Thankfulness and OWS

Thankfulness and OWS
By Cal Thomas
11/24/2011

For more than half my life I was a 99-percenter. I kept my first pay stubs in the news business to remind me where I came from and what was necessary in order to get where I am today.

In 1975, while working at a TV station in Houston, I wrote a letter to a friend in Washington complaining about my stalled career and low salary. "I will probably die here with my boots on, boots bought on a revolving charge and not fully paid for," I griped. My memory is not that good. He kept the letter and showed it to me a few years ago. We laughed.

At age 37, I was making $25,000 a year with few prospects of earning more. Suddenly things began to change. All the hard work and experience resulted in a better job and more pay.

As a young reporter, I interviewed many successful people. "Where did you go to college and what did you study?" I asked them. "What is your philosophy of life and work ethic?" Rather than envy them, I wanted to be like them.

This is what's missing from the envy culture of the movement known as Occupy Wall Street (OWS). Envy is greed's equally bad brother. Those who lack what they think they deserve lust after the money and property of wealth creators. They seem to know little of what used to be called the "work ethic."

Many in the OWS crowd are also deficient in their understanding of economics. There is not a single pie from which all must eat. Instead, life contains a recipe everyone can follow to make pies for themselves. The pies are not guaranteed to be the same size for all, but if the right ingredients are used, those pies can make anyone self-sufficient.

This is the great philosophical divide that liberal politicians have effectively used to gain power for themselves while dooming increasing numbers of their fellow Americans to a life of dependency, failure and envy.

The recently failed debt commission contained elements of a poison familiar to many who have succeeded in life by their own efforts. Democrats wanted to tax the rich even more, but has a tax increase ever resulted in less spending? When the federal government gets more of our money, it doesn't suddenly become fiscally responsible. The more money it gets, often the more it spends.

In an America not long ago, we encouraged persistence. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again" was a little saying I often heard growing up. Now it seems the message too many are sending and receiving is, "If at first you don't succeed, don't try again; turn to government (or a lawyer)."

I am thankful to live in a country that still rewards hard work, personal responsibility and accountability. But that country, which was my role model as a young man, is rapidly fading into history. Human nature is such that a substantial number of people can be addicted to a government check if they choose not to work. But many of our grandparents taught us by example that the pursuit of success was a noble quest. Parents once bragged about what their children had become.

How many parents are bragging about their kids occupying cities and universities and fouling the ground and streets with human waste?

Bill Bradley, former Democratic senator and professional basketball player, once observed: "Ambition is the path to success. Persistence is the vehicle you arrive in."

We should be thankful for such truth. I would be more thankful if it were on the rise instead of in decline.
_________________________________________

Searching For the Perfect Candidate
By Cal Thomas
11/22/2011

Now it's Newt's turn. Having risen to the top in some opinion polls, the former speaker of the House is taking heat for large consulting fees paid to him by the government-sponsored mortgage company Freddie Mac for wisdom a New York Times editorial said was so simplistic it might have come from a fortune cookie.

As Republican presidential candidates rise only to fall when their imperfections are brought to light, Republican voters risk disappointment in 2012 by playing the left's game on their turf and by their rules. What they must do instead is to protect their "product" at a time when the opportunity to hold Barack Obama to one term, while taking the Senate and increasing their House majority, has never looked better.

The best candidate would clearly be a composite of the eight still standing: Mitt Romney's business sense and debating skills; Newt Gingrich's experience in Washington and knowledge of how to tear down the enormous bureaucracy and make government function the way the founders intended; Herman Cain's political passion and the added bonus of being a conservative African-American; Ron Paul's fealty to the Constitution and his call for America to rethink its military role in the world; Jon Huntsman's knowledge of China, which will remain important for decades; Rick Santorum's and Michele Bachmann's strong moral voices (along with her singular feminine voice) in an age of societal flux; and Rick Perry's Southwestern values and evangelical faith.

Unfortunately, Republicans can't vote for a composite; they'll have to choose one candidate, hopefully one they won't come to regret.

There is something else Republicans must not do. They must avoid making the same mistake Democrats make by looking to government as a first resource. If they are to reduce the size, reach and cost of government, they must demonstrate how they intend to empower Americans. If they are going to deprive Washington of power, they must show people who have ceded personal control to government why they would be better off taking care of themselves. Tell stories about those who have overcome obstacles to become self-sustaining.

The liberal left has so addicted half the country to government entitlement programs and the fiction that they can't possibly make it in life without the aid of government that many have forgotten the meaning of personal freedom and the power that comes with it.

Back to Newt. That Gingrich took money from Freddie Mac, an agency he now derides, may seem like hypocrisy to some, but not to me. I, for example, think the Department of Agriculture should be closed, though I once worked for them. I also received a student loan, which I repaid, though I am now critical of how some of the government's student loan programs are run. I attended public schools, but believe parents ought to be able to send their kids to a private school if it promises to offer a better education. Am I hypocritical?

Gingrich could return his fees to Freddie Mac, but that wouldn't satisfy his critics. He should only make the offer if some of those top Fannie execs who received fat bonuses gave them back.

For their role in the failed government loan program that aided the bankrupt Solyndra, President Obama and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu are not getting anywhere near the heat Gingrich is getting over Freddie Mac.

The U.S. government, as part of its "Fast and Furious" program, sent guns to Mexican drug cartels in hopes of tracing them to cartel leaders and making arrests. Are we holding the administration accountable? There are different standards for Republicans and Democrats.

Looking for a perfect candidate will end in disappointment. Consider President Obama, his falling poll numbers and the misplaced faith too many voters had in him in 2008. Republicans should not make the same mistake in selecting the next GOP presidential candidate.

By realizing the imperfections in every candidate -- and every person -- and focusing on the ability of the one who is nominated to do what he promises, Republicans will have a better candidate and the country could have a better (but not perfect) president.
____________________________________________

To read another article by Cal Thomas, click here.