THE WAY I SEE IT by Don Polson Red Bluff Daily News 9/04/2018
More,
merrier labor—thank Trump
Let’s
give three cheers for the hundreds of millions of men, women and children (for
those families able to pass on work habits and basic skills within their
family-owned businesses and farms) engaged in honorable vocations of labor.
Hail Labor Day!
Let’s
also give deserved credit—and cheer the millions of jobs created in the last
two years, inducing many who had given up seeking a job to return to the labor
pool—for the economic, regulatory and tax policies of the Trump administration
and a Republican Congress. I understand that many who didn’t vote for, and
still deeply oppose, President Trump, would prefer to give anyone else credit
for all that and the stock market highs (it’s arguable that any president can
take total credit or blame for equity prices and values).
But
let’s be honest, shall we? When the politically-inspired conventional wisdom of
the Obama years said that sub-2 percent GDP growth, and unemployed men and
women giving up looking for jobs, were “the new normal,” and that America’s
economic strength would have to bow to rising foreign nations—we were told to
shut up and accept the word of our betters. As all of the world expected to
inaugurate President Hillary Clinton in 2017, the wizards of smart economic
prognostication were preparing us for a likely recession because the
growth/retraction cycles never fail. Funny, those same gurus have rarely gotten
any predictions right but, just in case we had a “Clinton recession,” they
wanted it known: “Not her fault.”
Let’s
also salute the millions of men and women who have risked their savings, homes,
credit-worthiness, time, sweat and tears to start or expand a business—and hire
and train people to implement their vision. There is no “Labor Day” without
those who employ the “laborers.” Government creates neither jobs nor
businesses; government can only get out of the way at federal, state and local
levels—and lessen the burdens and impediments to the making of goods and
providing of services.
Those
federally-subsidized “green energy” projects—the wind turbines, solar arrays
and mandated ethanol and recycling-of-materials in construction—all come at the
expense of increasing someone’s tax burden or America’s collective debt. The
days of the laudable Civilian Conservation Corps are no longer tenable; the
once-invaluable role of labor unions is irrelevant. Barely more than
one-in-twenty private sector workers choose to join what to them are corrupt
leeches on their paychecks and unnecessary intermediaries between them and
their bosses and owners.
Obama’s
economy—the 2008 to 2009 Great Recession ended within months of his taking
office through no credit of his own—was often called a “plow horse,” not a
“race horse” economy. What it was: The worst recovery in modern history that 1)
left many millions wanting, but giving up on finding, a job and 2) crushed the
entrepreneurial dreams of multitudes of bright, industrious job-creators. If
you want to know why we doggedly support President Donald J. Trump, just
consider that he alone called attention to, and promised to rectify, unfair
trade deals and trillions of dollars that leave America through trade
imbalances.
His
strategies—use tariffs and the threat of tariffs to force countries to give
America a better and more prosperous trade relationship—carry risks but, over
the longer term promise better results for our economy. The “sky is falling”
chicken-littles predicting doom and gloom may be caught in past paradigms of
“zero sum” trade policy. They may also simply be refusing to accept that Trump
could pull off such a daring “win” for America and its workers when others have
not even tried.
His
desire to eliminate illegal immigration and reform legal immigration to match
the actual needs of our employers—not just give them cheaper alternatives to
American workers—appears to “normal” Americans as long overdue. Let the country
be divided into those who condemn America’s unfair advantages—industrious
people, limited confiscation and redistribution through taxation, abundant
wealth-creating resources, capitalism—and those who rightly think “let’s help
America first.”
Some
think we have an unstated obligation to open our doors and gates to anyone,
legally or not, who wishes to bring their marginal lifestyles with them and
avoid assimilating and becoming self-supporting citizens. “Some” can get out of
the way while we, who reject foolish “come on in and sign up for benefits”
policies, implement the Trumpian priorities of patriotism, western values,
tolerance and responsibility.
You
want to be part of this greatest-of-nations? Give up your abuse of women (I
mean you lower-class third-worlders and religiously-inspired subjugators of daughters,
sisters and spouses). When women enter America, they should know that our legal
and moral systems support their safety, prosecute their abusers, and open the
way for them to dream and work—yes, labor—to fulfill those dreams. All cultures
and religions are not equal in that regard; it is not “tolerance of diversity”
to excuse bad habits and practices.
To
anyone questioning my focus on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton: Let’s just
agree that 1) If the “Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election” charge proves
as baseless as we Trump supporters know it to be (Hillary and her staff seized
upon that excuse the day after she lost; higher-ups in the FBI/DOJ/CIA colluded
with Hillary/the DNC/British ex-spy Steele/Fusion GPS and Russians to foist it on
America); 2) If Mueller’s seemingly open-ended probe only nets some Russians
who had nothing to do with Trump, and former Trump people who dodged taxes or
other financial crimes; 3) If it turns out that, as James Clapper said in an
interview, “President Obama is responsible for that [the intelligence community
report that led to Mueller’s investigation] …
Then
I’ll not apologize for pointing to Obama’s and Clinton’s skullduggery, lies and
undermining of the Constitutional election of Trump. You will bear the
Obama/Clinton shame of weaponizing our government against their opposing
candidate.
No comments:
Post a Comment