by Sue | Oct 2, 2017 | From the Chair
by Dick Pilling, Chair
Immigration or Invasion?
I see Europe is starting to refuse entry to refugee immigrants – even send them back to their home countries – because of the deleterious effect on their cultures and economies. Should we?
In the past, American welcomed immigrants to our country – though not always without some friction – and they were able to “settle in” or assimilate to their new environment because they wanted a “new” life in America.
Previously, this was relatively easily done because in 1790, for instance, 90% of our population of 3.9 million consisted of farmers and agriculture workers and, in those days, farming was a largely physical effort which did not require vast experience and education. Accordingly, newly arrived immigrants were, for the most part, able to support themselves on farms and, therefore, could abide by John Smith’s dictum “He who works, eats.” More important, they enmeshed themselves in an existing workforce/culture which needed this “new blood”.
By 1900, however, only 38% of our population – now 76 million – was actively involved in agriculture, thereby eliminating these “interim” jobs. However, the industrial revolution had dramatically increased the number of factories which were rapidly taking the place of farming as the major employer and desperately needed man – and woman – power.
Happily, due to the division of labor, later conceptualized in Frederick Taylor’s teachings on Scientific Management, the factory jobs, while perhaps boring and robotic, were easily performed by an inexperienced and under-educated workforce. Again, an existing workforce and culture was supplemented to the benefit of both.
Fast forward to today where the administration is insisting that we take many thousands of uneducated, culturally dissimilar “refugees” and place them in our society. This is a major problem as our farms and factories no longer require vast numbers of uneducated workers and, quite frankly, there is no way for them earn a living and so they are now supported by various governmental programs which, of course, are supported by us.
These newcomers are not assimilating as have immigrants in the past due to the lack of jobs that, previously, required them to “rub elbows” with the existing population and begin an assimilation process. Accordingly, they tend to isolate themselves in small enclaves, they do not adopt our ways, and they continue to immerse themselves in the culture of their home countries. Perhaps most importantly, they do not contribute to their new country – nor do they feel the need to – and, therefore, they do not think that they have any “skin in the game”.
It is dangerous to us as a nation, a society, and a culture to allow this ongoing influx to continue creating large isolated communities of disaffected inhabitants largely bound by a religion/culture inimical to our societal norms and which tend to breed the “lone wolves” that made headlines in Europe and, lately, here in the USA.
These newcomers being forced on us are not immigrants but, rather, the forefront of an invasion that, left unchallenged, will undermine the very essence of our culture.
And we are not only allowing this, we, as taxpayers, are underwriting it.
How foolish…
The Chapman Changeling
By Dick Pilling, Chair – Feb/March 2016
Sometimes progress is slow… you know, like, two steps
forward and one step back. And then only if we are lucky…
Of course, I refer to the pending “sun-setting” of the recently approved sales tax decrease which, admittedly, was a relatively minor decrease but, since we have never had a decrease in sales tax, it was a significant step forward. Now, sadly, it looks as if it will be negated and we will take a step back.
Of course, any tax decrease is an anathema to Democrats and so newly elected Democrat Mark Ozias and recently converted Democrat and fellow traveler, Mike Chapman, jumped at the chance to eliminate it and, in effect, raise taxes.
To be fair, though, I guess Chapman was required to do it. I think raising taxes is some sort of fraternity initiation exercise for newly minted lefties. It is how would-be Democrats make their bones.
Of course, as you may recall, just a few short months ago, Chapman was all for the decrease. But that was before he became a Democrat and had cause to re-consider. And now he is floundering.
So, as a laughably weak justification for his new position, he now says that, in retrospect, he failed to properly consult with the affected department heads who, shockingly, assert that they need more money. Who knew?
Really, Mike… Isn’t that like asking teenagers if they need their allowance increased? Honestly, what answer did you expect? Other than Yes!! Or, perhaps, duh…
Of course, Mike and Mark contend that it was just a very small increase and we tax payers really won’t even notice. However, that’s how Democrats work… a little here and a bit there and a tiny chunk over yonder… it’s like being pecked to death by a duck… It may take a while but, in the end, you are still dead…
Nonetheless, you can’t really fault Ozias because he unambiguously declared himself in favor of increasing taxes. He was up front about it. He’s a Democrat and, by golly, that’s what Democrats do. You almost have to respect him for it. Almost…
But as far as Chapman goes, because he changes his mind so often, I just never know what he is going to do. But I do know one thing… they name shoes after him…
They call them flip flops…
by Sue | Oct 2, 2017 | From the Chair
What is fair anyhow…
Did you ever notice how often the word “fair” is used? Particularly in the economic sense? Like there is fair taxation, fair housing, fair income, fair rental, fair deal, etc.
Many times, however, the word fair is used – mostly by liberals – in a negative declarative statement as in “That’s not fair!” And they say it a lot because, in the liberal mind, anytime anyone anywhere gets more than what they – the liberal – envisions as correct, is simply “not fair”.
Nowhere is this mindset more evident than in taxation rates and, in particular, income tax rates. A frequently heard refrain is that the “rich must be made to pay their fair share” of taxes.
This statement is made in complete defiance – and total ignorance – of the fact that the “rich” pay considerably more taxes than do those less well off.
For instance, as an example, according to the Wall Street Journal, taxpayers with income over $100,000 a year earn 60 percent of the nation’s income and pay 95.2 percent of the income taxes in the United States. That seems hardly fair… looks like they are getting the shaft…
Moreover, at the other end of the scale, taxpayers making less than $50,000 a year represent about half of the country, earn 16.4 percent of the nation’s income, but have a negative share of income taxes because they receive more back then they pay out. That’s not fair either… looks like they are getting a free ride.
Just remember this when the next time our beloved Governor Inslee – and his free-spending democrat cohorts – propose a state income tax.
And you can bet that it will be a graduated tax that increases with your income. Because it is “fair” that those with greater incomes pay more taxes. It helps to make things equal and they prefer that everyone should be equal.
Even if that means that they are “equally miserable”.
Until next time…
Dick Pilling, Chair
by Sue | Oct 2, 2017 | From the Chair
No one ever teaches well who wants to teach, or governs well who wants to govern”. Plato
“Any person who wants to govern the world is by definition the wrong person to do it.” Greg Iles
“The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern: every class is unfit to govern”. Lord Acton
I don’t know if you noticed or not, but this year was Olympia’s longest legislative session on record. It was like watching a football game go into double overtime. With stumbles and fumbles but without the excitement, the beer, and the cheerleaders…
The reason for the extended session, of course, was a budget battle between those who felt that there was enough money to address all necessary expenditures and, therefore, tax increases were not necessary. On the other side were those who felt that more money was needed and, consequently, taxes had to be increased. And I’ll just bet that you know one politician who favored raising taxes or, as he so quaintly puts it, “increasing revenue” (Hint: his name rhymes with derringer…)
It is kinda funny but I thought politicians were supposed to determine how much of our money they needed to conduct the government business. But lately, this concept seems to have changed from “how much of our money they will take from us” to the current philosophy of “how much of our money we will be allowed to keep”. And the usual answer is… less and less because they need more and more.
Surprisingly, however, when all was said and done – and, after a session lasting 176 days, far more was said than done – it appeared that cooler heads prevailed and the $1.5 billion package of new carbon taxes, capital gains taxes, and income taxes as proposed by the Governor and House Democrats was shot down. So I call this a win… On the other hand, an increased transportation tax was passed and I call this a loss…
So, overall, did we win? Of course not. Politicians have prevailed over taxpayers again and so, in the end, it is not how much we won but, rather, how little that we lost.
Wouldn’t it be nice to actually win for a change? It is up to you. And your vote…
Until next time,
Dick Pilling, Chair
by Sue | Oct 2, 2017 | From the Chair
Tax Reduction Day…
The FOURTH of July used to be one of my favorite holidays but now no more!!
My new favorite holiday is the FIRST of July which will forever be enshrined in my memory as TAX REDUCTION DAY. Because, effective that date and for the first time in Clallam County history, a tax will actually be reduced. Can you believe it??? A tax cut… a decrease… a smaller government hand in your wallet… Really!!
And this unheard of event… this totally unprecedented happening… this unique occurrence is all due to the actions of the Clallam County Board of Commissioners as spearheaded by Clallam County Commissioner Jim McEntire. Way to go Commissioners! And a special atta boy to Jim!
It seems that that they had this crazy idea that, just because they had some extra money in the till, there was no real reason to figure out new ways to spend it. Or even keep it. Why not send some back where it came from? Why not give it back to the taxpayers? What a concept! Makes you wonder if they are really politicians. Like who ever heard of an elected official actually giving money back to the citizens?
Of course, a mere .2% reduction is sales tax is not a huge decrease but it is certainly a step in the right direction. And especially noteworthy at a time when the spendaholics in Olympia are scrabbling around trying to raise taxes or, as they like to say, “increasing revenues”.
It was a real fight though… convincing Olympia bureau-rats to lower taxes is like trying to get pigs to slaughter themselves…
Until next time…
Dick
by Sue | Oct 2, 2017 | From the Chair
Lying Liars…
We have been hearing some real whoppers here lately… You know the ones I mean… For instance, “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan”. Or how ‘bout, “Benghazi happened because of some horrible video”. And then there was “My helicopter was hit by an RPG”. Last, but far from least, “I never had sex with that woman”.
Now these are out and out lies and are easily identified as such. And so those who mouthed these untruths are, in fact, liars. We are now well aware that Obama knew that people would lose their plans… Hillary knew the true reasons behind Benghazi… Brian Williams knew he did not get hit by an RPG… And everybody but everybody knew Clinton had sex with anybody that would let him… Liars all…
But when is a lie not a lie? Because there are lots of other ways to deceive people that do not involve an actual lie. And they sound good but, when analyzed, are nothing less than deliberate intentions to misinform. Do they qualify as lies?
For instance when one of our local legislators continually calls for “additional revenue” it sounds somewhat innocuous. But what he really means is that he wants to raise taxes. And when he says he needs “new sources of revenue” it means that he wants to find some new ways to tax you.
But this legislator – and you all know who he is – will never say “raise taxes” or “new taxes” because he knows that people immediately understand that he is putting his hands in their pockets. So he avoids using the “T” word and substitutes “revenue”. It gets him to the same place but it sounds so much better, you see. Maybe not a lie but certainly intentionally confusing.
So how the heck do you determine if a politician is lying or merely misleading? Well, it’s not too hard, actually… just look and see if his lips are moving….
Because if they are, he is…
Dick Pilling, Chair
