappointment and disaster.

But Americans don’t need to be shown how to overcome adversity–that is our heritage. We have faced disappointment, disaster, and much worse in our past, and it has only deepened our resolve. All we need is a goal. Personal, public, local, or national, the great achievements of Americans fuel our continued progress. Americans conquered the air, joined the seas at Panama, split the atom, and put men on the moon. We are more than ready for the next challenge–we eagerly seek it, and desperately need it.

We are inspired by those who encourage us, support us, and join us in such efforts, because we know the journey defines our character as much as the destination. Those who fail to understand that fundamental aspect of the American character will seldom lead for long, and will never be remembered fondly.

LowDownCentral |

Symbolism in Massachusetts

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 04:00AM

by Lance Thompson

Both sides have spun their versions of what Scott Brown’s decisive upset of Martha Coakley means in political terms. Conservatives cheer the end of the Democrat supermajority in the Senate, Democrats from the President on down characterize the victory of the Republican in true-blue Massachusetts as a symptom of Bush fatigue. But there are some interesting symbolic factors which may be significant for this election year.

First is the widely-discussed pickup truck, a GMC Canyon with 200,000 miles that was Scott Brown’s executive ride. The mere fact that Brown has put 200,000 miles on the vehicle shows that whenever it was new, it was not acquired as a conscious political symbol. Nonetheless, it is.

Trusty trucks with two hundred grand on the odometers are the transportation of choice for middle class working people. They are driven by Americans with mortgages to pay, groceries to buy, and private sector work to do. As Scott Brown has shown, people like this actually live in Massachusetts, much to the surprise of the Democrats in Congress. He is not just “in touch” with the middle class, he is one of them. He knows what they value, where they work, how the live, and how much they’re upset by the Democrats and their drive for nationalized health care.

Brown’s truck is a product of General Motors, a company that once dominated the American market. Barack Obama, during a last-minute campaign stop in Massachusetts before the election, mentioned Brown’s truck often, exhorting voters to pay no attention to the it. “Anybody can buy a truck,” he famously concluded, to cheers from his supporters and derision from his opponents. In fact, since Barack Obama’s administration took billions of taxpayer dollars to buy a controlling chunk of General Motors stock last year, it’s not that “anybody can buy a truck.” The truth is, “Everybody has bought a truck.” Theoretically, all Americans own small portions of General Motors trucks, thanks to Obama’s government takeover of private industry. This symbol was not lost on Massachusetts voters.

Another symbol dismissed by the MSM is Scott Brown’s military service. Brown served thirty years in the Massachusetts National Guard. He has the rank of lieutenant colonel, and serves as the 26th Brigade’s Staff Judge Advocate General. He has experience as an infantry officer and quartermaster officer, is jump qualified, and earned the Army Commendation Medal. All of that requires the dedication and selflessness that characterizes Americans in military service. Brown’s military record was not a focus of his campaign, but it does reveal character.

Pollsters have told us that Americans are rejecting the liberal agenda of the Democrats, but that doesn’t mean they are rushing back to embrace Republicans. Americans have been burned by both parties. They are searching for leaders they can believe in. The same pollsters tell us that while the President’s approval is below 50%, and Congress’ approval is about half that, Americans rate our military as the most highly trusted and regarded of our institutions.

All Senators and congressmen and presidents take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. So does every American who serves in uniform. The difference is that our troops back up their oath with their lives. This fall, there are over two dozen congressional seats where candidates with proud military records are in contention. If American voters are looking for people they can trust and believe in, they may find a record of military service very convincing.

The last symbol is Scott Brown’s bullhorn. While the President, who has given over 400 interviews and over a hundred press appearances–more than any other president in the first year of an administration–bemoans the fact that he hasn’t spoken directly to the American people, Scott Brown did exactly that. He stood up in the bed of his pickup truck, and spoke to the crowds without handlers, without teleprompters, without elaborate Greek revival backdrops. He took his plain-spoken case directly to the voters, and they liked what he said. A bullhorn may sound like an impersonal communication device, but it spoke louder and more convincingly than Coakley and her powerful surrogates.

It also reminded me of the bullhorn George W. Bush used when he stood on the pile of rubble that was once the World Trade Center after September 11th, 2001. The President had borrowed the bullhorn from a veteran firefighter who had spent countless hours digging through the debris in a search for survivors, to commend the crowd of volunteers who were doing the same thing. Someone in the crowd yelled, “I can’t hear you.” Bush replied, “I can hear you. The world can hear you. And the people who knocked down these buildings will hear from all of us soon.”

That’s how to talk directly to the people.

LowDownCentral |

2 Comments |

Email Article

Print Article

tagged

Barack Obama,

Democrat Supermajority,

General Motors,

Martha Coakley,

Scott Brown in

Scott Brown