This Issue of Terrorism Is Not A Jobs Issue

On CBS This Morning actor Mandy Patinkin suggested that, in regard to the Middle East, if we give them the best roads, the best medical technology, agriculture, and infrastructure they would not feel cheated. The crux of his argument is that if they (the Middle East) have all of these amenities afforded them, they won't be so inclined to go after Western civilization. The argument is reminiscent of many on the left who have made the suggestion that jobs are the key to ending terrorism.

Let's just leave it at, Mandy Patinkin is a great actor.

If there is one thing that stands out for me when it comes to this region, it's oil. One can easily argue that oil is one of the most valuable resources in the world, and if you have it, there's a lot of money there to go around. The problem is not the money. The problem is how that money gets filtered down to the little people, and the lack of any real defined government bodies—or when there are government bodies they are nothing more than terrorist regimes of their own, oppressing the people with unbending power and control, and a mindset that everything in the West is simply evil and must be eradicated. The people in power have one intent and that is to create an army of angry citizens, and they do this by holding them down. The people of these countries are essentially prisoners in their own country. And to a large extent they are driven as well by the luxuries promised to them by their religion after death. They seek paradise not through hard work and thoughtful engineering of their own futures, but through death. For them, it is the only way out of the hell in which they are currently living. And doing the bidding of their God is akin to an instant key to the gates of heaven, and that paradise they so long for.

The truth is that with such a valuable resource at their very feet, any of these countries could be using the dollars that resource generates to create their own infrastructure. They could build great roads. They could have great medical technology in their grasp. They could build irrigation systems and feed their people with agricultural products. And they could build the foundations of other areas of business which could help them to develop trade relations with other developed countries—affording their people a better life and a better future for their children that is not fraught with violence and hatred and endless wars.

But in order for that to happen, the people and those in power have to want that to happen. They need to foster and encourage that. Instead of building massive multiple mansions in the desert for the so-called leaders, money could be funneled into doing these very things. But it is about power. It is about control. And of course, I don't think one can readily discount that it isn't about their religion to a large extent as well. Despite the claims of many Muslims who preach that their faith is one of calm and peace, there are many facets of the Koran and of the Islamic faith that suggests otherwise. Death to all infidels is not just a mantra, it is a teaching of the leaders of the Islamic faith and is a primary tenet of Middle Eastern culture as a whole. How do you get past that? When it comes to faith, it's hard to break that. In fact, it is virtually impossible. Just ask any Christian how important their faith is to their way of life? Their faith is so strong that many, or most, would not think twice about denouncing their God or their faith just to avoid being killed for it. A man holds a machete to your neck and says that if you are Christian you will be beheaded—and you go ahead and proclaim your faith anyway.

That is profoundly powerful.

What is the key to ending terrorism? I really don't know. I do know that we should make every effort, however, to stop them in the meantime. We should do anything we can to unseat those in power, and strategize ways to help them to build stronger governments that are intended to create policy that fosters growth as opposed to oppression, and allows for decisions to be made to build their cities and towns and empower their citizens using the resources they already have.

But to simply give that to them? That's ludicrous!

I said before that the people have to want it. The leaders have to want it. Perhaps it is a ridiculous analogy, but how many times have we tossed people into forced rehab only to have them come out and go right back to their lives they way they were before? Who gets off the dope? Those who have hit rock bottom and who have finally decided for themselves they no longer want to be dope heads. We give housing and cell phones and food to the poor in our own country to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. How many poverty stricken communities have been rebuilt as a result? How many people have gotten off the dole and used the opportunity to create better lives for themselves? They are few and far between because those who want it and who are willing to do the hard work for it are, well...few and far between. Giving things away doesn't help to solve any problem.

And that is the reason Mandy Patinkin's fundamental thought is flawed, as well as the entire left's view that there is such a simple solution to what happens to be a very complicated problem. As one has often told me, "If it were so easy, someone would already have done it."

For me the heart of the question of how you end terrorism is how do you get terrorists to no longer want to be terrorists? How do you get them to decide for themselves that enough is enough, and make choices to change it? If they are not ready or willing to make changes that alter the future for themselves, and of their own desire and making, nothing we do to try to force that issue with jobs and opportunity thrusted at them is going to make that change for them anymore than having a job guarantees you won't be poor—or handing someone a welfare check ensures that someone will be afforded an automatic opportunity.

Raising Wages Artificially Seriously Hurts Jobs—No One Gains

I am not sure if I remember exactly who first touted the $15 minimum wage, but the lawmakers sure have clung to that number with several cities in the US now implementing wage hikes. Bernie Sanders wants to be a champion for the middle class shouting in a Verizon picket line that "corporate America can't have it all." And Dan Price, a Seattle CEO of what was a successful company decided based on some pie-in-the-sky study of a "happiness factor" that his employees should make no less than $70k a year.

The truth is that all of these numbers, all of these promises, all of these demands, are simply done without any thought to who pays the cost ultimately of any of these types of decisions. When people shout out these talking points they are not considering facts such as how much money is really out there for the taking? What are the bottom lines of the companies? What do the balance sheets look like before and after an ultimate decision is made?

The end result, however, is clear. Loss of jobs essentially washing out any potential gain from increasing wages.

Less taxes will be collected, less wealth will be gained, and more doors of companies will be shuttered leaving behind it simply more ruin. Time and time again there are lawmakers and people in the voting public who simply do not understand the basics of economics, and the impact of arbitrarily pulling numbers out of their asses when it comes to what they believe everyone is entitled to. The way to boost the economy, and the way to boost people's wages ultimately is not simply by slapping a number down and saying "let's call it done." It is simply not how it works, and the proof is always in the pudding. People always suffer as a result of unintended consequences. Unfortunately these are the very people these decisions are designed to help.

I am not at all against people making more money. I say a company should pay their employees the most they can reasonably afford to pay. But it's not simply a matter of picking a number. It is a matter of looking at what is reasonable and it is a matter of hiking or paying wages that are conducive not only to the lifestyles of the employees, but to the continuity and profitability of the business as a whole. If people are laid off, if prices need to be raised, if benefits need to be reduced, this helps no one to accomplish the end goal of rising up the middle class and improving anyone's standard of living.

Just like in our own lives, creating artificial spending relief by adding credit cards to our wallet only prolongs the reality that we do not have the money to sustain what we want, a company cannot simply absorb demands without real money to satisfy them and have the expectation that this will somehow make-up for itself somewhere down the line.

When the bills come due, that is when reality sets in, and the smartest people in the crowd begin to realize you cannot create something out of thin air and expect it to work. Those who aren't the smartest in the crowd point to the greedy businesses and the rich as "screwing us over again."

The Danger of Talking Points in Elections

Democrats and liberals will often utter talking points, which on the surface sound fine. But rarely do they think through what the effect is ultimately of any of it. They simply drop their line, smile, and walk away feeling there is no reason to further explain. This is especially dangerous when these talking points are actually acted upon by our elected officials.

Take this democratic talking point as a case in point: "Everyone should have the ability to own a home."

On the surface it sounds wonderful and fair. Owning a home is the dream of a good many Americans, and in communities where people own their homes, the communities generally tend to thrive since there is a tighter bond between the real estate and the person who occupies it.

This talking point, and the action that was taken in support of it lead to the biggest financial decline in recent history and nearly caused an economic collapse.

Sure. The blame was placed on the big banks, Wall Street, and the rich. But the truth is that while there is some blame to lay there, a larger part of the blame lies on the politicians who signed into law the opportunity for people who could not otherwise afford homes to have them anyway.

Let's keep in mind that what the banks had to do in order for this to be possible was to have to take on enormous amounts of risk of capital. In answer to that they created credit default swaps and took on other measures which could not truly be valuated when all was said and done. When loans were called, no one had the money to pony any of it up.

Therefore the system fell apart.

The current lineup of democrats on the stage vying for the presidency are all spouting off talking points, and not a single one of them are backing up what they are saying, or explaining how they intend to do any of the things they say they want to. Americans are lapping it up like fresh milk to a cat. Granted, there are a handful of republicans doing the same thing. The difference is that most of the republican candidates are actually explaining how they intend to get something done, and stating the reasons behind why it must be done.

The key behind, for example, how the republicans intend to fix the economy? Jobs. And in one particular case, putting to task those countries that have for years siphoned off good jobs and unleveled the playing field when it comes to trade. Republicans know, and history shows clearly, that when Americans are working, and when the middle class is viable and strong, the economy thrives.

As for the democrats, they want to attack the so called evil rich who are simply counting their change and leaving everyone else behind with evil grins on their greedy faces. "Tax the fat cats. Pay their fair share. Close the gap between the rich and the poor."

The truth is that while this sounds fine on the surface, and I can certainly see where a good many Americans might be on board with this idea, it is a completely dangerous and counterproductive path to take.

When is the last time you received a paycheck from a poor man?

The rich are hard working people who build businesses and innovate products to sell to consumers not just here, but abroad. They are the machine that drives jobs which provide for the welfare of Americans. Yes the idea is to maximize profits. Sure, the playing field is a bit uneven. Yes the corporations have as much to be blamed for when it comes to how we lost those jobs as the government is to blame for opening trade in ways that allowed for it to happen, and which all but took away America's competitive edge, especially in the case of manufacturing. The heart and driver of the middle class in America.

What the republicans want to do is to restore manufacturing in the United States, and make it harder for countries like China and Mexico to provide cheaper labor which hurts American jobs. The republicans want to remove things like Most Favored Nation status and reinstate tariffs which were designed to even things out—a tariff on goods coming from China, for example, puts the cost of their products on par with the cost of making things at home in the U.S. Lacking a strong incentive for American businesses to get labor from China, they'd be more inclined to keep their shops open right here at home and keep Americans working in them at good and competitive wages.

The main thrust of this post is that at the end of the day as we approach the 2016 elections, we need to be paying attention to what is being said on both sides of the aisle. We need to not only hear the talking points. We need to be able to see the forest for the trees. We need to be able to read between the lines. We need to be able to consider the consequences—intended or unintended—when it comes to any decisions that might be made in consideration of what sounds good. As well, we need to fundamentally understand what has driven down our economy, and our standard of living. It has not been the rich. It has not been tax loopholes. It has largely been trade policy which has allowed for companies to provide jobs abroad and leave Americans behind, unable to compete. I will be fair and say that the republican party is largely to blame for this. But the fact is that they now see the harm it has done and want to set it straight while the democrats simply want to take from the rich to redistribute wealth without considering the impact of that, and without considering the benefits to restoring manufacturing, and restoring good paying jobs and the middle class to rebuild the country economically.

Why are the democrats so hell bent on focusing on welfare programs instead of jobs?

Because it equals more power for them to push their agendas through and hold the American people hostage. Americans who have more, have more power and control over their lives. Americans who have less become dependent on what the government can provide, and so the power is given to them, and the power of the American people erodes.

We are at a critical time in our nation's history. In order for us to get back on the right path, I think we need to stop listening and adhering to the talking points. We need to begin to dissect the talking points in a way we haven't done in a long while and begin to really get at the root of how we make America great again.

Keystone Pipeline Passed

Before the start of the new year I sat down and wrote down some of my predictions for 2015, and as suspected, one big one came through. I wrote:

"With republicans back in power I believe that the Keystone Pipeline deal may be back on the table, but even if anything makes it to President Obama's desk, he will veto it. The Keystone Pipeline, however, will become a big part of the next presidential campaign, and actually believe that both the republican and democratic candidates will be in favor of approving it."

Part of that prediction came true yesterday when Congress passed the bill  270-152, which comprised of all but one Republican voting in favor of it, including 29 Democrats. The last part of that is equally important to note since 29 is a fairly good number for Democratic approval in the House, and I think the voting will have similar results in the Senate. While I cannot call this particularly strong support in Democratic circles it is, I think, still significant.

As predicted as well, President Obama has vowed to veto the bill once it crosses his desk, and I don't see him backing down from that.

The truth is that from day one this president has followed an agenda which I think runs contrary to his messaging throughout both campaigns, and quite frankly contrary to his messaging throughout his presidency. He said he wanted to fix the economy, help the middle class and the poor, and create jobs.

In many ways this bill, which has been sitting on the sidelines for all of his presidency could help to do all three of those things; particularly in the area of job creation and helping the middle class and the poor by potentially bringing more relief to Americans at the pump. The hardest hit by gas prices have of course been the middle class and the poor.

I still strongly believe that the Keystone Pipeline will eventually be approved, although I am not convinced it will ever happen during President Obama's watch. But I do believe that both presidential candidates from both sides will be in favor of approving the pipeline. It's a bill that just makes sense on a variety of levels, and like other things the president has turned his nose up at, this bill has the majority of Americans support.

Which might be another reason why Obama dislikes it. If the American people want something, he will be sure to make sure he goes the opposite direction.