Showing posts with label subsidy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label subsidy. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

TIME TO WALK THE WALK, HOLLYWOOD

The Drudge Report's headline for this morning is "Couric Faces Pay Cut; Deep Layoffs Hit CBS News".  In the story, an unnamed sources is quoted as saying,

"She makes enough to pay 200 news reporters $75,000 a year!" demands a veteran producer. "It's complete insanity."
The angry source continues: "We report with great enthusiasm how much bankers are making, how it is out of step with reality during a recession. We'll look at Katie!"

Amen!  I'm getting really tired of the hypocritical demonization of parts of our society by other sectors that really should just shut the heck up.  What really gets my goat is that people like Katie Couric, Will Ferrell, Jim Carrey and Michael Moore (and most of Hollywood, for that matter) attack capitalism and promote their euro-socialist/neo-marxist views - often in really insulting, patronizing ways that make me want to smack them, quite frankly. 

Don't get me wrong - I love the fact that people can make ridiculous money in this country.  This is capitalism at it's best, and I define myself as a capitalist far more than a republican, democrat or libertarian.  I myself wouldn't mind commanding a multi-million dollar salary, and don't begrudge anyone else making it, provided it is earned.  It's the hypocrisy of the celebrity set that really chaps my hide.

The Hollywood elites love to talk about how stupid Americans are for not seeing their point of view.  This from morons who attack capitalism as fatally flawed - the very same evil capitalism that has made them multi-millionaires.  I have a rather long list now of actors and musicians that I refuse to support financially because of their obnoxious, elitist dismissal of the 'unwashed masses' and the capitalist system that took many of them from poverty and obscurity to the golden, decadent heights of prosperity and world fame.

What really kills me are people like Will Ferrell and Jim Carrey, whose movies barely make enough to cover their multi-million dollar salaries and threaten the entire studio with financial implosion, and yet they sit on their high horses and attack CEO's and bankers for their multi-million dollar salaries.   Even better, they feel they have the right to preach to us about policies they know nothing about.

Well, those companies have been bailed out or subsidized with taxpayer money, they argue, so they should be demonized - they wasted our money!  Oh, that's right, I forgot - movies don't get any subsidies or tax breaks whatsoever.

Yes, I'm tired of bank bailouts.  Yes, I think CEO's and bankers making enormous profits on failed businesses is criminal.  But I also think that the same thing is happening in Hollywood and in sports. 

A great example is the obscene amount of money Conan O'Brien just made to effectively do nothing for three years.  And how did his working class staff fare, after uprooting themselves from NY to LA?  They sure didn't end up with $30 million and a three year hiatus.  Granted, they ended up splitting $12 million in severance, but, considering he had about 200 staff members, that equals about $60,000 per person - not a lot of money for LA.  Conan is getting lots of kudos for his role in demanding severance pay for his people, and I agree with that - if he hadn't, those people would have gotten nothing.

But think about it this way - if he were a Wall Street banker who had to shut down his business and paid his staff $60,000 while he walked away with $30 million, people would be calling for his head - with a huge portion of those calls originating in Hollywood.  But because he is a celebrity, they instead celebrate his generosity and consideration for his staff and make him into some sort of comedic Mother Teresa.

I took my kids to see Avatar at the Imax over the holidays, and for the four of us, it cost $60+ dollars, just for the tickets.  Add in popcorn and drinks and maybe a box of Sno-Caps and some Twizzlers, and you are easily looking at a $100 layout.  Did I mention it was a matinee?  Thankfully, it was a fantastic movie and we had a great time, but how often can you say that anymore with all of the cheesy remakes and really blatantly bad movies Hollywood has been pumping out over the past few years?  I know we won't be setting foot in a theater again until Iron Man 2 comes out - only real blockbusters are worth the outlay anymore, and even then we have been sorely disappointed.

I love professional football and hockey, and love seeing the games live, but have not done so in about a decade because a day at the stadium now costs an average of about $400 for a family of four.  If you are a Dallas fan, you can expect to pay about $700+.  My point is that the cost of those millionaire salaries and big, expensive stadiums is passed directly to us, the consumer, just as the cost of those Wall Street salaries is ultimately picked up by the American taxpayer. 

So if all of those Hollywood socialists are so hot to 'spread the wealth around', they should start with their own wealth, and leave what little I have alone.  It's nice to know that there are some, like those at CBS, who are starting to see that.

Hollywood has been talking the Progressive talk for decades - now it's time to walk the walk.  Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. Ferrell.  Stop living off the same teat you demonize, Mr. Moore.  You want a fair and free society, Mr. Penn?  How about you accept $150,000 for your next role, with no points on the back end, just a flat $150, like your cameramen make? 

If you want to foist the socialist utopia on us, you damn well better be prepared to join the ranks.  If not, shut the hell up.  I could care less what your views are on the world.  I don't make it a habit to take life advice from people who pretend for a living.  Many of them can't even string two sentences together without a writer putting the words in their mouths - a trait they seem to have in common with the Teleprompter Kid, now I think about it (btw, you'll thank me if you click the teleprompter kid link - too funny!).

As for Couric, well, she was a waste of money from the get-go.  I can't wait to see her response to the possibility of having her wealth 'redistributed'....

Read more...
Share/Save/Bookmark

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

POLITICAL FREEZE

The President is expected to propose a freeze on discretionary spending in his State of the Union tomorrow.  The pundits are having a field day, trotting out campaign video of Candidate Obama lambasting John McCain for suggesting the same thing and crowing about another example of liberal hypocracy. 

Yes, yes, it's hypocritical, but that is just a little minor side issue.  The bigger issue is what is and isn't being cut and how much is really coming off.

The freeze will basically keep discretionary spending at 2010 levels until 2013.  What is not being mentioned is how much funding went up in the past year under the democrats.  Much like stores are accused of jacking up prices before declaring a sale, our federal government has jacked up spending before demanding a freeze.  To the tune of about 12%.  That should keep them until the freeze is over (then prepare for another huge increase to make up for three years of no increases).

So who doesn't make the cut, you ask?  Well, the military, for one.  This actually comes as quite a surprise.  Not that the Pentagon couldn't afford to trim $30 or $40 billion, but usually the military is the first place liberals go to make cuts - deep ones.  All entitlements are exempt, of course.  Too bad they won't rescind the Welfare reform repeal they legislated last year.  The reforms of the 1990's were so successful because states were no longer getting paid to increase their welfare rolls.  Welfare became a fiscal burden to the states instead of a subsidy bonanza - they couldn't afford it anymore, so they cut programs.  Obama, Pelosi and Reid have reinstituted those payoffs to states for increasing their rolls with the passage of the stimulus bill.  How about cutting that? 

The other objectionable 'mandatory' spending item is international aid.  Now, for emergency situations like Haiti, I think a certain amount of aid is necessary.  However, Obama pledged $900 million to Hamas last year, for example, to help them rebuild after the latest skirmish with Israel.  No money was pledged to Israel, but Hamas, a terror group that has been previously unrecognized by our government because of it's stance against Israel, is offered nearly a billion dollars.  That money will most likely go to rebuilding their depleted munitions stores instead of infrastructure and aid to it's citizens.  I say every terrorist for themselves - cut the payout.

Any and all international aid not related directly to emergency circumstances should be halted immediately.  The rest of the world may feel the pinch of a few years without (or reduced) American aid, but it gives us a chance to save ourselves.  The world economy is sinking.  We are the strongest swimmers out there, but we are being dragged down by all of the hangers on.  It's time to focus on saving ourselves first, so we can then help everyone else.   A three year pinch is a heck of a lot more desirable to tanking the economy that drives the globe.

So don't get caught up in the hypocrite hype.  There are much bigger (and more expensive) issues at stake.  We need more than just politically expedient freezes.  We need deep, meaningful cuts.  It's time to get to the red meat.

Read more...
Share/Save/Bookmark

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP