Democratic response part 2 - 1.24.2007.2

Continued from part 1

...

Moving on, Senator Webb makes an interesting statement. Senator Webb discusses how his father, his sons, and he were all military men. The Senator served in the Marines during Viet Nam. I respect the service that he and his family have given this nation. The Senator may well have served with my own father. I or others in my family may have served with his children. That has nothing to do with what the President has decided. His patriotic decisions are not in question, nor those of his family. It added no value to his later statements. I say that with respect, as I do respect those decisions.

But the Senator goes on to mention how the American people had leaders that made wise, informed decisions. That our past leaders placed our troops in harm’s way after careful consideration. I have to ask how this is different than what President Bush has done? And I must ask Senator Webb where that trust was during the Viet Nam war, when the liberals of the nation wanted to cut support of the troops and had daily protests, and called our returning soldiers ‘baby killers.’ Perhaps Senator Webb never encountered the massive attacks against our troops and our leader then, but I know for a fact too many others did. How is the position of the Democratic Party today different than the beginnings of what happened during the Viet Nam War? And where is the trust for our leader today?

The Senator further draws on the action in Korea. How that war was ended ‘positively’ as an example of what to do today. Perhaps I view this differently, but what some viewed as a draw then is a huge loss some 50 years later, today. We left Korea, a stalemate. We never finished the war; we had a cease fire and have been there since. Korea is divided into a north and south, there is a huge DMZ, manned by tens of thousands of troops, mines and strategic missiles. How much has that cost our economy? Added to that fact is that North Korea has never stopped preparing to continue to finish the war with America. That has lead to the nuclear weapon test and potential nuclear arsenal, in a nation that hates us and will support anyone that would fight us. This is the positive reaction that Senator Webb referred to as ‘positive’ and seems to state we should emulate.

Senator Webb stated that diplomacy should guide our actions in Iraq, that we should move out soldiers off the streets, but we should not rush to leave. Yet there has been rampant talk by Democrats to cut funding (which I feel is not supporting the troops) and/or to cap the number of troops, and to create a timetable that has our troops home in a year. All of that before the President even mentioned his new plan. That is not trust in our leader. That is not supporting troops. That is leaving, that is what I call running away.

Continued in part 3...

Democratic response to State of Union - 1.24.2007

Having just heard the President’s State of the Union speech, and the Democratic Response I feel compelled to respond. I will address the Democratic Response as it has me enraged. With all due respect to Senator Webb I feel that the response was an insult to my intelligence.

That is a strong accusation, I realize. I will back it up as well as I can.

In the first point, Senator Webb states that the economy is being viewed unfairly. He stated that the view of the economy should be seeing from the point of view of ‘Main Street.’ The senator went on to discuss the vast discrepancy in CEO pay vs. the average worker.

I have a problem with these comments. The fact is that unemployment is at a low. Profits for corporations are up. That is important as the money corporations make benefits shareholders, and helps with corporate taxes, and allows for higher research and development funding for future innovation. It is a fact that for the average corporation to make more money more of its product, or the same products at higher prices must be bought. The consumer must have the funds to buy those goods, at either the higher price or more goods. That to me is a direct example of the health of ‘main street’ health.

The fact that CEO pay is up is a good sign. Higher pay equates, or should, to better performance of a company. You can’t pay a massive salary if the money isn’t there. And the extreme of 400x more than the employees (I believe the statement was employee and not average employee which means the comparison could be versus the lowest paid person in the company) is the reason why people own businesses. Don’t we want to be our own bosses to be able to make more money? If you have built up a company, or improved an existing one, don’t you deserve to reap the reward? And if it is too much the company will suffer, the pay will be lowered or you will be replaced. Basic law of business as far as I know. On the other side of this thought is the fact that I, as the owner of my own business, do NOT want the government telling me what is the most I can make in my business. That is the essence of what the CEO pay comparison means. Government regulation of what I deserve to make for running my business. The laws may start off with the intention of affecting the top 1% of CEO’s but they will inevitably affect ALL CEO’s.

The question of corporate profits was further questioned later, as Senator Webb mentioned how the pay has increased since his time in college. Since we are aware of Senator Webb being in Viet Nam, I assume that his college years were in the late 70’s. Considering that, is his comparison adjusted for the rate of inflation? Does it consider how much a dollar bought roughly 3 decades ago as compared to today?

And when Senator Webb mentions how President Roosevelt worked on breaking corporate profits, did the senator consider the philanthropy that CEO’s did then? Did the senator consider the extremes in CEO pay vs. employees? And is that comparison better or worse than 30 years ago, or today?

What about the philanthropy that the top CEO makes because they have such an alleged extreme in pay? The Gates Foundation would not exist id CEO pay was capped. Mr. Warren Buffett may not be able to give away his fortune if he did not make as much, or his incentive (pay and profit) were limited or removed.

Continued in part 2