• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

We Are Governed By Economic Idiots

The Obama administration continues their efforts to blame the increase in gas prices as being due to “speculators”.  One thing is certain, we cannot count on this crowd to have a clue as to how to lower the price of anything.    The following post is taken from Powerline:

Harry Reid uttered one of the more brain-dead non sequiturs of recent memory a few days ago:

We have to do something about these soaring gas prices. We need to take away the subsidies of these five major oil companies.

In fact, of course, the oil companies are huge taxpayers, and the “subsidies” are ordinary deductions that slightly reduce the oil companies’ immense tax liabilities. They are not actual government subsidies, like the ones that go to the Democrats’ corporate cronies in the “green” energy business, which exists only by virtue of government largesse.

The Institute for Energy Research decided to have some fun with Reid’s pronouncement, taking off from the fact that most of the gold produced in the United States comes from Reid’s home state of Nevada:

With gold prices reaching record heights in April, gold mining companies are reporting huge profits. 79 percent of all gold mined in the U.S. comes from Nevada, where the state’s senior senator, Harry Reid, is a stalwart defender of the industry. But with the soaring price of gold, the U.S. government still allows the gold mining industry to take advantage of deductions in the tax code. These subsidies must end.

Today, Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, issued the following statement:

“… Washington must also do something about soaring gold prices. With gold prices at new heights, mining companies must be punished for making record profits. Senator Reid must apply his flawless logic to the gold industry: he must strip the gold mining industry of their ability to deduct expenses from their taxable income. Then, as he says will happen with gas prices, gold prices will necessarily fall.

“OK, we’re just kidding. But this example illuminates the absurdity of the argument put forth by Senator Reid and his allies. …

“Senator Reid is talking nonsense when it comes to gas prices. Whether he realizes it or not, his attempt to pass a discriminatory tax policy that singles out the oil and gas industry will do nothing to lower gasoline prices. Instead, he should focus on the Obama Administration’s anti-energy policies that have played a direct role in the skyrocketing price of gas.”

A broader point needs to be made. The prices of commodities generally have risen sharply over the past year. Which is another way of saying that the value of the dollar has fallen. This chart, showing commodity price increases over the past twelve months, indicates that oil prices have risen by about an average amount; i.e., the price increases have mostly corresponded to devaluation of the dollar. Among other things, this shows the stupidity of thinking that the rise in oil prices is due to “speculators” or “market manipulation.”

How about those cotton prices? Time to raise taxes on Jockey and Fruit of the Loom! That’ll show ’em!

So what is really happening is not that oil, or gold, or cotton has suddenly gotten more valuable. Rather, the dollar has gotten less valuable. Why? Because of the Fed’s quantitative easing plan, which has the full support of the Obama administration. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that cheapening the dollar makes everything more expensive. Maybe someone could explain this to Harry Reid.

Women’s History Month- A Celebration

The following is an article by Humberto Fontova from Townhall.com.  If you want to get a different view from the mainstream media account of what goes on in Castro’s Cuba, check out Fontova’s writings. Though he often comes across as bombastic and a tad hyperbolic, Fontova aptly skewers the intellectual elites in their fawnings over Castro.

When feminist icon Barbara Walters sat quivering alongside Fidel Castro in 1977 cooing: “Fidel Castro has brought very high literacy and great health-care to his country. His personal magnetism is powerful!”, dozens of Cuban suffragettes suffered in torture chambers within walking distance of the hyperventilating Ms. Barbara Walters.

“They started by beating us with twisted coils of electric cable,” recalls former political prisoner Ezperanza Pena from exile today. “I remember Teresita on the ground with all her lower ribs broken. Gladys had both her arms broken. Doris had her face cut up so badly from the beatings that when she tried to drink, water would pour out of her lacerated cheeks.”

“On Mother’s Day they allowed family visits,” recalls, Manuela Calvo from exile today.” But as our mothers and sons and daughters were watching, we were beaten with rubber hoses and high-pressure hoses were turned on us, knocking all of us the ground floor and rolling us around as the guards laughed and our loved-ones screamed helplessly.”

“When female guards couldn’t handle us male guards were called in for more brutal beatings. I saw teen-aged girls beaten savagely, their bones broken, their mouths bleeding,” recalls Polita Grau.

OK, I apologize for baiting feminist readers during this “Women’s History Month “with the term “suffragette.” In fact voting was merely one of the rights these heroic Cuban ladies sought. Castro’s Stalinist regime jailed political prisoners at a higher rate than Stalin’s own, murdered more political prisoners its first three years in power than Hitler’s murdered in its first six, and abolished private property. And yes, Castro also outlawed voting. So you’ll please excuse these Cuban ladies if they regard the “struggles” of Betty Freidan and Gloria Steinem as a trifle overblown.

I also apologize for singling out Barbara Walters. “Fidel Castro is old-fashioned, courtly–even paternal, a thoroughly fascinating figure!” (NBC’s Andrea Mitchell)

Back in 1996 Fidel Castro was hosted by Mort Zuckerman at his Fifth Avenue pad. A throng of Beltway glitterati, including Mike Wallace, Peter Jennings, Tina Brown, Bernard Shaw, Barbara Walters and Diane Sawyer all jostled for a photo-op and stood in line for Castro’s autograph. But Diane Sawyer was so overcome in the mass-murderer’s presence that she lost control, rushing up, breaking into that toothy smile of hers, wrapping her arms around Castro and smooching the Stalinist torturer on his bearded cheek.

“You people are the cream of the crop!” beamed the Stalinist/terrorist to the smiling throng he’d come within a hair of nuking in 1962.

“Hear, hear!” chirped the delighted guests, while tinkling their wine glasses in honor of the smirking agent of their near vaporization.

We’re smack in the middle of “Women’s History Month.” So let’s chew on this: Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s regime jailed 35,150 Cuban women for political crimes, a totalitarian horror utterly unknown–not only in Cuba–but in the Western Hemisphere until the regime so “magnetic” to Barbara Walters, Andrea Mitchell and Diane Sawyer. Some of these Cuban ladies suffered twice as long in Castro’s Gulag as Alexander Solzhenitsyn suffered in Stalin’s.

Their prison conditions were described by former political prisoner Maritza Lugo. “The punishment cells measure 3 feet wide by 6 feet long. The toilet consists of an 8 inch hole in the ground through which cockroaches and rats enter, especially in cool temperatures the rat come inside to seek the warmth of our bodies and we were often bitten. The suicide rate among women prisoners was very high.”

Many of these heroic ladies (Ana Rodriguez, Miriam Ortega, Georgina Cid, Caridad Roque, Mercedes Pena, Aída Díaz Morejón, Ana Lázara Rodríguez, Ágata Villarquide, Alicia del Busto, Ileana Curra) live in the U.S. today. But no producer for Oprah or Joy Behar or Katie Couric, none from the Lifetime or Oxygen TV–much less the History Channel, has ever called them. No writer for Cosmo or Glamour or Redbook or Vogue has bothered either. But you’ve certainly seen their torturer hailed by “Feminist” reporters.

Upon the death of Raul Castro’s wife Vilma Espin in 2006 the Washington Post gushed that: “she was a champion of women’s rights and greatly improved the status of women in Cuba, a society known for its history of machismo.” Actually, in 1958 Cuba had more female college graduates as a percentage of population than the U.S.

This Castroite “improvement of status” and “good life “for Cuban women also somehow tripled Cuban women’s pre-revolution suicide rate, making Cuban women the most suicidal on earth. This according to a 1998 study by scholar Maida Donate-Armada that uses some of the Cuban regime’s own figures.

On Christmas Eve of 1961 a Cuban woman named Juana Diaz spat in the face of the executioners who were binding and gagging her. Castro’s Russian-trained secret police had found her guilty of feeding and hiding “bandits” (Cuban rednecks who took up arms to fight the Stalinist theft of their land to build Soviet –style Kolkhozes.) When the blast from Castroite firing squad demolished her face and torso Juana was six months pregnant. The Taliban’s atrocities against women seem trivial compared to those of the regime gushed over by Barbara Walters, , Andrea Mitchell, Diane Sawyer, Medea Benjamin, Maxine Waters, etc. etc. etc.

Thousands upon thousands of Cuban women have drowned, died of thirst or have been eaten alive by sharks attempting to flee the Washington Post’s dutifully transcribed “improvement of status.” This from a nation formerly richer than half the nations of Europe and deluged by immigrants from same.

Rand Paul vs. Letterman

How do you debate someone who is so obtuse they don’t even comprehend how badly they are losing?  Sen. Rand Paul was on with David Letterman recently and offered a stellar defense and explanation of some basic conservative ideas.  Of course Paul’s pearls of wisdom were utterly wasted on the impervious Letterman and his devoted audience.  The following post is from Fraters Libertas:

The philosopher Charlie Sheen once said “Hell is the impossibility of reason.” Yes, he was quoting someone else. And reading from a script. And in later years he said such things as:

“I was bangin’ 7 gram rocks and finishing them because that’s how I roll. I got tiger blood man. Dying is for fools.”

But, with that hell thing, he had a point.

I was reminded of it watching the recent performance of Sen. Rand Paul on Late Night with David Letterman. Bringing the reason was Sen. Paul, bringing the hell was Letterman. Despite a masterful job by Paul discussing our country’s impending fiscal crisis and its causes, Letterman’s continued response, which never failed to draw approving applause, was variations of:

You know, I think he’s wrong about some of these things, I just can’t tell you why.

In other words, Letterman admitted his arguments were shallow, exposed as deficient, yet he was still impervious to persuasion in the face of the facts. Does that sound like any political activists you know?

Below are some excerpts (transcribed by me) of Letterman’s comments from the show. Rand Paul does an admirable job answering back. But he tended to stay on the high-minded, theoretical plane, which seemed to fly over Letterman’s toupee. I will attempt to assist by providing additional commentary.

After tossing some bouquets to Al Franken, Letterman got down to the big issues:

I saw a thing the other day that said Republicans are in favor of taxcuts for big corporations and people making a substantially wealthy income. Is that true?

Where would a run across a thing like? The Daily Kos? Archived copies of Star Tribune editorials? Graffiti on the bathroom walls at the MinnPost offices?

I haven’t seen a Republican backed plan for cutting taxes for anyone recently. Tens of trillions of dollars of debt, and counting, has a way of chilling that talk. Letterman may be conflating this with the recent debate on whether or not to raise taxes on higher income earners, an idea rejected in bi-partisan fashion in Congress and agreed to by the Obama administration. They key to the misunderstanding seems to be his inability to comprehend that not raising taxes is not the same as a tax cut.

Of course, in principle, Republicans are for reducing the burden of government for everybody, not just the wealthy (i.e., job creators and the ones paying the overwhelming amount of income taxes already). The idea is that paying nearly half of one’s income to the government is wrong on its face. And that the government is involved in areas where it has no expertise or competence and is doing a worse job than the private sector. And that government intrusion crowds out private enterprise, innovation, and creativity. And the growth of government is creating unsustainable debt obligations. Has Letterman ever run across a “thing” like these arguments before? His remaining comments reveal no evidence of it.

After Rand Paul talked about wanting to grow the private sector and shrink the public sector Letterman responded with:

Who represents the … who peoples the public sector? Who are they? We’re talking about the firemen, policemen, teachers. You want to shrink that strata of American workers and give tax breaks to people who could well afford to pay a higher rate.

Nobody wants to irresponsibly “shrink” the number of people holding critical, legitimate public sector positions, like policemen and firemen. Losing those positions should be last on the priority list when governments are looking to make cuts. (Although, for some reason, many Democrat politicians put it first).

We should employ the amount of people in those positions that are needed to meet citizens’ expectations. However, the point is, we should employ them at reasonable compensation rates. That is, the level at which quality people will still take the jobs, but not grossly above the levels of commensurate private sector work, or above our ability to pay it with a reasonable tax rate.

You’ve confused me now. If we’re talking about these people, is it in fact the people in the middle class, that represent the middle class, that hold most of these jobs. Teachers and fireman and hospital workers and on and on. So they will lose their government paycheck, is that right?

No, they won’t lose their paychecks if those positions are needed. But they may not have Cadillac retirement and health benefits any longer. They’ll be paying into the system at the same rate as those in the private sector and getting equivalent benefits. Non-government employees shouldn’t have to work until they are 70 so public sector workers can retire at 55.

Letterman also seems to be making a class-based argument. Because these workers are middle class, nothing can happen to their jobs. Even if they are over paid or redundant, because they aren’t “rich, they have to be retained. It’s the view of public sector employment as an entitlement or welfare benefit. And that’s no way to run an efficient operation that serves the needs of the citizens.

What would be wrong then in terms of leaving the public sector alone and reducing tax benefits for the wealthy and large corporations. Why couldn’t you make up your money that way? (APPLAUSE)

What would be wrong with leaving public sector employees alone? All of those things I just said.

Why can’t we just soak the wealthy and large corporations? In short, they don’t have enough money to fund trillions and trillions of dollars worth of ever expanding commitments. And confiscatory tax policies lead to reduced wealth creation and ultimately reduced tax revenues.

When Rand Paul informed Letterman that the wealthy pay the overwhelming share of income taxes in t his country, Letterman responded with:

I think there’s something wrong with those numbers. I don’t know what it is, but I’m pretty sure there is something wrong with them. (APPLAUSE) Thank you, you’re applauding my stupidity.

His first use of the feelings over facts defense.

I just don’t think it makes sense to me. You look at these people in Wisconsin and we’re talking about the people we’ve been talking about. Why don’t we just raise the taxes and let these people have the collective bargaining, let them have their union representation, and go back to their jobs (APPLAUSE)

The only thing preventing the Wisconsin public sector workers from returning to their jobs is themselves. They abandoned them of their own free will to protest for more money. Of course, they only did so because they knew there would be no consequences. Unlike private sector workers, public sector workers can abandon their jobs and still have them whenever they decide to return.

Letterman’s plea for the status quo in expenses, but more ever more takings in taxes, reveals a lack of a basic understanding of macroeconomics and the belief that there is a magical, unlimited pot of money out there that we can continually access.

When Paul informed him that the average teacher in Wisconsin is making $89,000 per year, Letterman responded with:

They should be making twice that. (APPLAUSE). The school system in the United States of America is in desperate need of attention. I mean we agree on that. The school system is bereft. It needs attention. It has fallen behind. We are embarrassingly trailing other nations in terms of public schools. (APPLAUSE).

He’s right about the performance of US Schools. What he doesn’t note is that the United States already spends more on education than just about any country in the world. If money were the solution, we’d be among the top performers.

When Paul extolled the virtue of local control over federal control, Letterman responded:

Well something has gone haywire, because it’s not working. And I’m not sure that I agree with that argument. And by the way, if we’re going to throw money at something, what about education? You know, for God sakes, let’s just see if it improves somehow.

Who says we have to “throw” money at anything? The tax payer’s dollars should be spent judiciously. And there is enough data on the relationship between spending and performance to allow us to make decisions based on more than “let’s see if it improves somehow”.

After a spot-on defense of the virtues of competition in improving output by Rand Paul, Letterman concluded with:

You know, I think he’s wrong about some of these things, I just can’t tell you why. I’m sorry. (APPLAUSE)

Letterman then went to commercial break, which gave him time to formulate a more well thought out response to all of Rand Paul’s facts and logic. Upon returning, and with Paul already shuffled off stage, he let go with his conclusion:

… they want regular guys to lose their collective bargaining position. And also wealthy fat guys to get tax breaks. That’s it!

A similar argument to what is coming out of the mouths of protesting activists and public employee union representatives. If a one-on-one fact based tutorial from the likes of Rand Paul isn’t enough to overcome this stubborn ignorance, I’m not sure what will be. It is the impossibility of reason.


Much Vilified Koch Brother Speaks Out

The following  article written by billionaire entrepreneur Charles G. Koch appeared in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal.


Years of tremendous overspending by federal, state and local governments have brought us face-to-face with an economic crisis. Federal spending will total at least $3.8 trillion this year—double what it was 10 years ago. And unlike in 2001, when there was a small federal surplus, this year’s projected budget deficit is more than $1.6 trillion.

Several trillions more in debt have been accumulated by state and local governments. States are looking at a combined total of more than $130 billion in budget shortfalls this year. Next year, they will be in even worse shape as most so-called stimulus payments end.

For many years, I, my family and our company have contributed to a variety of intellectual and political causes working to solve these problems. Because of our activism, we’ve been vilified by various groups. Despite this criticism, we’re determined to keep contributing and standing up for those politicians, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who are taking these challenges seriously.

Both Democrats and Republicans have done a poor job of managing our finances. They’ve raised debt ceilings, floated bond issues, and delayed tough decisions.

In spite of looming bankruptcy, President Obama and many in Congress have tiptoed around the issue of overspending by suggesting relatively minor cuts in mostly discretionary items. There have been few serious proposals for necessary cuts in military and entitlement programs, even though these account for about three-fourths of all federal spending.

Yes, some House leaders have suggested cutting spending to 2008 levels. But getting back to a balanced budget would mean a return to at least 2003 spending levels—and would still leave us with the problem of paying off our enormous debts.

Federal data indicate how urgently we need reform: The unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid already exceed $106 trillion. That’s well over $300,000 for every man, woman and child in America (and exceeds the combined value of every U.S. bank account, stock certificate, building and piece of personal or public property).

The Congressional Budget Office has warned that the interest on our federal debt is “poised to skyrocket.” Even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is sounding alarms. Yet the White House insists that substantial spending cuts would hurt the economy and increase unemployment.

Plenty of compelling examples indicate just the opposite. When Canada recently reduced its federal spending to 11.3% of GDP from 17.5% eight years earlier, the economy rebounded and unemployment dropped. By comparison, our federal spending is 25% of GDP.

Government spending on business only aggravates the problem. Too many businesses have successfully lobbied for special favors and treatment by seeking mandates for their products, subsidies (in the form of cash payments from the government), and regulations or tariffs to keep more efficient competitors at bay.

Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want.

The purpose of business is to efficiently convert resources into products and services that make people’s lives better. Businesses that fail to do so should be allowed to go bankrupt rather than be bailed out.

But what about jobs that are lost when businesses go under? It’s important to remember that not all jobs are the same. In business, real jobs profitably produce goods and services that people value more highly than their alternatives. Subsidizing inefficient jobs is costly, wastes resources, and weakens our economy.

Because every other company in a given industry is accepting market-distorting programs, Koch companies have had little option but to do so as well, simply to remain competitive and help sustain our 50,000 U.S.-based jobs. However, even when such policies benefit us, we only support the policies that enhance true economic freedom.

For example, because of government mandates, our refining business is essentially obligated to be in the ethanol business. We believe that ethanol—and every other product in the marketplace—should be required to compete on its own merits, without mandates, subsidies or protective tariffs. Such policies only increase the prices of those products, taxes and the cost of many other goods and services.

Our elected officials would do well to remember that the most prosperous countries are those that allow consumers—not governments—to direct the use of resources. Allowing the government to pick winners and losers hurts almost everyone, especially our poorest citizens.

Recent studies show that the poorest 10% of the population living in countries with the greatest economic freedom have 10 times the per capita income of the poorest citizens in countries with the least economic freedom. In other words, society as a whole benefits from greater economic freedom.

Even though it affects our business, as a matter of principle our company has been outspoken in defense of economic freedom. This country would be much better off if every company would do the same. Instead, we see far too many businesses that paint their tails white and run with the antelope.

I am confident that businesses like ours will hire more people and invest in more equipment when our country’s financial future looks more promising. Laying the groundwork for smaller, smarter government, especially at the federal level, is going to be tough. But it is essential for getting us back on the path to long-term prosperity.

20% Unemployment and the Depression You’ve Never Heard Of

President Obama has recently been trying to style himself as Reaganesque in order to fool Americans that he knows how to handle our economic woes.  Here is a lesson Obama would be wise to remember:  Reagan was a great admirer of Calvin Coolidge and he styled his approach to economics after Coolidge’s.  In fact when Ronald Reagan first moved in to the White House, one of his first actions was to move the portrait of President Coolidge to the main cabinet room so that it could hang next to those of the founding fathers.

The following is taken from the Calvin Coolidge Memorial Foundation:

On March 4, 1921, President Woodrow Wilson relinquished the office of the presidency to Ohio Senator Warren G. Harding. The state of the union was poor. “With the exception of Lincoln, probably no president in our national history has taken office with as pressing a burden of unresolved questions.” Those were the words of the Nation of February 1921. The national economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of 20% after a runaway inflation.

On April 12,1921, President Harding went before a contentious Congress and presented his program for economic recovery which he called “A Return to Normalcy”. Harding’s normalcy program consisted of the following measures.

1) A call for a national budget program (which was vetoed by his predecessor).
2) National debt reduction
3) Tax reduction
4) An emergency tariff to protect American industry and farm commodities.
5) Farm relief legislation (farm bankruptcies were up 20% from 1914).
6) Immigration restrictions to protect American jobs.

President Harding pushed hard for his program and got it passed by Congress in 1921. By late 1922, the economy began to turn around. Harding did not live to see it, but his normalcy program proved to be the foundation that Coolidge prosperity was built on. Harding’s successor, Calvin Coolidge had the wisdom to stay the course and build on Harding’s program. The American people were the beneficiaries of the unprecedented prosperity of the 1920’s. Unemployment was pared from its high in 1921 of 20% to an average of 3.3% for the remainder of the decade. The misery index which is a combination of unemployment and inflation had its sharpest decline in U.S. history under President Harding. The Gross National Product averaged 7% from 1924 to 1929. Wages, profits, and productivity all made substantial gains during the 1920’s. Harding slashed federal spending by two billion from Wilson’s last year and Coolidge maintained that spending level of 3.3 billion per year for the rest of the decade. The Harding-Coolidge tax cuts produced increased revenue that went to cut the national debt left by Wilson by one-third.

The 1920’s saw the tax burden of middle Americans decrease while most lower income Americans were relieved of their tax burden altogether. By 1930, their was a sharp increase in the number of Americans who could afford what were then middle class luxuries such as ranges, ice boxes, radios, vacuum cleaners and other household appliances. There was even an increase in the amount of time Americans found for recreation and entertainment.
The 1920’s saw the tax burden of middle Americans decrease while most lower income Americans were relieved of their tax burden altogether. By 1930, their was a sharp increase in the number of Americans who could afford what were then middle class luxuries such as ranges, ice boxes, radios, vacuum cleaners and other household appliances. There was even an increase in the amount of time Americans found for recreation and entertainment.

Many of our historical elite like to characterize the 1920’s as the decade of greed and Harding and Coolidge as symbols of greed. This is simply not the truth. During the 1920’s, neighbor still helped neighbor and charitable organizations still cared for the poorest of our lot. Few events more characterized the generosity of the American people than the joint private- government

Another Sign of a Broken System

Thomas Sowell gives us this account of the recent mayoral election in Washington D.C.  Further evidence that we aregoverned by children for whom reality doesn’t really matter.  Does success matter when it can be so overwhelmed by perception? Apparently not.

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Few things have captured in microcosm what has gone so painfully wrong, where racial issues are concerned, like the recent election for mayor of Washington, D.C.

Mayor Adrian Fenty, under whom the murder rate has gone down and the school children’s test scores have gone up, was resoundingly defeated for re-election.

Nor was Mayor Fenty simply a passive beneficiary of the rising test scores and falling murder rates. He appointed Michelle Rhee as head of the school system and backed her as she fought the teachers’ union and fired large numbers of ineffective teachers– something considered impossible in most cities across the country.

Mayor Fenty also appointed the city’s chief of police, Cathy Lanier, who has cracked down on hoodlumism, as well as crime.

Either one of these achievements would made mayors local heroes in most other cities. Why then was he clobbered in the election?

One key fact tells much of the story: Mayor Fenty received more than 70 percent of the white vote in Washington. His opponent received more than 80 percent of the black vote.

Both men are black. But the head of the school system that he appointed is Asian and the chief of police is a white woman. More than that, most of the teachers who were fired were black. There were also bitter complaints that black contractors did not get as many of the contracts for doing business with the city as they expected.

In short, the mayor appointed the best people he could find, instead of running a racial patronage system, as a black mayor of a city with a black majority is apparently expected to. He also didn’t spend as much time schmoozing with the folks as was expected.

So what if he gave their children a better education and gave everybody a lower likelihood of being murdered?

The mayor’s faults were political faults. He did his job, produced results and thought that this should be enough to get him re-elected. He refused to do polls and focus groups, and he ignored what his political advisers were warning him about.

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider “must-reading”. HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It’s free. Just click here.

No doubt Mayor Fenty is now a sadder and wiser man politically. While that may help him if he wants to pursue a political career, Adrian Fenty’s career is not nearly as important as what his story tells us about the racial atmosphere in this country.

How did we reach the point where a city is so polarized that an overwhelming majority of the white vote goes to one candidate and the overwhelming majority of the black vote goes to the opposing candidate?

How did we reach the point where black voters put racial patronage and racial symbolism above the education of their children and the safety of everyone?

There are many reasons but the trend is ominous. One key factor was the creation, back in the 1960s, of a whole government-supported industry of race hustling.

President Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty”– a war that we have lost, by the way– bankrolled all kinds of local “leaders” and organizations with the taxpayers’ money, in the name of community “participation” in shaping the policies of government.

These “leaders” and community activists have had every reason to hype racial resentments and to make issues “us” against “them.”

One of the largely untold stories of our time has been the story of how ACORN, Jesse Jackson and other community activists have been able to transfer billions of dollars from banks to their own organizations’ causes, with the aid of the federal government, exemplified by the Community Reinvestment Act and its sequels.

Racial anger and racial resentments are the fuel that keeps this lucrative racket going. How surprised should anyone be that community activist groups have used mau-mau disruptions in banks and harassed both business and government officials in their homes?

Lyndon Johnson once said that it is not hard to do the right thing. What is hard is knowing what is right. We can give him credit for good intentions, so long as we remember what road is paved with good intentions.

Target Apologizes

Target has officially apologized.  They crossed the line, they dared to support a gubernatorial candidate who would be openly pro-business, and for this they must be punished.  After all, they should have realized that the real issue is not jobs, but rather making gays feel good.   After all, the path toward legalizing gay marriage is already being forged, and it runs through the courts, not the legislature.  Nevertheless, in an effort to quell the growing  protests and boycott over the indiscretion of giving money to Tom Emmer’s campaign, Target issued a company intranet apology.  Further,  Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel said he would set up a decision making process for future political donations.  Perfect.  Maybe that will insure that this travesty of a major company openly disagreeing with the left never happens again.  Perhaps this ‘process’ will include a committee of advisors from various human rights groups, to avoid such affronts in the future.  In case that isn’t enough, we can rest assured that as unemployment increases, there will at least be plenty of people who have lots of free time to conduct protests.  You can read the Star Tribune’s article on the story here: