Tom Reed

Smiley face fascism

Some call it "crony capitalism," some "public-private partnerships." How about we stop futzing around with the English language (something American collectivists have raised to the level of a fine art) and call it what it really is: fascism.

My, that sounds nasty, doesn't it?  That's because it is. It NEVER ends well.

The National Council for Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) has a website with lots of pretty photos on it, and they define a PPP as

a contractual agreement between a public agency (federal, state or local) and a private sector entity. Through this agreement, the skills and assets of each sector (public and private) are shared in delivering a service or facility for the use of the general public. In addition to the sharing of resources, each party shares in the risks and rewards potential in the delivery of the service and/or facility.

Sounds peachy, until you realize that it's

...the government still maintaining the final say over the delivering of the service.  Taxpayers now have the noose of being forced to guarantee an “acceptable rate of return over the term of the partnership” to the contracted company around their neck.

In fact, PPPs are "a way to mask ever-intrusive government."

There are lots of examples of PPPs ranging from the Federal Reserve System to Solyndra to...Common Core, the Jeb Bush and Bill Gates-led race to the bottom destined to further enslave America's children:

Common Core is the conclusion of many years of the expansion of nationwide controls over educational issues...The current Common Core standards are limited to English and Math, but will expand to include all subjects in coming years.
 
The beginnings of Common Core can be traced to the 2009 Stimulus bill which gave $4.35 billion to the federal Department of Education which then created the “Race to the Top” competition between states. In order to qualify for funding, the states needed to adopt Common Core sight unseen...
Why would states do anything so stupid? Well, this followed on the heels of the 2008 stock market crash when many states found themselves in dire budgetary straits. And you know what they say—never let a crisis go to waste.  Anyway, check out the entire Stop Common Core NY website.
 
Who stands to gain from Common Core? Microsoft, Apple, News Corp (Rupert Murdoch), Pearson Publishing, ETS (you know, SAT and ACT), companies like Affectiva Inc. that produce biometric sensor wristbands to be used on students (but it's all very benign), data companies such as InBloom, where all NYS student data (including name, address, Social Security number, attendance, test scores, homework completion, career goals, learning disabilities, hobbies, attitudes about school) for all students (including homeschoolers) has already been uploaded—with an eye toward "steering" the students toward certain career paths...what could possibly go wrong?  See the the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) 2013 Legislative Conference Workbook for a list of "partners." 


But in a sense, I digress. While Common Core may seem so huge that it's dificult for us here at Redneck Mansion to wrap our minds around, there are other examples of proposals for PPPs that are smaller in scope, close to home—and being proposed by our own congressman:

U.S. Rep. Tom Reed, R-Corning, is looking to revitalize American manufacturing.
 
Reed, along with U.S. Rep. Joe Kennedy, D-MA, recently introduced to Congress the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2013. The legislation aims to create a network of regional institutes across the country, each focused on a unique technology, material or process relevant to advanced manufacturing. It would include local industry, academia and other stakeholders. The institutes would work to expand research and development, close the gap between R&D and commercialization of products, support small and mid-sized manufacturers and train a top-tier advanced manufacturing workforce...
 
The network would be funded by a one-time, $600 million investment in the National Institute of Standards and Technology...
 
"I care about building things here in America and selling it abroad," Reed said. "That will create long-term, good-quality, high-paying jobs. This act is right up the alley of accomplishing that goal. The purpose of the act is to create centers and institutes focused on bringing public-private partnership together...

What's wrong with this?  This:

...There is actually another, more accurate term for public-private partnerships.  It’s called fascism; plain and simple.  Private business may act as an administrator but the state still pulls the reins.  From a political perspective, public-private partnerships are quite ingenious.  Politicians remain in control while convincing voters they believe in the efficiency of a robust private sector.  And when issues arise over the performance of a service, whatever private firm was granted the monopolistic privilege of delivery can be treated like a scapegoat despite having to operate within government established guidelines.  The state escapes criticism as the public ignorantly clamors for more protection from those evil hearted businessmen.  To the ruling establishment, public-private partnerships are “heads I win, tails you lose.”
 
What the non-exploitive supporters of public-private partnerships tend to forget is that it isn’t just the administration of the service in supposedly private hands that adds to its betterment.  Why the market functions so well is that it is driven by competition from businesses that don’t rely on assistance from the band of thieves who occupy the offices of the state.  Government assistance gives some businesses an upper hand on competitors which can lead to diminishing innovation.  Why compete when Uncle Sam has your back to ensure a decent rate of profit?  Then there are government grants of monopoly which give the chosen company absolutely zero incentive to cut costs.  All of the advantages of private ownership become effectively nullified in public-private partnerships to the detriment of the taxpayer.
 
In our world of unceasing centralization of power, lawmakers are finding more deceptive ways to mask their lust for dominance.  Public-private partnerships are the embodiment of what Mussolini dubbed “corporatism;” that is the “merger of state and corporate power.”  Under corporatism, the ruling class is able to expand unbeknownst to the Boobus Americanus and its equivalent in other countries.  The Average Joe still has his wallet forcefully stripped of its contents but now the state’s cronies get to partake in the plunder.  Meanwhile the same big businessmen who benefit from government privilege still maintain their praise for free markets while working with politicians to forcefully subdue their competition...
Remember that, despite what lefty loons are always trying to tell us, PPPs fascism is not the product of some vast right-wing conspiracy of (supposedly) Republican congresscritters. Fascism is a collectivist economic theory. It believes that the state is the most important element of the economy, not the individual. That's why fascism is a leftist system—it elevates the good of the collective over the good of the individual.  If the individual, or individual private business, is not doing enough for the good of the collective, the state simply gives those individuals a little nudge.  It starts out with a smiley face, with "merely" public-private plunder of taxpayers. Then the nudge morphs into a shove, and then eventually, wah-lah, you've got full-blown statism.
 
It never ends well.
 
There are members of Congress who actually get this: Justin Amash and Tim Huelskamp in the House and Mike Lee and Ted Cruz in the Senate come to mind. Those that don't get it need to be dispatched at the first available opportunity, which for all House members is 2014.
 
Our congressman doesn't get it. As far as we can tell, he's a tool of the left...an unwitting tool, probably, but a tool nevertheless.
 
We in this district need a Republican primary in 2014.
 

Parting shot

See Tom Reynolds' letter in today's Tompkins Weekly (pg.6):

It’s an established economic principle that raising taxes during a recession hurts the economy; Obamacare creates over twenty new taxes.  Wendy Long and Tom Reed will repeal Obamacare while Gillibrand and Shinagawa blindly hold true to their party line.

One Obamacare tax is on medical technology, the key to medical progress.  Does Shinagawa believe taxing innovation will encourage it? 
 
The “Bush Tax cuts” are decade old tax rates that are about to expire and continuing them merely keeps taxes at current levels.  Not extending them is a tax increase! Gillibrand and Shinagawa will vote against established economic principles, while Reed and Long will vote sound economic policy.
 
Shinagawa and Gillibrand’s economic knowledge centers around the talking point, “Tax the rich”.  It’s been shown without serious contradiction (because it’s true) that taxing the rich will not significantly help the national deficit.  Long and Reed understand that the way to balance the budget is a strong overall economy which creates many times more tax revenue than a talking point.    
 
With the national debt and the annual deficit soaring, Gillibrand and Shinagawa want to focus on birth control, which is a non-issue for everyone but Democratic candidates looking to escape the Obama economy. Long and Reed focus on spending control, balancing the budget and reining in a runaway government headed for a fiscal cliff.
 
Gillibrand’s crowning achievement is the STOCK Act, which deals with insider trading by members of Congress. Unfortunately for citizens NOT serving in Congress, it is ineffective and easily bypassed. Gillibrand’s crowning achievement is just business as usual.
 
We need serious people like Tom Reed and Wendy Long.  They understand sound economic principles and that Congress should play by the same rules as everyone else.  Their opponents seem to be economically illiterate and capable only of parroting partisan talking points.
Tom Reed for Congress and Wendy Long for US Senate!
 
 
 

TITANIC: Epic saga of a WNY Rep. and her President

 

What does that fine print say on the bottom?

TWENTYFIRST CENTURY FAIL and BUFFALO NEWS present a MELTDOWN ENTERTAINMENT production of a NANCY PELOSI film "TITANIC" starring BARACK OBAMA KATHY HOCHUL VALERIE JARRETT HARRY REID LEN LENIHAN DOUG BERWANGER DEBORAH WASSERMAN SHULTZ and JERRY ZREMSKI music by LADY GAGA costume designer LOUISE SLAUGHTER co-producers BARACK OBAMA MICHELLE OBAMA film editors FRANK THOMAS, A.C.E. production designer REV JEREMIAH WRIGHT director of photography ANTHONY WEINER, A.S.C special visual effects BILL AYERS executive producer GEORGE SOROS produced by STAN LIPSEY and STEVE PIGEON written and directed by BARACK OBAMA security by LEON PANETTA
Featuring "I'm not really a Democrat" performed by Celine Dion

Rated R
Don't do this to your kids

 

So, listen to Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection and be sure to vote Kathy Hochul out and Chris Collins in in NY-27, and re-elect Ann Marie Buerkle in NY-24 and Tom Reed in NY-23....and definitely send Wendy Long to the US Senate as well.

Oh, yeah, and don't forget to vote for those other two guys—what were their names again?

Home Sweet Home

 Home Rule Should Mean Home Rule

While having coffee with my friend Peregrina at the Dunkin Donuts in Dryden, we began discussing “home rule.”  As many Dryden residents know, the Town has invoked “home rule” as the basis for its recent ban on hydraulic fracturing, a claim that is still under review in the courts.
 
The discussion soon turned to what is the appropriate level of government or geographical grouping to exercise “home rule.”  Why would the best level be the Town or the County?  Then we realized that town and county boundaries are fairly arbitrary, set by geographical accident or the state legislature a long time ago.  As we learned with redistricting, the grouping of people can be changed and which group people are placed in will have a lot to do with how “home rule” really works.  People tend to favor “home rule” when their party rules, sometimes not realizing that power can shift and “home rule” can become very unattractive to them when it does. Take for example people who enjoyed being represented by very liberal Maurice Hinchey who now find themselves in a district with an incumbent Republican Congressman, Tom Reed, which has a thirty thousand registration advantage for Republicans.
 
Then it occurred to us that “home rule” should best be vested in what it says, the home.  That is, the individual homeowner, each allowed “home rule” by making her or his own choice.  But, as Peregrina pointed out, with the current ban, “home rule” is moved to the entire town level, as exercised by some elected officials, so is not “home rule” at all, but rather “rule over the homes.”
 
If the principle being served with “home rule” is to bring the decisions to the lowest and best possible level, why not the homeowner level?  What is sacred about the town level?  If it is not the home, could this not be the County, the region, or even the entire state?  If the level is to be the “best level,” why isn’t it the one with the best expertise and the time and money to analyze the problem?  If individual freedom is the goal, then the individual homeowner would seem the best level.  But, the town would seem to be neither the lowest or best level.
 
Before we broke up our coffee meeting, we decided that we too favor “home rule,” but not “home rule” for government, rather “home rule” for individuals, making decisions for themselves.  That is true “home rule.”
 
Subscribe to Tom Reed