This is not going to be a blog about what you are or are not suppose to do when you are earning your wage. That particular situation is between you and your boss. What this blog is about is the fact that whatever your “job” is, the job does not belong to you. Yes, I know this is likely a revelation to a number of you. You may have worked for the same company for years, and may even be doing essentially the same thing for those years. You are likely pretty good at doing the tasks you are paid for. But, that does not alter the fact; the job does not belong to you. That is unless you own the company.

Every non-government job (government jobs will be addressed in another blog) in the world was created by the sweat, blood, and brains of someone who saw an opportunity to provide a good or service, and then was either successful enough or large enough at the onset, to require help. That “help” is what is called a job. That entrepreneur created, and thus owns that job. It is his to give to the person he sees fit to best accomplish the goals that he decides that position requires.

I will skip, for this blog, the part about government intervention in that decision making process, but let me make this part clear. The owners of the company, or in their proxy, the management of the company, make the decisions on who works for the company, who gets paid how much, and who gets promoted. Those decisions, combined with the overall business plan, and of course, the market, determines if the company succeeds or fails. You may have philosophical disagreements with this, but that does not make it less true (again skipping the government intervention aspects).

It is the responsibility of each and every person to make themselves needed by the company they want to or currently work for. The smart people try to accumulate additional skills to sell to their current or future employer at a greater cost. The employer, current or future, makes a decision based on need and if paying that extra cost will be covered by the extra benefit those employee skills bring.

It is not the responsibility of the company to give you a raise, because a calendar page has flipped. Nor should you be promoted to the next supervisor position because you are the most senior man. That said, most companies still go above and beyond this level by giving their employees additional benefits in the form of annual raises, vacation time, sick time, personal time, and holidays off. (Spare me the part about those being completely union-derived. Only 6% of the private sector is unionized. If business did not feel they needed to pay these benefits, they would be phasing them out)

Recently I stumbled upon this political cartoon (right, click to make it bigger) making the rounds on Facebook. It shows a little GOP elephant with a long list, sitting on Santa’s lap, with a caption that says “This is a list of things I don’t want OTHERS to have. It was drawn by Lalo Alcarez in 2009.

As a Republican my first thought was not to be insulted, but to think that Mr. Alcarez was closer to the truth than he could possibly think. Before you Democrats get all happy, thinking that I have joined the dark side, sit back for a second, and maybe you will gain some insight into how the other side thinks.

First thing, let’s see if we can find some common ground.  Obviously the little GOP elephant represents the Republican Party. I think we might also agree that in the cartoon, Santa Claus is analogous to Congress. That would follow that the cartoon means Republicans (make that evil Republicans) are telling Congress that they have a long list of things that they don’t want others to have. Subbing Santa for Congress, right around Christmas time, just makes it funny. Ha Ha

Ok, now here is where we are going to part company.  Santa Claus is an imaginary (but loved) being used to charm children (and possibly delusional adults) into thinking that material things just appear out of no where, with no cost or effort. Santa Claus doesn’t exist. But Congress does. Congress also SEEMS to have the ability to give things to people out of thin air, just like Santa. But just because Congress does exist, and acts like Santa, does not mean they are Santa Claus. Everything that Congress “gives” to someone they have to take from someone else.

If you want to give 99 weeks (or more!) of unemployment insurance to someone, there are businesses that have to shell that money out, and won’t be able to hire someone, or expand their business. If you want to mandate that insurance companies cover “children” who are 25 years old, then the insurance companies are going to raise their rates and make everyone else pay. If you want to pay out Social Security “benefits” to people who have never contributed a dime, or even pay out three times (or more) to those who did pay in, then the rest of the workers are going to have to kick in more of their paychecks. If they don’t, the money will eventually run out.

The parting of the ways continues with my interpretation of what the little elephant is doing. Mr. Lalo has the little elephant just listing things that he feels others should not have. My little elephant is telling Congress that they can not give everything to everyone, without taking everything from everybody. My little elephant’s list does include plenty of things that Congress should not be providing, but more importantly, it lists things that Congress is providing that it must provide less of, or it won’t be able to provide them for very long.

To be clearer; we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend to fund our federal government. 20% of that money is for defense. 60% of that money is for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and numerous welfare programs. We can’t get enough money from “the rich” to make that shortfall up. It is not possible. (See my blog “Taxing the Rich More is a Dumb Idea) So the only alternative is to spend less. The poor little elephant is not suggesting (at least mine isn’t) that we freeze Social Security payments or cut Medicare payments to doctors (although ObamaCare did exactly that last one, and Congress had to “fix” that today). My little elephant is saying maybe the retirement age has to go up, or that those younger than 55 might have to get less Social Security, or maybe that more affluent Social Security recipients might have to take less in payments. Santa Claus doesn’t exist, and we don’t have to money to keep doing it the way we are now.

The poor little elephant in the cartoon is just trying to be the adult in the room, reminding those who equate Congress with Santa Claus, that at some point in time, the bill comes due. But, does the little elephant get any credit for trying to be responsible? No, he is merely insulted and called “greedy”, “heartless”, or “fascist’. He is pointed at and called a mouthpiece for “the rich” and that he doesn’t want to pay his fair share (The top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of the taxes already). But, all he is doing is pointing out the truth of the matter. We don’t have the money.  But telling people that Santa Claus doesn’t exist is not popular.

One final thing, let me ask you something; who is really more heartless? The little elephant who wants to reform the system so Social Security, Medicare, and such are available for his children, or those who tell little Cindy Lou Who, that Santa Claus is going to take care of everything?

The back up quarterback takes over a 1-4 team, mired in last place. The talk is already starting to turn to getting the first overall pick in the draft, and the right to draft next year’s savior. But, wait. The team starts to win. After their next three games under The Back Up they are 3-5, losing to a 6-2 team. Then they win again. Then again. And again. They are just a game out of the division lead. They win again. They are now tied for the division lead. They win again! The team is 8-5 and in sole possession of first place in their division.

The team is the Denver Broncos, and the quarterback it Tim Tebow. His performance and that of his team is getting a lot of national coverage. Denver has had a star powered QB before; the Hall of Famer, John Elway. But, the coverage Tim Tebow is getting is 24-7 and around the globe. I mean he has yet to play a complete season, and I have heard one story of a baggage handler in the New Delhi, India airport, upon seeing a passenger with a Broncos shirt, yell “Tebow! Tebow!” at him. India? Really?

Why so much, so soon? And why is some of it so down right hateful? There is a Facebook page called “I hate Tim Tebow” I can remember the Elway bashers, and there were those who would never give him any due. There were plenty of arguments about his manner of play, or his leadership abilities, or what candy he gave out at Halloween, or how big a tip he left. But one radio commentator, Fred Toettcher from Boston, on the day Tebow was drafted compared Tim’s draft day gathering of people to Nazi’s, because they were all “lily white”.

http://www.nesn.com/2010/04/boston-sports-radio-host-fred-toettcher-compares-tim-tebow-to-nazis.html

How much sense does that make? That is hate or at least jealousy on a base level. Why? It can’t really be because of the color of his skin. A white guy drafted to play quarterback; hardly new or a novelty. It’s not even worthy of notice.

Maybe the hatred comes from Tim’s less than perfect throwing mechanics, his scrambling style and lack of production early in a game. I think that can account for some of it, once you factor in a salting of jealousy because he’s winning in an unorthodox manner, and maybe beating your team. I was in this camp for awhile. Early on I was sure that the Broncos would be looking for someone else. His mechanics were bad. He was missing receivers badly and frequently. But, he has improved. He lit up the Vikings and made them look bad in the process, ala King John the Only. The “doesn’t have what it takes” argument is looking more and more hollow.

He wins, he’s humble, and he gives credit to his teammates. So why so many strong, negative feelings, so early in a career? Can it be his religion? Tim Tebow wears his religious beliefs on his sleeve. He starts each interview by thanking Jesus Christ. He flat out tells people he is using his notoriety to spread the word of God.  That makes a segment of the population uncomfortable. But, why? Shouldn’t a humble approach and a belief in God, be at least non-threatening? I think that this hits some segment of the population on their too-close-to-home button. These people might be Christians who feel that Tim raises the bar a bit too high. He goes to church. He is unembarrassed about his religious feelings. He appears to have no vices. He is kind, humble, practices abstinence and probably knits caps for the homeless after practice. They want him to fail because he makes them look bad. He is a person who is doing everything by the book. Make that by The Book, and when they measure themselves against both his conduct and achievements, it is easier to wish for his failure, than to make changes in their own life.

Perhaps it even taps into the other taboo subject at the dinner table; politics. Tim Tebow is the poster boy for the anti-abortion crowd. His mother was advised to abort Tim. (Tim’s mom was a missionary in the Philippines and contacted dysentery. She was advised to abort her baby because the medication she was on to treat her illness could have caused fetal damage. She and Tim’s father chose to continue to put their faith in God, and carried Tim to term)  

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_bianchi/2010/02/tim-tebow-abortion-story-is-being-swiftboated-by-womens-rights-activist-gloria-allred.html

Now look at him? Not only is he successful by any measure, but he is doing what those on the left hate; he is successful and bringing God into the conversation. You don’t see those on the right bringing lawsuits about the 10 Commandments in a court room, or complaining about school vouchers sending money to religious schools. That kind of posturing comes straight out of the Democratic left’s playbook. To have someone like Tim bring religion up and cast it in a good light definitely rubs those kinds of people the wrong way.

To their way of thinking, Tim Tebow is worse than George W. Bush. Here is a person who a doctor recommended be aborted, he has become successful and shows signs of becoming wildly successful, conducts himself in a courteous, humble, generous (he has his own foundation that supports a number of charities) manner, and espouses the teachings of Jesus Christ. That’s a dangerous man. Dangerous for the left, anyway. What if people started believing his way of thinking is right. That they should take charge of their own life, conduct themselves in a Christian manner, stop looking towards Washington to solve their problems, and look towards God?

Yeah. What if? 

Senator Mark Udall, Democrat from my home state of Colorado, introduced last summer, his version of an amendment to the United States Constitution requiring that the federal government be balanced. It is to be voted on, in the Senate, by the end of the year. Balancing the budget is a great idea and I am all for it, in principle. The problem becomes exactly how you go about it.

There are two parts to every budget. You have spending and you have revenue. You and I know all about our spending and our revenue; where it comes from and where it goes. Congress gets it’s revenue from us, in the form of taxes. If, like our Federal Government, you spend more than you are taking in, you either raise more revenue (taxes) and/or you cut spending to get it to balance.

In 2010 the  US government spent 3.5 trillion dollars  and took in 2.2 trillion in taxes. That leaves 1.3 trillion that needs to be balanced. President Obama’s proposal that includes taxing (just) all of those “rich” guys would raise an additional 80 billion. That is “billion” as in a 1/1000th of a trillion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/obama-deficit-plan-buffet-rule-taxes-medicare_n_969403.html

We need 1300 billion more dollars to balance the budget. 80 billion is a drop in the bucket, and does not touch the real issue of overspending.

Sen. Udall’s amendment says that spending can not exceed revenue in any year unless 60% of Congress vote to override this provision.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/udall-amendment.pdf

It does not say that they have to spend less. It does not say that they can’t tax more.  It actually prohibits cutting taxes of anyone making a million or more. Our Democratically controlled Senate is so embarrassed at their own level of spending they have not even submitted, much less voted on,  a budget in over two years, even though it is required by law. Do you think that the Democratically controlled Senate would suddenly gain some backbone and not only submit a budget, but one that is balanced.  Yes, they would, if this amendment had force of law. This amendment will allow them to raise taxes on everyone, and point to it and say “We had to, it’s the law”

Those taxes would be devastating. If you are collecting 2.2 trillion and you need to collect another 1.3 trillion, then everyone taxes are going to have to jump by 50%. You can’t just take the money from the rich. They don’t have it.  http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table3

The data from the link only goes to 2009. In 2007, before the Great Recession, and the highest amount listed, the top 1% had 2 trillion total. Take it all and you are still short. They are also wiped out and won’t have another 2 trillion to steal next year. 

Senator Udall’s amendment is not designed to balance the budget. This is a tool to give political cover to all Democrats running for Congress next year. It has no hope of passing. An amendment to the constitution needs a 2/3 vote, not a simple majority. You couldn’t get 2/3 of this Congress to vote to endorse the continuation of Christmas. The Democrats and Mark Udall know this. Next year come election time, there will be the political ads telling you how the incumbent Democrat voted to balance the budget, while the incumbent Republican will have voted against it.  Count on it. Write it down.

A real balanced budget amendment would put a cap on spending. Say 20% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That way Congress would encourage businesses to produce more, raising the GDP. They in turn would hire more people to do all that producing. More production equals more GDP, which would equal more tax money that could be spent.

It would need a penalty with teeth. Something like Warren Buffet’s proposal to prohibit members of Congress who failed to balance the budget to run for reelection. That would get their attention. Threaten to take away a Senator’s right to run for office and he will try roller skate on the Potomac River to prevent it.

Balancing the budget would have to be phased in. We can not drastically cut Social Security, Defense, or Medicare in one year. Effectively cutting federal spending in half in one year would throw us into a Depression. But people will have to start taking personal responsibility and give up thinking that Uncle Sam is their daddy.

The tax code will have to be adjusted. Tax rates might have to go up, and everyone, the poor included should pay something. It’s only right.

But this will take leadership and hard choices. There is no one in Democrat party, especially not the President who is up to the task. It has been three years and spending is up and the hole has only gotten deeper. Time to take away the shovel and stop voting for people like Mark Udall.

Back on October 2nd, under my blog “A Real Jobs Program” I wrote the following, speaking of Barrack Obama

“He did recently approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would ultimately run from Canada to Texas. It will create 1000s of jobs, but his environmental constituents are beside themselves. It’s a good start, and I anxiously watch what he does. But, I think the better bet is that he will continue to give speeches and convince America that more taxes equal more jobs.”

I did try to give him credit for doing something to create jobs, but then as now I am skeptical of this president displaying any kind of political courage or deviating from the socialist path he has us on. Right on cue, on Nov 10th, President Obama’s administration did a 180 and decided that more review is necessary and a final decision to build this pipeline will be delayed until at least the first quarter of 2013.

 http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/10/news/economy/keystone_pipeline/index.htm

 Remind me again, when is the presidential election? I would get all cynical on you and say that this was just a cowardly attempt to put off a difficult decision until after the election, but Charles Krauthammer beat me to it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-politically-strategic-inaction/2011/11/17/gIQAPCbCWN_story.html