Thursday, June 26, 2014


The Democrats don't like attacks on their policies.  They often turn to the "race card" in order to divert attention from the issues.

An Attorney General is supposed to bring  peace and healing to the national agenda, instead he brings race.

If I've ever seen "racial animus" in action it's when 95 percent of the black people vote for a man just because of his color.  Take a look in your own closet and stop bringing hatred, instead of peace.

There's animus everywhere, always has been, always will be.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014


I was interested in what went wrong at the VA and I looked to see if their work force was highly unionized. It was only logical to look and see if the IRS is unionized also.  Guess what...they are both highly unionized.

I've written several blogs about the unionization of government.  We are republishing just one below that was originally published in January 2011.

 "Are Destructive Union Votes Worth It?"
Tuesday, January 11, 2011 ARE VOTES WORTH IT?
On August 27, 2010, we said in a blog that "Almost every significant unionized industry in America has failed. Now the largest unionized segment in America is government."

In the January 8, 2011 issue of the Economist magazine the lead story is titled "The battle ahead - Confronting the public-sector unions."
If you accept the thesis that I'm even partially correct about the negative effect of unions and their inflexible total compensation costs being responsible for destroying the competitive condition of significant industries, you will be well advised to ask "Are unions likely to destroy the government?"
Isn't it only a matter of time before some union representing the fire department, police department or the post office, goes on strike? Obviously it will happen. It's tough to change people. Note carefully the behavior of certain union members during the recent New York City snowfall.
During the ongoing turmoil in Wisconsin, a prominent Democrat exhorted the public to "stick by their friends." This may have been true a few decades ago when people took government jobs based on their security, retirement benefits and often a lack of complexity.
Today we have evolved a system where the unionized government sector indirectly threatens to strike and withhold their votes from the government politicians who don't give them what they want.
Government gets its money from taxes; so what these unions are saying to their so called "friends" is give us more of your tax dollars or we will take away your services.
During the formative years of our republic, there was serious debate about what functions the central governments would serve, both at the local and the federal levels. After Hamilton's persuasive arguments for a collective defense among the states, it was also agreed that government would stay close to the people by providing all types of services, and thereby make it easier for existing members to get reelected.
Think carefully about what some of the things the government does for us. We go to a post office, they hand you your mail. You go to a motor vehicle office, they hand you a license. You apply for a passport, they mail you a passport. They send you social security checks. These are simplistic functions that can just as easily be done by the private sector, for profit, save money, and reduce the deficit significantly.
Functions that don't have to be done by government should be taken out of the hands of government. It's time for a more introspective America, especially in some of our big cities where people think that the sharing of ideas around water coolers actually adds merit to the city.

Thursday, June 12, 2014


President Obama would never have been elected if he wasn't black. The color of his skin should have been of as little value to a voter as gender, sexuality, etc.  In a perfect world, one's view of the competence of the candidate should have been the most important factor to consider.

I don't find any pleasure in criticizing the President of the United States.

For whatever my humble opinion is worth, I'm hard pressed to find in history many Presidents who have done the country so much harm.  It is crystal clear to other countries that the primary foreign policy that we are following is one of isolation.  Obama seems to be talking about building coalitions without any comprehension that the coalitions on the other side are rapidly escalating in size and power.

At first Congressman Cantor's election loss seemed like a passing event. Cantor's views on the economy, health care, education or immigration didn't play the part in the outcome as common wisdom suggests.  It seems more likely that it was the voter's reaction to Cantor's  past negotiations with President Obama. His constituents wanted him to hold the party line and not concede, so as to show  the value of conviction.

Not holding the line in the face of an attempt to gain at our expense in the world political equation won't work either.


Its been said by some psychologists that opposites attract.  Its been said by others that common interests attract.

Is it possible that what we are seeing in international relations is a "tipping point"?

Those countries that have oil will be entering into an era of diminishing common interests with the oil consuming nations.  In its place will begin a second OPEC, more concerned about maintaining the price of a barrel of oil than their fear of having their governments replaced by radical elements within their own societies.  Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela, Brazil, etc. will strengthen their connections and alliances.

The message that will be sent is that you will not force the price of oil substantially lower by rhetoric of climate change and the need for alternative energies.

This will incrementally increase the reliance on oil suppliers.  We are in no position to have the revenues of oil supplying nations substantially reduced by policies of reducing oil consumption.

Too much tax revenue is collected from oil consumption, too many people feed their families due to oil production and the simplistic appeasement of Russia will reduce the loyalty of several significant producers towards the United States.


Shepard Osherow. All Rights Reserved