Atlas Shrugged is Coming: Obama and Lakota need to see it to learn about economics

It took me a full day for the anger to steam away from my mind once I took three showers and spent hours reading to relax from the most audacious speech I can recall hearing from a president of the United States. The president’s speech was very telling, and ignorant. It is everything warned to us by Ayn Rand over 50 years ago.

Rand warned us in the epic book published in 1957 called Atlas Shrugged of everything the president said in that speech and more.  And finally, a movie is hitting the big screen from that prophetic work.  That movie comes out April 15, 2011. GO SEE IT!!!!!! What is most infuriating with the way the president stood up in front of a room full of people and declared that taxes must be increased to pay for a great America, is that he was simply saying the same mindless rhetoric that our local politicians throw our way when they are trying to pass a school levy. The thought from these people is that money equals success, so we must raise taxes to achieve more success……………………………..

………………are you freaking serious????????????????????

Where do these people come from? Obama is a so-called academic, yet did he take a single class on finance, or don’t they teach that to kids anymore?

I recently spoke about these topics but focused on the local issue of the Lakota School District finance issues to Pulse Journal reporter Lindsey Hilty which she composed in the below article.

The theme of the article was that Lakota is operating with fewer administrators than the state average, so doesn’t that mean they are operating more efficiently than other school districts?

No. Statements like that, just like the president’s speech, is full of smoke and mirrors designed to justify excessively high costs of an out-of-control government at all levels, hoping that people will be foolish enough to just look at the smoke and not at what causes it.
Read that article here:

Lakota has 58% fewer administrators per pupil than state average, report says
By Lindsey Hilty, Staff Writer Updated 1:43 AM Thursday, April 14, 2011

LIBERTY TWP. — At a time when finances of the Lakota Local School District have come under intense scrutiny from voters, officials say state data shows they are running a lean operation.

The district has 58 percent fewer administrators per pupil than the state average, and 20 percent fewer administrators than similar districts, which are categorized by size and demographics, according to the latest report released from the Ohio Department of Education in March.

In the 2009 report, Lakota had 43 percent fewer administrators than the state average, Interim Superintendent Ron Spurlcok said; however, “with our recent budget reductions and consolidations, we have seen that number grow.”
While that number may be touted as a good thing for the bottom line, he warned that it puts a strain on operations.

Assistant principals are responsible for discipline and also must sit in on all individual education plan meetings for students with disabilities.

“We realize economies of scale by running larger buildings, so we can economize where possible,” Kursman said.
However, fewer administrators in larger buildings means a bigger demand for their time, whether it is handling parent concerns, analyzing student data or reviewing teacher performance.

Many buildings now share assistant principals, she said, if the principal is called away for a meeting or to direct traffic due to transportation cuts, there is no one left to manage the building.

Levy opponent Rich Hoffman said he isn’t impressed with the numbers.
“I don’t believe any of the stats they give me anymore, because the reality is that they could do a lot more with a lot less if things really get pushy,” he said.

Hoffman said administrators could be reduced more, but they aren’t the issue.

The problem, he said, is “I think Lakota has drowned itself in salary obligations, and when you’re trying to cover 22 buildings when management of those salary obligations has been bad, it turns out to be a catastrophic mistake. Administrators get paid a lot, but there aren’t so many of them that it affects the bottom line costs, so their damage to the budget is negligible.”

There are too many employees netting more than $65,000 annually, he said, and that is the crux of the problem. He pointed to the salary lists recently published in the Pulse-Journal, and said the increase in employees in just one year who reached the $65,000 plus benchmark is unsustainable.

“You have to get the costs in line, but the costs are your salaries … None of us can afford it anymore.”
Hoffman called for tough negotiations as the board as the Lakota Education Association reopen the 2011-2012 school year contract, and said many in the community would stand behind the board as long as it was aggressive in controlling costs.

In fiscal year 2010, Lakota spent $96 million on salaries. In 2011, that number dropped $2 million due to retirements, no increase to the base salaries and a reduction in force. Employees still earned close to $2 million in step raises, Treasurer Jenni Logan said, but one third of employees, who are at the top of the pay scale, saw no step increase.
As details from legislation like SB 5 keep the district in a holding pattern, Logan said, “Inside the walls of Lakota, we’re focusing on the job at hand, which is educating our students.”

This isn’t just centered on the Lakota School District. Not even the President of the United States seems smart enough to understand the basics of finance. These people who think that showing some false numbers like “Lakota has fewer administrators,” will convince people who all the money we send their way will be spent wisely, are sadly mistaken.

Only a fool thinks that, and in the last Lakota Levy there were many fools that blindly spouted phantom facts because they were too lazy to think about the real problem. Just as the President of the United States received rounds of applause for embarrassing our nation in the eyes of anyone that has any sense throughout the world. Their collective belief is that money will make something better, when all it really ever does is compound the original problems.

It is my hope that when Atlas Shrugged Part 1 comes to the big screen that people intimidated by the length of the book will begin to understand the complex nature of freedom and the value of it.

Rich Hoffman!/overmanwarrior

15 thoughts on “Atlas Shrugged is Coming: Obama and Lakota need to see it to learn about economics

  1. I’ve been reading the reviews of Atlas Shrugged online. As of last night, Rotten Tomatoes was giving it a 0% rating. Even Roger Ebert said that even Ayn Rand fans will find this movie boring.

    I’m reserving judgement until I see it. However, a thought did occur to me last night. The Atlas Shrugged movie is an independent film. The point of such a film is to make an artistic statement on a much lower budget than the usual Hollywood blockbuster. The critics (so far) are trashing the movie for using unknown actors and having reduced production standards compared to said blockbusters. Don’t (primarily) liberals convene at locations like Cannes and Colorado to hold film festivals where they pat each other on the backs and give out awards for making just such independent films?


    1. They filmed this like the producers of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. The Hollywood unions hated that film because it eliminated the set directors to a large extent and employeed many computer techs that don’t fit nicely into the union control. That’s been the union beef with George Lucas. That’s why they’ve snubbed Star Wars behind the curtain. They can’t deny the success at the box office. But they made it hard on him by skipping over Frank Oz for his revolutionary work of Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back, and they clamped down on Lucas for having credits at the end, against the directors union rules, so Lucas had to find a director outside the guild for Return of the Jedi.

      This isn’t a new story with these guys. This film used union labor, but not the kind of talent they want to market within the Hollywood community. That’s why they’re attacking the actors, because they want the Angelina Jolie’s as Dagney, and Brad Pitt as Reardon. If that happened there’d be 40 million just in salaris just in those two people. That’s why this thing hasn’t been done before, because there are too many characters, and until computer animation came down in price, a film like this wasn’t possible on the scale the book requires. Those idiots that are writting those reviews are protecting their industry, the same as teachers do with their union. Its wrong.

      Now, it’s possible they didn’t get the film right. But I don’t think so. I think the filmmakers were commited to this with all their hearts, and I think that will show up on film. And it scares the crap out of Hollywood because it means they’ll have to change how they think to survive.


  2. That’s also why “reality” TV shows are dominating the airwaves now. They don’t have to follow the same union rules as comedies, dramas, etc. and are therefore much cheaper to produce.


  3. Also Rich, I didn’t know where else to post this, but please check out (and comment on) Kasich’s interview with Willie on Thursday. He’s losing me. I loved SB5 but I don’t like his stand on the casinos at all. His “shouldn’t they pay a little more because they can afford it even though a deal was signed” policy sounds a lot like a looter to me. Doc Thompson agrees with me as he stated on Friday morning.


  4. That is today’s post. I’ll have up something about it. I agree about the casino issue. I think he’s showing conservative censorship about that issue and he needs to be even and fair no matter what the business. I have some great video of that event which I’ll put up today, after all these activities.


  5. I wondered if you had the same initial reaction I did- that Kasich, like his Republican predecessors, does not really want casino gambling in Ohio for either moral or political reasons. I thought that he sounded like he might not care (or even prefer) that the casinos just took their business elsewhere, no matter what the people of Ohio voted for. It sounds like you might have.


      1. I saw the movie last night! I’ll save the bulk of my comments until Rich posts his official review. I will say that it’s nowhere near as bad as the reviewers say it is. If you want to see a low budget film with horrible acting, plot, dialogue, cinematography and CGI you can find them on the SyFy channel or direct-to-video. I’ve seen many of them. This movie is not up to Hollywood blockbuster standards but it’s a very good effort, well above the aforementioned cheesy films.

        Review aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes is currently giving Atlas Shrugged a 5% review. Right next to it is the audience review of 86%. That says a lot. I’d give it a B to B+ myself. My best friend who saw the film with me says she’ll go back and see it again with her sister.


      2. I saw it at Newport at 2:55PM. A lot of people were still working. Our theater was at least half full. It was a pretty good demographic mix; older adults to families with children.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.