The South Plainsman

Bits and Pieces for January 12, 2012

2012-01-12T10:42:00.006-06:00

Haley Barbour? Tell me it is not true! Apparently the conservative, law and order Republican governor of Mississippi has pardoned a bunch of criminals, including 14 murderers. Even the Democrats are appalled. Ths story can be found here.

Marin County, California is going to outlaw smoking tobacco, but the county supervisors are going out of their way to make sure marijuana is not included in the ban. I suppose it shows a lot about the culture out there.

Marin’s war on smoking was blunted Tuesday as a measure cracking down on tobacco and other “weed” was sent back for revision to make clear the crackdown does not include marijuana.

Although supervisors were in agreement with the policy when county staff last month asserted an ordinance outlawing smoking in unincorporated-area apartments included marijuana and other herbs as well as tobacco, the county board Tuesday abruptly called for revisions making clear tobacco was the only weed at issue.

This is not a joke. Coverage from the Marin Independent Journal is here.

Law and Order. Steven Hayward over at Power Line Blog has a good short story on the Obama recess appointments. It is a discussion with Tom Campbell. Read it here. Obama is pretty clearly making new precendent with them. What will be the end result?

Defense spending is shovel ready. So says Victor Davis Hanson. Pointing out that defense spending is not the real problem he concludes:

The decline of civilizations of the past -- fourth-century-B.C. Athens, fifth-century-A.D. Rome, 15th-century Byzantium, or 1930s Western Europe -- was not caused by their spending too much money on defense or not spending enough on public entitlements. Rather, their expanding governments redistributed more borrowed money, while a dependent citizenry wanted even fewer soldiers to guarantee ever more handouts.

History's bleak lesson is that those societies with self-reliant citizens who protect themselves and their interests prosper; those who grow dependent cut back their defenses -- and waste away.

Some people never learn.

Orangutans using iPads at zoos - soon to use Skype. For all of you iPad owners that think you are smart, just read this article from Gizmag.com.

"They like many of the free apps that I think children would like - they like the free apps where you can fingerpaint, they like the apps where you can use the drums," says Trish Khan, Milwaukee County Zoo's orangutan keeper.

Maybe we humans aren't as much smarter than the apes as we thought. lol

Climate change from CO2 may not be as bad as predicted. Also from Gizmag is a story about the new report from the National Science Foundation's Paleoclimate Program that says that climate change may be far less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought.

"Many previous climate sensitivity studies have looked at the past only from 1850 through today, and not fully integrated paleoclimate date, especially on a global scale," said Schmittner. "When you reconstruct sea and land surface temperatures from the peak of the last Ice Age 21,000 years ago - which is referred to as the Last Glacial Maximum - and compare it with climate model simulations of that period, you get a much different picture.

"If these paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future, as predicted by our model, the results imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought," Schmittner added.

The sciece of anthropogenic global warming is still not settled, in spite of what the scaremongers who wish to profit from government programs would have you believe.

Masters of the World. That is what the Muslims Brotherhood's goal is. And good old Jimmy Carter says about their election in Egypt:

"I don't have any problem with that,and the U.S. government doesn't have any problem with that either. We want the will of the Egyptian people to be expressed."

I knew Carter when he was President, personally. He became the reason why I left the Democratic Party, along with the policies he and they espoused.

Like Obama, he has no use for the national interest of the United States. He would turn the whole world over to the radicals.

Bits and Pieces for January 11, 2012

2012-01-11T10:55:00.012-06:00

New Hampshire. Romney and Obama both win, as expected. For a lot of stories, go to Memeorandum, which has a lot of links. Good site.

Pay particular attention to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog. Although he is a liberal and it is a New York Times blog, he is probably the best analyst out there these days. Pretty positive outlook for Romney, as one might expect.

Obama's War on Energy. John Hinderaker has a blurb over at PowerLine about this, with a good chart. He concludes, correctly:

The real question, of course, is how much petroleum is being recovered from public lands. Because of three years of Obama anti-energy policies, energy development is down substantially:
Oil production on federal lands is down 13 percent in 2011: 97,721,813 barrels in 2011 versus 112,124,812 barrels in 2010.
This is what happens when we have an administration that thinks Americans consume too many resources, which is to say, live too well.

Mr. Obama’s 99% — Are We Poor or Just Unequal or Both or Neither?

Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent essay up exploring the differences between the 99% and the 1% that has been in all the news lately. I highly recommend it. He concludes:

Keep all that in mind as we enter the most divisive, class-warfare campaign in recent memory. We are living in the upside-down world Orwell wrote about. A president who likes upscale golf a lot, and Martha’s Vineyard even more, who has hired three “fat cat” bankers as his chiefs of staff (how odd that Emanuel and Lew probably both made a lot out of the Freddie/Fannie bubble), and who is the largest recipient of Wall Street cash in history now argues that half of America suffers from the hands of “them.”

Being unequal is not poor. And not having what the “rich” have hardly means having it bad. Sorry, that’s just the way it is.

FuturePundit reports that full genome sequencing costs are dropping to close to $1,000 per genome. The way things are going it won't be long before it is affordable for anyone that wants it.

These low prices are going to drive up the rate of full genome sequencing. Therefore expect to see an explosion of discoveries on what the many genetic variants mean. What I'm especially looking forward to: genetically derived personal advice on ideal diet, exercise, sleep, and other lifestyle choices.

I have had a small bit of mine sequenced, and the information derived is quite interesting. I got my testing at Family Tree DNA and tranferred it and had additional testing at 23andMe as well. It is all pretty interesting.

A Future History. Came across this wandering around some science blogs. Kind of wild speculation, but interesting. Much seems impossible, but I remember my Dad telling me in the 1950s (I was reading science fiction of the day) that men would never go to the moon. Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon less that three years after he passed away. For those who may be interested in space, this is an interesting read.

Here are the writer's prediction for 2015:

By 2015:
By now, Virgin Galactic will have flown dozens of tourists into space, and anticipation will be growing for the next step – Bigelow’s orbiting hotels. It should come as no surprise that many couples are already making advanced bookings with a wink toward zero-gravity sex. The Google Lunar X-Prize will have been won and a few companies vying to dominate the resulting private space probe market. Exoplanets continue to be discovered, with a few Earth-sized planets plus many more large planets in habitable zones, but as yet no confirmed Earth-like planet.

With commercial launch capabilities now obvious even to Congress, plus growing space programs in other nations, the ambivalence toward NASA is finally subsiding. Human spaceflight, beyond the recreational commercial near-Earth activities is now being pursued in the form of multinational programs and the negative stigma of nuclear space propulsion and power is waning. NASA has a large role in making that happen, along with a resumption of the research to bring the more-difficult space technologies to fruition.

There are a lot more predictions. Go to the site and see what they are.

Twinkies. Has filed for bankruptcy according to the WSJ. It owes the union nearly $1 billion, and can't pay. It has tried to sell out, but there are no buyers. Too bad.

Paying College Athletes is a Terrible Idea. So says Mark Emmert in today's Wall Street Journal.

There are fundamental flaws in the pay-for-play mantra. Proponents naively think that paying players will solve all the problems involving agents, team boosters and others who are willing to break rules. They are wrong. The stakes will simply be raised to bribe athletes to attend a school, support them financially for the agent's future gain, or help them cheat in school. No, paying players a salary would make the situation worse.

Can't say I disagree but what he proposes may do the trick. The problem is that the NCAA doesn't have the guts to really enforce the rules, and larger schools get away with a lot of violations, and aren't really punished when they are caught. It is a lot easier for an Oklahoma or Ohio State or an Oregon or a USC to get away with it because the NCAA is dependent on schools like that for their money. They don't make any off of Arkansas State, or similar schools.

We have to be willing to take hard stands based on our principles. Rather than push college athletics further and further from academics, we need to bring it closer. The values of our colleges and universities need to be consistent across the campus, classroom and playing fields. Coaches, administrators and student-athletes need to be held to the same standards and expectations as all members of the community.

That's what we started in the fall: clearing the way for student-athletes to get a $2,000 miscellaneous expense allowance, awarding multiyear scholarships, raising academic standards, simplifying the rule book, and toughening the penalties for egregious rule breakers.

I will have to see it to believe it.

Is Romney the only Republican candidate that has not alienated more than one half of the Republican Party? Jay Cost over at the Weekly Standard suggests that it is atleast so in New Hampshire.

We have heard a lot over the last couple months about the anti-Romney sentiment in the Republican party. However, this statistic suggests that, in New Hampshire at any rate, Romney is the only candidate with whom a majority of the party is satisfied. The rest of the candidates seem to have alienated more than half of the GOP.

There is more analysis in the story. Read the whole thing at the site.

Did Ron Paul win the liberal crossover vote in New Hampshire? So say Jim Hoft, who has the exit polls here. Go read it all at the site.

Bits and Pieces for January 10, 2012

2012-01-10T13:51:00.004-06:00

Politics. Is anybody getting pretty sick at the inanity of our politics and the press coverage thereof? I am. Is contraception or the ability of someone in the private sector to fire people all that important?

This may be the most important election in our lifetime, and nobody is really doing much talking about what the real issues are, or the press is not covering it.

We need to get serious about this. Now.

Is it just me. Or is it just a dull day all over while we wait for New Hampshire to vote?

I guess it is not dull in the world of medicine. Brigham and Women's Hospital, via E! Science News, has announced:

Researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) have successfully tested a controllable endoscopic capsule, inspired by science fiction, that has the ability to "swim" through the body and could provide clinicians with unprecedented control when photographing the inside of the human body. The capsule is designed to be swallowed like a pill and can be equipped with a camera. Once inside the patient's digestive track, a doctor can "steer" the capsule through the body using an MRI machine, photograph specific areas of interest, and view those pictures wirelessly.

Wow! Anyone that has ever had endoscopy or colonoscopy will appreciate this research. Let's hope the FDA won't screw this up.

The Congressional Budget Office has released a brief on suggested changes to Medicare and Social Security eligibility. They have a chart on their blog. The blog concludes:

CBO estimates that by 2035, the set of increases just described would cause outlays for Social Security and Medicare to fall by 0.4 percent of GDP and federal revenues to rise by around a half percent of GDP—leading to a reduction in the budget deficit of nearly 1 percent of GDP, not including the effects of lower interest outlays. Altogether, by 2060, the federal budget deficit would be reduced by about 1¾ percent of GDP.

In a 15+ trillion dollar economy, those can be big numbers. Enough to save the system? Who knows?

Maybe something will come out of the MF Global scandal. Seems one of the perps wants to make a deal:

While prosecutors and regulators have jointly conducted dozens of depositions with former and current employees, a senior official in the Chicago office of MF Global recently declined to meet with the federal authorities, people briefed on the investigation said.

That official, Edith O’Brien, a treasurer at MF Global, is considered a “person of interest” in the investigation, the people said. Federal authorities suspect that she transferred about $200 million to JPMorgan Chase in London on the eve of the bankruptcy of MF Global, money that turned out to be customer cash.

If they can get some of the rats to rat on the others, maybe at long last we will see a big banker do the perp walk. There have been far too few prosecutions of the bankers who have perpetrated huge frauds against the public. Of course, the reason for that is they are being protected by politicians including the one at the very top.

The top perp in this case is Jon Corzine, one of Obama's big pals.

Bits and Pieces for the Day

2012-01-09T10:55:00.010-06:00

Speaking of Goldman Sachs, Timothy Haight, writing in The Orange County Register, says that the Dodd-Frank legislation did not solve the problem of the Too Big to Fail financial institutions.

Unfortunately, legislation enacted does not solve the fundamental problem. It simply provides cover for those who were asleep at the wheel, while ignoring the underlying cause of the crisis.

Some, of course, knew this. Including most in Congress. But many in the public were fooled. Our ignorance is going to come back and bite us. He recommends that we go back to Glass-Steagall and increase bank capital requirements. He would also cap the FDIC insurance on bank deposits per institution. That is leave the coverage where it is for smaller banks, but cap the exposure in the very big ones.

My thought is that the FDIC should charge premiums to the large banks according to the real risk they have. But that would require that they be honest with their risks, and right now the Federal Reserve and the Treasury are permitting them all to pretend they aren't already broke. I call it The Golden Rule: those with the gold, make the rules. In spite of their anger at Obama, they have had it real good the last few years. And they have pretty much had their way with the Congress and the President.

Uh Oh. Charles Gasparino says in the New York Post that Goldman Sachs is supporting Romney this year after having been Obama's big supporter in 2008.

What makes Goldman’s move to the right so striking is just how far to the left it was in 2008. The Goldman community gave more than a $1 million to the 2008 Obama campaign, bested only by donors tied to the ultraliberal University of California. But the latest contribution records (through the end of September) show that Goldman-linked givers barely crack the top 20 of Obama donors, with a little more than $50,000 toward his 2012 re-election effort.

Now they are the leading source of cash for Romney. They are good at picking winners. That has given them unprecedented power and influence in Congress and the executive for many years. How else could they have gotten the huge bailouts in 2008 and since?

Romney should not celebrate this. It gives many a sound reason to oppose him. Very sound. The crony capitalism we have had the last two decades is a huge part of the financial difficulties we have been experiencing. GS and a lot of the huge institutions have way too much influence.

Tim Tebow. What more can one say? After all of the denigration and criticism, he put in a great performance to win the playoff game yesterday. Congratulations to him, and a big loud raspberry to those who have been on him for his overt Christianity. I am really getting tired of the people who belittle others for being Christian, particularly when many of them are apologists for Muslims, even the radical ones. You can guess who I am talking about.

The only known photos from the White House’s 2009 “Alice in Wonderland” party.

Why did the Obamas want to keep this secret? Why did the press go along? Goodness, Marie and Louis partied during a recession. Guess the Obamas wanted to avoid the same result. LOL

There are others. Go to the site for more.

Roger L. Simon takes on George Stephanoloupos and his question on contraceptives in Saturday night's debate here. He also is critical of the GOP for letting the leftwing media set the terms of the debates and would prefer having no moderators:

I am interested in the candidates and what they have to say to each other — mano-a-mano — in the style of Lincoln and Douglas.

They should be given a topic for the debate (entitlements, Iran, whatever) and be set free to examine it. Those issues can be discussed at length and in more depth without the interference of media personalities who, besides being biased one way or the other, are often more interested in the promotion of themselves or their companies.

Mark Steyn also has a post on the subject:

This country is broke, and the unprecedented scale of its brokeness is an existential threat. Yet, with the exception of Newt’s occasional flashes of contempt for the questioners, everyone else plays along with this absurd game. It’s not merely that the GOP is letting the left frame the contest but that a party willing to dignify this pitiful charade is sending a broader message about the likelihood of its mustering the determination to stand up to a Democrat-media establishment once in office and effect meaningful course correction.

I think I have to agree with them both. Does anyone think Obama would do debates like this, particularly without a teleprompter?

Quote of the Day:

In a world inhabited by sincere sane leaders, willing to level with the citizens and disposed to allow financial institutions that took world crushing risks to fail through an orderly bankruptcy process, debt would have been written off and a sharp short contraction would have occurred. The stockholders, bondholders and executives of the Wall Street banks would have taken the losses they deserved. Instead Wall Street used their undue influence, wealth and power to force their politician puppets to funnel $5 trillion to the bankers that created the crisis while dumping the debt on taxpayers and unborn generations. The Wall Street controlled Federal Reserve provided risk free funding and took toxic mortgage assets off their balance sheets. The result is total credit market debt higher today than it was at the peak of the financial crisis in March 2009.

Read 2012 - The Year of Living Dangerously here. This is certainly not an endorsement of everything he says. He gets off the rails a bit, particularly towards the end when he gets partisan.

Lance Roberts at StreettalkLive.com has a good rundown on last week's employment report:

First, let's start by putting things into perspective. If you take a look at the actual number of those "counted" as employed, that number has risen from the recessionary trough. However, in reality, employment is still far below the long term historical trend. Currently, the deviation from the long term trend is the widest on record and has made very little improvement.

The unemployment number went down, but it was not all a happy thing.

If, and that is a big "IF", employment was truly improving, we would be seeing these numbers begin to reverse course. They aren't, and the reason is due to population growth. During the last month it is estimated that the number of individuals of working age, 16 years and over, rose by 143,000 with the working age population now residing at 240.6 million. The offset is that, while job gains are modest and primarily located in lower-paying temporary employment for the end-of-year seasonality, the population continues to grow at an unfettered clip. In simple terms, the economy is not creating jobs fast enough to keep up with population growth.

There are some very good charts that show the real situation. If the government were measuring unemployment like they did during the Great Depression, the unemployment rate would be much, much higher. Read the whole thing at the site.

At USA Today, Richard Wolf notes that the US national debt is now at 100% of the economy. This is the point where all analysis shows that we are in seriious trouble. And our politicians are whistling past the graveyard trying to avoid offending anyone by doing what is necessary. All of them are failing us because they are too busy playing politics. Its time for a change. They all need to be thrown out.

Gallup says that 40% of Americans prefer to be independent rather than identify with either of our political parties. 31% are Democrats and 27% are Republicans.

As dysfunctional as both parties are, I cannot really imagine anyone wanting to identify with either of them.

On Eating Our Seed Corn; Or, Why Gross Domestic Product Measures May be Deceiving

2011-07-22T15:22:00.000-05:00

Those raised around farms will probably know what eating one's seed corn means, but what does that have to do with Gross Domestic Product? Read on, and I will try to make the point.

Back in the 1970s on the campaign trail with my good friend Bob Krueger (former Democratic Congressman and US Senator) Bob would often use the term "we are eating our seed corn" in discussing government budgets and deficits. (Yes, Democrats, or some of them, were concerned about that in those days.) Bob was one of those rare politicians who would tell the truth, even when many people didn't want to hear it.

Of course we know that if you eat your seed corn, you have no seed to plant to get next year's crop. You would then be broke, or would starve to death. Not a good outcome.

This brings us to the current debate over the huge and growing deficits and national debt. Borrowing against the future to pay for the present is just like eating your seed corn. Our people, many businesses, and almost all of our governments have been doing this for years. The party is just about over. The train that is our economy is about to come to the abyss.

So what does this have to do with Gross Domestic Product, and how it is measured. Read on.

GDP is measured by adding Consumption (both private and business) plus Investment plus Government Spending plus Net Exports (exports - imports).

Those are the constituent parts of GDP. Note that the only net figure is the import/export number, and for over 40 years that has been a negative number.

Right now, GDP as thus measured is positive, and we are in a "recovery." Does it feel like a recovery to you? Ask the record number of long term unemployed.

Why do not we measure the net domestic product, whereby all of the spending would be reduced by the amount of borrowing that supports it? NDP has a good ring.

I am not an economist, so I cannot give any expert opinion on why the gross figure is considered better than a net figure, but I do know that relying on the gross figure has to distort the view of what is really happening in the economy.

Consider that government spending is all included although at least 44% of it is borrowed money. Is that why politicians always want to do a big stimulous when we hit a recession? It certainly makes it statistically look like a recovery. That is why we had a "recovery" this past year, and now that the stimulous is running out the "recovery" is faltering.

Back out the deficit spending and a clearer image of the real economy emerges.

Also consider that private (consumer) spending is also a gross figure, when by all reports, much of it is again being done on credit cards. This, of course, is one reason why the Federal Reserve always wants to force interest rates down during a recession. They want to encourage the consumer to borrow and spend.(Another is to allow the banks to borrow at low rates and lend at higher rates, helping their profits.) That is a lot of what got us into this problem.

The last decades were spent on a big joyride, with consumers being encouraged to buy things (houses among them) that they could not afford. A lot of people maxed out their credit, then borrowed their home equities to buy the tickets for that ride.

The fact that the measured GDP was good enabled the politicians---of all stripes--- to get elected and reelected because times appeared to be better than they were. And they sold it as such.

Here is where the measure of GDP deceives us: the last forty years we have been eating our seed corn, and the economic measure the government statisticians, the economic statitisticians, and the politicians have been using to tell us where we are has hidden the facts. Of course, we all know about liars, damned liars, statisticians, and politicians.

What is all this about? It is very simple. Over 30 years ago, Bob was right. We were eating our seed corn then, and that has continued to this day. And many want to continue.

That train I wrote about six months ago when I last posted speeds on nearer the abyss. At some point it will get too late to stop it in time.

Somebody needs to get serious about this, or we need to throw them out.

Imagine a train

2011-02-19T14:35:00.003-06:00

A very long train, with the United States on board. Call it the Gravy Train, for a name.

This train has been speeding down the tracks for many, many years. It has been a great party for most on board, though not for all.

At the end of the track it is running on there is an abyss. Nobody knows where the end is, but it is there.

It might be one mile away, ten miles, 100 miles; nobody can know for sure. We only know that the train must be stopped before it reaches the abyss, or there will be a terrible train wreck.

We also know that the train takes a long distance to be stopped, so there can be no waiting until the last moment to apply the brakes.

The only way to stop the train is to stop the party. Everyone will have to give up some of their gravy. It cannot be stopped any other way.

Meanwhile, the Engineer is opening the throttle. The train is picking up speed rapidly.

The rest of the crew is dithering, doing little at all to stop the train.

Some of the passengers are getting worried, many are just ignoring the speed and are enjoying all the gravy.

Very little is being done because nobody on the train wants to give up any of their gravy.

So the train keeps speeding toward the abyss. Will it be stopped in time?

It doesn't look much like it.

This little story should seem familiar. Our government has a huge and growing budget deficit and huge and growing entitlement commitments that cannot be paid for under any scenario.

The President has offered a budget proposal that will increase the deficit considerably. His party which controls the Senate is fighting to preserve current levels of spending.

The other party, which controls the House of Representatives are engaging in tokenism so far, and were split on a vote this week that would cut a mere $22 billion from the $1.5 trillion deficit.

The only conclusion that I can reach about this is that we are governed by morons.

Who will lead the political revolution that is needed?

Is Egypt Iran Redux?

2011-02-01T17:03:00.005-06:00

We are at the 32nd anniversary of the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, sped along by Jimmy Carter when he abandoned the Shah to the Ayatollahs. That had a great result, putting one of the chokepoints for the world's oil supplies in the hands of radicals who hate the United States.

Now we see the same thing going on in Egypt. And sure enough, our bowing and scraping President is abandoning our long time ally Mubarak.

To be sure, both the Shah and Mubarak are/were SOBs. But they were OUR SOBs. Those that replace(d) them hate us. And they are still SOBs.

Carter had no plans for the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution, and now, our government is apparently going to allow the Iranians to produce nuclear weapons, as well.

Obama? Where does he stand on Egypt? Unprepared, quite obviously. When the phone rings, there is nobody to answer it, not even Hillary.

Egypt has been the linchpin of our Mideast policy, helping to keep the shaky peace between the Israelis and the Arab nations. It also controls another major chokepoint for the worlds's oil supply, the Suez Canal.

And Obama........well, he opines that the Muslim Brotherhood would be fine in the new government. That is the grandfather of all Jihadis groups, and has just this week called for war between Egypt and Israel.

What could go wrong?

The Financial Crisis Commission Reports

2011-01-30T16:43:00.003-06:00

It reported, and didn't really add anything to what we didn't already know.

Six Democrats and four Republicans did interviews and investigation, and probably could have read Sorkin's book TOO BIG TO FAIL and derived the same information. They also could have read Simon Johnson and James Kwak's book 13 BANKERS. Both of those shed a good bit of light on the situation.

The majority report is 545 pages, and from the reviews I have read, most of it just repeats the same things found in the above books, although I doubt it makes the allegations made in 13 BANKERS. That would not have been politically correct. I don't think I will bother, but it is available on Amazon in paperback for under ten bucks.

What it boils down to is that a partisan majority blames the banks, a partisan minority (of one) blames the government, and the rest of the Republicans blame everything and everybody.

So much for that waste of time. The government at least appears to have "done something" when, in fact, it has done nothing but perpetuate the problems at the expense of the taxpayers.

And all the politicians wonder why the Tea Parties are gaining influence.

The State of the Union

2011-01-26T16:55:00.003-06:00

It sure didn't take Obama long to solve the fiscal crisis here in the US.

He is going to freeze spending!

This occurs at the point where the Congressional Budget Office confirms that spending at current levels will result in a $1.5 TRILLION deficit this year.

That will certainly get the job done.

The state of our union is going to be desperate until we get better leadership.

Sigh.

Musings on a Monday

2011-01-24T15:25:00.004-06:00

Fooling around on a chilly Monday, a few thought have occurred to me:

First, The New York Times reports that our Congressman, Randy Neugebauer, has blown the whistle on a large scam taking place at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It seems that the taxpayers have paid the legal bills for some of the worst of the perps in the greatest banking fraud ever....to defend them from charges of civil fraud!

The scandal of the banking collapse, the government bailouts of the perpetrators, and the government coverup of all the fraud needs to be fully exposed. Go Randy!

Secondly, it appears that one of the big perps, Jeffery Immelt of General Electric (General Electric Credit Corp.), has been appointed to a high economic post at the White House. He will know how to bail out the perps even more at the expense of Main Street Americans.

One wonders if there is no shame in Washington, D.C. But not for long. Clearly there is none.

Third, I note that Texas Tech has won in the Court of Appeals in the Mike Leach case. I have not read the opinion, and have no thoughts about the ruling.

From the news stories, it appears that Tech is not bound by the contract it signed, and is immune from any damages it might be assessed if Tech doesn't pay under its terms.

Bad news for Leach, but I wonder how everyone else that has signed contracts with Tech feel?

New Year's Resolutions

2010-12-25T14:59:00.012-06:00

Christmas has passed and we approach the New Year, so it is time for some resolutions.

Not for me. For Uncle Sam.

Mine are the same old ones: lose weight and avoid going broke.

Uncle Sam needs a lot more than that, so here goes with what I think they should be (in part):

1. BALANCE THE BUDGET!

Now. Not 10 years from now; not 5 years from now. Do it NOW!

How to do it? Cut spending. How about cutting the budget to where it was on September 1, 2008? That was before the bailouts started. A good start. But not enough.

Restore Federal employment to the level of September 1, 2008, then cut it 10% across the board, except for the uniformed military.

Taxes? Tax rates don't need to be raised. Just do away with all of the tax shelters that the very wealthy use to avoid paying taxes.

No more tax subsidies for anything. If it is not profitable without tax breaks, then let the resources go to something that is. (this would include the oil and gas depletion allowance, something dear to my heart, among other things).

Stop subsidies as well, for the same reason. (this would include farm subsidies, and the ethanol subsidy, also very dear to close friends).

If that has not insulted everyone, I could continue. The point is that nothing should be sacred except preserving our economy and our freedom. Everyone will have to pay up. It has to be an equal opportunity cutting contest, with no sacred cows. Everything must be on the table.

It has to be done, so get started..

2. Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget every year unless a super majority of Congress and the President declared a national emergency. There needs to be teeth in it so the politicains can't ignore it. 'Nuff said.

3. Do away with Too Big to Fail.

If a financial institution or large corporation is that big, the law should require that they be broken up. Think Teddy Roosevelt.

A corollary to that would be to reenact the Glass-Steagall Act, or something that accomplishes the same thing.

The big banks and bankers are getting fatter and fatter, while our middle class shrinks.

Go back and strengthen the extraordinarily weak regulation of financial institutions that was passed last year. Congress let the perps write their own rules. Ridiculous!

With the above, outlaw bailouts of corporations (and states, and municipalities) that go broke.

4. Enact a Sunset Act which would subject every Federal agency and program to expiration if not renewed every 10 years. No exceptions.

Texas has one that is pretty good. Model it on theirs, but stronger.

5. Reform Social Security.

Gosh, where to start? Begin by extending the age of eligibility to 70 years gradually, like it was previously extended to 67. Then index the eligibility age to life expectancy in the US.

Remove the Social Security tax from the general revenue budget, and restore the trust fund ( really too late. That horse is out of the barn.).

Establish a way to begin changing Social Security to a defined contribution plan rather than a defined benefit plan, like the private sector is doing.

6. Reform Medicare and Medicaid.

I have to admit that I do not have a clue about these.

Obviously, the benefits will have to be reduced. There just have to be limits, particularly on end of life payments. Tough choices there, but they have to be made. It needs to be made the right way, by doctors, patients, and families, not bureaucrats. Although the right is critical of Medicare supporting end of life counselling, my view is that it is necessary to encourage families to plan ahead for that eventuality. My family has. We have medical powers of attorney, living wills, and the like. Everyone should.

Premiums and deductibles for Medicare will have to be raised. The same for Medicaid.

While we are on health care, Obamacare needs to be replaced with something less intrusive. Some reform was needed, but the bill went WAY too far.

Other suggestions are quite welcome.

7. Bring the boys (and girls) home.

No great power has ever pacified Afghanistan, and we can't do it now. If we did, what would we accomplish? There is nothing there that is worth the expenditure of lives and money that is required. Declare victory soon, and bring them home.

Keep the carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf, however. We will need them when Iran makes their first nuclear weapons. That could be another resolution, but I will resist.

8. Secure the borders now.

When that is accomplished, and only then, we can make some strides on a humane way to deal with the illegal immigrants that have been here for a good while. But there should be no blanket amnesty.

We can also then reform our immigration policies to make immigration more available to other than those who come illegally. Our current rules are way too restrictive. We need to be a bit picky about who we let in as well, but based upon skills and education, not race.

Before anything else the borders must be well secured first. And soon.

This is just a few of many things that are needed. Both political parties have contributed to a terrible situation that is a real threat to our country in many ways.

They have both sold out to the big money folks and the big labor unions. Campaign contributions are far more important to our elected officials than doing the right thing.

The big banks, labor unions, and politicians are thriving, while the middle class and the lower class is suffering.

It is time for a change, but for the RIGHT change.

This is not a complete list of what I think should be done, and I am not married to all the details. But the overall resolutions are quite necessary, in my opinion.

Clearly, the economy is not singled out for a resolution. The government just needs to get out of the way of the economy, and the other resolutions will help that quite a bit.

Other suggestions are welcome, either on this site or on Facebook.

Fire away. Let the conversations begin.

Bill Clinton and the Tea Party

2010-04-21T16:30:00.005-05:00

Former President Bill Clinton, best known for having soiled a blue dress in the Oval Office, weighed in on the Tea Party menace a few days ago.

He is afraid the limited government rhetoric of the Tea Partiers will lead to another act of domestic terrorism like the Oklahoma City bombing.

Naturally, he leaves out the really pertinent point: that McVeigh bombed Ok City in response to Bill Clinton's mangement of the seige at Waco.

You can read a good story on the subject by Tony Blankley here.

At the same time that he was trying to trash the Tea Party, a real incident of domestic violence was taking place.

A young woman staffer for the Republican Governor of Louisiana and her date were leaving a function in New Orleans when they were set upon by left wing thugs, viciously assaulted and hospitalized. This for wearing Sarah Palin pins. More on that here. And parts of the police reports are here.

Of course, there has been no media coverage, and certaily no comments from Clinton or other Democrats who are so concerned about violence in the political sector.

Double standard?

Trashing the Tea Party won't work.

Mr. Clinton needs to slither quietly back under his rock.

Musing On a Rainy Friday Afternoon

2010-04-16T15:07:00.004-05:00

There has been a lot of moisture out here in West Texas the last few months. Right now, we are at about 2 1/2 times normal, and our rainy season has just begun. I suppose its the El Nino that has been in progress, but the Winter sure felt like Global Cooling.

That does bring to mind the issue of Global Warming that all the liberals were panicked about. We have not heard a lot about that lately, since the science has been shown to have been unscientific. It appears that a lot of it was based upon scientists wanting to be politically corrrect so they could get more government money for research. The rest was based upon doctored evidence that was never disclosed, and "conveniently" lost before it could be checked.

Poor Al Gore. It now appears he will not make the billions of dollars he would have made if the "cap and trade" fiasco had passed.

The problem is, the globe does warm and does cool, and we should be prepared for it. Right now there appears to be temporary cooling, but by the time we really establish that, it may well be warming again.

That is what the earth does. It warms for a while, then it cools. In the last 100,000 years we have had several cycles of warming and cooling. Humans have always adapted to it. We need to be prepared to adapt to it again. We can't stop it, and to try would be foolish.

Back to the rain. It caused the postponement of the Tax Day Tea Party on Thursday. Too bad. I was going to go, as I did last year.

It has been very interesting to see how our political left and their minions in the media have treated the Tea Partys over the last year.

At first they were "right wing extremists" then moved on to be racists and Nazis. That did not work, of course, because none of it was true. They also tried to set up some individuals as "leaders" of the Tea Party and tried to tear the Partiers down by attacking those "leaders." That didn't work, either, mainly because the Tea Party groups are all local folks. Its a movement, not an organization.

The lastest is a New York Times/CBS poll that asserts they are rich and well educated, and not representative of a cross section of the citizenry. That will fail as well, because its not true. Obviously, the media has not covered the actual Tea Partys enough to have a clue about them. Or they don't care about the truth.

I wonder what they will try to come up with next.

On a Personal Note

2010-04-14T16:44:00.003-05:00

Back when I started this blog, I knew little about it, but did so because a friend of mine did it, and I thought it might be fun to do.

At the time, knowing that there is nothing really anonymous on the Internet, I determined that I would not hide my identity, and that I would scrupulously abide by the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.

As a result, I have kept my commentary entirely on political issues of national interest, and have not posted on any issues that might ever come before me when sitting by assignment.

I welcome and encourage comments on the issues presented on this blog. I know that there are many who do not agree with my viewpoint, and welcome your input.....as long as it is on issue.

Lately I have been having another kind of commenter......some who would use the comments to anonymously criticize rulings or decisions I have made. These comments are not welcome, and have been, and will continue to be deleted.

All I can say to those people is that if you do not agree with me, just appeal the case.

If you wish to complain to me, then call me. I probably will not discuss any case with anyone, but at least you can honestly express your opnion before I hang up.

Those who would be cowardly and try to hide behind anonymity.....well, reread the second paragraph.

The Ides of March

2010-03-15T15:04:00.004-05:00

This year the Ides of March bring the new "final" push by the Democrats to impose Obamacare on a very reluctant nation.

Rasmussen says that the current bill (to the extent anyone knows what is in it) is supported by 43% of the country, while 53% are opposed.

They do not appear to have the votes to pass the bill by ordinary means, so we are seeing all kinds of manipulations in the House to try to force it through.

We will see how many House Democrats are willing to walk the plank for Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

Meanwhile, Paul Ryan, a Republican Congressman, has an excellent article up in the Washington Post today. Read the whole thing. Its good.

His analysis, in part, includes the following:

"...Through any analytical lens, the legislation will not address the central problem of skyrocketing health-care costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that families' premiums could rise 10 to 13 percent; private-sector actuarial estimates top these already high numbers. The higher costs are driven by federalizing the regulation of insurance, narrowing consumers' options and reducing competition among providers. The health-care market would be dominated by government programs and the largest insurance companies, operating as de facto government utilities........"

"This legislation includes a range of job-killing tax hikes and controls on all Americans -- to fund this new entitlement and to penalize employers and individuals who don't play by Washington's new rules........"

The bill is a bad one that really does not address the real concerns that the public has about health care. Rising costs are not solved.

So what are the real purposes of the bill? Ryan explains:

"....If this debate had actually been about health care, we could have worked together to get a grip on costs, make quality care more accessible, address exclusions for preexisting conditions and realign the incentives of insurance companies with those of patients and doctors. Yet this process -- including its embarrassing conclusion -- demonstrates that the debate has never been about health-care policy but, instead, paternalistic ideology....."(emphasis mine)

His conclusion:

"...Should the Democrats' health-care train wreck make it to the president's desk, it will be a pyrrhic victory, and its devastating consequences will take their toll on our health-care system, our budget and our economy."

I emphatically agree. But a bright side of all of this is that the legislation, the way it has been forced on Congress by the Democratic leadership, and all of the shenanigans involved in its passage, will likely doom the Democratic Party to minority status for some time to come.

Now what we need to see is a Republican Party that will step up. So far, when given the chance, they have failed to do so.

Maybe some of the young leaders like Paul Ryan will be the Republican Party of the future.

The leaders of the past have largely failed.

Don't tell us......

2010-02-14T16:54:00.002-06:00

On February 19, 2009, a guy named Rick Santelli, a CNBC business news broadcaster, set the Internet afire with a rant about taxpayers having to bail out defaulting mortage holders. A Youtube version of the rant spread over the Internet like wildfire. You can find it here.

In it he called for a Chicago Tea Party to protest the bailouts.

Boy did the idea catch on. All over America, mad citizens determined to protest what was happening in our government. It was a spontaneous movement, not created or led by anyone, unless you want to credit Mr. Santelli with it. He, of course, had no idea how his rant would catch on with the people.

Now in its second year politicians and press from all sides of the spectrum seem to amazed, even frightened by the movement. They should be.

Many are even setting up strawmen in the movement to tear it down. We see the press trying to set up a lot of people as "leaders" of the movement, then attempting to discredit the movement by being critical of the "leaders." (Some of the people they have described as "leaders" or "founders" of the tea party are pretty bad people, others very controversial.)

This is an attempt by them to discredit a grassroots citizens' movement falsely and by design.

There is no particular leader, although there are many activists who speak up. Most who claim to be leaders are doing so for their own purposes. So don't believe it.

But on to the title point.

A dear friend of mine, who happens to be a liberal, sent me two articles today from Politico.com, a reputable online source for political news.

One titled Republicans woo wary tea partiers dicusses how GOP Chairman Steele is engaging with 50 "leaders" of the tea party in hopes of enticing them into the Republican Party. For most of them, that will not work.

The other article was entitled Conservative manifesto coming soon. This is a story about a large group of Republican leaders and thinkers are getting together a new manifesto describing the basic Republican mission statement. This is also a response to the tea party movement.

I want to break the news to Mr. Steele and the other Republicans and to the Democrats: you people have had your chance. You had the chance to govern well and you blew it. Badly. Both parties.

The time is over for you to tell the people how and what you will or will not do. No more top down pontificating and then continuing on as usual. That day is over for now.

It is time that political power again starts flowing from the citizens to the politicians rather than the reverse.

What we want to see from you is actions. Your words are not meaningful. So listen instead of talk. Act instead of pontificate.

Show us.

We Have Met the Enemy............

2010-02-10T16:18:00.004-06:00

Yes, POGO had it right all the time. Its us. We did it to ourselves. Can't blame anybody else.

What, you ask? The answer is a huge mountain of debt as high as one can see.

Last week, the Congress of the United States passed an amendment raising the debt limit by $1,900,000,000,000.00. That is $1.9 TRILLION.

The debt is already in excess of $14,000,000,000,000.00. That is $14 TRILLION.

But that is not all. There is an additional $60,000,000,000,000.00 ( $60 TRILLION) in unfunded future liabilities for things like Social Security, Medicare and other so-called entitlement programs.

We can't pay it.

We have about $2.5 Trillion in tax revenues coming into the Federal Government annually. The Federal budget for the upcoming fiscal year is in excess of $3.8 TRILLION. For the first time in history, the Social Security tax will not bring in enough to pay current obligations. Left unchanged, it probably never will again.

None of this even counts the huge debts of states like California, or the huge consumer debt load that exists.

Who will pay for all of this? How will they pay it?

There are those who blame the politicians for the mess. There is a lot of blame to go around, certainly. The situation in Washington is corrupt, dysfunctional, and overly partisan. Both political parties have bought into spending money that we don't have. Each side wants to reap the rewards of power and have the free rein to funnel public money or tax and regulatory breaks to their friends and contributors. Almost every one of the elected officials in Washington should be thrown out for having bought into that system

But its too easy to just blame the politicians. Our country is pretty evenly split between folks who are "conservative" and want low taxes and smaller government, and "liberals" who want higher taxes and more government.

Usually, there is a healthy tension between the sides that keeps the government more or less to a center course. But since the politicians of both sides are committed to spending rather than saving, we get more debt.

Let a liberal want to raise taxes to help pay for all of this, and every taxpayer gets riled. If a conservative wants to cut spending and cut taxes, then the other side gets riled.

We the people put a lot of pressure on Congress to preserve our pet spending programs or tax breaks or regulatory scheme.

The result has often been cutting taxes and increasing spending. Sometimes its been raising taxes and raising spending.

It just doesn't work. We need a new paradigm in Washington.

We are in such deep trouble that we must come together and make some changes. Everyone is going to have to give up something in order to cure the problem.

Spending will have to be cut; taxes will have to be raised. Everyone will have to pitch in. We just can't go on this way.

Nothing will get done unless everyone is called upon to make the sacrifices necessary.

If we don't stop, we become a Banana Republic, and our children and their children will suffer greatly.

Good News?

2010-01-29T14:24:00.006-06:00

The headline story on Drudge this morning was about the reported 5.7% increase in GDP this morning. If it were real, that would be very good, and an important improvement in the economy.

Unfortunately, its a statistical gimmick more than anything else.

All but 2.2% of the improvement was because inventories have stopped declining so fast.

"About 60 percent of the fourth quarter's growth resulted from a sharp slowdown in the reduction of inventories as firms began to rebuild stockpiles depleted by the recession."

The best of it was a large increase (from a very low level) in exports, but that was tempered by a decrease in the growth of consumer spending.

The elephant in the room, of course, is employment and wages. My view has always been that there is no real economic recovery without employment improving. So far that is not on the horizon.

Megan McArdle, over at The Atlantic, says it pretty well:

"But man cannot live by GDP alone. I'd argue that the better measure of whether the economy has returned to health is employement--at least, that's when the improvement starts to translate into improvements in peoples' real lives. Prolonged unemployment is one of the most crippling things that can afflict people in the modern world."

Ed Yardeni in an article at the Washington Post, commented before the numbers came out:

"A lot of it is the arithmetic of inventories," said Yardeni, who is expecting a 6.5 percent jump in the GDP number. "Even if there is a very strong number for the fourth quarter, if it's [all because of] inventories, it will raise real questions about the strength of the economy in 2010."

There will be more reaction to the GDP release. I will try to keep updating this post as more comes out.

UPDATE:

The Wall Street Journal has reported on wages for 2009:

"Wage and benefit costs, both before and after adjusting for inflation, grew more slowly 2009 than any year since the U.S. government began tracking data in 1982 as double-digit unemployment weakened workers’ ability to command higher pay.

"Over the past 12 months, the cost of wages and benefits for workers other than those employed by the federal government rose 1.5%, according to the Labor Department’s employment cost index. Over the same period, consumer prices rose 2.7%."

There can be no recovery in the economy until good paying jobs come back.

UPDATE 2:

The Economic Policy Institute points out that the measure of demand from US households and businesses is still decelerating:

"A measure of the strength of demand coming from U.S.-based households and businesses (final sales to domestic purchasers, a measure that excludes export growth and includes import growth) grew at only a 1.7% rate in the quarter, actually decelerating from the third quarter growth rate of 2.3%. In fact, this quarter saw the largest divergence since 1987 between the overall GDP growth figure and the growth rate of domestic demand. In short, nothing about today’s report should lead to upward revisions in forecasts for economic growth over the next year, which generally hover around the 3% mark. This projected pace of growth would likely not even drive the unemployment rate below 10% by the end of 2010."

It appears that some parts of the economy may have some improvement, but its not yet reaching Main Street.

UPDATE 3:

Mish Shedlock finishes off the day with:

"Digging beneath the surface there is nothing to cheer about in the GDP numbers. Moreover, this weakness is in the face of the largest stimulus measures the world has ever seen, not just in the US, but globally. Money supply in China is growing at 30% and housing bubbles are likely to pop in Australia, Canada, and the UK. Problems in Greece, Spain, and Iceland continue to mount."

And:

"GDP is a mirage of sand blowing in the wind. So is global growth. It is a mistake to believe government spending can possibly provide a solid foundation for a lasting recovery."

It should also be noted that the huge pop in the commercial real estate bubble that is impending cannot support a recovery absent another huge bailout of the banks by the taxpayers.

I will repeat my view: There will not be a real recovery without jobs. Anything else will be smoke and mirrors.

The State of the United States

2010-01-28T14:06:00.005-06:00

No, not the speech, although I will get to it later, perhaps.

The state of our country is not good. We are mired in a deep recession with high and growing unemployent, and only the huge institutions that were bailed out by the government are showing profits. Main Street still suffers.

We are in a situation caused by a huge expansion of credit wherein large financial institutions, both private and semi-public engaged in wild speculation, creating a bubble in real estate, and then the bubble popped.

This had the effect of destroying much of the capital of the financial institutions, but also the capital of the general public.

With the bubble gone, the US Government under George W. Bush stepped in to socialize the huge losses of the financial institutions, but not, of course, the huge losses that had been imposed upon the general public. (I call this the Golden Rule) In fact, the general public will end up paying for the financial institutions' losses as well as their own.

Hope and Change gets elected and promptly nationalizes General Motors and to some extent, Chrysler.

Relief for the general public? Hardly.

Next is a huge "stimulous" bill that goes primarily to large Democratic political constituencies, adds nearly a trillion to the deficit, and accomplishes nothing but add further burdens on the general public.

We then get a Cap and Trade Bill that is rushed through the House without being read. This bill would add hundreds of billions to the costs of energy....to be ultimately paid by whom? You got it. The general public.

With the first of these matters a movement began to form: The Tea Parties. The public was awakening. But the politicians ignored them or put them down as extremists. Who were the partiers? The general public.

After Cap and Trade passed the House, the Pelosi crowd began to attempt to socialize our country's medical care. Behind closed doors.

It was if the Iron Curtain was rebuilt right there in Washington, D.C. Everything was done behind closed doors. In secrecy. Few know what kind of deals were made to buy "support" for the bill, but what is known is that it was terribly unfair to.........the general public.

A similar bill is now pending in the Senate, where the majority party is still trying to push it through, in spite of the opposition of....the general public.

So here we are after one year of Hope and Change. We have no hope, and only a change for the worse.

Elections in Virginia and Massachusetts have given the general public a chance to be heard, but from the State of the Union speech last night, it is clear that the lessons have been lost by the politicians in our government.

Maybe they should all watch and listen to the ad that newly elected Senator Scott Brown ran during the campaign in Massachusetts. It is one of the very best I have heard in my over fifty years in politics.

You can find it here. If you do nothing else, go to this ad.

The public will get little, if any, relief from the policies spoken of by the President last night.

But we can get relief in November when we have the opportunity to throw all the rascals out. There is Hope, after all.

Who will lead the revolution?

Election Lessons

2010-01-23T17:59:00.006-06:00

Neither side gets it.....yet.

The election of Scott Brown to the US Senate from Massachusetts has been the big election story of the past week.

Republicans are ecstatic and they think that this was a triumph for Republicans.

Democrats are, of course, very disheartened, but blame the loss on a poor campaign, not their policies.

They are both wrong. It was a victory for the great political center of our country.

What is occuring is that the political center of the country is , to paraphrase Finch's yell from Network, mad as Hell, and they aren't going to take it any more.

In 2008, Barack Obama campaigned as a "post-partisan" who was going to bring change in the way Washington works. He promised more transparency and a bi-partisan approach.

This was what the center wanted to see, John McCain represented the old ways, so they moved into the Democratic column and voted largely for Obama.

Of course, the economy was headed into the tank and the Bush administration had started a huge Federal bailout of the very people who caused the problem, and that had everyone unhappy as well.

Hope and change seemed to be a good thing, so Obama won the election handily.

Almost by the time of his inauguration, it had become clear that hope and change meant more of the same. A huge and mostly wasteful stimulus bill was rushed through Congress, and it became apparent that the United States was facing huge deficits as far as one could project. Cap and Trade was pushed through without any debate and without anyone knowing exactly what was in the bill. And the huge bailouts continued.

All that could be discerned was that the Cap and Trade bill was going to be extremely costly to ordinary Americans, but that the owners of the trading markets, such as Al Gore, were going to get very rich.

So the Tea Party movement started....and grew and grew.

During the Summer of 2009 the ObamaCare bills started to be crafted....in the dark. Rather than transparency, we saw secrecy. People became more outraged, and appeared at Town Hall meetings to protest.

Democrats in the House and Senate were very disparaging of the folks that were protesting.

Tone deaf.

The gubernatorial election in Virginia followed wherein a huge turnaround from the vote in 2008 occurred and a Republican was elected. The Democrats remained tone deaf and continued to try to ram ObamaCare through Congress.

So we get to the election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. A liberal Democrat runs in the traditionally liberal Democratic state, and is deemed a shoe in. She even took a vacation in the midst of the campaign!

Her opponent, running on the Republican ticket was not a conservative. It was, after all, Massachusetts. But he did tap into the anger of the regular folks.

And he won.

In the aftermath, both political parties remain tone deaf.

The Democrats think they ran a poor campaign and they did not sell their program very well.

The Republicans think the election means a turn toward conservative Republican principles.

Both are wrong.

Each party has its right or left wings, but both of them have to attract the center to govern. Both of them need to understand what the center does and does not want, and neither seem to have a clue that what they have both been offering is not what is wanted. Or needed.

Bush fooled them, and Obama fooled them.

My suspicion is that incumbents of either party are going to have a hard time. They should.

It is time that both parties get a clue, or there will be a party that comes along that will.

Happy and Sad

2009-12-22T16:14:00.001-06:00

A couple of years ago when I decided to try blogging, the main objective that I had was to not become a slave of writing on a schedule. I don't think anyone can say that I have, since it has been so long since I have posted here.

Another of my intentions was to do it for fun. Often it has not been.

Since I retired I have been enjoying life, with a great family, a faithful dog, wonderful friends and good health, at least for an old codger.

My family, friends and I have lived the American Dream. It has been great, and I hope that we can preserve that opportunity for our children and their children.

The above is the happy part.

It is a cultural thing, I suppose, for the elderly to disapprove of what the younger generations are doing. My parents disapproved of our teen music, just as my generation doesn't appreciate the kind of music and culture of the current teens. That is just natural, and is not something that I am that concerned about.

What I am concerned with is the direction in which our country, and particularly our government, is headed.

This is the sad part.

One can read past posts and get an idea of the things that are so sad. A quick summation would be that our people are increasingly losing their liberty to an ever growing and increasingly uncontrollable government.

Since at least the last Great Depression we have all looked increasingly toward the national government to solve every problem, and increasingly let our state and local governments become so hooked on Federal funds that they can only respond to the Feds, and not to the desires of the people.

It is not my intent to go into great detail about the hows and whens, but we all must realize that we have been letting our government drift out of control for several decades.

The more this happens, the less free we become.

This is Christmas time, and I am going to be happy, and I wish happiness and a Merry Christmas to all of you.

After this happy period, I am not going to be sad any more.

I am going to be mad as Hell.

Are we living in a satire?

2009-10-14T15:57:00.004-05:00

A good question. When we consider what is going on around us every day, it just has to be satire.

The President of the United States tours the world apologizing for everything our country has been.

The President of the United States offends and insults the friends and allies of our country, but snuggles up to the tyrants and dictators of the world in very obsequious ways.

The Russians are now threatening the US with nuclear preemption.

The Iranians and the North Koreans and every other two-bit dictatorship thumbs their noses at the US, correctly assuming that our President is weak.

A Republican President of the United States permits a financial coup de' etat of our economy by the huge financial institutions in New York, and his Democratic successor further enables it.

The President of the United States is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, having been nominated therefor not later than 12 days after he took office, joining others to hold the prize like Yassir Arafat and Jimmy Carter.

The politicians in Washington are proposing huge and expensive changes in our medical care system in the middle of the worst economy in decades.

They are also proposing huge new taxes on energy use at the same time.

They are continuing to try to solve the problems in the economy caused by too much debt by going further into debt at historical rates.

When one looks at Washington, all one sees is business as usual.

We are living in Wonderland, with Alice.

Who will lead the revolution?

Not in our strategic interests?

2009-10-02T16:48:00.003-05:00

Afghanistan is in the news with the US undertaking still another review of the strategy and tactics needed there. Although I am a hawk on a lot of matters, I am thinking we should step back and take a look at Afghanistan.

What is our strategic interest there? Is the conflict there so important that it involves our nation's really strategic interests? In other words, is it something so important all the resources we have should should be used to accomplish the objective? Stated another way, is Afghanistan so important to us that we should expend large numbers of lives and billions or trillions of dollars to make Afghanistan "safe for democracy,"or whatever we are trying to do?

If we left Afghanistan to a fight between the factions there, would it really have any kind of effect on our national interests? How much?

Or is our objective just to make it unsafe for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda?

My thought is that it is appropriate to have a well defined objective, and one that is based upon our important strategic interests.

I really have not seen anyone articulate a firm objective.

Our decision must be measured against some known facts. Many of the best armies in the history of the world have tried to pacify Afghanistan: Alexander the Great, the Mongols, the British in the 19th Century, and the Soviet Union in the 20th Century.

They all failed. The terrain and tribalism makes it extremely difficult to do.

The Afghanis don't like outsiders, and we have become the outsiders once NATO and the regular forces moved in.

If we try to increase our force levels and go all out to pacify the country, it will be extremely costly, and, like the other great powers of the past, we may likely fail as they did.

And we would be diverting badly needed resources from other areas, such as the Middle East, where we absolutely do have very important strategic interests, and where they may be needed soon. Think Iran.

So again, one must ask the question: Is it worth it?

I am having doubts that it would be.

Thoughts on a return to blogging

2009-10-01T16:33:00.004-05:00

It has been a long and busy three weeks, and I have not been able to even gather thoughts in order to blog. Sorry.

There was some time to keep up with email, and to read some articles. Given what is happening in our world, there is a lot to blog about. I will try to do so with a bit more regularity than lately.

Looking about, one sees the United States, once respected, if disliked, has changed to being disrespected and still disliked.

All of that in a period of eight months.

This is because of the deliberate policies of our current government. It has sucked up to our enemies and offended and abandoned our friends. Intentionally.

Iran has just been given another pass, in spite of its threat. North Korea is ignored, to do whatever nuke development they wish.

Castro and Chavez to our south are being helped, rather than isolated, while Honduras and Colombia, our allies, are treated quite poorly.

The situation in Afghanistan is eroding, and the government is holding "meetings." There seems to be no sense of urgency, even though the President accorded Afghanistan important status when running for office.

Domestically, the economy is in the tank while the "stimulus" is spent to shore up supporters and arms of the Democratic Party. The big banking and financial institutions have been bailed out with nearly three trillion dollars of taxpayers' money, but the government entities refuse to account to the people for the money.

The majority party is trying to cram health "reform" down the throat of the 85% of the people who are satisfied with their health insurance, in order to make coverage available to an additional 11% of the people (and, of course, 12 million illegal aliens).

They are also trying to pass a "cap and trade" regime, which will enrich a few, but will constitute a huge energy tax on everyone else, even the poor. This is being done in a time of deep recession and increasing unemployment.

In the media, I notice that the New York Times has as the lead article a story about Senator John Ensign (R-Nev) and his affair, but there is not a mention anywhere of Charles Rangel (D-NY) and his series of felonies, nor of the bastard child of John Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidate, even though there is some here on Politico.

Enough.

A couple of weeks ago, as I sat out on my patio enjoying the evening with my puppy dog and an adult beverage, I had something of a premonition. Nothing specific at all, just a thought that something bad might happen. A friend that I told about it said he was having somewhat similar thoughts.

I think that when one considers the above, along with everything else, there is good reason to worry.

Perhaps that can be covered a bit in succeeding posts.

What are they buying?

2009-09-10T13:47:00.004-05:00

Opensecrets.org is a great site to explore, and I encourage everyone to go there and browse.

I was doing so today, and came across their list of heavy hitters: the biggest contributors to political campaigns over the last 20 years.

One clear thing is that labor unions were, as a group, by far the biggest givers, to the tune of $184,906,000. That is $184 Million.

ATT was the biggest single company at over $43 Million. Goldman Sachs managed only fourth place with over $31 Million. But they got several Secretaries of the Treasury for their trouble.

Go here and see who "owns" our politicians. Click at the bottom of the list of ten to see the whole list, and to which party the contributions were made.

Something has to change. Who will lead the revolution?

The Next Financial Crisis

2009-09-09T15:14:00.004-05:00

Its already coming. And, if the trends remain the same, it will be even worse than this one has been.

There is an excellent article in The New Republic with this title, written by Peter Boone and Simon Johnson.

The past crisis was certainly mitigated by the actions of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, but what they did sowed the seeds of the next crisis. And what they continue to do will make it worse.

This has happened many times before:

" We have seen this spectacle--the Fed saving us from one crisis only to instigate another--many times before. And, over the past few decades, the problem has become significantly more dire. The fault, to be sure, doesn’t lie entirely with the Fed. Bernanke is a prisoner of a financial system with serious built-in flaws. The decisions he made during the recent crisis weren’t necessarily the wrong decisions; indeed, they were, in many respects, the decisions he had to make. But these decisions, however necessary in the moment, are almost guaranteed to hurt our economy in the long run--which, in turn, means that more necessary but harmful measures will be needed in the future. It is a debilitating, vicious cycle. And at the center of this cycle is the Fed."

Back in the "old days" before the Federal Reserve was created, if you ran a bank and lost your depositors' money, the bankers' personal assets and income could be taken to help cover the losses.

"In the United States, there was great experimentation with banking during the 1800s, but those involved in the enterprise typically made a substantial commitment of their own capital. For example, there was a well-established tradition of “double liability,” in which stockholders were responsible for twice the original value of their shares in a bank. This encouraged stockholders to carefully monitor bank executives and employees. And, in turn, it placed a lot of pressure on those who managed banks. If they fared poorly, they typically faced personal and professional ruin. The idea that a bank executive would retain wealth and social status in the event of a self-induced calamity would have struck everyone--including bank executives themselves--as ludicrous."

In 1913 the Federal Reserve was created, and it went to work using liquidity loans and low interest rates to cushion banks in difficulty by reducing their costs.

"But, by insulating banks from the terrible consequences of their own blunders, these measures would also encourage them to keep taking unwise risks, and thereby lay the groundwork for future crises."

The Fed has made many errors with this. In the summer of 1927 it lowered interest rates, fueling the boom that crashed in the fall of 1929. It had belatedly raised rates in 1928, but that did not stop the frenzy. After the crash, it then kept interest too high into 1933, causing many banks to fail.

During the Great Depression, banking came under increasing regulation, and the rules were tightened so that risk taking was more difficult.

But:

"....eventually, banks would learn how to play the new game. They would spend serious money lobbying to keep regulations lax, hiring lawyers and accountants to find methods to minimize or avoid regulations, and incentivizing employees to hide risk from regulators. While the banking sector became more risky, creditors to banks (such as depositors and lenders) knew they could count on the Fed to engineer bailouts via lower interest rates and access to credit if times got tough--so banks had no trouble raising funding from creditors, and our financial system grew rapidly."

As time went on, the Fed continued to protect the banks. In the 1980s, Volcker lowered interest rates during the Latin American debt crisis [and simply ignored it when some banks were technically insolvent]. That caused a real estate boom that resulted in the S&L debacle of 1987. So interest rates were lowered again creating problems in real estate again, and then in the Asian markets. They crashed, then the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund created a "systemic risk" and rates were lowered again, fueling the Hi-tech bubble, also treated with low interest rates. which created the current burst bubble. You get the idea.

Saving the big banks from themselves is getting far more expensive than it used to be:

"Based on what we have seen over the past two decades, the cost of the next collapse will invariably be steep. Since the early 1980s, the Fed has gone back to its origins as the bailout machine for the financial sector. The only difference is that this sector has become much larger since 1907 or 1913. Back then, it accounted for around one percent of GDP. Now it is closer to 8 percent. The cost of bailouts--the current one and those to come--has skyrocketed as a result."

So, what do the big banks get from all of this? Its very simple:

"Consider the lessons learned in the past twelve months by our major banks. If they again get into serious financial trouble, the Fed can be counted on to lend them essentially unlimited amounts at effectively zero interest rates. What would you do with free money? You’d pay off all your old debts, then you’d find something to invest in that would yield a decent return. But then you’d reckon--why not take more risk? After all, if things go badly, you’ll get more free money."

They propose some solutions that might work, but may not be tough enough.

First, banks should have more capital to cover loan losses than is now permitted. Now, it is about 8%, which is ridiculously low.

Second, they propose that banks and their officers, directors and shareholders be at least partly responsible financially when their banks go broke [I would make them fully responsible].

Third, they say we should stop the merry-go-round from the banks to the government and back to the banks. My thought is that right now, because of this, we have the actual perpetrators of the crisis involved in bailing out their former companies. This is simply atrocious.

Last, they say the Fed should take more of a leadership role in regulation the system. My thought is that we should at least consider doing away with the Fed, or curtailing its powers to prevent this continual boom and bust cycle.

At least we should audit the Fed on a frequent basis. There is far too much secrecy there.

They conclude that if the Fed doesn't take the lead in better regulation, it will continue to be the "handmaiden to repeated bailouts." And that the peril to our system becomes even worse with each one.

This is a great article. I somewhat disagree with them in that they treat the Federal Reserve as something different from the banks. The Federal Reserve is owned by its member banks, and with the exception of the Chairman, now Mr. Bernanke, the banks elect the members. We therefore have the foxes guarding the hen house.

I highly recommend you go read the whole article here.

In addition, the two authors blog at The Baseline Scenario.

Capitalism After the Crisis

2009-09-08T16:42:00.005-05:00

This is the title of an essay in a new publication called National Affairs.

It is a new quarterly publication that perhaps is the successor to The Public Interest, which was started in 1965, but is no longer published.

In the essay, author Luigi Zingales examines the state of capitalism in the United States and the way that public attitudes may change with regard to it.

He wonders if the concentration of so much power in a few huge institutions which caused the crisis, and the bailouts of some of them, and of others, might move the US in the direction of European style corporatism and crony capitalism one sees elsewhere.

"Capitalism has long enjoyed exceptionally strong public support in the United States because America's form of capitalism has long been distinct from those found elsewhere in the world — particularly because of its uniquely open and free market system. Capitalism calls not only for freedom of enterprise, but for rules and policies that allow for freedom of entry, that facilitate access to financial resources for newcomers, and that maintain a level playing field among competitors. The United States has generally come closest to this ideal combination — which is no small feat, since economic pressures and incentives do not naturally point to such a balance of policies. While everyone benefits from a free and competitive market, no one in particular makes huge profits from keeping the system competitive and the playing field level."[My bold]

Of course, the true competitive market has no lobby. All the lobbyists are looking for a competitive edge granted to them by the government.[This is what keeps Congressional coffers full of money.]

American capitalism is special, and mainly because support for capitalism by the public is based upon the tenets that hard work, not luck, determines one's success, and is not contingent upon corruption. Many of our current billionaires made their money through hard work in competitive business with no government intervention.

Elsewhere, that is not true. Many billionaires come from countries where their government connections and concessions guaranteed their success, not initiative and enterprise.

"A healthy financial system is crucial to any working market economy. Widespread access to finance is essential to harnessing the best talents and allowing them to prosper and grow. It is crucial for drawing new entrants into the system, and for fostering competition. The system that allocates finance allocates power and rents; if that system is not fair, there is little hope that the rest of the economy can be. And the potential for unfairness or abuse in the financial system is always great."

This is why our Founding Fathers distrusted banks, and Andrew Jackson even created a severe financial crisis when he vetoed the Second National Bank Bill in 1837 because he saw the bank as an instrument of political corruption. This was because it was found to have tried to influence the election of public officials with its money and power.[Try going to http://www.opensecrets.org/ and check out the money given to political campaigns by the big banks. Jackson would be horrified.]

"The finance sector's increasing concentration and growing political muscle have undermined the traditional American understanding of the difference between free markets and big business. This means not only that the interests of finance now dominate the economic understanding of policymakers, but also — and perhaps more important — that the public's perception of the economic system's legitimacy is at risk."

And that is the problem. All the huge banks have so much influence, no matter who holds political power, that is creates a very serious problem. When we see the perpetrators of the financial calamity being placed in charge of curing it, and then granting their former companies huge benefits out of the Federal Treasury, it calls into serious question the integrity of both the Treasury and the large banks.

"We thus stand at a crossroads for American capitalism. One path would channel popular rage into political support for some genuinely pro-market reforms, even if they do not serve the interests of large financial firms. By appealing to the best of the populist tradition, we can introduce limits to the power of the financial industry — or any business, for that matter — and restore those fundamental principles that give an ethical dimension to capitalism: freedom, meritocracy, a direct link between reward and effort, and a sense of responsibility that ensures that those who reap the gains also bear the losses. This would mean abandoning the notion that any firm is too big to fail, and putting rules in place that keep large financial firms from manipulating government connections to the detriment of markets. It would mean adopting a pro-market, rather than pro-business, approach to the economy."

This is the right way to go. The concept of "too big to fail" must be abandoned, and continued bailouts of the worst perpetrators must be stopped.

Does our current government have the guts that Jackson had?

No. And neither does the opposition, the Republicans.

Go read the whole essay here.

Obama and the Schoolchildren

2009-09-08T16:16:00.005-05:00

When I first heard that Obama was going to address the schoolchildren and the Department of Education has sent out a "lesson plan" to be followed, my immediate response was to object. This comes mainly from my feelings of distrust toward Obama.

After some thought, I changed my mind, at least about the Obama speech (I think the "lesson plan" was a bit over the top).

Obama has every right to address schoolchildren about appropriate subjects, and it turns out that the speech he made was fine (perhaps a bit too much "I" but that happens whenever he opens his mouth). I just hope that the kids listened and took it seriously.

One of the most serious problems in our society is the high rate of school dropouts, particularly from within the poor and minority communities. We are raising generation after generation of children from those communities without sufficient education to be much of a factor in the workplace.

Someone like Obama can make a difference there, if he will. But speeches will not be enough. More is needed, and the teacher's unions seemingly refuse to take the kinds of steps needed to improve the schools. But that is another story.

Why would Obama address the kids when there is so much on his plate? Well, for the same reason that George H. W. Bush did in 1991, and George W. Bush was doing much the same when the planes hit the towers on 9/11.....politics, purely and simply.

Folks like politicians that pay attention to the children, from kissing babies all the way to making speeches to them. So politicians do that. It makes them seem human to everyone.

Why do other politicians object? Politics again. They don't want someone on the other side to gain from such a display.

That is why the Democrats had Bush, Sr.'s speech investigated by the GAO (which found it to be perfectly legal).

The point is: its fine to address the kids if you say the right things, but it is not fine to turn it into a political show. The kids need to be left out of politics. They will have to deal with them too soon anyway.

About "Deconstructing the 'Whup Ass'"

2009-09-08T15:02:00.005-05:00

Those are titles of two essays among several that I missed reading while I have been tied up the last few weeks. They are written by Victor Davis Hanson.

The good professor is a favorite of mine, as many of you may know.

He is Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and one of the best writers around about current affairs.

His writings can be found at "Works and Days" and at "Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers." The sites are also listed to the right of this blog.

In "Decontructing," he takes on the recent situation regarding Van Jones, an admitted communist on Obama's staff who just resigned and the inevitable cries of "racism" that have accompanied his departure.

He also mentions other of Obama's friends and associates:

"What we are now seeing with Obama’s coterie is a sort of Billy Carterism—after a while what seems at first outlandish gradually becomes repugnant. Half of the country is now furious at Obama because they are starting to see that Ayers, Khalidi, Meeks, Pfleger, and Wright were representational, rather than aberrational; that is, the associates that for 30 years were the natural friends and role models of Obama proved hard to shake and appear buffoonish 24/7. And stranger still, Obama himself seems surprised that they keep reappearing, as if one so easily can throw under the bus decades of choices, attitudes, and second natures."

About Jones, he points out after cataloging some of his statements:

"... But such are the times we live in, that a Jones feels he can abuse the public discourse and insult the intelligence of the public, confident that when called on it, the refuge of “racist”! is always there."

And, Hanson finally concludes:

"Barak Obama did not transcend race as promised. Nor was there a racial backlash against him as his supporters both feared and now charge.

Rather the mood is weariness. One major reason Obama’s polls have dropped is the public resentment of this spate of allegations of racism."

And:

"Nothing is so fatal to a con as boredom. Tragically, when a Rangel, Paterson, Jones, or Obama—all enjoying privileges and successes that 300 million Americans might only dream of—start in on the now accustomed trope, the public turns the channel and sighs “Been there, done that.” And I think they really mean it this time."

There are several fine essays at the two sites. I highly recommend that you bookmark them, and return to read all of them.

Bailing out the crooks

2009-09-07T16:20:00.003-05:00

The New York Times reports that not only did we bail out Fannie Mae, but the taxpayers are paying millions of dollars for lawyers for the guys that drove it into the ground.

$6.3 million so far for them. This is to defend them from shareholder suits brought because of their wrongdoing.

"With all the turmoil of the financial crisis, you may have forgotten about the book-cooking that went on at Fannie Mae. Government inquiries found that between 1998 and 2004, senior executives at Fannie manipulated its results to hit earnings targets and generate $115 million in bonus compensation. Fannie had to restate its financial results by $6.3 billion.

Almost two years later, in 2006, Fannie’s regulator concluded an investigation of the accounting with a scathing report. “The conduct of Mr. Raines, chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard, and other members of the inner circle of senior executives at Fannie Mae was inconsistent with the values of responsibility, accountability, and integrity,” it said. "

Now taxpayers are having to pay to protect them from their manipulations.

Does anybody but me see anything wrong with that?

They are all Democrats.

A tip of the hat to Ed Morrissey. See his blog post here.

Labor Day

2009-09-07T15:52:00.005-05:00

The unofficial end of Summer has arrived, and with it all sorts of things.

College football got under way last week, starting my favorite time of the year. My Texas Longhorns won, while our arch-rival Oklahoma lost at home to Brigham Young. OU's Heisman quarterback was injured, but its extent is yet unknown. I wish him a speedy recovery. He is an outstanding young man.

With it comes a breath of Fall, particularly in the mornings and evenings in West Texas. Temps at night are 10-12 degrees cooler than a month ago, and there is a freshness in the breeze. Even a few leaves are beginning to drift down in the back yard

New polls shown unions to be unpopular with the folks. That is not surprising, because now that their man is President, and they own the Congress, we are all able to see what jerks most of them are. See articles here and here.

Obama had the whistle blown on one of the several outright communists in his administration. There are more, but good riddance to Van Jones. An article here. Another is here.

Take note that the large media never covered the story until he left, and than tried to paper it over. No wonder they are all going broke. Most of them are simply an adjunct to Obama's propaganda machine. Something closely akin to Lenin's "useful idiots." One simply cannot trust anything most of them say.

This Labor Day finds us with a reported 9.7% unemployment rate, with the direction still headed down. If one were to use the same measure as was used during the Great Depression, it would be closer to 17%. Very sad.

All the liberal pundits like to talk about "green shoots" in the economy, and a "recovery" about to start. My view is that there is no recovery until jobs come back. Even Obama says that won't be until well into next year.

The use of the "stimulus" bill to pay off ACORN and other large Democratic constituencies is turning into a nightmare for unemployed Americans. Will there be any accountability for this? Probably not. Maybe November, 2010. We will see.

There are other things to cover that have arisen since I last posted. More later.

Busy, busy

2009-08-29T12:42:00.005-05:00

Have been very busy the last two weeks, and will be the next three weeks it appears. I only thought I had retired. LOL

There is a lot going on in the political world, and I will try to be commenting a bit about some of it, but time will be short.

After they get Teddy buried, I suspect some will try to use any emotion generated by his death to help push through their socialized medicine bill. Let's hope they fail.

I feel about as good about TedKennedyCare as Mary Jo Kopechne would.

The liberal press continues to give proven corrupt Democrats a pass. Rangel would lead the list, of course. One cannot count his felonies on one hand, but he still leads the House Ways and Means Committee. Apparently the majority party approves of his corruption.

Bill Richardson escaped indictment through a rules breaking decision by the Attorney General to drop proceedings against him. I guess apologies are due the Grand Jurors who spent a year doing the investigation.

Then there is Christopher Dodd and Kent Conrad, who got sweetheart deals from CountryWide as it was going busted, but a Senate committee has decided it wasn't unethical.

The list goes on. And on. And on.

Of course, there have been Republicans on such a list as well, but we were promised in 2006 that the Democrats would do away with the "culture of corruption" in Washington.

Instead, they have accelerated it.

If the House and the Senate cannot enforce ethical conduct among their members, how can we expect them to make correct decisions on anything else?

We need to throw them all out, and start over. Beginning at the very top.

What About Social Security?

2009-08-21T17:30:00.004-05:00

With all the heat over the health care issues, the issue of Social Security is being ignored. That is a shame, because Social Security presents us with a far more pressing problem than health care.

Because of the current recession, it now appears that the point at which SS revenues become less than its benefit payments has advanced from 2017 as reported by the Government Accountability Office to 2012 or sooner. That means that SS is basically broke, because there is no money in the SS Trust Fund.

Benefits will have to be paid out of general revenue after that. Congress has spent the Trust Fund on other things. And there is no fiduciary responsibility for the Trust Fund as there would be for private ones. How clever.

According to the GAO in 2005( go there, it is a great report), it would take $12 Trillion dollars paid in now to fully fund future SS benefits at current levels. Try that on for size.

As a result, Social Security needs some real change, not talk. There are several ways to cure the problem and make sure that our children have some semblance of retirement security.

We could do what most private companies have done, and what most state and local governments are going to have to do. That is, go to a defined contribution plan, as opposed to the current defined benefit plan we have.

I suspect that will be a non-starter for Democrats, because the defined benefit plan has a large amount of wealth redistribution in it. That was why they were so adamantly opposed to Bush's partial privatization, which was really making part of SS a defined contribution plan.

On to other possibilities.

We could raise the tax on wages. An increase of 15% in payroll taxes today would do it. If we wait until 2041, it would have to be 41%. Of course, with the latter date, general revenue (with its tax stream) would have to finance it until then. I do not favor this. I think it would be unfair to our young people.

We could raise the cap on wages taxed. This would require those with a higher income to pay much higher taxes, but get higher benefits, though far from dollar for dollar because of the redistributionist benefit schedule. Now the maximum wage taxed is $102,000 per year.

We could change the benefits, either by reducing them significantly or by delaying the payment of them.

Both of those benefit changes would have to be phased in over a decently long period for it to be fair to those already receiving SS or nearing eligibility. Probably the way they extended the eligibility date to age 67 may be appropriate.

Delaying the benefits may be the best way. When SS was set up, the age of 65 was very old. The primary reason SS is broke is that people receiving benefits are living much longer than we used to, and so each person receives far more in benefits than planned.

The quite simple way to solve this problem is to extend the eligibility date as the life expectancy increases.

It is imperative that Congress addresses this issue. It is extremely difficult politically to do so, but there is also not much time. Support for Social Security is beginning to evaporate as more and more young people become politically active. Few of them believe that they will ever receive SS, but realize that it is they who are paying for what their elders are getting.

They understand that this is terribly unfair....and it is.

This week, in a poll done by Rasmussen, he found the following:

"Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters say working Americans should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and provide for their own retirement planning."

In addition:

"Sixty percent (60%) of voters are not confident that the Social Security system will pay them all promised benefits during their lifetime, with 36% not very confident and 24% not at all confident."

This does not bode well for the future of Social Security, and may be signalling a widening generational dispute.

If support is to be maintained for SS, then it must be made fair to everyone, and that includes sacrifices from us all.

This is a very emotional subject, and has been the source of a lot of demagoguing by politicians on both sides of the issues. It is time for that to stop. There has to be room for responsible compromise on the various choices. Some combination of the above will probably do the job.

Both sides of the issues need to sit down and work something out. The hyperpartisanship we have seen in Washington the last few years is not getting the job done, and will not.

Both sides had better realize that the folks back home are getting impatient. We want a government that works for all of us. But not one that is intrusive into our private lives.

That means that the "my way or the highway" attitudes by our political class has to be discarded, and the pols need to get to work.

Or else.

Horse Soldiers

2009-08-20T17:31:00.005-05:00

That is the name of a book I have just read written by Doug Stanton.

It is the fabulous story of how fewer than fifty Special Forces troops took down the Taliban in two months, rather than the two years the Pentagon thought it would take.

They and about 15,000 irregular troops of the Northern Alliance, mounted on horseback, defeated 50-60,000 Taliban and Al Quaeda, and took the fortress at Mazar-i-Sharif.

With B-52s or FA-18s circling overhead to assist with GPS guided bombs, these guys conducted cavalry charges against tanks, other armored vehicles and machine guns, and prevailed against tough and tenacious fighters.

When they finally took Mazar-i-Sharif, half of the Special Forces guys stayed behind while the Northern Alliance and the other half continued the pursuit of the Taliban.

After they were gone, some 600 Taliban prisoners kept in the fort got their hands on weapons stored there and staged a revolt, killing a CIA agent there to interrogate some of them. John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban, was among the prisoners.

In a 96 hour long battle, the Special Forces fought the prisoners until the Northern Alliance came back from Konduz, and a few reinforcements from the 10th Mountain Division arrived.

They were later reinforced with other Special Forces, but what happened back then is that about a total of 350 American Special Forces and 100 CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, managed to do something that the Chinese, the British, and the Soviet Union had all failed to do. Conquer Afghanistan.

Read the book and get an inkling why we are going to lose it back, and why we really are losing or have lost Iraq.

Its a fabulous story.

To bad Hollywood is too left wing to produce a movie about it.

Throwing gasoline on a deficit fire

2009-08-19T17:43:00.002-05:00

Sometime in the next week or so, the Obama Administration is going to deliver the delayed Mid Session Review, which is a budget document that updates the administration's economic and budget forecasts.

It was delayed because they wanted it to come out during the dog days of August when everyone was out of Washington. You can imagine why.

Keith Hennessy has an article over at Real Clear Politics entitled "Understanding the Upcoming Deficit Numbers" that gives a pretty good idea of what is coming.

Deficits are already estimated at huge numbers, but will have to be significantly increased because of actions already taken by Congress.

Growth is predicted at too high numbers already and will have to be reduced if they are honest. They probably won't be.

The deficits are so bad because they are 4 times the average the last 20 years. What does that do?

"Budget deficits crowd our private borrowing and raise interest rates. It costs more to get a mortgage, a car loan, or a student loan. Higher interest rates and their effect on the dollar cause the U.S. economy to grow more slowly, meaning fewer jobs are created and wage growth slows."

What will happen?

"The President has boxed himself in with different messages on fiscal policy and health policy. He argues we must slow the growth of long-term health spending, but has not offered policies that unbiased analysts say would achieve that goal. In health care reform, Congress is in no mood to make the painful choices needed to reduce future deficits, so the President has fallen back to a more modest goal of not increasing future deficits. If health care reform should actually become law this year, expect the long-run budget picture to get dramatically worse. Pending bills would create a rapidly-growing enormous new spending commitment that would quickly outstrip the proposed spending cuts and tax increases. In an effort to rescue health care reform the President has shifted away from a cost control message. Congress will read this signal and look for ways to avoid the pain of deficit reduction, knowing that the President will sign any bill that reaches his desk."

The President entered office with a bad situation. We all grant that. But he has determined to plow ahead and force through a liberal social program that will make a bad situation much worse.

"The President’s social policy agenda is throwing gasoline on a deficit fire."

Read the whole thing here.

The Biggest Lie

2009-08-18T19:50:00.003-05:00

"I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help you."

That's it. You have all heard that. There are other big lies, but this is the biggest.

Government, if left to its own devices, as the liberals would have it, is only here to enslave us.

We need an effective governemnt to do those things that we, in the Constitution, have asked it to do.

We do not need a slavemeaster.

Think about it.

Obamacare and the Constitution

2009-08-17T15:42:00.004-05:00

Someone is finally raising a very valid point about the attempt at a Federal takeover of health care.

Is is Constitutional?

That is a complex question, because the Supreme Court has over the years seriously broadened the powers of the government beyond those contemplated by the Framers, and expressly stated in the Constitution itself.

So, although I do not believe that the Constitution permits it, there is the potential that the Supreme Court might find otherwise.

Rob Natelson, over at Electric City Weblog, writes a bit about the question today, stating:

"Enumerated powers. The Constitution grants the federal government about thirty-five specific powers – eighteen in Article I, Section 8, and the rest scattered throughout the document. (The exact number depends on how you count.) None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories."

The catch, however is:

"To be sure, since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has been tolerant of the federal welfare state, usually justifying federal ad hoc programs under specious interpretations of the congressional Commerce Power. "

Thanfully, there is a "but":

"But, except in wartime, the Court has never authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices – even “liberal” justices – have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go."

My view is that if it is not a power ennumerated in the Constitution, then it is governed by the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Sounds pretty clear, doesn't it.

Questions like these are what Supreme Court selection is all about. The left wants appointees who will ignore the Constitution and approve every harebrained idea they have, while the right wants appointees who will preserve the Constitution.

Roosevelt, when he was President, forced the Supreme Court to back off the concept of due process with regard to the taking of property, by threatening to "pack" the Court by expanding the number of justices above the traditional nine.

That caused a lot of very questionable legislation to be passed and approved by the Court

Will Obama and the Democrats do that again? Or will the present Court just let them have what they want? What will Justice Kennedy do?

Perhaps the bill can be defeated and then we won't have to worry.

Did you know

2009-08-17T13:22:00.003-05:00

Almost two thirds of Government Motors car sales in the first half of the year were outside North America?

And the new, inexpensive subcompact car they are going to manufacture will be made possibly (probably) in Asia?

The story is here.

Interesting.

Public Option Off the Table?

2009-08-16T15:58:00.003-05:00

The New York Times is quoting Kathleen Sibelius, the HHS Secretary, that a government insurer "is not an essential element" to the health insurance reform bill.

If that is the case, and they will let that part go, then one of the worst parts of the bill will have been taken out.

Hooray for the good guys!

Now, if we could only find out what is in the rest of the bill.

Some reform does need to be done, but it has to be done in a way that keeps the government out of our business.

Liberals want the government in our business, so we must be vigilant. Pelosi and Reid can be very sneaky, as we have seen with the stimulus bill and the cap and trade bill.

Its Not Just About Health Care

2009-08-16T13:57:00.004-05:00

A lot of liberals are making the mistake in thinking that all of the protesting out there by the citizenry is just about the health care bills.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Some of it is....it is the issue du jour. But there is a lot more. A lot.

Victor Davis Hanson, is great essay, says it this way:

"There is a growing sense of a “we’ve been had”, bait-and-switch. Millions of moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats — apparently angry at Bush for Iraq and big deficits, unimpressed by the McCain campaign, intrigued by the revolutionary idea of electing an African-American president — voted for Obama on the assumption that he was sincere about ending red state/blue state animosity. They took him at his word that he was going to end out-of-control federal spending. They trusted that he had real plans to get us out of the economic doldrums, and that he was not a radical tax-and-spend liberal of the old sort."

Read the whole thing here.

Professor Hanson goes on the give reasons for why "we have been had" but there are others he misses.

And he misses one important thing: these protests are also against the Republican policies of the last few years.

The people are tired of the government messing everything up. They are tired of the corruption, the power of the big lobbyists, the huge and growing deficits, the move to have the government control every aspect of our lives, the terrible, huge bailouts of the financial institutions, the nationalization of Chrysler and General Motors with the concurrent gift of 40% of the stock in GM to the United Auto Workers, an adjunct of the Democratic Party, and a whole list of other things.

While the Democrats may be the worst offenders, Republicans started us down the path to the bailouts and the nationalizations, and certainly were running up huge deficits. They also really enjoyed slopping at the trough when they were in power.

Much of this anger is directed at the entire political process. Some did, as Hanson points out, foolishly think that Obama might really change things, and hope that government could be made to work better.

Obama's only interest is to make it work better for his political allies. Anyone who thinks differently is still being foolish.

My view is that Americans do want their government to work better than it has, but they also want it to be limited to those things government can do best.

They want the government to stay out of things that the government is incapable of doing, like making medical choices for over 300 million Americans. Some regulation, yes. Deciding when to put granny down, or whether grandpa can have a knee replaced, or a neonate should be saved or not, no.

Hell no.

Running Chrysler and General Motors, no.

Taxing energy and destroying our economy (even more), no.

Running up trillions more in national debt, no.

Expanding government at the expense of the private sector, no.

One could go on and on. Obama is trying to cram the very opposite down our throats. The Republicans so far have not really put forward credible and effective alternatives, at least none that have been well publicized.

Message to Republicans: don't try to regain power by saying "we will do better." Nobody will believe you.

Show us.

Message to Democrats: Get off the socialism now.

The "Golden Years"

2009-08-16T01:56:00.000-05:00

Last weekend while visiting an old friend who is rehabbing from an almost fatal stroke, I had the opportunity to spend a few hours in a combination nursing home and assisted living home.

Although my friend is slowly improving, it was a very saddening experience.

Actually, it is every old person's horror.

There were only two men that I saw in the facility, my friend and a retired pastor in his 90s. The remainder were little old ladies in various stage of physical and mental health, none of which seemed capable of providing for themselves.

The eyes haunt me. My friend and several of the ladies still had bright eyes...indicating to me, at least, that they still had mental acuity. This was generally proved by conversation.

Other eyes were dull, not bright, and those were the ones that may well have been the best off.

Now my friend appears to be on the way to recovery and escape from the home.

For the others with "bright eyes" there will likely be no escape other than eventual death.

Those with the "dull" eyes? Well, they probably don't appreciate what is going on that much. Their minds have likely already escaped, and their bodies will follow at a later date.

Back in the old days, when we had strong families throughout American society, a place like that would be unheard of. If one's mom or dad, or grandparents got in that shape, they would be taken into a family member's home until they passed on.

Now, however, they are placed in homes like these. And left alone.

Sad.

They way we treat our elderly is certainly a comment on our society the same way as the way we treat our youth is.

The Real Problem With the Health Care Debate

2009-08-13T12:45:00.002-05:00

The real problem with health care is that they have done it in a way that nobody can really be informed. Clearly the Congress is not, and clearly the folks on both sides are not.

This is the crux of the matter: the whole issue has been presented in such a poor way that nobody really knows or appreciates what is actually in the various bills, and the attempt to rush it through with no debate, like the stimulus and the cap and trade bill, leaves the public to assume that the health care bill is as bad as the others.

This is just real poor politics by Obama and the Congressional leaders. Camille Paglia had it right.

People fear the unknown. The bill's provisions are unknown....deliberately. The Democrats are losing the fight for that reason, and should.

What needs to be done is that Obama needs to lay out the bill he wants, and then the various committees in Congress should hold public hearings and hear everyone's views.

After hearings and a fair markup debate, what comes out should be freely debated on the House floor (or the Senate, as the case may be) and voted up or down after any amendments. In other words, they should follow their own procedures.

Instead, the Democrat leadership in the House tried to rush something through without debate and without really informing the public what was in it.

This is not how a Democratic Republic like ours is supposed to work. It is a violation of all the tenets of fairness.

For that reason all of the bills should be voted down, and a new start made.

We were promised bi-partisanship by Obama. Instead, we have gotten worse partisanship than even Tom DeLay caused.

Shame on them all.

Health Care Reform

2009-08-13T11:07:00.002-05:00

The last day or so I have managed to post some comments on this issue on a friend's blog.

Go here to check out the comments.

Sorry about

2009-08-13T11:04:00.002-05:00

the hiatus in blogging. As noted in the previous blog, I was out of town, and have been working since.

That has not left time to blog.

There are lots of things out there to blog about, so I will try to do better.

Hot and Dry in the Hill Country

2009-08-06T16:45:00.003-05:00

Driving down to Austin from West Texas yesterday was quite an experience. Starting out, the countryside was pretty lush from recent rains. The crops looked pretty good all the way to Sweetwater and beyond.

Between there and Brady, on the western edge of Texas' Hill Country, the landscape was pretty average for summer in Texas. A bit hot, of course, but not entirely bone dry.

Once past Brady, however, it became a sudden desert. Temps were over a hundred degrees, and the land was parched like I have never seen it in the Hill Country, which covers 70 years.

The Pedernales River was bone dry as I crossed it on Highway 71. Boathouses were stranded on the cracked, dry riverbed for as far as one could see downriver.

I am told that Lake Travis is much the same in many areas.

Sad.

Pray for rain.

Utopia Versus Freedom

2009-08-04T12:20:00.004-05:00

Thomas Sowell has a very thoughtful article on this subject over at Real Clear Politics. He is absolutely right about what he says.

We are in the midst of a great debate between liberals who want to impose, through the government, a utopia on all of us, and those who would rather preserve their freedom. His thought:

"... If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away, while we are mindlessly repeating the catchwords of the hour, whether "change," "universal health care" or "social justice.""

And that is it in a nutshell. Turning your life over to the government erodes your freedom. Its really as simple as that.

He goes on to say:

"Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom."

Our health care system is not perfect, but 80% of Americans are satisfied with their coverage. Everytime we ask the government to do something about that, or anything else, it usually leads to more imperfections. The track record of the government is not good. See the Veteran's Administration for the operation of hospitals, and see Medicare and Medicaid for its operation of insurance. Nothing the government has ever done in this area has been done without far exceeding its projected costs. The example of the VA is horrendous. Medicare and Medicaid are merely broke

Anytime you get politicians involved in anything, it is all about distributing largesse, not about doing it right.

The message I have to all the people who want the Democrats to lead us to a socialist utopia is to understand that people who love their freedom will not stand for it.

A hat tip to William Katz at Urgent Agenda.

Sheer Stupidity

2009-08-03T18:04:00.003-05:00

The Washington Post today has a story that the Obama Administration is studying moving some of the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay to a prison in the United States where thay could be tried by courts or military commissions.

Now we have a very secure facility down at Gitmo that is a virtual country club compared to prisons in the United States, but we are going to close it down and move the terrorists to the US?

Why?

Sheer stupidity, that is why.

Its the same reason why in the middle of a deep recession we are going to tax everyone's energy, and raise another $1 trillion to finance socialized medicine.

It makes one feel like Alice in Wonderland.

Nothing Obama does makes any sense, unless he is trying to destroy our country.

Will ObamaCare Ration Health Care to Seniors?

2009-08-03T17:31:00.004-05:00

Absolutely YES.

Senator Brownback, in a post on NRO lays it on the line:

"This became abundantly clear when Senator Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) introduced an amendment designed to ensure that the new center could not put a value on life-saving treatment by using “quality of life” and “cost-effectiveness” measures “for the denial of Medicare benefits to patients against their wishes.” Because Democrats rejected the amendment in a party-line vote, the proposed new entity would be able to impose restrictions on access to treatment, as is common in European countries with socialized medicine. Elderly, disabled, and medically dependent patients would be at greatest risk of being denied necessary care."

Medicare certainly needs fixing, but there are many ways to do it that do not include denial of health care to the elderly and infirm.

The fact that we are being lied to about it, makes it even worse.

I am working and then out of town most of this week, but I do have some thoughts about how to help fix the Medicare problem that I will try to post at some point.

The conduct of the majority party in Washington is shameless.

Birds of a Feather?

2009-08-02T16:08:00.005-05:00

In the early hours of the morning on June 28 this year, soldiers of the Honduran Army, bearing an order from the Honduran Supreme Court, arrested and then exiled Honduran President Zelaya.

The order from the Supreme Court, with the approval of the duly elected Congress of Honduras, came after Zelaya had disobeyed a direct order from the Court and was proceeding with a referendum that had been found to be unconstitutional.

A member of Zelaya's own party was appointed by Congress and sworn in as temporary President until an election could be held on November 29.

The hue and cry from the Marxist/Communist/Socialist dictators from south of our border was instant and loud.

The esteemed Hugo Chavez vowed to reverse the situation. The socialist government of Ecuador announced they would not recognize the new government.

The Castros of Cuba were outraged and demanded sanctions.

The old Sandinista from Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, joined the other extreme leftists.

And then came Barack Obama. He stepped into it with both feet.

Eventually the Organization of American states demanded that Zelaya be restored, and called for sanctions.

The United States immediately suspended military aid, and has since revoked the visas of four diplomats representing the new government.

So let us get this straight.

We have a guy in Honduras, Zelaya, who is trying to establish a dictatorship, a la Chavez in Venezuela, who is legally removed for having violated the Constitution of Honduras, and the President of the United States is helping him, and trying to get him restored to power.

Somehow, that just seems un-American for some reason. There are thousands of reasons we might have to avoid having another Chavez, or Castro, or Ortega in Central America, but I cannot think of a single, solitary reason why the interests of the United States could be served by having another Marxist/Communist/Socialist dictator down there.

So why would Obama take that position? Could it be that he is birds of a feather with Castro, Chavez, Ortega and the others?

My Mom always told me that birds of a feather flock together.

Perhaps his associations with Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorhn, Rev. Wright and the other radicals that hate the United States were not so benign after all.

Look out, a big one is coming

2009-08-01T14:53:00.003-05:00

Heh. There is a story over on Politico by Andie Collier about Obama's favorite phrase: "Let me be clear...."

In the story, there is a dissection of what it really means. It is a pretty interesting story, with a number of ideas about what he is meaning to say.

My view: when I hear him say that, I think of the phrase "I'm not lying to you" that is heard just before a big one.

Mr. Obama is anything but clear on most things, mostly because he doesn't know anything about that of which he speaks.

This includes the contents of his health care initiative, or the cap and trade disaster, or his foreign policy.

Clear, indeed. That makes me laugh. Sadly.

Waste of Time

2009-07-31T17:46:00.003-05:00

I see from U. S. News and World Report that Americans spent 9.9 billion hours doing government paperwork last years, a waste of $460 Billion of costs.

The time spent was a 25% increase from 2004.

Just think what Obama's programs are going to add.

A crushing blow to the economy.

Who really believes the government can do anything right? Or efficiently?

Anybody?

A hat tip to Hotair.

Good Enough For Us, But Not For Them

2009-07-31T14:28:00.005-05:00

The Great, Fabulous health care bill that will have deep and lasting effects upon all of us, has been determined by the House Energy and Commerce Committee to be not good enough for the President and the Congress.

I see this over at Redstate in a post by Jeff Emmanuel.

The committee site is here, but it is not functioning because of the high traffic, and has not kept up with the voting.

The first vote was on an amendment to permit all Americans to share the same medical plan that Congress has. That was voted down by the Democrats by 31-28.

The second would have required all Members of Congress and Federal public officials to be automatically enrolled in the so-called public plan.

This was ruled not germane by Democratic Chairman Waxman, saving the Democrats from having to vote on it.

Surprise, surprise.

Who would have thought that we would see Congress feeling that their plan was too good for us peons, and their plan for us was not good enough for them?

That is precisely what they have done.

Outrageous.

But what can we expect from that den of thieves?

Will Rogers was right:

"The only native criminal class in America is Congress."

And the worst are Democrats.

Who do they work for?

2009-07-30T15:52:00.003-05:00

Daniel Henninger over at the Wall Street Journal has a piece about the Blue Dogs where he asks the title question.:

"....The issue is: Do they work for us, or do we work for them? "

That is a question we can ask about all of our folks in the Federal Government including all of Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary.

Who is the master, and who is the slave?

If you explore almost any issue, it comes down to this: one group up there is pro government, and wants the government to make sure we are led down the "correct" paths. These are mostly Democrats. Another group mostly favors (they say) having the private sector do the leading. These are mostly Republicans. The last group is on the fence. They cannot decide who to favor, the government or the people. This includes the Blue Dogs and so-called "moderate" Republicans.

The problem we have is that when the pro-private sector folks have gotten in charge, they have joined the pro government group.

The result has been an unprecedented growth in government the last 80 years. This has left us all less free and less well off than we otherwise would be.

Our government has gotten to the point that it serves the special interests that feed it, and not the people who, through their taxes, are required to support it.

Just look at the absolutely huge sums expended by lobbyists and other big special interests to support the power and elections of the politicians. Is it any wonder that the whole system has become so corrupt?

We all need to send a message to the politicians: you represent us, or you are gone.

Actually, we just need to throw all the bums out and start over.

Read all of Henninger's article here.

Big Bankers Legally Steal Public Funds

2009-07-30T13:43:00.002-05:00

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, doing a job that apparently nobody else wants, has blown the whistle on the Treasury and the large financial institutions that the Treasury has been bailing out.

Nine big banks which received $175 Billion in TARP funds from the Treasury paid a total of $32.6 Billion in bonuses to their employees.

Anyone that is not outraged at this must be living in a cave in Afghanistan.

These people steered their companies into the greatest bust since the Great Depression, and they get bonuses like that for their performance? With our tax money?

Something is very rotten here.

And why are not the politicians that supposedly are representing the people not doing something?

Follow the money.

Lots of campaign contributions, and lots of lobbyist money.

Stories on this are here, and here.

The Pelosi Payroll Tax; UPDATE:Demo says even they don't understand the bill

2009-07-30T13:25:00.006-05:00

The Wall Street Journal today points out that there is more than one tax in the proposed health care reform bill.

Its an up to 10% payroll tax on workers whose employers don't provide health insurance. Now it is in the bill as a tax on employers, but it is no secret that such taxes will result in lower pay and benefits for the workers.

"To put this in actual dollars, a worker earning, say, $70,000 a year could lose some $5,600 in take home pay to cover the costs of ObamaCare. And, by the way, this is in addition to the 2.5% tax that the individual worker would have to pay on gross income, if he doesn’t buy the high-priced health insurance that the government will mandate. In sum, that’s a near 10-percentage point tax on wages and salaries on top of the 15% that already hits workers to finance Medicare and Social Security."

This is just one of the things that would not be discussed if the bill had been hurried through like she tried to do.

The four Blue Dogs who caved in yesterday at least give us some time to carefully go through this bill, something we were not able to do with the cap and trade bill.

It will be interesting to discover what else is hidden in the legislation.

Isn't it nice to have such open and transparent processes in the Democrat Congress?

Criminal, at best.

UPDATE: According to Politico, even Democrats in Congress don't understand the health care reform:

"A Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, agrees. “The members don’t even understand what’s in it,” he confessed of the legislation. As for his constituents? They are “not exactly sure what this is about, and they’re not really sure whether they like it or not.” "

What does that say about them and their haste to rush it through? Transparency? Hope and change? Tyranny of the majority?

Blue Dogs Cave on Health Care Reform; Updated: No vote until late September or later: Obama

2009-07-29T17:31:00.004-05:00

There are reports out this afternoon that the Blue Dog Democrats have compromised with the "yellow dog" Democrats, and have agreed on an outline of a bill that would radically change health care in the United States.

Given that the Congressional Budget Office has cited the huge costs of the bill...over one trillion dollars..... the Blue Dogs could be said to have caved in by agreeing to reduce the costs by only an estimated one hundred billion dollars. That is a lot of money, but only a drop in the bucket.

So, what else did they get? Well, they didn't get the national insurance out of the provisions, but they did require that government insurance company negotiate fees with doctors rather than unilaterally set them like it does with Medicare. But that still gets the government's nose under the tent, and we all know where that will go.

They did get a increase in the ceiling for mandatory insurance, doubling it to payrolls of $500,000 or less. That is still too low by far.

There is no mention of Medicare.

It seems a lot of the savings will come from two places, as reported by the New York Times:

"¶ Medicaid would be expanded, as under the original bill, but states would have to pay a small share of the additional costs, perhaps 7 percent. The federal government would have paid the entire cost under the original bill.

"¶ Workers would have to pay slightly more of their income on premiums for employer-sponsored insurance — 12 percent, rather than 11 percent — before they could qualify for federal subsidies."

So savings would come from charging workers more money, and putting additional costs on the states. Isn't that nice? Guess who still pays?

What do we have at the end of the day? The best part of it is that they delayed the bill from coming up for a vote until after Labor Day.

That will at least mean that someone will have a chance to read the bill after it is marked up in committee, and before it is presented to the House for a vote.

That is a change. Celebrate the small things.

They won't be able to change that sow's ear into a silk purse during the recess. But they will try to sell it as one.

And the so-called "conservative" Democrats, the Blue Dogs, showed their true colors once again.

The term "conservative" Democrat is an oxymoron, by the way. If they were conservative, they would not be Democrats. It has been thirty years since there was a real live conservative in the Democratic Party. We all left back then.

UPDATE: Obama is quoted this evening as saying there will not be a vote on the Health Care Reform Bill until late September or mid-October.

This is a major defeat for Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership.

"End of Life" Counselling

2009-07-28T18:09:00.003-05:00

There was too much work yesterday to post, but here goes one for today.

At the beginning, please understand that I am opposed to the health care reform being proposed in Congress. There are many, many aspects of it that I find deeply troubling.

There is one that is being used by opponents to scare senior citizens in the same way the Democrats have always done on Social Security reform. That strategy has been very effective for the Democrats, of course, but that doesn't make it right.

There is a provision in the bill that amends the Social Security Act (the part that applies to Medicare reimbursements) to provide for payment for end of life counselling for seniors every five years, and more frequently if the senior has a terminal illness.

I have read the two bills, and there is no requirement that anyone have the counselling as the fearmongers say. It just permits them to have it, and be covered by Medicare.

My view is that every senior should have the counselling provided for in the bill whether or not the bill is passed with that in it. The last couple of times I have gone to the hospital, I have been asked if I had a directive to physicians and a medical power of attorney. I have, and so should everyone if you want your wishes to be honored.

There is, in fact, another provision that provides for such counselling already in the Medicare Act.

There are a lot of reasons to oppose the bills before Congress, but this is not one of them.

You may find the provision at issue here.

The part of the Social Security Act being amended is here.

Defend Your Health Care

2009-07-26T12:51:00.004-05:00

In trying to research the health care matters before Congress one particular website stands out. Its called Defend Your Health Care. It is run by Betsy McCaughey, PhD, a former Lt. Governor of the State of New York.

You can hear an interview with her at this site.

Everyone should go to the web site and check it out. The first thing you will see is something I have also pointed out in an earlier post:

"Whatever health insurance bill is passed in Congress MUST apply to members of Congress and other federal employees. No Exceptions.

If it isn't good enough for them, it isn't good enough for us.

We are calling on members of Congress to propose an amendment to the Kennedy Health Bill requiring all federal employees to enroll in a "qualified" health plan just like the rest of us. "

The only way for us to get the scheming politicians in DC to pass anything reasonably fair is to require that they be subject to the same provisions.

The fact that they choose to exempt themselves is certain evidence that they know its a bad bill.

This whole matter is outrageous.

The politicians, particularly those on the left, are trying to steal our country.

Between the health "reform," the cap and trade bill, the huge deficit spending, and a whole big bunch of other things, they will destroy our freedom if we permit them to do it.

A political revolution is needed.

Who will lead it?

Slammed by CBO Again

2009-07-25T10:30:00.004-05:00

The Congressional Budget Office has slammed ObamaCare once again for failing to do anything to cut costs.

"For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years. "

Republicans had a response:

""This letter underscores the enormous challenges that Democrats face trying to pay for their massive and costly government takeover of health care. In their rush to pass a bill, Democrats continue to ignore the stark economic reality facing our nation," said Boehner spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier. "Let's scrap the current proposal and come together in a meaningful way to reform health care in America by reducing cost, expanding access and at a price tag we can afford.""

Clearly, the "reform" proposed by the left includes so much government that it could not possible be efficient or fair.

Of course, to the left, its more about control than costs or fairness.

Senator Charles Grassley, however, says that a reform bill will be passed this year:

"“They said we’ve got to show the Democrats they don’t have a vote to nationalize health insurance and then they’ll come to us and we’ll get a compromise,” Grassley said, describing conversations he has had with the other leaders."

Everyone, it seems, thinks we have to reform medical insurance, and that is fine. But will it be good enough for Congress and the President to include themselves in the reform?

And how can you compromise a bill that is so bad?

Current legislation would exempt all the Feds, so they must not think its a very good deal.

The public should demand that any reform that is passed apply to everyone, and not leave out a privileged few.

It is very apparent that the few in Washington consider themselves far above those of us out in the hinterland.

We should throw them all out. All of them.

Memo to the President and Congress re: Health Care

2009-07-24T17:49:00.003-05:00

Mr. President and Congress, you are presently trying to pass a health care reform bill. You have exempted yourselves and all Federal employees from the provisions thereof.

You need to pardon me for shouting, but:

I WILL ACCEPT ANY REFORM OF MEDICAL CARE THAT YOU AND ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WILL BE SUBJECT TO, AND NONE OTHER.

PERIOD.

I do not know why you believe that you have some kind of superior rights to the rest of us, but rest assured, you do not.

The South Plainsman

Bored?

2009-07-23T17:54:00.003-05:00

Last night's press conference shows that Americans are becoming bored with Obama. It was the lowest rated yet in terms of viewers.

It was also the lowest rated in terms of substance.

Called to help bolster the sagging health care agenda, the presser demonstrated that Obama does not have a clue about the subject matter.

Even with the adoring White House press corps asking softer than goose down questions, Obama couldn't get into the swing of things. From the first question until the last, he gave circuitous, meaningless answers to the easy questions.

The last, of course, was the doozy about racial profiling, where he took a stand before he even had heard the evidence.

If everyone keeps the heat on their Congressmen and Senators, ObamaCare should be defeated.

Hopefully the same for the cap and tax, er, trade, bill.

Meantime, at the stock markets, Obama's lackluster performance gave it a boost above $9,000 on the Dow Jones Average today.

So perhaps he did accomplish something.

Raindrops keep fallin' on my head......

2009-07-22T13:47:00.002-05:00

Wow. Got up this morning and drove to work in the rain. Finished, and drove home in the rain. Its still raining....a nice constant rain.

Here we are in West Texas on the 22nd of July, and it is 64 deg. and raining.

Sounds like time for a good nap.

Public Enemies

2009-07-21T18:16:00.004-05:00

We went to the movies today. I don't usually go, but this one was about John Dillinger, the bank robber active back during the Great Depression.

Good movie. I recommend it for those that like action.

It occurred to me during the movie how much things had changed since then. Back then, guys like Dillinger, "Baby Face" Nelson and "Pretty Boy" Floyd were the bad guys, robbing and killing folks.

Today, its entirely the opposite. Now the banks and financial institutions, particularly the great big ones on Wall Street, are the ones doing the robbing and pillaging.

Just think. They had that huge bubble that blew up courtesy of the Federal Reserve and the helpful politicians of both parties in Washington. Those banks and financial institutions sold all kinds of paper, all represented to be good, while at the same time, they and the government were encouraging the public to borrow more and more.

Huge bonuses piled on huge bonuses for the perpetrators of all of this. They all got tremendously wealthy.

Then the house of cards crashed down.

Retribution for their excesses? Of course not. Their enablers in the government decided to bail the perps out with money that will have to be taken from the victims of all of this, namely the US taxpayer.

Instead of ending up like Dillinger, at least figuratively, most of them are going to get even richer off of the bailouts.

I understand from Mr. Barofsky, who is the authoritative person in this issue, that the US taxpayer may get stuck for as much as 23.7 TRILLION DOLLARS.

We need to throw out all of the pols in the government that were, and continue to be, behind this.

Quickly.

Birth Certificate Issue Makes it to Congress

2009-07-20T17:24:00.004-05:00

It seems that those who question Obama's natural born citizen status have gotten some Congressmen to jump on the bandwagon.

There is a bill co-sponsored by 9 Congressmen, including our own Randy Neugebauer, that would require any candidate for President to produce his or her birth certificate.

John Avlon, writing over at The Daily Beast, thinks that is rather silly, and it certainly may well be.

"All this might be laughable, if there weren’t deadly serious hyper-partisan hatred behind it all. There is plenty to debate over the administration’s policies, but Obama Derangement Syndrome is not healthy for our democracy—it is pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism."

Those are pretty harsh words for what might seem a reasonable sort of request. Reminds me of the Bush Derangement Syndrome we saw for 8 years.

My view is that Obama should release his birth certificate. If he is who he says he is, and I have no reason to doubt it, then he could put this business to rest very quickly, and send the "birthers" running with their tails between their legs.

The only thing that gives this life is Obama's strenuous efforts to hide the birth certificate and other records that most Presidents release.

Is he trying to hide something?

2009-07-19T16:41:00.003-05:00

A Cure for Radiation Sickness?

2009-07-19T16:41:00.002-05:00

YNet has posted news that a cure for radiation sickness has been found by Jewish-American scientists and one from Israel. The research was funded by Israelis.

"The ground-breaking medication, developed by Professor Andrei Gudkov – Chief Scientific Officer at Cleveland BioLabs - may have far-reaching implications on the balance of power in the world, as states capable of providing their citizens with protection against radiation will enjoy a significant strategic advantage vis-à-vis their rivals."

It will also have other very valuable uses:

"Gudkov's discovery may also have immense implications for cancer patients by enabling doctors to better protect patients against radiation. Should the new medication enable cancer patients to be treated with more powerful radiation, our ability to fight the disease could greatly improve. "

This drug, if it works and passes the tests, will have profound implications for every human being living in this nuclear age.

The potential use in fighting cancer is mind boggling.

They hope to have it through the FDA in a couple of years. We will see.

Go read the whole story.

And a hat tip to Roger L. Simon.

What are they smoking?

2009-07-19T14:58:00.003-05:00

Hillary is in India, trying to convince the Indians that they should cut their carbon emissions according to the Washington Post. While there, she told the Indians:

"No one wants to in any way stall or undermine the economic growth that is necessary to lift millions more out of poverty," Clinton countered. "We also believe that there is a way to eradicate poverty and develop sustainability that will lower significantly the carbon footprint."

Yeah. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. The world's economies from ours all the way down to the smallest depend upon fossil fuels to operate their economies. If other nations are to continue to grow and expand their economies, they will have to use more, not less.

Incidently, Hillary was responding to India's very predictable and definite "No" to her proposals.

It seems that, unlike our current government, India has done a cost/benefit analysis of reducing emissions, and found, like anyone would, that the costs of such a program would far outweigh any benefits. Particularly in a world that has been cooling for over ten years now.

Reuters says that our Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke said in China that the US taxpayers should pay for Chinese emissions:

" “It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that,” Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai."

That, of course, is after the Chinese have made clear that they are not going to pay for any of it.

So let me see if I can get this straight.

We spend the last two or three decades shipping our manufacturing jobs to China, and a lot of high tech jobs to India, and they are going to get off scot-free on this global warming idiocy? And then we will have to pay for it ourselves?

With what?

I propose that Obama and his cadre get off the dope they are smoking and get back to the real world.

What is the real agenda?

2009-07-17T17:26:00.006-05:00

Why all of the rush, all of a sudden? Ever since the Democrats came into full power in January, they have been in full hurry-up mode.

I remember the so-called stimulus bill was rushed through before anybody could read it or understand it. Turns out it didn't stimulate much but it did feather a bunch of Democratic nests.

A bullet train from Southern California to Las Vegas for good old Harry Reid, for instance.

It is easy to recognize that some action was called for at the time. A day or two or even a month would not have made any difference. So why the rush?

The energy bill, aka the cap and trade bill, was similarly rushed through the House, with no time to read it, and no amendments permitted ( Ms. Pelosi makes Tom DeLay look like a warm fuzzy kitten).

And now the President is pushing it through the Senate, trying to pass it by August.

This so-called problem ended in 1998 when the globe started cooling again. Why not take a few months and have a good debate on it? Why the big rush?

And now we have the big push to pass socialized health care (disguised as "reform") by August as well. The health care business has been around for a long time, and Medicare and Medicaid have needed reform since they were initiated.

So why are we rushing into all of this? These are major bills that will have lasting, perhaps permanent, effects on our lives and our economy.

And we must pass them without even having a debate or being able to read and understand them before they become law?

Wait a minute. Just wait a minute. Is this the kind of "hope and change" we want? Does this constitute the transparency Obama promised? Or the bi-partisanship?

Maybe its just Rahm Emmanuel not wanting to lose the benefit of a good crisis to ram things through.

Could there be another agenda at work here? Not just health care reform, or solving global warming? Is this an attempt to transform the United States into a socialist state, where everyone has equal results in the pursuit of happiness?

Consider the energy proposals. This would levy high direct and indirect taxes on everyone who uses energy.

Companies that manufacture or produce things would be the heaviest hit. It would make those industries even more uncompetitive than the labor unions have managed to do. That would produce a huge drag on employment. This has very deleterious effects on the entire economy, because we have to produce things to create wealth.

Of course, we would all be hit, depending upon the energy we use. Walk to work and do away with all of your modern appliances, including lights, and you might avoid most of the tax.

The health care industry is also a large part of our economy, and employs a very large number of people. The proposals before the Congress would create a number of taxes on various aspects, and particularly employers within and without the industry. Uninsured individuals who don't want insurance ( about 40% of the total according to a study for the CBO) will be taxed, forcing them to buy or pay the tax. (Free country, right!).

Both of those bills will contribute to severely crippling our economy right in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

And anyone with any degree of intelligence should know it.

Now I know that Obama and his team are intelligent and should know this is true ( that does not apply to Lenin's "useful idiots" in the Congress).

So is it their real agenda to bring the US to its knees? Where are they heading us?

They have already nationalized the biggest automaker. Who will be next?

Health care on the front burner

2009-07-16T14:12:00.003-05:00

William Katz over at Urgent Agenda calls our attention to something in the New York Daily News writtten by one Kristen Lopez Eastlick about a study done by her organization for the Congressional Budget Office. The subject was the nation's folks that are not insured for health care. Who are the 47 million uninsured, really? is part of the title of the article.

It seems that the study found that 43% of them are voluntarily uninsured, in that they make an average of $65,000 per year, and can therefore afford the coverage, but for their own reasons, choose not to buy it. I can see why we don't hear that from the pols in DC.

She goes on to point out that 13% of the uninsured are illegal aliens. In addition, 40 % of the uninsured are unemployed, and if they could find suitable employment or were trained so they could, many of them could get insurance from their employers.

As a result, she questions why we should do such a radical overhaul of our entire system, when lesser approaches would solve the problem. That is a good question.

Mr. Katz has a comment of his own:

"Congress is about to enact a hugely expensive solution to a problem it doesn't even understand. Indeed, the lack of interest in facts is stunning. It's especially stunning when you look at the media, which is always whining about "the people's right to know." Apparently, there are many things the people don't have a right to know, like the real nature of the health-care "crisis.""

Why the hurry? Why such drastic measures? Why such high costs?

Only The Shadow knows.

Follow the money

2009-07-16T12:53:00.005-05:00

Profits from two very large financial institutions have been in the news lately. Its amazing how that can happen in an environment where taxpayers have been subsudizing those institutions and others like them since last Fall.

One, JPMorgan Chase, just paid back its TARP money, but there has been not accounting for the funds advanced by the Fed.

Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, did not take TARP money, and again, there is not any accounting, one way or the other, for any funds advanced by the Fed.

Goldman, however, was the primary beneficiary of the bailout of AIG, receiving $12.9 Billion dollars of taxpayer money passed through AIG.

One might ask why them....why not Lehman Bros., too?

One of the things learned early in my career in politics was that when you have questions like that, you "follow the money."

OpenSecrets.org is a site where one can do just that. I highly recommend it to you.

If one checks campaign donations to the big shots, one can learn a lot. Take Obama's biggest contributors last year:

"University of California
$1,564,490

Goldman Sachs
$994,795

Harvard University
$854,017

Microsoft Corp
$833,617

Google Inc
$803,436

Citigroup Inc
$699,790

JPMorgan Chase & Co
$695,132

Time Warner
$589,334

Sidley Austin LLP
$588,598

Stanford University
$586,557

National Amusements Inc
$550,683

UBS AG
$543,219

Wilmerhale Llp
$542,618

Skadden, Arps et al
$530,839

IBM Corp
$527,572

Columbia University
$526,802

Morgan Stanley
$514,881

General Electric (NBC)
$499,130

Latham & Watkins
$493,835

US Government
$491,420"

Now these are contributions that are aggregated by the particular entity employed by the giver. Any of them look familiar?

Note that the two companies in this discussion are high up the list. Also ABS was a beneficiary of AIG bailout as well.

Now for the McCain contributors:

Merrill Lynch
$373,595

Citigroup Inc
$322,051

Morgan Stanley
$273,452

Goldman Sachs
$230,095

JPMorgan Chase & Co
$228,107

US Government
$208,379

AT&T Inc
$202,438
Wachovia Corp
$195,063

Credit Suisse Group
$183,353

UBS AG
$183,079

PricewaterhouseCoopers
$167,900

Bank of America
$166,026

US Army
$165,370

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
$159,596

Blank Rome LLP
$154,226

Greenberg Traurig LLP
$146,437

US Dept of Defense
$143,605

FedEx Corp
$131,974

Lehman Brothers
$126,057

Bear Stearns
$117,498

Hmmm. The same guys appear both places, and near the top. Note that the two in last place on McCain's list didn't make the Obama list, and they are no longer with us. That and what is below may point out why Lehman Bros., Goldman Sach's biggest competitor was allowed to fail. Of course, Obama was not elected yet.

Now Goldman Sachs did have more going for it than campaign contributions. They have actually been in charge of making policy at least since Robert Rubin was Clinton's Sec/Treas. Then we had Summers, then Paulson, and now Geithner, with Summers making sort of a re-run in the White House. All from Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs was there at the creation of the bubble, and at the end, and now at the "recovery."

Basically, what we have is the coyotes guarding the henhouse.

Isn't this a wild way to run a government?

Cramming

2009-07-15T18:01:00.005-05:00

After kicking around yellow dogs yesterday, today has been slow.

We changed out our telephone, cable and Internet providers this morning, so have been playing a bit with that.

Its Uverse, and so far, so good.

The summer doldrums are here, and Congress is rushing to get a bunch of bad legislation through while most people are thinking about vacation, or wishing they had the money to go.

From what I read, a lot of Democratic Congressmen were taken aback by their constituents' reactions to the "cap and trade" bill. I cannot understand why.

One would think that anybody with any sense would have realized that if you pass a huge tax without reading a word of the bill, most folks might get a little upset.

Watch them try to do the same thing with socialized medicine. I saw where Rahm, Obama's man, has threated to cram the socialized medicine down our throats whether we like it or not.

Hope and change.

Of Yellow Dogs and Stuff

2009-07-14T10:11:00.003-05:00

From back when I was a Democrat until this very day, I have known Democrats who would swear they would vote for a yellow dog, if he was a Democrat.

There are a lot who actually would....its not a joke.

There is a lot of "tribalism" that goes into political parties, I guess.

I was always a bit too independent to turn over my political choices to a group that anybody could join, so although I supported Democrats back in the day with whom I didn't fully agree, I didn't pull the straight ticket lever but once. That was in 1964. Big mistake. Have not done it since.

But back to yellow dogs....I have seen some candidates who wouldn't be able to stand up to a good yellow dog, and from both parties. I have nothing against yellow dogs, per se. In fact, I like dogs, even yellow ones.

Where I take issue with those Democrats is when the candidate doesn't measure up to a good dog, and they will vote for him or her anyway, if they run for election as a Democrat. (To treat everyone the same, I would feel the same way about a Republican who would do such.)

Of course, there are some elections where neither of the parties offer a decent choice. One that comes to mind was the last election for governor here. There were lots of candidates, but I wasn't real happy with either of the two parties' candidates, and the independent, although an old friend, just didn't measure up. So I voted for old UT graduate Kinky Friedman, because I knew he couldn't screw things up nearly as badly as the others could. But Kinky, although really a Democrat, wasn't a yellow dog.

I came up with this yellow dog business today as I was pondering some of the emails about Obama that are flying about the Internet. You know, the ones about his birth certificate, his travel to Pakistan on a foreign passport, his college records, and all that stuff.

Now, I have no idea whether those allegations are true or false.

But what I do know is that the allegations have been out there since before the election (many are based upon his books).

That raises the question: how can anyone have voted for him without knowing the answers to the questions?

The so-called mainstream press never pressed any of it, although private parties tried to. I understand Obama has spent nearly a million dollars keeping it all hushed up. He, like any individual, has a right to privacy, but it would seem that a candidate for President would not be concerned about a birth certificate. Or college records (we had Bush's). Or passport records.

I have been in public service for over 40 years, and my life has been an open book. I never had anything that I was sufficiently ashamed of to hide. Why is Obama ashamed?

He could very easily solve the problems and answer the questions.

And that is what got me to thinking about the yellow dog.

Whither climate change? What is the real agenda?

2009-07-13T14:45:00.003-05:00

It is noted that the new term adopted by the environmental "sky is falling" group is "climate change" to replace the old term "global warming."

But its perhaps not so unexpected when you consider that the globe mysteriously stopped warming in 1998. That occurred even though manmade CO2 emissions have continued to rise.

Unfortunately, that has not stopped the "Chicken Littles" out there from demanding that we take great and painful steps to limit the use of fossil fuels in the U. S. even if few others do.

One must question why we should do this to cure a problem that doesn't even exist.

There are two articles out lately that explain what is happening. Unfortunately, our media in the United States is ignoring the fact that there are reputable scientists that disagree with the "consensus" view that we are having a catastrophic warming event. The two I mention are from the United Kingdom.

Ian Plimer, in an interview in the Spectator, has another view:

‘The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology."

In his book, Heaven and Earth, he pointed out that:

".... polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty."

During the period of growing gapes and citrus in southern Scotland, the world was far warmer than now, and warmer than predicted in the next hundred years.

His view of the various computer models used to forecast future climate change is correct:

"...I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase."

So there you have it. There is more from him, but let's consider the article by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph.

He speaks of the G-8 summit last week which committed to fight "global warming", or "climate change", if you will:

"Last week in Italy, the various branches of our emerging world government, G8 and G20, agreed in principle that the world must by 2050 cut its CO2 emissions in half. Britain and the US are already committed to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 per cent. Short of an unimaginable technological revolution, this could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no electricity, no transport, no industry. All this is being egged on by a gigantic publicity machine, by the UN, by serried ranks of government-funded scientists, by cheerleaders such as Al Gore, last week comparing the fight against global warming to that against Hitler's Nazis, and by politicians who have no idea what they are setting in train."

He goes on:

"What makes this even odder is that the runaway warming predicted by their computer models simply isn't happening. Last week one of the four official sources of temperature measurement, compiled from satellite data by the University of Huntsville, Alabama, showed that temperatures have now fallen to their average level since satellite data began 30 years ago."

He then talks of the paper by George Carlin at the EPA, which the EPA attempted to suppress:

"In March, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has a key role in President Obama's plans to curb CO2 emissions, asked one of its senior policy analysts, Alan Carlin, to report on the science used to justify its policy. His 90-page paper recommended that the EPA carry out an independent review of the science, because the CO2 theory was looking indefensible, while the "counter consensus'' view – solar radiation and ocean currents – seemed to fit the data much better. Provoking a considerable stir, Carlin's report was stopped dead, on the grounds that it was too late to raise objections to what was now the EPA's official policy."

Why the rush to judgment on a ruinous "cap and trade" bill in the United States? Now that the global warming "consensus" is beginning to collapse, and the globe is cooling again, would it not be better to stop and study the issue more thoroughly?

In a deep recession it just does not make sense to usher in radical rules that will greatly increase everyone's energy bills. Particularly when the worls biggest CO2 emitter is not going to join in. So if Obama and the Democrats have their way, we are going to ruin our economy while giving China, India and other developing nations a giant competitive edge over Americans.

That makes so little sense that I have to wonder if their agenda is not to solve the imagined global warming, but to "transform" our economy into something the left can be proud of, but at the cost of millions of jobs.

Sheer madness.

Starting

2009-07-13T12:08:00.002-05:00

Starting the blogging day hoping that the tree we just planted in the back yard prospers.

And also looking forward to the fresh blackeyed peas my bride has been shelling.

They are cooking now and sure smell good.

One of the simple pleasures for an old retired guy.

The Transformation of America

2009-07-12T14:05:00.005-05:00

William Katz who blogs at Urgent Agenda has a bit about something written by Frank Miele, the managing editor of a small Montana newpaper, The Daily Inter Lake.

The commentary is about Obama and Abraham Lincoln, for whom Obama has shown a great deal of admiration.

Mr. Katz blogs about wisdom and genius and how it can be confused. And warns about Obama relying on genius as opposed to wisdom. Its good, and you should go there and read it.

But Miele's commentary is much more than that.

He quotes Obama:

"Let us transform this nation," Obama said in his 2007 announcement address. "Let us be the generation that reshapes our economy... And as our economy changes, let's be the generation that ensures our nation's workers are sharing in our prosperity.... Let's be the generation that ends poverty in America.... Let's be the generation that finally tackles our health care crisis... Let's be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil... Let's be the generation that makes future generations proud of what we did here."

Miele says we should not now be surprised at what Obama is doing. He told us well in advance.

Obama also talked about greatly transforming our economy long before the economy went into the tank. When he said that, the economy was humming along.

From the very beginning, he has had the notion of doing away with our old economic system, capitalism, and substituting.........what?

Given that Obama was raised in a Marxist leaning household and has an awful lot of friends who are extremely radical, one can figure out where he wants to take us pretty easily.

Our intrepid editor goes on to say:

"Thus, to the extent that he is indeed the "towering genius' his admirers perceive, President Obama may quote Lincoln, but he certainly doesn't want to be him. He wants not to preserve the work of presidents past, but to "transform" the nation, to "take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America," as he said in Springfield...."

This is right on point. What Obama wants to do is not preserve our nation as it has been, but to transform it into something else. And he is busy trying to do just that.

Miele further states:

"Now, Abraham Lincoln was not a prophet –– just a very wise man. His words provide food for thought, but should not themselves be considered an indictment of any individual. Nonetheless, for those of us who are concerned that Barack Obama means exactly what he says, and does indeed intend to "transform" the nation, they are one more opportunity to make a plea for "preservation" of the "temple of liberty" instead."

We still have a chance to stop this, but people must wake up to what is happening. Congress cannot be trusted to do it. For crying out loud, they spent nearly a trillion dollars without reading the bill, and passed the "cap and trade" bill in the House with nobody having read it as well.

We need a political revolution in this country to counter the one that Obama and the left is trying to cram down our throats. Unfortunately, neither of our political parties is up to the task.

Will we all wake up?........... In time?

Who will lead the revolution? Is anybody out there?

The War Against the Producers

2009-07-12T13:41:00.004-05:00

The summer doldrums are here. News is slow, but there are some good blogs out there.

Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent piece over at Pajamas Media. I won't try to blog about it. Its all too good to break down. Its called The War Against the Producers.

The subtitle at Pajamas asks the good question:

"How can rewarding unproductive areas of the economy and punishing the engines of the economy possibly work?"

Hanson proceeds to answer that question and others. Perhaps the best quote from the artice is:

"Final observations: Obama brilliantly conflated the Wall Street class with the upper-tier of Main Street in Animal Farm fashion: the former gets lectured, but stays enriched through bailouts; the latter takes both the moral hit for the former’s crimes and greed and the actual hit in higher taxes.

(Nota bene: the new Democrats, in Prince Charles fashion, like the taste and culture of the hyper-rich, who care little about taxes, are sensitive behind their ramparts to the less well off, and know high-culture (think Streisand, Gates, Soros, the Georgetown/Hollwood/Silicon Valley, Upper East Side, Cambridge, Mass, set). These aristoi despise the wheeler-dealer, always on the move, uppity, wanna-get-rich scrambler that is desperately trying to get his get kid through Public U, and add a wing on his gross MacMansion, while towing his outboard up to the lake for five hours of water-skiing, without an opera, symphony, or NPR analysis on the radio)."

This is a very good article, is very thoughtful, and needs to be read in its entirety. Go here to do so.

Will we wake up?

2009-07-12T13:15:00.002-05:00

Starting the blogging day wondering if the people of the United States will realize what a drastic transformation of our country Obama is attempting in time to stop it.

The best and brightest and hoi polloi

2009-07-11T23:20:00.002-05:00

Well, I am getting tired of stories that concern Sarah Palin, but Jack Kelly has a good commentary in the Toledo Blade about all the Palin controversy.

It doesn't really matter about Palin. She was thrust into a situation she was far from prepared for.

But what he says is instructive without regard to that issue.

He points out some things that were written by Princeton Professor Angelo Codevilla:

"The distinctions between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, are being overshadowed by that between what we might call the 'Court Party,' made up of the well-connected who see themselves as potters of the great American clay, and the 'Country Party,' the many more who are tired of being treated as clay."

He goes on to point out:

"People in the Court Party think it proper they should decide what kind of cars the hoi polloi in fly-over country should drive and how much medical care they may have. Theirs is an aristrocracy not of birth but of connections, connections forged mostly by where they went to school. "

He concludes:

"The hoi polloi in fly-over country are watching the self-styled best and brightest ruin the economy while feathering their own nests. If this leads to a revolt at the polls in 2010 and 2012, the hoi polloi are more likely to look for leadership from the person who best exemplifies their values and expresses their anger than to those who, by the Court Party's definition, are more qualified."

How could anyone say it better? My thanks to the good Professor, and to Jack Kelly for bringing him to us.

Go read the whole thing.

With a hat tip to William Katz over at Urgent Agenda.

99 deg.

2009-07-11T18:22:00.002-05:00

That's where the temp topped out today. What a relief! I was afraid it would get to 100.

LOL

Obama unveiled

2009-07-11T17:36:00.005-05:00

We have learned long ago that we could not trust our domestic media on things Obama, not even those that are "fair and balanced."

So we have to turn to the foreign press to hear the truth.

Rex Murphy of Canada's Globe and Mail hits the truth hard with his comments today: Obama on the flying trapeze.

"We've been watching over the past two weeks, willingly or not, the wrong icon. Michael Jackson's a distraction. Barack Obama is the superstar of the world, the real celebrity. And because he's President of the world's foremost power (for now), his actions have real, not just symbolic, meaning."

Real meaning is right, and he goes on:

"We've seen him in action for a bit more than six months. What we can say with confidence, now that we have the evidence of his actions, is that had he run on (a) transforming the U.S. economy by massive federal government intervention, (b) taking an owner's stake in the automobile industry, (c) transforming the rules of America's energy economy, (d) instituting a national health-care system - all of these simultaneously and in the centre of a financial meltdown - Barack Obama wouldn't merely have lost the election, he wouldn't have got as many votes as gnarly old Ross Perot did in an election long past. He wouldn't, in other words, have beaten a bad-tempered, egotistical spoiler."

How true this is. :

"Mr. Obama has taken the real crisis of the U.S. (and world) economy and used it as the screen and lever for a massive agenda of transformation, a transformation that calls for expenditures on a scale never before seen in the history of government on this planet......."

He talks about some of the things initiated by Bush, and then:

"These initiatives, however, were almost instantly overlaid with the Obama agenda of massive government expansion, or attempted expansion, into everything from the auto industry to health care - all of them sold with cries of urgency and executed with reckless haste. Massive bills were passed before there were even copies of them to read. The U.S. government's debt is being swollen beyond all previous records."

This is all true, and he could not have undertaken this without having planned it all along. He planned this, but campaigned on "hope and change" without saying what, and he has reneged on numerous promises made during the campign.

So why don't we hear about this from our own press? Are they completely in the tank for Obama?

Of course. Thank goodness the foreign press is still honest.

Go read the whole thing.

A tip of the hat to Instapundit.

Recession and revenues

2009-07-11T15:53:00.002-05:00

I see that the sales tax collections in Texas are down 11.2% from last year.

Usually, Texas is less affected by recession than other states, but with the decline of oil and gas production, that is not true any more.

This means that all levels of government will have to cut back, of course.

Thankfully, we are one of the states that has a balanced budget requirement in our Constitution, so we don't have the terrible debt obligations that the liberal states do.

Memo to the politicians in Washington: we CAN have good frugal government. All it takes is discipline.

We have not seen that in DC in decades.

Will Texans be asked to bail out California?

Hot

2009-07-11T13:45:00.002-05:00

Belatedly starting the blogging day wondering if it will go over 100 deg. F. today, like it has the past few. Hoping not. Its only 93 now.

It was a cool Spring and the early summer has been cool as well, but the heat came back with a vengeance this week. I think the highest it got was 107F.

Two good things about this time of year.

One is that the fresh vegetables are now available at the farmers' markets. My bride and I gathered up a lot of peas, squash and other goodies today.

Then we came home and I planted some flowers in a couple of blank spots in the yard.

The second good thing about this time of year is that football is only six weeks away. That begins by far my favorite time of the year...the Fall, when footballs are in the air.

Robert Reich almost gets it right

2009-07-10T15:45:00.004-05:00

I was cruising along on a slow news day, and came across this post by Robert Reich over on TPM Muckraker. Being a glutton for punishment, I undertook to read it.

To my surprise, he sounded very much like he agreed with my thoughts on the Recession.

We aren't going to have a V shaped recovery or a U shaped one....people are comparing to the wrong prior recessions. This one is different.

Our economy is 70% consumers, and most of them are out of money, have little or no credit, and no home equity to borrow against.

So far, so good. This is all true.

He goes on:

"Eventually consumers will replace cars and appliances and other stuff that wears out, but a recovery can't be built on replacements. Don't expect businesses to invest much more without lots of consumers hankering after lots of new stuff. And don't rely on exports. The global economy is contracting."

Still right so far except for China and India. Then we get to this:

"...This economy can't get back on track because the track we were on for years -- featuring flat or declining median wages, mounting consumer debt, and widening insecurity,..................."

Wow!. Its hard to believe. This liberal guy is right on track. I am thinking by now that he will finish up with a plan.

Sorry, no plan.

He finishes the above quote this way:

"........not to mention increasing carbon in the atmosphere -- simply cannot be sustained."

Now tell me what increasing carbon in the atmosphere did to cause our economic difficulties.

Nothing, absolutely nothing.

But it certainly will have something to do with the recovery, or the lack thereof.

What the dang fool is proposing apparently, is that we can't start the new economy, which we need, without carbon controls, which is the fastest way known to destroy what economy is left.

He says there is more to come on the issue of the new economy, I asssume without carbon.

I can hardly wait

The left will never learn.

Tyrannical Ambition and Servile Temptation

2009-07-10T15:23:00.004-05:00

News is slow today, and my Internet connection has been slow as well.

Over at Power Line, they have had a series of posts by Paul Rahe, the author of the book Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift.

Rahe examines the writings of Montesquieu, Rousseau and de Toqueville and how they "anticipated the propensity of the modern liberal republic to drift in the direction of "soft despotism"- a condition that arises within a democracy when paternalistic state power expands and gradually undermines the spirit of self government."

This has now happened in the Western World now that the United States has arrived there.

The posts on Power Line add to that. There are three of them:

Obama's Tyrannical Ambition;

The Servile Temptation, Part I; and,

The Servile Tempation, Part II.

It is just impossible to break these down into "fair use" quotes and maintain the integrity of the posts.

I recommend you follow the links and read them.

The Founding Fathers

2009-07-10T09:17:00.002-05:00

Starting the blogging day wondering what the Founding Fathers of our country would think about what we have allowed our government to become.

I cannot imagine men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton or Franklin would approve of it.

Nor do I.

July 9, 2009

2009-07-09T23:33:00.002-05:00

End of the day.

China passes US auto market in first half sales

2009-07-09T18:09:00.007-05:00

It was bound to happen sometime. Associated Press is reporting that the Chinese car market has surpassed the United States for the first half of this year.

No matter that we are in a severe recession, this is a big blow that has been coming on for a generation.

Poor fiscal management by our government and by the people for the last few decades is catching up with a vengenace.

Extremely poor management and greedy unions, along with government interference, has ruined our domestic auto industry. Now, much of it has been nationalized.

All of the above have driven a lot of our manufacturing capability overseas, with a goodly part to China.

Our economy was said to be fine, because we had the "services" industry, primarily meaning that the big financial institutions were thriving.

Well, now were are seeing the results of all of that.

We have spent trillions trying to cover the losses by the "service" industry, we are in a deep recession because of their excesses, and jobs are continuing to disappear at a frightening rate.

In spite of this, our politicians insist on trying to revive the same old economic paradigm that has led us to this situation.

Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible.

The ball is now in the Democrats' court and they are utterly failing to consider proper policies, instead wanting to borrow and spend our way out of a deep hole caused by borrowing and spending far too much.

They are still digging, and the hole is getting deeper by the day.

Food stamp record

2009-07-09T17:13:00.003-05:00

In April a record 33.8 million people received food stamps, a fifth consecutive monthly record. Surprisingly according to Bloomberg, Texas was the state with the most recipients, above California.

Expect the numbers to continue increasing, particulaly since the politically (mis)directed stimulus is having little effect on anything but government.

Its a shame that the entire stimulus couldn't have just been given directly to the people rather than to governments.

Tax rebates would have done far more to help those who need the help. But the "party of the people" really isn't. Its all about government.

Climate bill delayed

2009-07-09T16:52:00.003-05:00

Looks like the Senate may have gotten an ear full while back home for the Fourth of July. Now the Washington Post reports that hearings on the "cap and trade" bill have been put off until September.

"The leading Senate committee responsible for developing the climate change legislation has delayed by at least a month its crafting of a bill, leaving less time for Congress to fulfill Obama's desire to enact a law this year.

"We'll do it as soon as we get back" in September from a month-long break, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer announced. "

The delay means that the bill probably won't be ready for Obama to display at the Copenhagen talks on a climate change treaty in December, but there is disagreement about that:

"Asked if the delay in her committee hurt chances the Senate will pass a bill this year, Boxer said, "Not a bit ... we'll be in (session) until Christmas, so I'm not worried about it."

But she did not guarantee Congress will be able to finish a bill and deliver it to Obama by December in time for the Copenhagen meeting.

"I want to take this as far as we can take it (before Copenhagen). The more we do the better," Boxer said.

Senator Charles Grassley, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which also has a significant role in developing the climate legislation, was more pessimistic. "I don't even expect it to come up this year" in the Senate, he told reporters. "

This is one of the worst bills to ever come before the Congress. Passing it now (if ever) would create very serious pain in an already suffering economy.

Its sheer stupidity.

The Chicken Littles in the Democratic Party, rather than avoiding a falling sky, are much more likely to bring it down on all of us.

Avoiding a lot of CO2 without ruining the country

2009-07-09T13:38:00.004-05:00

Next Big Future says improving and adding to existing nukes can save a lot of CO2 emissions. They say that the US currently avoids 700 million tons of CO2 emissions from existing nukes.

Other things, including annular fuel, speeding the buildout of new nuke plants, and building liquid flouride thorium reactors to reduce coal burning would help as well. They list other alternatives, as well.

Annular fuel would increase existing nukes' output by 50%.

Developing these things would make a lot more sense than Obama's "cap and tax" bill, and would certainly be a lot cheaper in the long run.

But Obama's pals wouldn't get to make the big bucks trading the CO2 "permits" provided for under the bill.

I have never understood why we are unable to get our government to act sensibly on energy. Nuclear and other technology is there if the government would just get out of the way.

Go and read the story.

The Only Thing Stimulated In a Government Stimulus

2009-07-09T13:13:00.003-05:00

Ed Morrissey has an article over at AIP that discusses what the "stimulus" bill stimulates:

"A new GAO review of the $787 billion stimulus package tells us what we should have known all along. When government spends money themselves to stimulate the economy rather than let citizens have their own money to spend, the only part of the economy that gets stimulated is government itself. " (My emphasis)

Who would have guessed? The liberals in Congress rushed this bill through with anyone even having a chance to read it, without any input, and without letting the public in on any of it.

This is the kind of hope and change we can expect from the Democrats, and probabaly from a lot of the Republicans as well. Over three quarters of a trillion dollars, which is equal to about $100,000 per household of four, is blown proping up government programs that need to be pared back.

What could your family have done with that money? Better than the government, I would bet.

Read the whole article.

And think about getting a new bunch of politicians.

“America’s long-awaited fiscal train wreck is now under way.”

2009-07-09T11:55:00.002-05:00

That is a quote from Morgan Stanley's Chief Economist, Richard Berner. This from Politico:

"By “train wreck,” he means out-of-control federal budget deficits that he’s sure will finally drag the economy under — as if we weren’t already feeling badly enough about its shaky state."

I don't know that this should be a surprise to anybody. We have been on this course for several decades.

Now it is catching up with us.

Some propose that we spend and borrow even more to "cure" the problem.

Utter madness.

You know its a slow news day when

2009-07-09T11:48:00.002-05:00

Drudge links to a story about Michelle Obama's purse that she carried in Russia in the New York Daily News. Seems somebody thought it was a $6,000 purse, while the White House says it was an $875 purse.

Who cares? Its their money. Let them spend it whatever way they want.

I am a lot more concerned about the silly ways Obama plans to spend the tax money I pay.

Everyone should be. Its madness.

Brown Manure, Not Green Shoots

2009-07-09T08:52:00.004-05:00

That is the title of a column over at Forbes by Nouriel Roubini, the economics guru from New York University who has probably been the most right so far on the current financial crisis.

His comments are on the June unemployment report, which, of course, was pretty grim at 9.5% unemployment.

He says its not the end:

" With the current rate of job losses, it is very clear that the unemployment rate could reach 10% by later this summer--around August or September--and will be closer to 10.5%, if not 11%, by year-end. I expect the unemployment rate is going to peak at around 11% at some point in 2010, well above historical standards for even severe recessions."

He may well be too optimistic. This is by far the worst recession since the Great Depression, and if anything goes wrong....well, another Great Depression could occur.

And the jobs report is not all there is to it:

"The job market report is essentially the tip of the iceberg. It's a significant signal of the weaknesses in the economy. It affects consumer confidence. It affects labor income. It affects consumption. It affects the willingness of firms to start increasing production. It has significant consequences of the housing market. And it has significant consequences, of course, on the banking system."

Does this latter mean that the government is going to feel like it has to pour a lot more money into the bottomless pit that is our banking system? Just think that for every trillion dollars that goes to the banks every household of four could get $130,000 in cash. There has been several trillion, and much of it has been added to the national debt. So instead of getting the cash, each household has, in effect, given it to the banks.

Roubini does not have an optimistic outlook:

"....large budget deficits and their monetization are going to lead--toward the end of next year and in 2011--to an increase in expected inflation that may lead to a further increase in 10-year treasuries and other long-term government bond yields, and thus mortgage and private-market rates. Together with higher oil prices driven up by this wall of liquidity rather than fundamentals alone, this could be the double whammy that could push the economy into a double-dip or W-shaped recession by late 2010 or 2011. "

My take is that the outlook is grim for another year or two, and that the government is going to try another round of bank bailouts, along with having severe pressures put on to bail out profligate state and local governments. Don't look for anything for the people, though. This government is more interested in taking care of the politicians and the banks. I do suspect, however, that ACORN will get its "share."

Wondering if.....

2009-07-09T08:47:00.002-05:00

Starting the blogging day wondering if the clowns in our Congress ever intend to start actually reading and understanding the important legislation they hurriedly pass.

The stimulus bill and now the disastrous "cap and trade" bill were rushed through the House before anyone had even a chance to read them. Is somebody trying to sneak something through?

Hope and change at work.

We need to throw them all out.

July 8, 2009

2009-07-08T23:41:00.001-05:00

Last post of the day.

The Times changes its mind....or did it?

2009-07-08T17:50:00.003-05:00

Now the Times(London) is reporting a historic breathrough on global warming at the G-8. What has happened to change things?

Well, for one thing, Hu Jintao of China went home.

For another, Barack Obama arrived.

What the new announcement is saying is that the G-8 agrees to limit "global warming" to 2 degrees Centigrade, and cut back emissions 80% by 2050. The other countries agree to the 2 degrees, but no reductions.

There is no word on whether they also agreed to hold back the tide.

Doing this is economic suicide for all 8 countries, particularly the United States.

Climate change deal fails

2009-07-08T17:15:00.003-05:00

The Times (London) is reporting that the major developing countries (China, India) are refusing to set a target for reducing their emissions targets unless the developed countries reduce their targets substantially by 2020.

Anyone who thinks that they will do any such thing is dreaming. They will gain a great advantage over the developed countries if those countries follow the liberal pied pipers down the lane of unilateral reductions.

If Obama's "cap and trade" legislation should pass, it would leave our industries even more at the mercy of China and India. It would be like handing them millions of jobs for nothing.

Yet the left in our country, obsessed with the "chicken little" aspects of alleged "global warming" would lead us down that path, and right in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

That makes a lot of sense, doesn't?

Stimulus plan

2009-07-08T13:44:00.002-05:00

Shawn Ritenour over at the Ludwig von Mises Institute has the best analysis of the stimulus and its effects that I have seen. The stimulus I am taling about is the one that was rushed through in January without anyone having read it and that has failed miserably to stimulate the economy as promised.

There is much more in the article, but this sums it up perfectly:

"From an economic perspective, Obama's stimulus plan is equivalent to a giant welfare scheme. Instead of the money going to lower income Americans, however, it is meant to go to municipal bureaucrats of various stripes. Instead of productive American citizens determining what to do with their own scarce resources, the state is stepping in and dictating how they will be used. Consequently, such spending is essentially government consumption, which is what vulgar Keynesians think we need now more than ever. Such economists are shocked — shocked! — to find out that Americans are now saving any increases in income instead of blowing it on even more consumer goods. Not to worry, however. If private citizens do not consume enough for official tastes, the government always can.

Certainly we can expect that when the government spends a trillion dollars this will provide a positive statistical boost to GDP, if for no other reason that government spending makes up a significant portion of GDP. Where, however, does the state get the money to spend? Ah, as Hamlet might say, there's the rub. There are only three ways the government can obtain funds to throw at all their shovel-ready projects and all three leave in their wake negative economic consequences."

Read the whole thing.

In California, even the IOUs are owed

2009-07-08T13:27:00.004-05:00

California just keeps getting picked upon, but its just too fat a target to avoid.

The New York Times is now reporting that even folks who were to be given IOUs aren't getting them.

"....across California on Tuesday, many vendors who had been told they would receive the i.o.u.’s instead of actual money said they had not yet received them. And if they do not arrive soon, they may be hard to turn into cash."

The IOUs, which do not have the full faith and credit of the state behind them, are supposedly being handed out to vendors and others because California is too broke to pay cash. Apparently they are only promises of promises to pay.

Meanwhile Drudge reports that the California legislature has gotten into a food fight....literally. The Democrats, who control the lege, are trying to pass some food regulations rather than deal with the budget. The budget, of course, is at an impass because one side wants to cut spending, and the other wants to raise taxes.

With California's credit ratings headed into the tank, one might think that they would be able to cut expenditures and balance the budget, particularly after voters in May soundly rejected new taxes to do so. But the Democrats, controlled by the large public employee unions, refuse to budge.

Meanwhile, as the Times points out:

"People expecting money from the state who do not get a warrant by Friday have three choices. They can try to find an alternative bank or credit union willing to deal with someone who is not a customer, they can hold the warrant until it matures and collect the interest, or they can try their luck in secondary markets, where some people are already seeking to buy i.o.u.’s at a discount."

As Obama's favorite minister would say; "The chickens, they are a comin' home to roost."