Rich

Flipping channels the other night, I heard Chris Matthews say it on his Hardball show. To paraphrase,

"The rich achieved their wealth on the backs of the poor and middle class"

This is one of the cardinal beliefs of the Left. But is it true?

Mathews and his Democrat colleagues would argue that when a businessperson chooses to maximize profits through layoffs and paying most of his workers minimum wage, he's indeed making his fortune at the expense of the people who make his company successful. When a Wall Street firm buys up companies then closes them down and sells off the assets to pocket the difference, that also qualifies. When companies shut down their manufacturing plants in the US and move the operations to China or India or Mexico, that certainly qualifies.

To the extent that those things happen, I can sympathize with those who decry the capitalist system that permits them. Certainly I have been concerned about the dramatic loss of our country's manufacturing base over the last 30 years. Even in my own experience, where I am able to see firsthand the hourly margin between what the company that helps me find my consulting contracts and the leftover amount I actually receive for my efforts, it's tempting to rail against greedy and unreasonable profits. But then I consider the alternative those on the Left would propose to address them, and am convinced we're seeing how their solution leaves us much worse off.

How do you make a business owner pay his employee fair wages? The minimum wage already sets the floor, then the business is able to pay whatever the labor market will bear. Stop the under-the-table use of illegal immigrants to stay below market wages, and I think that will solve much of the problem. A good economy is the ultimate solution, when employers must compete in the labor marketplace for good employees.

How do you keep these investor groups from buying and liquidating companies? You can't, unless you want to give bureaucrats the power to decide what business owners are allowed to do with their own enterprises. Government control over this activity is frighteningly dangerous, and smells like tyranny. What Democrats don't understand is that in order for any worker to get paid, he or she must deliver a higher value for their efforts than the employer is paying them. A "living wage" isn't available just because someone thinks it is fair, but is given in exchange for the value provided by the worker to the employer. If there is no profit in the activity, there's no point engaging in that activity - ie, no job at any wage.

How do you stop companies from moving their operations overseas? I'd even extend that question by asking how do you stop companies from importing foreign workers to displace Americans? Government can't and shouldn't stop it, but could limit the number of foreign workers allowed based on reasonable labor market criteria.

The alternative that the Left is proposing only guarantees more severe economic suffering, while Obama and his army of bureaucrats replace the corporate titans as those who control the country's wealth and power. Given the choice between continuing to be a free agent, able to offer my services to any company willing to hire me, or becoming a ward of the state, with a bureaucrat making most of my life decisions for me, my choice requires not even a second of contemplation.

The next question is, can we solve these problems without Obama's transformation to Socialist government control? I believe the answer is never completely, but we can definitely do things that will reduce their prevalance and impact.

We can certainly begin taking AntiTrust laws seriously again to encourage competition. We can implement stronger and fairer trade policies and stop giving away the store to China and India. We can cut back on excessive regulation, especially in the EPA, to make it easier to start and expand business of all kinds.

And we can change welfare programs to incentivize and reward self-sufficiency instead of dependence.

I only wish we were hearing these kinds of thoughtful arguments from our candidates.

Paying Attention

The ongoing search for understanding about how it's possible that there are still loyal Democrats out there that polls suggest may still turn out to re-elect Obama next year has gradually uncovered some insights.

First and foremost, they aren't really paying attention. The typical Democrat has never heard of Solyndra, Fast & Furious (they think it's a movie), the EPA crackdowns gone wild, Obama's unilateral authorization to wage war against Gaddafi (which I thought Democrats were adamantly against when the President's name was Bush). They don't care to hear about them either ("you probably heard that on Limbaugh")

What they actually believe is a laundry list of Democrat talking points that they accept completely and without question. Just a few of them:

If it hadn't been for the Stimulus, we'd be in a Depression.

The 1% have all the money because they somehow stole it from the 99%, and they don't pay their fair share in taxes and deserve to be punished.

We can solve the budget problem tomorrow if the GOP just stops blocking Obama from hiking the taxes on the rich. By the way, the economic problems wouldn't even exist if the GOP would just stop blocking Obama's policies.

Republicans want people to lose their retirement, healthcare, homes, and food to make themselves richer.

High energy prices aren't Obama's fault, but the fault of the greedy oil companies who are just overcharging because the Republicans enable that.

Republicans hate everybody who isn't like them and want to persecute them. The list of targets of Republican Tea Party haters includes blacks, hispanics, gays, unions, and single mothers.

There's a willful blindness among these folks to the degree that I'm convinced if Obama announced tomorrow that terrorism is over, the economy is booming, the debt is wiped out, and everybody can get Social Security and Medicare starting at age 50, they'd cheerfully believe him and denounce anyone who would dare suggest otherwise.

Willful ignorance by a plurality of the citizenry is the cause of our country's decline.

Colts Really a 1-Man Team?

It would seem so.

During the Peyton Manning era, the Colts defense was only good in the latter part of the Super Bowl winning season with Bob Sanders playing so well at Safety and pulling his teammates to a new level. Otherwise, the team has relied on Peyton to simply outscore the opponents.

The other guys scored 28 points on the Colt defense? No problem, Peyton will get 35.

Still, to be hit with the harsh reality of just how awful this team is without Mr. Manning at quarterback is rather stunning. Against the Saints, the team did something I never expected to see - they quit.

Most everyone has the same list of questions:

Are they really that bad without Manning?

Is the fundamental problem a lack of talent or coaching?

Why did Bill Polian, with the genius reputation, allow all these years to go by without even trying to find a quality backup at quarterback?

Let me take a stab with my own theories.

The fundamental problem is coaching. On both sides of the ball, but especially defense. We've suffered through the first half of the season watching the same scenario play out with the Colts defense time and time again. They make 2 stops and get the opponent into a third and long. The opposing quarterback then simply drops back and pops a quick pass over the middle to his tight end or running back, who only had to curl around behind the linebackers and in front of the safeties to get wide open and snag the first down toss.

Game after game, the Colt defense hands first downs to their opponents like candy to a baby. Are they physically incapable of making the read and covering receivers in that void in the middle of the field? Actually, it has to be coaching - the players have 2 arms and 2 legs and are reasonably athletic, so why would they make the same mistakes over and over and over again, game in and game out, unless the coaches were at fault?

But its not the coaches who gave up this week against the Saints. (Or who knows, maybe they did). I'm surprised the players don't show just a bit more pride. Aren't they humiliated at hearing from just about everyone with an opinion that the only reason the team used to be good is Peyton Manning? Shouldn't these guys be a bit insulted by the implication that they're just the supporting cast for the superstar?

Ultimately the responsibility is Jim Caldwell's. He's got to figure this out or turn in his resignation. He shouldn't go so far with this dismal performance that he waits for the pink slip. He should challenge his team in the same way - tell every player that if they're not willing to give maximum effort, he will waive him and find somebody who will. His job's at stake, and he should make it clear that therefore so is the job of every player on the team.

He should fire Larry Coyer and hire somebody who knows how to coach a defense. He should shuffle his staff to find somebody who can effectively get Curtis Painter and the offense executing better.

Peyton should not come back and play this year until or unless the team turns around. At least the Offensive Line.

Will the Colts boot the rest of the season, or will they find their pride and at least compete the rest of this year's Sundays?

Fans can only hope.