Jim Terry
Alinsky's rule number three
By Jim Terry
Several years ago a North Texas sheriff appeared before the commissioners court of his county to ask for increased funds in his budget to hire more patrol deputies for the unincorporated areas of the county, areas for which he was legally responsible in keeping the peace. In Texas, as in many states, commissioners courts are the governing body of counties and approve the budgets of county departments.
His justification for the increase in staff was the rampant crime spree which had come to the thousands of county citizens living outside incorporated cities and whose only protection was his force of deputy sheriffs. He explained how that over the past year the murder rate in those rural areas of the county had increased by one hundred percent.
According to the sheriff the county's creeks and rivers were running with innocent blood at the hands of roving bands of assassins. He wanted to double his patrol division to defend his constituents from this war on their existence.
Finally, someone asked the sheriff a simple question, "Sheriff, you have cited a one hundred percent increase in the murder rate in those areas outside any city's jurisdiction, areas of your responsibility. How many murders were committed last year in those areas?"
The sheriff's face grew grim as he looked down at the papers spread on the table in front of him then he raised his head and, looking the questioner directly in the eyes, stated, "Commissioner, last year we had one murder in my jurisdiction, this year there have been two murders. We have had a one hundred percent jump in the murder rate. We need help to protect our citizens."
In a Dallas suburb a few years back, a school district had put together a bond proposal to submit to its citizens. The bonds were for construction of some new schools, upgrading to some schools, a reconstruction of the football stadium and the construction of a natatorium.
The school administration moguls recruited many of the hourly district employees to work for passage of the bonds. School cafeteria employees, maintenance workers and district bus drivers were included in this group. The were engaged in putting out yard signs and standing out front of the polling locations on election day with signs of support and brochures for voters headed to the voting booth.
These lower level school district employees were recruited by the administration, but their motivation was fear. They were told that if the bonds failed most would be laid off. They had a vested interest in the passage of the bonds. In reality, however, the passage of the bonds had no relevance to those employees of the district.
These are mild examples of a politician or political entity employing fear to obtain what they want.
Last Wednesday, February 20, the president held a photo event, surrounded by uniformed police and firemen, no doubt union members, in which he threatened dire consequences if the sequestration (his automatic cuts to the federal budget which was voted into law in 2011) is allowed to take place in March.
He has told America that police and fire fighters, food inspectors, border security agents, military personnel, airport security personnel, school teachers, health care professionals and a myriad of other governmental service providers will be laid off and all those services will suffer, meaning the American people will suffer, if the sequestration cuts are allowed to occur. I find it strange he didn't mention lay offs at the Internal Revenue Service.
Fear mongering is not new to the current situation, nor to the current occupant of the White House.
It is interesting to remember that on July 18, 2011 the president said, "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it." He made this threat-the stoppage of the sixty-two million Social Security checks which go out to beneficiaries monthly-during the debate over raising the debt limit for America's taxpayers.
Fear has been the theme of President Obama's cross country campaign the past few days.
The former community agitator has taken a page from the Marxist radical Saul Alinsky's 1971 book Rules for Radicals. Rule number three states, "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty."
The fact is that if the sequestrations, which were Obama's idea in the first place, occur, the seas will not rise, dinosaurs will not be resurrected, power grids will not fail, earthquakes will not rip apart the earth unless he directs those acts. He has already shown his tyrannical tendency by ordering thousands of illegal immigrants who are being held in jails across the country for their illegal acts to be released to illustrate how bad things will get if his sequestrations come to fruition. He has justified turning these criminals back into the community because of budget cuts which will occur if the Republicans don't cave in to his demands for more taxes.
Democrats have employed fear tactics in almost every national election the past few decades by charging that if Republicans are elected, they will destroy Social Security. The tactic works much of the time with older voters going to the Democrat side. The reality is that Democrats have created most of the problems in the government program.
In fact, while President Obama is fostering a state of fear among Americans over budget cuts, he has proposed a change in the calculation of the Consumer Price Index which will cut Social Security payments to beneficiaries and raise taxes on middle class earners.
On December 17, 2012, the Washington Post reported, "When President Obama tried to reach a comprehensive bargain with Republicans to pay down the federal deficit last year, he floated the idea of changing the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security benefits from the traditional consumer price index to something called a chained Consumer Price Index, or "chained CPI."
The article goes on to say, "Making such a change also means paying out less in Social Security benefits over time..." It also states, "As for taxes, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has calculated that most Americans would pay a little more than $100 more per year"
This is even more than the liberal senior organization and Obama supporter, AARP can stand. AARP has begun a nationwide lobbying effort against this Obama idea.
Are the sequestrations real cuts in spending or something else? There is a difference between how local governments and the Federal Government calculates budget cuts.
In the case of the sheriff who attempted to use fear to increase his budget, here is how it works. Let's say the sheriff's budget for the year in which there was only one murder in his jurisdiction was $100,000. Because of the 100% increase in murders, he asks the commissioners court to increase his budget for the next year to $150,000. Seeing how stupid his argument is, but realizing the sheriff may need some increase for a couple of additional officers because of the increased population in his jurisdiction, the commissioners court gives him $105,000 for his budget for the next year. That is a $5,000 budget increase.
Now, let's say a federal government agency received $100,000 in its budget for 2011. When the agency submits its budget request for 2012, it asks for $150,000. But, in the process, the agency actually receives a budget for 2012 of $120,000. In Washington, this is not a budget increase, but a budget cut. Although the agency will have $20,000 more to spend in the next year, in Washington parlance, this is called a $30,000 budget cut.
What we have, then, is a government which is not honest, one more example of a president clothed in hypocrisy, and worse, a president who resorts to tactics reserved for dictators and tyrants.
NOTE:
As I was finishing up this piece, I learned that the White House has announced the president had no knowledge of the thousands of illegal immigrant criminals released from jails around the country on orders from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security.
This worsens the scenario.
In addition to a dishonest government, we have one more example of a president clothed in hypocrisy, a president who resorts to tactics reserved for dictators and tyrants, and a president who doesn't know what is going on in his administration, which would be easy for him to argue, when we consider his vacation calendar over his term in office.
© Jim Terry
March 1, 2013
Several years ago a North Texas sheriff appeared before the commissioners court of his county to ask for increased funds in his budget to hire more patrol deputies for the unincorporated areas of the county, areas for which he was legally responsible in keeping the peace. In Texas, as in many states, commissioners courts are the governing body of counties and approve the budgets of county departments.
His justification for the increase in staff was the rampant crime spree which had come to the thousands of county citizens living outside incorporated cities and whose only protection was his force of deputy sheriffs. He explained how that over the past year the murder rate in those rural areas of the county had increased by one hundred percent.
According to the sheriff the county's creeks and rivers were running with innocent blood at the hands of roving bands of assassins. He wanted to double his patrol division to defend his constituents from this war on their existence.
Finally, someone asked the sheriff a simple question, "Sheriff, you have cited a one hundred percent increase in the murder rate in those areas outside any city's jurisdiction, areas of your responsibility. How many murders were committed last year in those areas?"
The sheriff's face grew grim as he looked down at the papers spread on the table in front of him then he raised his head and, looking the questioner directly in the eyes, stated, "Commissioner, last year we had one murder in my jurisdiction, this year there have been two murders. We have had a one hundred percent jump in the murder rate. We need help to protect our citizens."
In a Dallas suburb a few years back, a school district had put together a bond proposal to submit to its citizens. The bonds were for construction of some new schools, upgrading to some schools, a reconstruction of the football stadium and the construction of a natatorium.
The school administration moguls recruited many of the hourly district employees to work for passage of the bonds. School cafeteria employees, maintenance workers and district bus drivers were included in this group. The were engaged in putting out yard signs and standing out front of the polling locations on election day with signs of support and brochures for voters headed to the voting booth.
These lower level school district employees were recruited by the administration, but their motivation was fear. They were told that if the bonds failed most would be laid off. They had a vested interest in the passage of the bonds. In reality, however, the passage of the bonds had no relevance to those employees of the district.
These are mild examples of a politician or political entity employing fear to obtain what they want.
Last Wednesday, February 20, the president held a photo event, surrounded by uniformed police and firemen, no doubt union members, in which he threatened dire consequences if the sequestration (his automatic cuts to the federal budget which was voted into law in 2011) is allowed to take place in March.
He has told America that police and fire fighters, food inspectors, border security agents, military personnel, airport security personnel, school teachers, health care professionals and a myriad of other governmental service providers will be laid off and all those services will suffer, meaning the American people will suffer, if the sequestration cuts are allowed to occur. I find it strange he didn't mention lay offs at the Internal Revenue Service.
Fear mongering is not new to the current situation, nor to the current occupant of the White House.
It is interesting to remember that on July 18, 2011 the president said, "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it." He made this threat-the stoppage of the sixty-two million Social Security checks which go out to beneficiaries monthly-during the debate over raising the debt limit for America's taxpayers.
Fear has been the theme of President Obama's cross country campaign the past few days.
The former community agitator has taken a page from the Marxist radical Saul Alinsky's 1971 book Rules for Radicals. Rule number three states, "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty."
The fact is that if the sequestrations, which were Obama's idea in the first place, occur, the seas will not rise, dinosaurs will not be resurrected, power grids will not fail, earthquakes will not rip apart the earth unless he directs those acts. He has already shown his tyrannical tendency by ordering thousands of illegal immigrants who are being held in jails across the country for their illegal acts to be released to illustrate how bad things will get if his sequestrations come to fruition. He has justified turning these criminals back into the community because of budget cuts which will occur if the Republicans don't cave in to his demands for more taxes.
Democrats have employed fear tactics in almost every national election the past few decades by charging that if Republicans are elected, they will destroy Social Security. The tactic works much of the time with older voters going to the Democrat side. The reality is that Democrats have created most of the problems in the government program.
In fact, while President Obama is fostering a state of fear among Americans over budget cuts, he has proposed a change in the calculation of the Consumer Price Index which will cut Social Security payments to beneficiaries and raise taxes on middle class earners.
On December 17, 2012, the Washington Post reported, "When President Obama tried to reach a comprehensive bargain with Republicans to pay down the federal deficit last year, he floated the idea of changing the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security benefits from the traditional consumer price index to something called a chained Consumer Price Index, or "chained CPI."
The article goes on to say, "Making such a change also means paying out less in Social Security benefits over time..." It also states, "As for taxes, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has calculated that most Americans would pay a little more than $100 more per year"
This is even more than the liberal senior organization and Obama supporter, AARP can stand. AARP has begun a nationwide lobbying effort against this Obama idea.
Are the sequestrations real cuts in spending or something else? There is a difference between how local governments and the Federal Government calculates budget cuts.
In the case of the sheriff who attempted to use fear to increase his budget, here is how it works. Let's say the sheriff's budget for the year in which there was only one murder in his jurisdiction was $100,000. Because of the 100% increase in murders, he asks the commissioners court to increase his budget for the next year to $150,000. Seeing how stupid his argument is, but realizing the sheriff may need some increase for a couple of additional officers because of the increased population in his jurisdiction, the commissioners court gives him $105,000 for his budget for the next year. That is a $5,000 budget increase.
Now, let's say a federal government agency received $100,000 in its budget for 2011. When the agency submits its budget request for 2012, it asks for $150,000. But, in the process, the agency actually receives a budget for 2012 of $120,000. In Washington, this is not a budget increase, but a budget cut. Although the agency will have $20,000 more to spend in the next year, in Washington parlance, this is called a $30,000 budget cut.
What we have, then, is a government which is not honest, one more example of a president clothed in hypocrisy, and worse, a president who resorts to tactics reserved for dictators and tyrants.
NOTE:
As I was finishing up this piece, I learned that the White House has announced the president had no knowledge of the thousands of illegal immigrant criminals released from jails around the country on orders from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security.
This worsens the scenario.
In addition to a dishonest government, we have one more example of a president clothed in hypocrisy, a president who resorts to tactics reserved for dictators and tyrants, and a president who doesn't know what is going on in his administration, which would be easy for him to argue, when we consider his vacation calendar over his term in office.
© Jim Terry
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
