The Difference Between Israeli and Arab Protests

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/07/201173020161903849.html
Equality!
A much vaunted word. Bandied about on banners and bulletins. But take a closer look and people are often talking about VERY difference ideas.

In the various Arab countries, the fight, the laudable and noble protests almost all started over a minor grievance. Security forces reacted brutally using live ammunition on peaceful, unarmed civilians.

As a result - the protests widened their original intent to demanding the government be tossed out.

But behind, the initial and the latter, broader demands was one common element. People wanted an end to corruption and ---here it comes--- an equal opportunity under the law.

Because from one country to another people struggle with basic rights. Certain favored groups have the power and the others are left forever to live on the bottom rungs of the caste.

In Bahrain, for example, the ruling MINORITY bars the majority from many, many opportunities. And to insure loyalty, the monarchy imports security forces from Pakistan. 

Yes - this is very broad brush, but essentially all these people are saying is: Give me a fair chance. I'll study. I'll do the work. Just give me the same shot this other group has: EQUALITY of OPPORTUNITY.

BUT....
In Israel, they are taking to the streets for very different reasons. Something called: "Social Justice".

One protester summed it up well when he said:  "...We want affordable housing, health, education and welfare." Translation? We want that which we haven't earned. We demand others subsidize our lifestyle. We demand our entitlements. And here it comes: We demand EQUALITY of RESULT.

We want to share equally in what OTHERS have created!

And isn't that the whole thrust of socialist dogma? That no matter how hard or smart someone works, no matter how much value she creates - everyone should receive the same payment. The same reward. Whether she works hard or not at all.

And I might add, this is also the problem in America. Too many people have their hand out. Too many people are protesting, begging and throwing fireballs at the other team in order to get their sticky paws on loot and goods they didn't earn.

Today, like Israelis, when Americans talk of Equality, they most often have the second - the socialist, entitlement, welfare grasping - meaning in mind.

Jobless Recovery and the Slide to Socialism

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904772304576468820582615858.html?mod=WSJAsia_hpp_LEFTTopStories

The great media outlets are finally waking up to something that's been apparent to thinking people for years... Recoveries no longer presage JOBS.

The sad thing is, the WSJ is starting to sound like La Liberation, (The organ of the Socialist Party of France).

The article blames the jobless recovery on companies - painting a picture of them reaping mega profits while creating "disposable workers".

But there is another side to the story: A businessman who WANTS to hire but who's decided NOT to.

Why....?

A businessman and would-be employer explained the reasons why he would NOT be hiring. And it had NOTHING to do with the qualifications of applicants or the fact that his business DID in fact need workers.

So - why the hell was he refusing to hire? Isn't this akin to some sort of business suicide?

Nope!

To summarize his article:
As a businessman I MUST be able to control costs. This is fundamental. And because the government keeps increasing the entitlements, payments, taxes, obligations and various and sundry requirements for me to hire and keep an employee,

THE GOVERNMENT MANDATED EXPENSES HAVE BECOME A BLANK CHECK I CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO SIGN.

That's it in a nutshell. Since he can't control the ever-increasing, ever more onerous government imposed costs and obligations, the only way to achieve some level of cost-control is to CEASE hiring.

Sad, but true.

And while his business suffers from lack of qualified people on staff, ie growth is stunted. He's chosen this as the lesser evil to the voracious dragon in his office suite that threatens to devour his whole business if he just goes about hiring people when he needs them.

He ends his essay with this:  "From where I sit, the government's message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price."

Consider this situation multiplied millions upon millions of times and the jobless recovery suddenly makes perfect sense.

Fancy, intellectual sounding arguments are often very seductive and can easily mask the true, often simple causes of problems.

Could this man's explanation reveal the real underlying cause?

I believe so. 



His original essay is included below:
By MICHAEL P. FLEISCHER

With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it's going to be later—much later. Here's why.

Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She's been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay.

Daniel Henninger discusses how Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan agree that Americans should send more of their paychecks to Washington. Also, Fannie and Freddie ask for more cash within weeks of an Obama pledge to end taxpayer rescues.

Before that money hits her bank, it is reduced by the $2,376 she pays as her share of the medical and dental insurance that my company provides. And then the government takes its due. She pays $126 for state unemployment insurance, $149 for disability insurance and $856 for Medicare. That's the small stuff. New Jersey takes $1,893 in income taxes. The federal government gets $3,661 for Social Security and another $6,250 for income tax withholding. The roughly $13,000 taken from her by various government entities means that some 22% of her gross pay goes to Washington or Trenton. She's lucky she doesn't live in New York City, where the toll would be even higher.
More

Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.

Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers' comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally's Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security.

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.

Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming—for my company, and even for Sally too.

Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare.

Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums—for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%.

To offset tax increases and steepening rises in health-insurance premiums, my company needs sustainably higher profits and sales—something unlikely in this "summer of recovery." We can't pass the additional costs onto our customers, because the market is too tight and we'd lose sales. Only governments can raise prices repeatedly and pretend there will be no consequences.

And even if the economic outlook were more encouraging, increasing revenues is always uncertain and expensive. As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company's vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment.

A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government's message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price.

Mr. Fleischer is president of Bogen Communications Inc. in Ramsey, N.J.