Mountain Views News          Saturday, May 14, 2011

11

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN

 Mountain Views News Saturday, May 14, 2011 

HOWARD Hays As I See It


GREG Welborn

FREEDOM ASSAULTED

“Many of you have talked 
about the need to pay down 
our national debt. I listened, 
and I agree. We owe it to 
our children and grandchildren 
. . . At the end of those 
ten years, we will have paid 
down all the debt that is 
available to retire. That is 
more debt repaid more quickly than has 
ever been repaid by any nation at any time 
in history.”

 

That promise President George W. Bush 
made to Congress and the American people 
in February, 2001 didn’t seem unrealistic; 
coming off four straight years of budget surpluses 
under President Clinton, and ten uninterrupted 
years of economic growth.

 

The Heritage Foundation forecast that 
policies outlined by President Bush would 
create millions of jobs, a surge in personal 
income, and increased revenue lowering our 
national debt.

 

All it would take as a first step would be a 
$1.35 trillion tax cut over ten years for the 
richest Americans.

 

Whoops.

 

By the end of Bush’s two terms, we were 
shedding 750,000 jobs a month. Personal 
income did surge, but only for the top 10%; 
the fortunate among the remaining 90% remained 
stagnant while the rest lost ground. 
A greater percentage of our population, particularly 
children, fell into poverty than at 
any other period on record.

 

Budget surpluses left by Clinton became 
yearly deficits in the hundreds of billions. 
That national debt Bush promised to retire, 
and the Heritage Foundation forecast would 
be at least significantly trimmed under Republican 
policies, went from $5.7 trillion to 
over $10 trillion in eight years.

 

In today’s battles, Republicans are calling 
for courage and sacrifice in bringing down 
the deficit. Back then, in control of both 
houses of Congress and the White House, 
they could deal with the problem as they saw 
fit, without having to compromise principles 
seeking accommodation with the other 
party.

 

Republicans confronted the deficit in two 
major ways: First, they kept the costs of wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan off the books, as 
“emergency appropriations”. This takes $150 
billion off your yearly deficit right there. 
(And, when a Democratic president takes 
over and puts those expenses back on the 
books in the interest of honest accounting, 
you can accuse him of adding billions to the 
deficit before he’s hardly settled in.)

 

Second, Republicans shouldered their 
responsibility by taking another decisive 
action: They raised the debt ceiling. Five 
times. (June 2002, a $450 billion increase to 
$6.4 trillion; May 2003, $980 billion increase 
to $7.48 trillion; November 2004, $800 billion 
increase to $8.1 trillion; March 2006, 
$781 billion increase to $8.96 trillion; and 
September 2007, $850 billion increase to 
$9.81 trillion.)

 

Today, any talk of raising the debt ceiling 
is accompanied by demands for “trillions” in 
budget cuts to be made in return for Republican 
support. Back then, there wasn’t any 
such talk of trade-offs; raising the debt ceiling 
was handled as a routine matter. 

 Three Republican leaders who today are 
most strident in withholding support for 
raising the debt ceiling without significant 
concessions, House Speaker John Boehner 
(R-OH), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor 
(R-VA) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch 
McConnell (R-KY) had no such concerns 
during the previous administration when all 
three voted to raise the debt ceiling - all five 
times.

 

In explaining this reversal, it’s not that 
economic principles have changed in the 
last couple years. Rather, back then it was 
assumed prospects for Republicans in upcoming 
elections wouldn’t be helped if we 
defaulted on our debts. Now, the opposite 
is true; the more Republicans can do to stall 
the recovery, they reason, the better their 
chances will be in 2012. And, the more 
taxpayer-funded giveaways they can offer 
corporate and billionaire donors, the more 
generous campaign support they can expect 
in return. 

 

Sen. McConnell, especially, has emphasized 
that his party’s priority is not the well-
being of the country, but the defeat of President 
Obama.

 

Over the past several weeks, Republicans 
have expanded on the price demanded in 
return for their acquiescence in raising the 
debt ceiling. Women’s healthcare, schools 
and scholarships, public broadcasting, child 
nutrition, Wall Street oversight, environmental 
protection, infrastructure repair, 
help to get people back to work and make 
sure they don’t go bankrupt if a kid gets sick 
- all would have to be sacrificed.

 

Not every government initiative is expendable, 
though. That May 2003 $980 billion 
hike in the debt ceiling, for instance, 
came on the heels of passing that year’s $350 
billion installment on the Bush tax cuts; it 
was literally the next item on the Congressional 
agenda.

 

Speaker Boehner flatly declares tax hikes 
are “off the table”, but Republicans’ definition 
of “tax hikes” is rather fluid. President Reagan 
took credit for tax cuts, but ending the 
deduction for consumer loan interest, and 
taxing social security payments and unemployment 
benefits for the first time, somehow 
weren’t tax hikes.

 

 In Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget plan, 
he doubles-down on Bush’s tax cuts for the 
wealthiest, but says total tax revenue will remain 
unaffected. Since there’s no explanation 
as to how that’s to be done (we can only 
guess), he can assure there are no tax hikes 
in the plan.

 

Our Rep. David Dreier, though, won’t consider 
removing the tax break encouraging 
corporations to ship jobs overseas, because 
that would be a tax hike. Speaker Boehner, 
in response to Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) 
suggestion we start by axing our $21 billion 
taxpayer subsidy to Big Oil, rejects that proposal 
as a tax hike, as well.

 

Republican priorities today are the same 
as they were a decade ago; forcing us non-
oligarchs into debt, individually or as a nation, 
in order to further enrich the already 
wealthy. This time, though, we don’t need 
the Heritage Foundation to forecast what 
will happen if their policies are enacted. We 
already know.

With the killing of Bin Laden and the revelations 
that Pakistan has been anything but a stalwart ally 
of the U.S. still commanding headlines, one of the 
most significant and far reaching assaults on our 
basic freedom is going unnoticed. That may seem 
like a hyperbolic statement. Oh, that I wish it 
were, but recent actions of the federal government 
strike at the very heart of our freedom to decide 
how and where to spend our own money. If they 
succeed, the fabric of American freedoms and 
individual rights may well be shredded.

What would you say if the federal government 
decided where you went to college, or which job 
you had to take or which mutual funds you had 
to buy, or which bank you had to use for your 
checking account? Whether you’re a Republican, 
Democrat, Tea Partier or Independent, I think 
we all would agree that such restrictions would 
constitute a gross and unacceptable breach of 
our personal freedom. You see in a truly free 
society, each of us retains the God-given right to 
decide where to spend our personal and financial 
capital. That’s an economist’s fancy way of saying 
where we spend our time and energy (personal 
capital) or our money (financial capital). If I 
want to invest my time to become a journalist, I 
should be free to find a college willing to accept 
me. Likewise, if I want to open up a restaurant, I 
should be free to take that risk and offer a better 
dining experience to potential customers. If I 
want to invest in highly aggressive stock mutual 
funds, I should be free to take that risk in the hope 
of earning a larger reward than my conservative 
neighbor. These are basic American principles, 
but they are under attack.

It’s fashionable for liberals to talk about civil 
rights and political freedoms, but what they fail to 
understand is that if the government takes away 
my economic freedom, then the government 
has essentially taken away my political freedom 
and civil rights. If the government can deny me 
the education I wish to pursue, the job I want to 
perform or the business venture I want to launch, 
then I will inevitably be forced to censor the 
criticism I voice of that government. There can be 
no political freedom without economic freedom.

So what is the government trying to do that 
rises to the level of tyranny I’ve described? The 
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), with 
the full approval and encouragement of President 
Obama, is trying to prevent Boeing from opening 
a manufacturing plant in South Carolina. The 
NLRB is trying to force Boeing to abandon 
the new plant it just built, which is intended to 
manufacture the new 787 Dreamliner, and build 
a new plant in Washington. It’s no coincidence 
that South Carolina is a right-to-work state and 
Washington is a heavily unionized state. The 
current administration is heavily indebted to 
union support and seeks to force Boeing to use 
higher-cost labor instead of less-expensive labor. 
The significance of the issue, though, goes well 
beyond mere political support 
for a favored constituency. If 
successful, the precedence will 
be established justifying the 
federal government’s right to 
decide any of the issues listed 
above: where any of us go to 
school, what jobs we take, 
what businesses we open and 
what investment we make.

As Boeing has made perfectly clear, and as is 
amply supported by the facts, Boeing is simply 
seeking to exercise their right to decide how and 
where to spend their capital. If they aren’t allowed 
to do that, then it won’t take very long for the 
government to find various justifications to tell 
us how to spend our capital. You may think me 
extreme in this comparison, but this is not the 
first time the government has tried to exercise 
this power. The Clinton administration’s ill-
fated attempt to overhaul the healthcare industry 
(everyone remember Hilary-care) would have 
allowed the government to decide where each 
medical student went to medical school, what 
specialty they were allowed to pursue and where 
they would have to practice for the first several 
years after their schooling. Fast forward 20+ 
years, and the same naked power grab is being 
attempted.

Supposing for a moment that I haven’t 
convinced you of the philosophical reasons for 
resisting this latest foray into our private lives, 
consider the basic economic consequences of 
this for our nation. If the government wins the 
right to tell manufacturers where they can set up 
shop, how many new facilities do you think will 
be built here in the U.S., as opposed to being built 
in some other country? How many more jobs do 
you think will be shipped overseas? As is often 
the case, there are as many strong economic 
reasons as there are philosophical reasons to 
champion personal freedom. Those countries 
which allow the greatest amount of personal 
and economic freedom tend to have the fastest 
growing economies and have the lowest levels of 
unemployment in addition to offering the greatest 
amount of political freedom and civil rights. 

So Bin Laden is dead, but that doesn’t mean 
there aren’t any threats to our freedoms and 
standard of living. This time we don’t need to fly 
half way across the world to find an enemy. We 
just have to look to D.C. to find people who think 
they know best how we should spend our time 
and treasure. 

About the author: Gregory J. Welborn is a 
freelance writer and has spoken to several civic 
and religious organizations on cultural and moral 
issues. He lives in the Los Angeles area with his 
wife and 3 children and is active in the community. 
He can be reached at gregwelborn@earthlink.net.


SENATOR HUFF SEEKING 

NOMINATIONS FOR 

"CITIZEN OF THE YEAR"

The nomination period is now open for my "Citizen of the Year" contest in the 
29th Senate District covering portions of Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino 
Counties. My district office in Walnut must receive these nominations by May 
10th, or they can also be emailed to my District Director, Tim Shaw, at tim.shaw@
sen.ca.gov.

The contest is open to all constituents that I serve in the San Gabriel Valley, Inland 
Valley and Northern Orange County communities that I represent. I feel it’s important 
to recognize people who have contributed to our overall quality of life and 
made significant contributions to our area.

The nominations that I am seeking for the "Citizen of the Year" contest should list 
specific projects that the nominee took part in or committees in which the nominee 
was involved. Specific contributions in the field of law enforcement, education, 
transportation or the environment should also be highlighted.

I will treat the winner of the Citizen of the Year contest to lunch in the District, and 
the winner will also receive an official Senate Resolution noting the achievement.

The contest is open to all deserving constituents who reside in the cities of Arcadia, 
Bradbury, Brea, Charter Oak, Chino, Chino Hills, Claremont, Diamond Bar, Glendora, 
La Crescenta-Montrose, La Habra, La Habra Heights, La Verne, Mayflower 
Village, Monrovia, North El Monte, Placentia, San Dimas, Sierra Madre, Walnut 
and Yorba Linda.

The 29th Senate District also includes portions of Anaheim, the Angeles National 
Forest, Citrus, City of Industry, East Pasadena, East San Gabriel, Hacienda Heights, 
Juniper Hills, Rowland Heights and Tujunga.

Due to the high demand for her tutoring and education services, bookstore 
owner, Sally Morrison, is opening a new learning center here in Sierra Madre. 
Mindspring Education Center will cater to students (children and adults) 
interested in furthering their reading, writing, math, spelling, and 
comprehension skills. In addition, Sally offers assistance in study skills, 
homework, and test preparation. She also specializes in helping students 
with dyslexia and other learning difficulties. Those interested in summer 
sessions should contact Mindspring soon because space is limited.
As a result of this business expansion, Sally Morrison and Jeffrey Ingwalson, 
owners of Sierra Madre Books, will be closing the bookstore in June 2011. 
“We appreciate all the support we’ve received from our customers over the 
past few years, but are excited about our new venture. We look forward to 
continuing to be part of this community.”
For questions about Mindspring Education Center, please call (626) 355-1972.
For questions about Sierra Madre Books, please call (626) 836-3200.
Announcing:
The Opening of...
Mindspring Education CenterOne-to-One Instruction for All Ages37 Auburn Ave., Suite 7ASierra Madre, CA 91024(626) 355-1972www.mindspringEDC.com
What’s On YOUR Mind? What D0 YOU Think? 

We’d like to hear from you! Contact us at: 
editor@mtnviewsnews.com 

or 

www.facebook.com/mountainviewsnews