WANTED: President of large country on the verge of adopting socialism. Need to take country over the top. Rudimentary knowledge of economic terms and foreign policy preferred, but not required. Ability to articulate grandiose ideas in English language a plus, but not mandatory if applicant can fake it sufficiently to impress ignorant voters. Must look good in a suit, and be willing to shamelessly pander to desperate, needy people.

Ahhh, so that’s how we ended up with President Obama.

I have often reflected that there is little actual reason for Americans to place their trust, faith, or hope in any President of the United States. Here is why: in reality, the President exercises both too much and too little power. Too much, because the Executive Branch has stepped far outside of its legitimate constitutional role. But in the world of perception, he also exercises too little power: the degree to which most Americans believe that the President controls what happens in both our government and our economy is laughable. So the individual who serves as the President of the United States should not matter to Americans as much as it does.

But not enough Americans even question this. Few point out the reality of this great deceit, least of all the President himself. And of course, our Senators and Congressmen happily go along with this perception: it gives them good cover. Yet if Americans really took a good look at the despicable collection of charlatans who are controlling our national purse-strings, they would all be dumped quite justifiably. It is an incestuous and dangerous relationship that we are witnessing.  Rather than acting as a check on Executive Power as our Founding Fathers intended, our current legislature is handing the President control of the United States on a silver platter.  So much for checks and balances. So much for the United States Constitution.

Do you really think that one man sitting in the Oval Office should control the fate of the United States? HA! But the sad truth is, he can, if we allow it. And that means we are in deep trouble,  because right now, the man who is sitting in that Oval Office not only believes, arrogantly, that he does run the entire country, but that he ought to run the country, and that he is capable of doing it. And Americans seem to be going along with it.

This is all part of a President’s megalomaniacal tendencies.  Only someone with an unbelievably inflated view of himself could endure a presidential race and still hold his head up. And only a narcissist could not be embarrassed and appalled by the near-worship our current President seems to inspire in our more vacant-minded voters.

The future and well-being of 300 million people should never depend upon one man. The fact that we are letting Obama and his cohorts in Congress, abetted by an even more ignorant and agenda-driven press, continue to perpetrate this farce of leadership and governance means that we are already deep into the socialist mire that we thought we foreswore over 40 years ago. It means that we have ceded too much power to that man, and to that Central Committee we call Congress.

Many people believe that the right to vote for these people means that we are free. But that freedom is illusory when anyone in either the Democratic party or the Republican party adopts the position that their duty is to tell Americans what they ought to think and to do. And that is what is happening.  Essentially, our elected officials are deciding exactly where every dollar we earn should be spent. The more we trust these people, and the more we allow our fellow Americans to place their trust in these people, the more we are surrendering our freedom. For what? Under the current regime, we will not even obtain security.

This is the hallmark of socialism. Take a look around. People are actually begging for Obama and the rest of that resource-sapping behemoth of a federal government to provide a solution to their woes. They are debating between themselves which ideas are going to work, and which ideas are going to fail. They are debating about which of these ideas, regardless of merit, will be implemented by a Congress whose entire track-record demonstrates an uninterrupted history of mishandling, misdirecting, and porking out every single piece of legislation they pass. They are debating as though the government is responsible for America’s success as a country. They are debating as though effective results can be achieved not through leadership, commitment, and a willingness to undertake difficult and unpleasant tasks, but through pandering, cronyism, and salesmanship. People are serious. People are passionate. And they are wasting their time.

The reality is: no President and no politician can really help America if every American behaves like a weak, powerless sheep within a flock of weak, powerless sheep. Sure, it would be nice to just put our heads down and graze while somebody else takes care of the wolves, but to do that Americans need to be sure that the shepherds’ interests coincide with the sheep’s. And right now, they don’t. Right now, the shepherds are negotiating with the wolves over how to divide the mutton.

The only way America is going to get out of this mess is if Americans completely divorce themselves from reliance upon the government for a solution. This is not to say that there is no solution; in fact, there are some really bright minds out there talking about the economy. But who is listening to them? Who is supporting them? Not our political leadership. No, instead our political leadership is so caught up in their desperate drive to do something lest they risk losing their death-grip on power that they will never honestly concede their own ignorance.

The bottom line, America, is this:  if you want to ride a bicycle, do you read a book about it, or do you learn from someone who can ride a bicycle then get on the bike and ride yourself? Because right now, America is hanging its future on a bunch of people who not only do not know how to ride, they haven’t even read a book on the subject, let alone written one.

It is patently stupid for Americans to put their faith in Obama and this Congress to resolve the economic meltdown we are experiencing. It is just this sort of head-in-the-sand trust of our government that got us where we are. What experience does Obama have running anything? Where is his successful track record? And where is the history lesson can he point to that shows—anywhere—that spending over a trillion dollars on projects that produce NOTHING that anyone would willingly pay for will somehow revive a tanking economy? Is that the model Germany and Japan followed to overcome the economic devastation they suffered after World War II? Hardly. Sony, Mitsubishi, Porsche, and Siemens do not produce “shovel ready” infrastructure projects. They produce things that people buy. They produce . . . wealth and prosperity.

Let the deadbeats and do-nothings depend on government. How meaningful is their freedom, when every aspect of their lives depends upon the caprice of a condescending government? As for the rest of us, it is time to roll up our sleeves, get off of our collective duff, and get to work. America is not our government. America is us.

Coming soon: RedBloodedAmericanGirl’s book “5 Things Every American Can Do to Make America Better”

No related posts.

I usually write all my own blog material, rather than quote others or cite some other source just to fill space and keep current.  However, today I am making an exception, for reasons that will be clear when you read this.  While I have not verified this independently, I understand that this is a real letter that a small businessman wrote to his employees.  It expresses more eloquently and poignantly than I can the crossroads we are at as a country:  whether we will continue to encourage in the human spirit those values and ideals that made America great and prosperous, or whether we will sacrifice those virtues in exchange for the mediocrity and pudgy, starch-fed lethargy that have become the hallmarks of the citizens of the semi-socialist European countries.  The choice is before us.

To All My Valued Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn’t pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country.

However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact, which might help you decide what is in your best interests.

First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back-story. This back-story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You’ve seen my big home at last year’s Christmas party. I’m sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.

However, what you don’t see is the back-story.

I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.

My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn’t have time to date. Oftentimes, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.

Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom’s for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount store extracting any clothing item that didn’t look like it was birthed in the 70’s. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don’t. There is no “off” button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden — the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations . . . you never realize the back-story and the sacrifices I’ve made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn’t. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.

Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I’ve paid is steep and not without wounds.

Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don’t pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my “stimulus” check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.

The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you’d quit and you wouldn’t work here. I mean, why should you? That’s nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.

Here is what many of you don’t understand . . . to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn’t need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.

When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don’t defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.

So where am I going with all this?

If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child’s future. Frankly, it isn’t my problem any more.

Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire.. You see, I’m done. I’m done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.

So, if you lose your job, it won’t be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever.

If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about . . .

Signed,

Your boss

CJ Galiano

No related posts.

Why must the United States government come up with the most convoluted ways of wasting our taxpayer dollars? They always seem to risk our welfare with a Hail Mary play when a simple hand-off would do the job.
When the Big Three Automakers found themselves in trouble and wanted $15 billion, an idea immediately sprang to my mind that would have solved the problem simply, elegantly, and effectively. It would not have increased taxes for Americans one penny. In fact, I could have made money for the government. And I would have helped the environment, too, and saved a lot of jobs. Let me explain.
First, the U.S. loans me $15 billion. I agree to pay it back with 10% simple interest return.
Second, I buy 600,000 hybrid vehicles from GM, Chrysler, and Ford, at $25,000 per vehicle. I will even buy through a wide swath of U.S. dealers, so the dealers get their cut. The U.S. Government provides that no taxes will be owed on these vehicles, since they will be making 10% interest. First benefit: This means that the UAW, auto company execs, and dealers actually have to work for the money, which is what they should do in order to get any money and stay employed.
Third, I start a nationwide lottery. I will only sell 180 million tickets, or 300 tickets per vehicle, at $100 per ticket. Granted, that is a lot of tickets at a high price, but every ticket will have a 1/300 chance of winning an automobile; that’s pretty good odds. There would be no limit on the number of tickets a person could buy, and every ticket would provide a chance at any car, but an individual could not win more than one car. Second benefit: purchase of the tickets, unlike a tax, is completely voluntary, meaning that no one is required to support this program.

Fourth, the revenue from the tickets, if all sold, would be $18 billion. I could use about half a billion dollars to pay a raft of employees to administer this lottery. I could pay 5,000 people $80,000, leaving enough for overhead that would filter out into the economy through other purchases. Third benefit: lucrative employment for lots of Americans and lots of money moving through the economy.
Fifth, I would repay the U.S. government $16.5 billion. Fourth benefit: Instead of adding to the national debt, this would create a profit for the government.
Sixth, the winners of the 600,000 hybrid vehicles would replace 600,000 of their older gas vehicles. Fifth benefit: for those enviro-nuts, this would mean a much more rapid deployment of hybrid vehicles into our country than would happen if we waited for Americans to do it on their own.
Seventh, I would pocket a cool $1 billion for being smarter, more effective and less wasteful than the entire United States Congress. That’s not a big accomplishment, I know, but it also achieves the Sixth benefit: the taxpayers would be happy that their government did not rip them off again, and therefore they would be less inclined to can their Congressmen and Senators. More jobs saved!
In fact, this is such a good proposal I think I’ll send it to my congressman. I could use a billion dollars.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How much do we really owe in federal financial obligations?
• Chrysler Spending Bailout Money on Product Placement, Ads Thanking You For Money
• Will we see a Bank of American Taxpayers?

No related posts.

An American taxpayer is walking down the street. Suddenly, out of nowhere and without warning, a smelly, dirty, ragged, homeless thug hopped up on drugs steps out in front of him, hits him in the face, grabs his wallet, and then proceeds to kick and beat him just shy of senseless before running away. The poor taxpayer is left lying on the sidewalk, all bloody and bruised.

Immediately afterward, Eric Holder comes walking by, and sees him. He stops and asks what happened. The taxpayer tells him, and Holder says:

“Gee, I’d like to help you, but, see, I’m the Attorney General, and if you decide to pursue any legal action with regard to this incident, there’s a chance that my office may be involved in the case. So I’m sorry, but if by any chance you pull through, it really is in everyone’s best interest that I remain personally uninvolved in anything having to do with your situation. I’m only thinking of you. Good luck.”

Eric Holder continues walking down the street, pleased that he has avoided any conflicts of interest.

Next, Tom Daschle walks by, sees the poor taxpayer, and also asks what happened. So the taxpayer tells him, and he responds:

“Well, that is interesting. You do look to be in bad shape, and as the Director of Health and Human Services, let me just say that it is a really good thing that we now have nationalized healthcare to take care of people in your situation. Here, take this stack of forms and fill them out in triplicate. And especially make sure you read and sign the forms having to do with forgoing most of your rights. Then, make a copy for yourself, mail one set to the Office of National Healthcare in Washington, D.C., then bring the other copy to a medical facility approved and certified by our office of national healthcare. They’re all over the place: at least one in every state. Then, when they have checked your paperwork, if it is all correctly filled out, they will send you a form that allows you to request an appointment. Don’t worry, in a situation like yours, I am sure that you will be seen by an approved doctor or other medical professional within six to eight weeks. I’m just glad I could be here to help.”

Tom Daschle continues walking down the street, satisfied that he has, once again, been of tremendous service to the American taxpayer.

Next, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton walks by, sees the taxpayer, and asks what happened. The taxpayer tells her. She says:

“Wait. This does not make sense. What did you do to provoke him?”

The taxpayer says, “Nothing. I was just walking along.”

With a knowing grin, Hillary replies, “That is a very short-sighted view of the situation. You see, what you fail to appreciate is the historical perspective that has led up to this confrontation. The reality is that civilized, rational people simply do not behave in the way you described. Ipso facto, you are therefore ignoring your part in the overall oppression of not only this man individually, but all men, women, and children like him who are entirely justified in their feelings of powerlessness, alienation, and disenfranchisement. Moreover, if you bothered to read the newspaper, you would realize that there are muggers in this city. Ergo, you have also failed to appreciate that this entire episode could have been avoided if you had taken the necessary preventative measures.

“And let me just add this: it is abundantly clear to me that you did not even try to talk to this guy, to find out, by openly, willingly, and proactively approaching him through diplomatic means, if there was some common ground upon which you could base a meaningful dialog that would result in a viable win-win scenario. No, it is more than obvious to anyone but the most addle-brained idiot that you, yourself, must bear the greater share of responsibility for the situation you find yourself in. All this bloodshed could have been avoided if you had demonstrated, from the outset, your willingness to meet him at least halfway in genuine sympathy to the plight in which you have played a significant part in placing him. Here, take my card. Next time, before you get mugged, call me, and let me handle the negotiations for you from now on.”

Hillary then continues walking down the street, shaking her head and muttering, “Amateurs.”

Finally, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid walk by and see the poor taxpayer in the street. Shocked by what they see, they stop and ask him what happened. Once again, the taxpayer explains. Barack Obama crouches down and says:

“Let me get this straight. You say you were beat up by a homeless drug-addict who took all your money?”

The taxpayer nods. Barack Obama continues to ask questions, getting a full description of the man who beat up the taxpayer. Finally, he, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid look at each other with concern. Barack Obama excuses himself, and the three engage in a quick, quiet conference. Finally, Barack crouches down again and tells the taxpayer,

“Look. This is terrible. Unforgiveable. Don’t worry about a thing. All three of us are in agreement. We are going to go out right now, and find the man who did this to you. And help him.”

www.RedBloodedAmericanGirl.com

No related posts.

Now that the Senate has shot down the first $15 billion auto bailout package, members of Congress are busy pitching new ideas all over the place in the hopes of selling a more palatable plan to America than just throwing money at the problem. After seeing the banks take our money and run, Congress thinks it has wised up to the foolishness of freely handing out money to people who have a decidedly poor record of fiscal wisdom. So despite willfully blinding itself to that economic reality, Congress now labors under the delusion that it has figured out its own idiocy.

Not wanting to get burned twice, these geniuses in Congress believe that the best way to protect the federal purse-strings is to tell the Big Three how they ought to structure their companies as a condition of receiving our tax dollars. While some of the ideas being floated around may sound like good policies, as a general matter, they are giving me a tremendously bitter taste. I have grave misgivings with the idea of the federal government lending money to these companies under any circumstances whatsoever.

I’m no fan of the UAW’s extortionate and pork-laden contracts, and I do not endorse the idea of freely giving handouts. But this currently trending notion toward providing management advice is a dangerous idea for a number of reasons, and those reasons can be condensed into four main objections.

First, if Congress does not trust these companies with cash, it needs to ask itself why. In other words, if the management of these companies does not know already how to operate their concerns without huge losses, then is it really wise for Congress to help these companies spend themselves out of this current crisis under any condition? Further, to make any loan conditions meaningful, what is the recourse? When all the money is gone and the companies go under—despite all the conditions—how does Congress exact its pound of flesh? Oh, there is no real recourse, is there? We are simply putting brain-dead companies on life-support.

Second, by placing conditions on how these companies will operate, Congress is injecting itself into the micromanagement of these nominally private enterprises, which brings us one step closer to the nationalization of private industry. It is one thing to tell all companies that they must provide healthcare and a minimum wage. It is another thing to tell specific companies exactly how and what to provide as compensation and benefits, how much to compensate their executives, and how to structure their retirement packages. For the sake of our economy, I would not want the Big Three to fail. But socialism is a price I am unwilling to pay even in—or rather, especially in—this climate. We cannot delude ourselves that a move in this direction will be “temporary” or “extraordinary.” Once the precedent is set, we have taken a large step toward that destination. It cannot be undone, and the next step, or the next time, will be all that much easier and less painful. Desperation and disaster are precisely the circumstances under which the leftists have justified a move toward socialism.

Third, regarding the conditions imposed: whom, exactly, does Congress think it is kidding? Sure, we can agree that reducing labor costs is one, or even the most, significant problem that needs to be addressed by these companies in order to bring them back to life, but to assume that this will somehow cure all the ills that are ailing these companies is naïve beyond measure. Call me crazy, but I daresay not a single Congressmember has the faintest idea how to run an efficient multi-billion-dollar operation, let alone one that is intended to make a profit, and it is nothing short of ludicrous for these jokers to solemnly nod at one another and pat each other’s backs under the misconception that meeting a shopping list of conditions is going to somehow fix what has become broken. These companies are in serious trouble from the ground up. To my mind, it is far from reassuring that these charlatans in Congress have suddenly gotten the idea that it might be fun to play CEO and act like they understand what must be done. Armchair quarterbacking can be fun; it is quite another thing to be put on the field. Congressmembers won’t be the ones that get sacked when reality comes charging; we will.

Which brings me to the fourth item. Any bailout will simply compound the real problem, because it will allow Congress to get yet another pass. When will Congress—or better yet, the American public—finally confront Congress’ significant share of culpability for the failure of the Big Three? For years, Congress and its partners in crime—the behemoth Frankensteinian federal agencies they created—have sought to regulate every aspect of these companies’ operations. Every single one of those regulations was calculated to make it more costly for any company in America to manufacture anything; consequently, they add a significant federal markup to the costs of American products that places them beyond the ability to compete.

For years, American industry has seen jobs go overseas, because it is simply too expensive to manufacture in the U.S. compared to other countries. We have become a net importer, rather than an exporter, because we cannot compete with the low labor and overhead costs of foreign companies. The wealth that could have been created by our own workforce has disappeared; much of our economy is service-based (or, worse, vapor-based, as we found with fog-backed securities). Fewer and fewer companies in America are utilizing our vast resources of raw materials and adding value to them through human labor. Indeed, we do not even produce the raw materials we are capable of producing, since Congress has worked relentlessly to shut down our access to our own cheap oil, cheap minerals, cheap lumber, and cheap textile resources. America is not producing wealth, it is squelching or squandering it: thanks largely to government policy. Lots of Americans think regulations are benign, but when the Small Business Administration tells you that 19 cents of every dollar spent by small businesses is on regulatory compliance, and that larger businesses spend $5,000 per employee on regulatory compliance, you had better be prepared for the consequences. Yet these same Americans still want to be able to buy everything at Wal-Mart prices.

Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t Congress actually do something that it has the power to do, if not the guts: instead of just handing out more of the cash we taxpayers have busted our asses earning, pass legislation that will protect the Big Three, and create a regulatory environment that would both enable them and force them to fix themselves. Better yet, exempt the Big Three from some of the nonsense legislation that has handcuffed them, and allow them the opportunity to bootstrap themselves out of this problem . . . or sink in the attempt.

For decades now, the modus operandi of the United States government has been to try to solve problems not by actually solving them, but running around them: instead of taking measures that would actually educate or train minorities, they gave us affirmative action; instead of providing a tax structure that allows mothers the choice or opportunity to stay at home to raise their own children, they funneled all the federal benefits into daycare programs; instead of encouraging through favorable legislation a steady supply of housing to keep pace with demand, they encouraged sub-prime loans on overpriced property. The results of these policies have been both predictable and disastrous. Now, with the Big Three, we are going to get another dose of this same brand of foolishness: “Let’s not actually confront the source of the problem, let’s just kludge up a band-aid out of greenbacks and spit.”

So here we are again, letting Congress “solve” a problem without actually solving it. Until Congress finds the courage to make some difficult and necessary choices because that is the right thing to do, instead of pandering to noisy, open-handed, know-nothing lobbyists and special interest groups by avoiding problems, putting them off until tomorrow, or covering the symptoms with billion-dollar cortisone injections, we’re heading for disaster.

I don’t know how many ways I can say it: the problem with the Big Three is not that the free market has failed them, it is that they have not operated within the free market. So long as workers are able to dictate the value of labor without reference to what the market can support, so long as Congress creates an economic environment that handicaps the ability of American companies to manufacture goods that can be sold competitively throughout the world’s markets, the problems confronted by the Big Three will simply be exacerbated, and replicate themselves throughout our economy.

It is dismaying, to say the least, that many so-called conservatives are demanding accountability milestones as a condition of a federal bailout, as though this is a panacea for the problems confronted by the Big Three. They need to revisit a few economic truths about how businesses ought to operate, and display the courage of their convictions—if only for the sake of holding their heads up when the future consequences of this present desperation comes crashing in on America.

There is a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Add to that spinelessness, ignorance, and hubris, and you have defined the path staked out by Congress to America’s future.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Workers wages the straw that broke the automakers’ backs
• DOW opens down sharply, President reconsiders tapping TARP funds

No related posts.

Now that the election is over, Obama’s win seems, in retrospect, to be the natural result of the farce that has become our presidential election. I mean, if anyone in the media had any sense or brains, why was no one mining the one obvious and vein-rich question troubling our political landscape: is this really the best America can do?

But it is one thing to accept that at least one of these fools had to win, and another to confront the fact that a disturbingly large number of young Americans have an incomprehensible adoration of Barack Obama. I can only conclude that it is the manifestation of some variety of premature dementia. At any rate, it is inexplicable by rational processes.

Let us take Obama’s meaningless campaign themes of “Hope” and “Change.” This same weightless aura is also conveyed by the insipid title to his book, “The Audacity of Hope.” This seems to me to be the essence of his persona: every vocal outpouring of his has the same overflow of practiced, smooth, grandiose . . . nothingness. It is like listening to Jesse Jackson without the theatrics and Muhammad Ali poetry, but with good grammar and diction. Is this what impresses Americans today: a stream-of-consciousness ether of abstract nonsense? Is this what Americans interpret as intelligence, conviction, and purpose?

Because when you boil down all his flowery verbiage into actual policies, they are of the same regurgitated big-government boondoggle variety that has been doled out by the Democratic Party at least since George McGovern. At his best, Obama has the gift of dressing them up very stylishly, but without a teleprompter, he sounds like a delinquent student trying to con his way through an oral exam.

The idea that all these young pups believe that Barack Obama not only is, but is capable of being, some kind of messianic savior is, in a way, grotesque. Because whatever kind of president he turns out to be, his caliber as a man is troublingly dubious. And while I could draw this conclusion by reference to a sizable selection of his questionable relationships and activities, I need only examine one: his church.

Like many other Americans, I saw Reverend Wright’s ranting spiel against America. The man has clearly got a race chip on his spiritual shoulder. But the fact that Obama attended Reverend Wright’s church for 20 years does not bother me. What bothers me is: Obama left it.

Believe me, I am no fan of Reverend Wright’s brand of “liberation theology.” Indeed, his invocation asking God to damn America clearly smacked of political discourse rather than theological sermonizing, insofar as America, being a country, has no immortal soul to damn. It also strikes one as a startlingly un-Christian sentiment: turn the other cheek, my kingdom is not of this earth, and all that. But after watching other more extended videos of Reverend Wright, it seemed to me that his sermonizing, as a general rule, was no more remarkable than other garden-variety Bible-thumping. And, much as I hate to agree with Bill Maher on anything, I suspect he is correct in that this sort of preaching has been going on in America’s black churches for decades; it is just that most non-black Americans have neither witnessed it, nor had any particular reason to pay attention to it.

But then we have Barack Obama.

Initially, Obama stated that he never personally witnessed the America-bashing in 20 years of attending the church, and never had even an inkling of Rev. Wright’s views despite his obvious close association. That, quite simply, is very hard to believe, especially since Rev. Wright himself explained on national television that his views were nothing remarkable within the bounds of liberation theology. It also explains, very plainly, Michelle Obama’s sentiment that she had never before been proud of America. But fine, let it go; I will willingly suspend my disbelief, and take Obama at his word.

But then what happened? After offering a rather feeble defense of himself and his church, Barack Obama and his family resigned their membership. Just on the surface, that would seem to validate the criticisms, rather than diminish them. But even more: what does that resignation tell us about Barack Obama’s spiritual convictions? Instead of standing by his friends, his pastor, his church, his congregation, and his faith, of 20 years, the Obamas resigned in June: a full five months before the election. That is quite an act of recantation. In short, Barack Obama took the low road. He preferred to surrender the integrity of his immortal soul rather than risk a continued publicity fallout that might impact the election.

In comparison, take JFK: his nomination was directly responsible for a strengthening of the Republican Party, as many Democrats had a difficult time accepting his Catholic faith and abandoned the party. The idea now seems almost quaint, given the lukewarm adherence to dogma practiced by so many nominal Catholics today, but a fair number of Americans believed that Kennedy, as president, would split his allegiance by doing the Pope’s bidding. Of course, it seems now to have been a fear that was wholly unfounded, but JFK was unapologetic—and he prevailed anyway.

We have no such worry with Obama. We know where his allegiance lies: it lies with his ruthless pursuit of the ambition to power.

And before anyone takes umbrage, Obama’s behavior cannot be rationalized by claiming that he was trying to protect his church. That justification simply does not stand up to scrutiny: Rev. Wright is hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to the glare of klieg lights. His already public profile and his eager willingness to appear on national television to further espouse his uncharitable views could hardly support the claim that the Obamas were trying to shield the congregation from negative publicity. Besides, the worst had been done; little more could have been exposed that would have adversely affected the church.

No, the clear import of the Obamas’ decision was to deflate any objections Americans could have to Rev. Wright’s anti-American rantings. Barack Obama offered a perfunctory expression of surprise and astonishment that Rev. Wright could be so unpatriotically irreverent, and, to put substance behind this posture, he resigned his membership. So middle America shielded its eyes, and consoled itself that, See? Surely, Barack Obama himself could not really share such unpalatable views. And Obama’s die-hard followers never had a problem with it anyway, since they most likely agreed with Rev. Wright’s sentiments.

While those of Obama’s followers who are atheistic or agnostic are probably not troubled by Obama’s resignation, given that they view religious faith as nothing but a delusion, they would be missing the point. If Obama truly believes in God, as his longstanding church membership would suggest, then resigning his membership says a great deal about his character and his priorities. If a man is willing to sever such longstanding ties to his faith and his community, what sort of allegiance can anyone expect him to demonstrate with respect to any other principle or relationship?

Since winning the election, the Obamas have relocated to Washington, D.C., and instead of trying to find another spiritual home, he has chosen to spend his Sundays working out at the gym. While by no means would I expect Obama to spend every waking moment trying to find a new church in his new city, I can’t help but wonder what message his sudden lack of interest in setting aside time for God sends to his two young children. I know what message it sends to me.

What kind of a man sacrifices a relationship of 20 years in pursuit of ambition? What kind of a man abandons spiritual succor to embrace worldly power? Whatever the answer, Obama is that kind of man. Believe it or not, as someone who does not support him, that is somewhat consoling to me: at least I can be assured that any belief he purports to espouse is likely to be a product of political expediency rather than true conviction.

So Obama himself does not particularly bother me. No, I am troubled by something else. And that is: what sort of person idolizes a man like Obama? Because that is the sort of person who put him in the Oval Office, and that is the sort of person who is populating this once great nation of ours. In four or eight years, Barack Obama will be irrelevant. The real struggle facing America is for the minds and character of our electorate.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How Obama Got Elected
• “I think most people voted for Barack Obama because they decided they wanted him to be in their living room for the next 4 years explaining policy.

No related posts.

Well, isn’t it a relief that everyone has now woken up to the fact that our irresponsible government is being . . . irresponsible. Our lovely Uncle Sam, that freeloading sponge of a relative absconded with our national credit card and gave $700 billion to failed banks that loaned money to people whom anyone with sense would not have loaned a dime in order for them to purchase properties for which anyone with sense would not have paid that much. (Okay, it is a little more complicated than that . . . but that’s the bottom line, isn’t it?)

That bit of legislative mischief was rammed through like lightning, when all of us taxpayers were still reeling from the fact that our retirement funds suddenly took on the appearance of a Christmas club account. In our shock, few Americans were able to completely digest the full idiocy of the government’s assurances that such a step was “necessary” to shore up our ailing economy.

With this track record, it is no wonder the heads of GM, Ford, and Chrysler decided to try their luck at bellying up to the public trough. In round one, the Big Three came to Congress with their expectant hats out, asking for a measly $25 billion. Of course, we might ask: why come to Congress? Just borrow some money from AIG and Citibank! However, round one did not go their way, so they have now jumped into the ring for round two. This time, apparently, they are actually presenting a plan to Congress for what they are going to do with the money—what a concept!

But of course, the cat is out of the bag now. America has thrown a handful of cold water on its face and slapped itself on the cheek a few times and wants some answers. So those same Senators and Congressmen who handed out our children’s soon-to-be hard-earned cash to a slew of failed banks with nary a second thought are now behaving as though they are incensed . . . outraged . . . shocked . . . that these irresponsible companies have been . . . irresponsible. Amazingly, Congress has suddenly become very tightfisted with our money.

I can’t help but marvel at the irony of the whole situation: who is Congress to get uppity and holier-than-though about fiscal irresponsibility, lack of prudence, and squandering of revenues? If ever there was a group that has no call to throw stones, it is Congress! In fact, Congress should be enormously flattered. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the Big Three simply emulated their model: spend more than you bring in, and hope the future takes care of itself! The only problem is that automobile manufacturers must unfortunately depend upon the market for cars to support their companies. Unlike Congress, they don’t have an endless stream of hapless taxpayers being forced to support their lavish habits. At least, not yet.

But there is even irony upon irony, because a good number of these same spend-happy Congressmen and Congresswomen have shamelessly pandered to the autoworker’s union, the UAW, in an effort to harvest their votes and volunteerism. All this time, these legislators have sided with the UAW, supporting through legislation the means by which the union could hold the Big Three management over the barrel, forcing them to meet every demand or face the closing of their factories. “Never mind that there is foreign competition!” “Never mind that sales are down!” “Give us what we want!” And they did: to the tune of over $70 as average hourly compensation. Nice work, if you can get it. To put this in perspective, Toyota’s U.S. workers have an average compensation just over $40 per hour. But Congress not only cheered on the UAW, they aided and abetted them; it was a mutual palm-greasing relationship. It’s no mystery why the Big Three needs Congress to bail them out: these congressmen and congresswomen would not be where they are today without the whole machine in motion. They OWE them.

So the spectacle of our Congress demanding accountability and prudence is frankly sending me into fits– as they say in the text-world, ROFLMAO. Exactly what leg is Congress standing on? What shred of integrity or honor can these legislators draw upon? It is not that I am in favor of an auto industry bailout, mind you, I just want to know: what is the overriding guiding principle that inspires our esteemed Congressmembers? I mean, other than, “Oh, crap, guys. America’s paying attention. I think the jig may be up.”

I anticipate that there would be a tremendous and negative effect on the American economy overall if the Big Three actually go under, and it is certainly not a spectacle I relish witnessing. But as bad as things may get, I cannot help but feel a certain satisfaction that the UAW and the executives who run these U.S. automakers may finally be getting a lesson in basic market economics. Unlike the stockholders who actually owned these companies, the fortunes of these employees did not rise and fall on the performance of the company. No, following the socialist model, they simply united in the mistaken belief that it is possible to establish the value of labor without regard to whether they could sell the cars they were building at a price that would support it.

I truly feel sorry for those who are facing layoffs and unemployment, but had these companies shown the slightest inclination to work within the limits of what the market was dictating, autoworkers and the companies that have paid their extortionate demands would not now be facing a dire future. And now, rather than face the reality they created, they want to cement their erroneous beliefs by having the U.S. taxpayer bail them out—essentially, forcing us all to further subsidize the cost of the cars simply to meet their compensation demands. That, America, is a brand of socialism we must not tolerate. No, it is high time that everyone at the Big Three ran smack dab into reality.

My only regret is that we cannot similarly force Congress to file Chapter 11. After selling out our future to their prep-school pals on Wall Street, they should be hanging their heads in shame, not puffing themselves up and acting as though they are miserly guardians of our well-being. If we really wanted a just world, nearly every member of Congress for the last 30 years would be facing the same fate confronting so many other Americans today: unemployment. How much do we plan to put up with, America?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Democrats Ask Automakers for Way Forward
• UAW Chief: Auto Bailout Is Necessary
• Obama, UAW weigh in on auto industry crisis

No related posts.

In my last post, I explained how audacious the California Supreme Court and Proposition 8 foes were in ignoring standard legal procedure with regard to the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8. As of yesterday, the Court went ahead and decided to accept the lawsuit for review. The good news is that the Court refused the stay. That is: as of now, Proposition 8 is in effect. This was a prudent measure, since, should the lawsuit fail, we would have the law yo-yo-ing back and forth a little too much even for this Court.

But ignoring legal procedure, of course, was just the tip of the iceberg. Let us now confront the insult to the injury, and get to meat of their argument.

Here is what the lawsuit claims: Proposition 8 is not an “amendment” to the Constitution that can be enacted by ballot proposition. Rather, it is a “revision” to the Constitution, which requires passage by the legislature as well as the voters. Ergo: Proposition 8 has no effect. Nada. Zilch. We just wasted a lot of time and money and anguish for nothing.

Okay, let’s back up a little bit. How come no one brought up this “amendment/revision” argument before November 4, or even questioned it? How come California’s Attorney General did not suggest this or even hint at a problem in its published analysis of the ballot measure? And why did California’s Secretary of State certify this Proposition for the November ballot, without getting a legal opinion on this point? Anyone? (Sound of crickets chirping.)

If you find the distinction between an “amendment” and a “revision” mind-numbing, that is because it is. This is the sort of thing lawyers get paid outrageous sums to argue about. And the worst thing is, nobody really knows what these terms ought to mean, at least insofar as they relate to our Constitution. In a way, the meaning is left largely up to the Court. I know: Oh, great.

But even if you don’t appreciate the legal niceties, here is a step-by-step analysis of what is going on:

–To begin, a statute is different from the Constitution. A statute is a law, but if a statute violates the Constitution, the statute is invalid, because the Constitution sits at the top of the legal hierarchy. Before the Court’s May 15 opinion, there was a statute on the books (passed by Californians in 2000) that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

–On May 15, the California Supreme Court declared that the statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and thus denying marriage to gay couples, violated the state Constitution’s equal protection clause. In this opinion, the Court acknowledged that the State of California, since its inception, had understood marriage as only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court’s opinion therefore constituted a reversal of all of California’s legal history (not to mention world history, but never mind . . . never mind).

–On November 4, the people of California told the Court where they could stick it, and passed Proposition 8 as an amendment to the state Constitution. Because Proposition 8 is now part of the Constitution, and not merely a statute, the California Supreme Court must accept it as the final word on the law of the state.

–Those opposed to Proposition 8 are now arguing before the Court that Proposition 8 is not an “amendment” at all, but a “sweeping revision” of the Constitution, and, because it was not passed by the legislature, it has no force or effect.

Now, here’s the problem; please follow, if you will. If I understand this argument correctly, when the Court changed California’s entire legal history on May 15, 2008, by throwing out the statutory definition of marriage and rejecting 150 years of California law, this was NOT a “revision” of our Constitution (which the Court is not allowed to do), but merely an “interpretation.” And now, if we want to go back to how the law existed those many eons ago on May 14, 2008, to how it was interpreted since the very first statute on marriage ever entered California’s code books, we now have to “revise” our Constitution? Haha! Oh . . . wait. I’m not sure if this is one of those situations where, if this were not so funny, it would be pathetic, or if this were not so pathetic, it would be funny.

This is incredible. In fact, I kind of relish the idea of the Supreme Court entertaining this spurious argument by declaring that the California Constitution revised itself, all on its own, while nobody was looking, and if we Californians want it to mean what it always used to mean, we now have to revise it back. No . . . really.

Let’s just take a good hard look at what the Court did on May 15. I know most people could not be bothered to slog through that frankly ludicrous tome that was intended to pass for a legal opinion, so I will try to explain it here. In fact, I think the Court went out of its way to make that opinion long and convoluted . . . because if the average Californian understood what they said, they’d be really pissed off.

We will start with standard Equal Protection analysis. It goes like this: first, you have to decide if the class of persons being discriminated against is a “suspect” classification. That is, it is okay for the law to discriminate sometimes, such as when females should get separate bathrooms from males, or illegal aliens should not be allowed to vote (ACORN notwithstanding). Other times, the classification is “suspect”—that is, no one can think of a reason to discriminate other than just bald prejudice, such as when blacks were forced to sit in the backs of buses.

Second, if you do find a suspect classification, Courts have to give the challenged statute what is called “strict scrutiny.” That is, when you have a statute that discriminates against a group, the Court looks at the statute really hard to see if there is any conceivable sound and good reason for the discrimination. The challenged statute may only be upheld if the court finds that: (1) the state has a “compelling interest” in achieving the goal of the statute, and (2) the statute is “narrowly tailored” to serve that purpose. Got all that? Okay, now to the Court’s analysis.

On May 15, the Court held that homosexuality is a “suspect” classification. It said that, in the matter of marriage, there is NO rational reason to differentiate between homosexuals and heterosexuals. I’m not kidding. Let’s move on: now we apply strict scrutiny. (Just to warn you: basically, in law, nothing stands up to strict scrutiny.) The Supreme Court said that California has no compelling interest in defining marriage to limit it to heterosexual relationships. NO COMPELLING INTEREST. Consequently, the statute that defines marriage is invalid.

Before I continue, I want to discuss this idea of “no compelling interest.” I have a hard time with this. Why? Well, because California has an entire code book dedicated to marriage law, which has applied exclusively to heterosexual couples throughout California’s history. Laws relating to marriage have existed since statehood because marriage has been, historically, the foundation of the family, which in turn has been the foundation of society as a whole. As a result, married couples have special legal treatment with respect property, contracts, criminal law, testimony, wills, estates, tax, and so on. You need a special license at the county office in order to get married, and counties keep records of marriage permanently. Marriage also creates certain presumptions in the law with respect to children. We have an entire court system dedicated to families. Family law is a specialized area of law practice, as is divorce law. Lawyers can make entire careers out of focusing just on these specific subjects. Law schools teach entire courses just on community property, which is a legal relationship that applies only to married couples. In fact, Community Property is one of only twelve subjects tested on the California State Bar exam, beating out such subjects as tax, intellectual property, securities, environmental law, and administrative law. So here we have whole bodies of California law relating to the protection and preservation of marriage, and marriage as the foundation of the family unit. We have whole bureaucracies that deal with matters related to marriage. These laws and administrative agencies represent untold hours of deliberating in the state legislature, in our state court system, and in our local government, and considerable sums of public money. And so, I am truly puzzled: can the California Supreme Court explain why the state of California spent so much time, money, energy, and resources on something the state has NO COMPELLING INTEREST in? Mind- boggling, to say the least.

How in the world did the Court arrive at its peculiar perspective? The Court reasoned (if you can call it that): (one) the legislature treats gay couples almost the same as married couples; so (two) it is therefore unfair, as a constitutional matter, to treat them differently. Hence, the equal protection clause DEMANDS that we give gay couples the right to marry.

You see, it all started when the legislature began to give a few rights here and there to homosexual couples. Even though California had a statute that said the term “marriage” applied only to heterosexuals, the legislature enacted a whole raft of other statutes giving homosexuals treatment very similar to married couples. So, instead of letting the legislature just do its thing, the Court said: “Ah, what the heck. Let’s go whole hog. If the legislature treats them as though they are sort of equal, even though we have a statute that says they are not, we may as well declare them equal as a matter of constitutional law.” Voila!

Now this is an interesting way to reason. Essentially, the Court contended that domestic partnership statutes, by treating gay couples similarly to married couples, governed their equal protection analysis. But how can statutes dictate the meaning of the Constitution? Especially when, at the same time, the Court is confronted by another statute that unequivocally states that marriage and domestic partnership are two different things. Ultimately, in trying to resolve a non-existent conflict between these statutes, the Court just decided to just declare the inconvenient one unconstitutional.

And what is even more interesting, you see, is that if Californians had only been smart enough to not give gay couples any rights at all, we would never have made them equal. Apparently, it is not enough that Californians were happy to let people have the freedom to live life as they choose, regardless of their personal views. It is not even enough that Californians were willing to recognize a slew of legal benefits to accrue to gay couples. No, Californians put themselves in a pickle. The Court concluded that Californians are a bunch of bigots because we didn’t go all the way, and declared that we could not be bigots anymore.

And then, along came Proposition 8 to put everything back to the way it was. Proposition 8 added just one simple sentence to the California Constitution. That sentence reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” And within a couple short weeks, we now have a brand new lawsuit to hash it all out again. The Court has a brand new opportunity to tell the majority of California voters that what they want and what they believe does not matter. I can just imagine the Court’s (unwritten) opinion:

Californians tried to take away privileges that we bestowed out of our ineffable wisdom and superior understanding of what California really needs—things that California’s citizens don’t understand because they are just ignorant voters. Honoring and revering thousands of years of tradition and law, and adhering to their most deeply held moral values, is unimportant . . . worthless. It is nothing more than an expression of “hate.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• More on the anti Prop 8 lawsuits
• The plot thickens in California
• AG Brown Asks CA Supreme Court to Review Prop 8 Constitutionality… Now

No related posts.

Now that the sky is falling in America, no one is talking much about the pre-credit disaster issue du jour, which was gas. But I’m going to go back to it here, because it is still a crucial issue.

A lot of windbags out there got on the alternative energy bandwagon, including our incredibly pathetic presidential wannabes, talking up solar, wind, coal, and natural gas. Now, I have nothing against utilizing alternative sources of energy . . . only when is somebody going to point out the glaringly obvious problems with the current rhetoric?

Let’s just discuss the environmentalist hard-liners, who think that we can eliminate the need for oil. Hmm. There is just so much stupidity out there that it’s hard to pick where to begin.

Okay: Exxon and all the other big oil producers. Oh, yes, why don’t they stop pushing oil on us and give us something else? Well, maybe it’s because THEY ARE OIL COMPANIES. Their job is to find, produce, and sell gasoline and other petroleum products, not to serve the greater needs, demands, and unreasonable whims of our greener brethren. Exxon is owned by its shareholders, and Exxon tries to serve its shareholders by making a profit doing what it does best. Unless and until the government runs the oil business—and, since good old Uncle Sam is now in the banking business, that is probably not far behind—they’re going to continue to do what they’re in business doing, and everyone else can go take a flying leap.

Oh, and about all those nasty “benefits” the fed “gives” to big oil. Gee, ExxonMobil ALONE paid over $29 billion in federal income taxes last year. And that does not include revenue generated from payroll taxes paid by its 30,000 U.S. employees. And, of course, the feds collect 18.4 cents on EVERY SINGLE GALLON OF GASOLINE sold in America. In fact, the average amount of taxes (state and fed) paid on every gallon of gasoline bought by an American last year was . . . 46 cents!

Don’t you get it? Petroleum is a CASH COW for the government! Do you really think they are going to give this up? If you add up corporate and gas taxes, the fed takes in more revenue from petroleum than the oil companies! Let’s get this in perspective, guys: the U.S. consumes 390,000,000 gallons of gasoline every day. That means Uncle Sam is generating over $71 million per day in revenue from you and me driving our cars—that’s more than $26 billion per year! And when you add in the states’ share, it totals over $65 billion per year.

And what makes people think alternative energy sources are some magical perpetual motion machine? Do they really think that solar, wind, coal, and natural gas resources are completely clean and cost free? Okay, so we don’t have exhaust spewing out the back of a car. But how the heck do you harness these resources? Do you just get a hemp bag, go traipsing through the woods in your Birkenstocks, and pick them up off the ground?  They all have an environmental cost.

Sure, festoon the entire southern United States with windmills, but you’re going to have to get the resources to build the things, you’re going to have to dedicate a lot of land to put these things up, you’re going to kill a lot of birds operating the things, and you’re going to have to deliver the energy to a plant and distribute it. Do you think that has no impact? And if it is all so bloody easy and efficient and wonderful. . . how come no one has done it? How come you, Mr. and Ms. Green, have not put your money where your mouth is? Oh, that’s right, you don’t have a job and no one else is stupid enough to risk their own hard-earned money on your goofy ideas.

Okay, okay. Really, this is not an argument against investigating or using alternative sources, it is just an open question: where is the in-depth cost-benefit and comparative analysis? If T. Boone Pickens is promoting wind power, it probably makes economic sense since he knows how to make a buck. But I am tired of these little green fairies skipping around imagining that these “solutions” have no environmental cost or impact.

And while we’re at it: do the enviros really think we can operate without petroleum? You see, to them, gas is just something you put in your car. Okay, let’s all just get electric cars! Well, now you’ve got batteries to build—and to dispose of after about 6 years, since your Prius batteries won’t survive much longer than that. Uhh, so what do we do with all the cars that are on the road today? Junk ‘em? Oh, sure, we’ll recycle tens of millions of old combustion engine cars, and keep on recycling those acid batteries, and none of our activities will have any adverse environmental impacts.

And we can deliver food and all those other goods we need across the United States on . . . steam trains? Oh, no, that requires burning coal. Horse and buggy? Somehow, I don’t think we’ve progressed too far on developing the solar-powered train, the battery-operated jet, or the sail-propelled semi. Oh, gee, that’s right, I forgot: we need petroleum to make jet fuel and diesel fuel. And we need petroleum to make plastic, so that your Odwalla organic carrot juice doesn’t spoil before we get to the next hay station. And, say, then we can take the United Airlines Zeppelin or Hang Glider on the international tradewind to the next Earth Summit in Nairobi or Kiev or Jakarta or wherever those geniuses at the U.N. need a junket.

And how about that non-statistic: the United States uses 25% of the world’s oil output, but only has 3% of the world’s supply. This is supposed to be an argument that we don’t have enough oil to support our usage. But let me see here . . . output is not the same as supply! How very clever to be so deceptively stupid. The world’s supply far exceeds the world’s annual output, and a 3% supply will keep us in cheap gasoline for decades. What else were we going to do with that oil? Dress a salad? The stuff used to be a hazard before people discovered what it could be used for.

This presidential election is like the idiot’s pop quiz, and the Katie Courics of the world are the perfect idiot quizzers. Everybody has all the answers . . . but that’s easy, when you ask really stupid questions. I’m still waiting for an intelligent question, let alone an intelligent answer. The reason the liberals listen to the Katie Couric contingent—and want all of America to listen to them—is that they don’t WANT anyone to ask tough questions, because . . .you might not like the answers. And you especially won’t like how much the answers are going to cost you.

Come on, America, when are you going to stop wishing upon a star for an easy way out? Deus ex machina only happens on stage. Do you really think 535 lawyers plus a couple more in the White House are going to magically solve these problems while you sit on your duff and watch Monday Night Football? The country is in trouble, and we’re being entertained by a dog and pony show. Hey, it worked for the Roman Empire.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ted Turner’s Prescription for a New National Energy Council
• The Axis of Emissions: Russia, Iran & Qatar Seek to Form Natural Gas Cartel
• Al Gore’s populist sea change

No related posts.

Okay, I am still steamed. This whole mess is a sad, dirty joke being perpetrated upon the American people. Here are a few more thoughts.

So Congress put a limit on executive salaries. This is supposed to make me feel better? If I had run my company into the ground, I would not encounter a pay ceiling, I would be out of a job. Come, on, America, these are the MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE, we are talking about: the crème de la crème, the elite. Look, I’m a relatively bright individual—I have a college degree and a law degree (whoopee, for all that’s worth). But even I have a hard time really understanding derivatives and so forth . . . and it turns out that these geniuses didn’t really understand them either, apparently. (I am being nice, and not claiming they are out and out crooks.)

Lots of Americans—in particular, people with retirement funds—relied on these geniuses to understand all these sophisticated security products, things that us poor benighted fools were too ignorant to bend our minds around. America trusted a bunch of self-aggrandizing politicians and Harvard MBA’s and Wharton grads to protect and invest their money wisely, even conservatively. But no, they are just too smart for the rest of us. And now we’re bailing out these jerks, letting them keep their jobs . . . and trusting them again with $700 billion more! Gosh, there’s no limit to how stupid we are! Burn me once, shame on you, burn me twice, . . . ?

It turns out they were all weaving The Emperor’s New Clothes. Then they turned around and sold them to pensioners, China, Europe, anyone who had a buck. If I had raided my grandmother’s pension, I would be in jail, but the silver-spoon set are running around scot free and getting more money from you and me.

So, what, instead of making $2 million plus, these executives are making $250,000? Don’t kid yourself. I bet it’s not even that low. And are they working somewhere on the Jersey turnpike now, or do they still have swank offices in downtown Manhattan? Expense accounts? First Class airfare? All the nitwits in Congress think that is perfectly reasonable, since they all belong to the same Big Bucks Club. You see, Congressmen and Senators are Masters of the Universe, too. They don’t seem to realize that you and I meet all our families’ expenses at less than half these amounts. But then, we’re just ignorant peons.

These people should get zilch: if they can still afford to eat and keep their homes in the Hamptons or the penthouse on Central Park West, they should get nothing. Their entire compensation packages should be tied to performance. Note to the wary: if you don’t vote your stock proxy according to who owns the biggest piece of the stock pie, you are a fool. Executive fortunes should ride with yours.

And while I am at it: the same is true with all the members of Congress. Heck, make it the whole federal payroll. They should not make a cent unless it is from a budget surplus. Then you might see them be a little more responsible about spending our tax dollars—the way you and I have to be responsible about our own family budgets. In fact, let’s do it department by department, agency by agency: compensation comes out of what they saved from the budget. Then, instead of budgets growing every year, they would shrink, because suddenly everyone would work their asses off being more effective and more efficient, and they would cut the dead weight.

Oh, and thank you, Congress, for revising the bailout bill to increase the amount of federal deposit insurance to $250,000. That sure was a deal breaker. You see, the idea is that this gives people much more confidence in the banking system. Yeah, okay, so when the bank goes bust . . . oh, I get it. You and I, as taxpayers, now get to pay out to people who had a quarter mill in the failed bank. THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH! Never mind that neither I nor anyone else I know has even $100,000 (the former limit) in a bank account anyway . . . I would be happy to insure the wealthy!

HOW STUPID ARE WE? The only source of revenue for the feds to insure these funds is you and me, the taxpayers. Here’s another idea: for every bank that fails, the very first place we should go to for insured funds is the pockets of the Senators and Congressmen who voted for this moronic piece of legislation.

Oh, and that federal deposit insurance sure makes those banks accountable . . . yes, sir . . . now, when they screw up, they don’t even have to pay the piper. You and I do. Why not force insurance onto the private sector? Like lawyers who obtain malpractice insurance. If banks are run well and conservatively, then a private insurer would be happy to collect a hefty premium to cover depositor’s insurance, and the bank has an incentive to run itself well to keep its premiums down. And we can be sure that the insurer would audit the you-know-what out of that bank. And if the bank has no insurance: well, they need to disclose that to depositors, and all bets are off. (Sure . . . yeah, I’d bank there.)

But no, we have a smarter idea. Let the taxpayers insure the depositors, no matter how lousy and lavishly a bank is run and no matter how foolishly they risk depositors’ assets, and trust the government to watch out for our interests by providing adequate oversight for these institutions. Yeah . . . that works for me. Duhhhhhh.

WAKE UP! Yes, the world is in a terrible credit crisis, but this piece of garbage legislation was rammed through by people who don’t know what they are doing. This is the definition of insanity: people who do the same thing over and over and expect different results. I know . . . let’s give a lot more money to the same people who failed before, because THIS time, they’ll get it right. And that trust is based on . . . what, again? I kind of missed that.

These government big wigs and Wall Street whizzes really do think they are the MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE. But I suppose if we were stupid enough to elect the one lot and give our money to the other, maybe they are, because we are so foolish that we gave them our money once, we are giving it to them again, and we still let them take more of our money from us. For whom are we working? I thought the 13th Amendment outlawed involuntary servitude. Hmmm. Must be mistaken.

And let’s all get our minds around that number, America: $700 billion. If you had spent $2 million every day since the year of the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 . . . you would ALMOST have spent $700 billion by now! (You would only have 16 more years left to spend $2 million a day.) Ponder that, America.

It’s time for some leadership. Anyone? Anyone? Because it is not going to come from our next president. They believe that the government not only can, but will, save us. And anyone who really believes that is a certifiable idiot.

Related articles by Zemanta

• No Bailouts for Jobless or Homeless
• Bush appeals to Congress to reverse bail-out rejection
• ‘Wanted: Bank failure specialist.’ Pays $156K

No related posts.

I have been a Republican for many years, but it is really hard to vote Republican this year. And by that, I don’t mean I would vote for Obama. What I mean is, all I hear on the media—internet included—is: whose fault is this credit crisis? And the answer is: the blame falls on a lot of people. And one of the biggest culprits is the federal government itself—just the government, not the Democrats or Republicans, but a stupid government that thinks it can do everything for everyone—especially helping the poor buy houses that they can’t afford. And not one candidate, Democrat or Republican, is acknowledging that fact.

Instead, they just keep telling us that they will fix it. Right. They were too stupid to even understand the problem they were creating over a period of years, and too stupid to recognize how their feeble-minded egalitarian policies were digging this hole . . . and they really think that a plan slapped together in two weeks and $700 billion will bandaid this thing? Let’s be clear. Congress is made up of 435 representatives and 100 Senators, most of whom were trained as lawyers, and most of whom have been banging around the Capitol Building for so long they can’t even answer a simple question without blathering on in politic-speak for ten minutes before they realize that all you asked them was where the nearest restroom is.

I mean, did you listen to the answers in the debates? Enough with the bipartisan nonsense and the who voted for what. Who cares? Sarah Palin was a relief, just because it was nice to hear someone state a simple declarative sentence that actually means something. The media were inordinately impressed with Joe Biden just because he could smoothly spout his voting record—even though it turned out that he was lying through his teeth about that. But if you were such a brilliant leader in the Senate for 35 years, Joe, why is the country in such a bloody mess? Where is even the slightest hint of humility or shouldering of responsibility for what our wonderful government has done to this country–not to mention the rest of the world?  We don’t need foreign terrorists to destroy our country; our own home-grown do-gooder legislators and investment bankers have done an absolutely bang-up job. 

And now they are going to “fix” it.  Honestly, do you really think that 535 lawyers understand this monster on their hands well enough to really get us out of this jam? And here’s another funny thing: don’t the do-gooders who want national healthcare see what is in front of their own faces? Gee, the government did such a wonderful job meddling with our markets, why don’t we let them take over healthcare? Just what we want: hospitals run by the same types of bureaucrats who operate the DMV. Nationalized healthcare for everyone means you get to compete for a kidney transplant with some street bum whose been drinking Thunderbird for 20 years.

And finally, a lot of the blame falls on all of us. Because we let the government play us and we were–and continue to be, apparently–stupid enough to trust them with safeguarding our welfare.

And face it. It isn’t just Wall Street that was greedy—a lot of us were, too. How many of us put our heads down and paid down our debts and lived within our means? We sit here and talk about how the national debt is going to fall on the backs of our grandchildren, but have we done a lot better? How many of us have saddled down our own households with debt that stretches out over the next few decades? How many of us put our own money—retirement and savings—in the hands of Wall Street, wanting to get in on the goodies?

The prices of our homes were going up, so we thought we couldn’t lose. People maxed out their equity, or even borrowed greater than their homes’ values, figuring everything was still on the positive side of the balance sheet so long as real estate went up. Banks and credit card companies went along happily, feeding our desire to have more than we could afford—extending us credit at usurious rates for everything we wanted: new cars, bigger televisions, fancier holidays, vacation homes, timeshares, boats. And even if you personally did not go whole hog, a lot of people did.

The evidence was there for us to see, too, but we didn’t want to work that hard. It was easier to go along. You know, it’s amazing, but the amount of faith we had in the system was based on very little—certainly, not based on our hard-earned knowledge and understanding of the financial and credit markets. Certainly, not based upon our in-depth understanding of the legislation that was shifting all of the lending and accounting rules for lending institutions, so that money was being given to people who hadn’t the faintest clue about (or interest in) the responsibility of home ownership.

If we lost a little, we want to blame someone else and get in on the gravy train. Well, take a bit of humble pie, instead, if you need to. And if you feed at the trough, welcome to the Union of Socialist States of America. Oh, and getting back to voting: I guess I’ll vote Republican, but only because I believe Obama is a liar and a socialist. But no matter whom we elect, if we trust the United States government to get us out of this mess, then we deserve whatever we get.

No related posts.

I don’t know why so many Americans keep demanding that the government solve their problems. The United States government doesn’t work. Time and again, American politicians have demonstrated their utter incompetence at even understanding problems, let alone actually solving them.

There are some things a government must do—it is the reason we even consent to be governed. (Pssst . . . it’s in The Declaration of Independence.) But most of the time, when the U.S. government gets a hold of a problem, it’s like asking your dentist to design a house.

Here’s how the U.S. government works: You’re hungry, and you ask for a ham sandwich. Your pig congressman proposes it as the Ham Sandwich Bill. Of course, not wanting it to look like simple pork, he broadens it a bit: it includes Black Forest Ham, Smoked Ham, Honey Ham, and mustard. Terrific. So far, so good. But now, it has to go to the House Lunch Committee.

Now, some other congressman from a cow district wants it to be a roast beef sandwich—or, at the very least, that it includes some roast beef, or maybe corned beef, or pastrami. Then the poultry congressmen have their say. The dairy congressmen demand that it have cheese, and, of course, since you can’t have a sandwich by itself, you also need a glass of milk.

And then the wheat congressmen debate with the rye congressmen what kind of bread it ought to have, and they compromise by deciding that both must be included. And then come all the vegetables and condiments. By then, the nut and fruit congressmen are asking why the bill fails to address nuts and fruits.

Eventually, it comes out of committee, and in the floor debate, members say that there is so much stuff here, that it should not be a sandwich at all, it ought to be a buffet.

But if it is a buffet, it needs to be a matter that is placed within the purview of the United States Buffet Agency. So now, the bill is renamed as an Amendment to the American Buffet Act. It goes to the Senate. They debate even more, and, after a few more changes, everyone is finally happy. They add another $20 billion to the federal budget. The bill is passed, and the President signs it at a press conference with everybody smiling.

Now you ask the U.S. Buffet Agency about your sandwich. But they have just started. They decide that in order to effectively administer this program, they need to enact some regulations. They propose regulations stating that you need a permit. They define the permit requirements, citing to appropriate sections of the American Buffet Act.

Then they solicit comments, and get them from activist groups like Americans Who Hate Sandwiches, the American Society for Vegetarian Sandwiches, and Pork is Murder. The agency considers all of the comments and 90 days latter it issues regulations that incorporate all of the comments into their final regulations.

You then spend hours filling out reams of paperwork applying for your Ham Sandwich permit. The agency gives you a permit, but what you get is a fruit platter, because the Agency concludes that the 2008 Amendment to the American Buffet Act does not include provisions for a ham sandwich, and, besides, the Buffet Agency concluded eight years ago that a ham sandwich is not as healthy as a fruit platter. It costs you $1,200.
The American government is a cumbersome, inefficient body. Most of the time, that’s a good thing, because we would really be in trouble if America’s politicians could exercise their power effectively. You see, they pretty much don’t know anything about anything—that is, anything real. They know how to blather on and spend money, though.

If Americans want something done, if America has a problem that needs to be solved, the last thing Americans should do is to go whining to the U.S. government. Take a look around. Problems are solved by individuals who have an acute need or desire to solve them. Most of the time, it is the government that is getting in the way of a solution, not providing it.

Americans cannot and should not expect problems to be solved by a group of people who have no direct interest in an efficient and useful outcome, especially when they are spending someone else’s money—yours—to accomplish it.

Be an American. It is not someone else’s responsibility; it is yours. And if ever America needed Americans to accept the challenges America faces, it is now.

American Ideals Freedoms | Individual Rights | Customs and Traditions

No related posts.

When is the last time you were impressed with something the American government actually did? I don’t mean the last time they passed a law with a nice-sounding name. I mean, the last time that a law was actually designed to accomplish some important goal efficiently and effectively. Oh, that is, other than to take more of your money away from you.

No related posts.