Monday, November 22, 2010

Why haven't Metra board members been fired

Here's one answer: The Metra board has almost as many bosses as it has members. The 11 directors are appointed by politicians in eight jurisdictions, a power-sharing compromise that's more about turf protection than joint governance.

Accountability? Forget it. Removing the board would require collective action by commissioners in Cook, DuPage, Kane, McHenry, Lake and Will counties, as well as the mayor ofChicago and the president of the Cook County Board. The directors can fire each other, but it takes a formal finding of incompetence or neglect of duty and a vote of eight. It's hard to clean house that way.


transit boards; lots of perks, little accountability - chicagotribune.com


Tuesday, November 9, 2010

When the Democrat Party Left You Behind

November 8, 2010 | Filed Under Congress, Conservatives, Constitution,Democrats/Leftists, Elections, Government, Government, Corruption,History, House of Representatives, Liberals, President, Selwyn Duke |

-By Selwyn Duke

Many years ago, a very nice lady with whom I was having a political discussion announced to me, “I’m a Democrat.” My immediate response was, “By birth or by choice?”

It’s a relevant question for many Americans, as some treat party affiliation as if it’s akin to ethnicity. It can work like this: Their pappy was a Democrat, and their grandpappy was a Democrat, and their great-grandpappy was a Democrat, so they have to be one, too. This is despite the fact that the party has changed along with the generations. Their grandfather is gone — and so is the party that he once supported.

This is why it’s interesting when an elderly person who was a passionate Democrat in his salad days is still so today. I would say to such an individual, “It was very brave of you to admit you were all wrong about things and abandon all your old beliefs.” If this left him puzzled, I’d explain that since the Democrat Party is radically different today than it was 50 years ago — since it’s now pro-abortion, for all intents and purposes promotes faux marriage, advocates race-based quotas, pushes amnesty for illegals, bails out wealthy fat cats with our tax money and refuses to enforce laws in a race-neutral fashion (the Black Panther case), among other things — that he must accept this radical agenda as well. After all, to oppose this ideological sea-change in the Democrats but still support them would be to place party ahead of principle.

We all know, of course, that principle must take precedence. So I have a question: How does it make sense to, in the name of loyalty to your grandfather’s party, abandon his principles? Did he stand for the secular agenda outlined above, which also includes things such as an unconstitutional and coercive healthcare plan, measures to let non-citizens vote, suing states for enforcing immigration law (razing Arizona), punishing schoolchildren based on racial quota, opposition to Second Amendment rights (not an issue presently only because it’s a vote-loser), the effort at thought control known as hate-crime law, confiscatory taxation, politically correct speech codes on college campuses and sensitivity training in workplaces, and granting the federal government almost unlimited power over our lives?

Certainly, there are rank-and-file Democrats who do embrace the above. You’ll find many of them in my area (near NYC), for instance; these are people who are every bit as liberal as the politicians for whom they vote. But when I traveled through Middle America, I encountered a different kind of Democrats. These were people who were fairly traditional Americans — but ethnic Democrats. They don’t accept the agenda I outlined; in fact, misled by the mainstream media, they often aren’t fully aware their party has adopted it and, consequently, orphaned them. They don’t realize that ceasing to vote Democrat would not be leaving the party, as you can’t leave something that left you long ago. It would simply be a recognition of the abandonment.

Yet ethno-political patriotism can be a powerful force. When hearing evidence of this painful abandonment, many ethnic Democrats will rationalize it away, much like an abandoned child may convince himself that daddy will be home any day now. But that day will not come. Contemporary absentee Democrat politicians — who, as Reagan said, “have gone so far left, they’ve left the country” — will only come home for your votes. Their hearts are in Washington, D.C., which, under their dominion, isn’t even in America anymore.

Of course, there are some middle-American Democrats who will still feel comfortable voting for their party’s nominee in their district races, believing he’s far more traditional than the party average (often the case in conservative districts). Here, however, we must be mindful of a certain factor: Politicians not only feel party patriotism — they feel party pressure. If Democrat politicians buck their leadership’s line too much, they can incur the wrath of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Axis. This is no doubt one reason why the so-called Blue Dog Democrats elected in 2008 quashed the hopes of many and signed on to the Obama agenda.

What this helps underline is that while some apathetic folks like to say it doesn’t matter whom you vote for because, and we’ve all heard this, “There’s no difference between the parties, anyway!” they have it exactly backwards. The difference is the greatest it has been in modern times.

Consider that while House Democrats in 1970 voted with their party’s majority only 58 percent of the time, that figure is now91 percent. And it is precisely the same among Senate Democrats. (Among Republicans, the party-unity figures are only slightly lower, 87 and 85 percent, respectively.) Even more to the point, with extremely rare exception, even the least liberal Democrats vote with their party approximately 75 percent of the time.

What does this mean? If you want to stop the Obama-Pelosi-Reid, unconstitutional, über-statist metastasizing of government, you must do what may seem to contradict this article’s thesis. Instead of judging a candidate solely on his merits, you must also consider his party before casting a vote for him. But you don’t do this driven by ethno-political loyalty, but for a thoroughly logical reason.

He will consider his party when casting votes for you.

In other words, let’s say you have a Democrat and a Republican running in your district who are (or at least seem) like ideological twins. They may both talk a good game — and it’s even possible that both may be good people. But only one of them will feel pressure to join the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Axis. Only one will have the screws put to him to vote for legislation such as the healthcare disaster, cap-and-tax, the porkulus bill and amnesty for illegals. Only one of them will be a member of the No-Longer-Your-Grandfather’s-Democrat Party.

And, remember, party affiliation is not ethnic orientation. “American,” though, ought to be.

I think granddad would understand perfectly.
(Originally posted at American Thinker)
____________
Selwyn Duke is a writer, columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show and has been a regular guest on the award-winning Michael Savage Show. His work has appeared in Pat Buchanan’s magazine The American Conservative and he writes regularly for The New American and Christian Music Perspective. He can be contacted at SD@SelwynDuke.com.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Maybe NOW people will understand....

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.00


If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...


The first four men [the poorest] would pay nothing.

The fifth man would pay $1.

The sixth man would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man [the richest] would pay $59.


So that's what they decided to do.


The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.


The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?


They realized that $20 divided by six people is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everyody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.


So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using. He proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.


So, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing [a 100% savings].

The sixth man now paid $2 instead of $3 [a 33% savings].

The seventh man now paid $5 instead of $7 [a 28% savings].

The eighth man now paid $9 instead of $12 [ a 25% savings].

The ninth man now paid $14 instead of $18 [a 22% savings].

The tenth man now paid $49 instead of $59 [a 16% savings].


Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.


"I only got a dollar out of the $20 savings," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10 in savings!"


Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that the richest among us got ten times more benefit than me!"


"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"


"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"


The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night, the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the tab.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.


The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.


Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics