In so far as some people will not have the chance to learn the truth of the matter, it is, for someone who knows Laura as a conscientiously fair and honest person, both saddening and infuriating to see her, of all people, become the target of a "hit piece" of political defaming (see below P.S.).
But then, in the end, I am convinced that Laura's natural integrity will be her best advertisement among those that meet her during the campaign and those who know her anyway, as well as reaching many more on-line and by word of mouth.
Laura is a wonderfully balanced person of warmth, responsibility and circumspection, ideally suited to represent her fellow Nebraskans in the Legislature.
Yesterday, my mother-in-law received a "hit piece"--paid for by the Nebraska Democratic Party--suggesting that "Laura Ebke: TOO Extreme for Women"--and that I was saying NO Health care that Nebraska Women deserve--like Mammograms, coverage of pre-existing conditions, and affordable access to contraception.
They refer the Campaign for Liberty Legislative survey, found here:http://www.campaignforliberty.org/surveys2/?id=59. My opponent didn't bother to answer it--nor did a lot of other candidates. I'm sure that this refers to the question about opposing Obamacare.
As the wife of a physician--and a woman--it's laughable to suggest that I am *against* any of those things. I just happen to believe that Obamacare doesn't fix the problem of access.
Today is Germany Unity Day, a public holiday. An occasion to ponder political developments in the country.
German Christian Democrats, the CDU, and their sister party in Bavaria, CSU, have followed a policy since the 1960s which left no room for a sizeable political movement to their right. This worked well with only negligible groups of no consequence emerging. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel seems to have changed this strategy, writes Prince Michael of Liechtenstein.
A new party, the AfD (Alternative for Germany), emerged in 2013, first with just an economic programme, promoted in principle by some well-recognised economists. The party’s main issue was criticism of the euro. Although it was not a populist or extreme party, the political establishment, including Chancellor Merkel, labelled it right wing and towards the extremist corner.
Propaganda against the AfD by government, the established parties and large parts of the media, was enormous. However their programme was defendable and certainly not radical. Realising the deficiencies of the euro and questioning transfer payments is part of normal political debate.
The new party took almost five per cent of the vote in Germany’s last national elections, despite the hostile propaganda. This was a real success, but just missed the five per cent threshold for a seat in the German Federal Parliament.
The party reached some seven per cent in the European Elections in May 2014 and is now represented in the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The big leap came when the party topped some 10 per cent in elections for three German lander or states. AfD is a political factor now. Its members are fierce free market supporters who promote entrepreneurship. But analysis shows gains from the centre – their base – and from the left.
Now the CDU has a real competitor in the centre right. Chancellor Merkel’s election tactics have been to destroy opposition campaigns by taking over their issues. Her decision to phase out nuclear energy left the Green Party without a popular cause. The introduction of minimum wages damaged the Social Democrats.
This short-term tactic was successful for Mrs Merkel’s CDU, but may have alienated supporters on the centre right. The classic economic party, the liberal FDP, was Mrs Merkel’s coalition partner until the last elections and was almost annihilated by following her policies.
So will Mrs Merkel continue to pursue her old tactics and adopt the AfD’s cause? Will she become less supportive of the euro and reduce or stop transfer payments to fiscally shaky eurozone countries?
The AfD’s success in local elections could have European implications.
My point here does not concern the rate of actual abuse - though I tend to believe that by and large there is a reasonable correlation between top management pay and performance -, it concerns the question of who should be in charge of payment decisions.
It really shouldn’t surprise that an awful lot of people are remarkably ignorant about the world that they inhabit ...
... erroneously thinking they are competent and entitled to call the tune on executive pay.
The error though is in what is then assumed should be done about it. For of course you can already hear the screams (from people like the High Pay Commission) insisting that as the average voter doesn’t want there to be this income disparity therefore there should not be this income disparity. The error being that what the CEO of a large company gets paid is none of the damn business of the average voter.
It’s the business of those doing the paying: and if the shareholders in a company wish to pay the person managing their business handsomely then that’s entirely up to them. Nothing to do with the jealousy of the mob at all.
There is a small coda: some argue that it’s the same old interlocking boards that keep raising the CEO’s pay, knowing that their own will get raised in turn. The theory that the managerial class is ripping off the owners, the shareholders. It’s true that this could happen, principal/agent theory is true. However, if this were true then private equity would be paying their managers considerably less than public companies do as they would not be subject to this rip off. Given that in reality, out here in the world, private equity pays very much better than public companies do then this isn’t true either.