tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13874137761789651892024-02-07T18:57:51.624-08:00Conservative Underground"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." -John AdamsJordanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10701922461580640235noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-88241271288268029182010-07-15T08:40:00.000-07:002010-07-15T10:08:41.984-07:00Words that Shut Down the Mind:- Vemes<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I heard on a local radio station this morning a horrible fall into the informal fallacy of hasty generalization. Apparently, there was a woman at a Tea Party rally portraying some racist message. So, hmmmm. Woman is racist. Woman is at Tea Party Rally. Ergo, went the implied argument, all those at Tea Party Rallies are Racist? Of course, the radio commentators didn't actually say that as a statement. It was in the for of the accusatory question, "So, Tea Baggers AREN'T Racist, huh? She can wear a monkey suit and say Obama go back to Kenya, but Tea Baggers aren't Racist?" </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
Here is the fallacy laid out:</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
X is a Y.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">X is a Z.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Therefore, All Y's are Z's.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
It made me angry to hear such argumentation, knowing that it would be accepted as gospel just given the emotive well poison (also an informal fallacy).</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
In Philosophy, we used to use this term "being charitable." This meant, you didn't take an argument or point of view and attack its weakest element. You attack the argument at its strongest. If the opponent proposes an argument, and needs the gaps filled in a little bit logically, or with examples, you even help supply them. THEN you attack that point of view with everything you have. While this is NOT the way to win a tactical position on a battlefield, it IS a good way to show that, even given the BEST that an opponent has, their position is still faulty.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
This charitableness is not done in politics either, unfortunately. But perhaps it could be.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
Take the position of the morning radio folks who get upset at racist elements in political groups. OK, a fair assessment. But take the same medicine yourself. If one opposes me, and proposes a solution for my group, take the same one for your own. For example, the NAACP enjoys attacking any opponent with the "R" word. Yet, that same accusation can easily be leveled at some of their own members... </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Examples:</span></i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"></span></i></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><b>Jeremia Wright:</b></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Black Africans do not control the economic systems, the military or have control over the resources (the diamonds, the oil and the natural resources that were stolen by the whites who took over South Africa), and until that changes, white supremacy will still be in charge!"</span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Al Sharpton:</span></b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"White folks was in caves while we was building empires. We taught philosophy and </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it."</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">- Kean College speech, 1994</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: cyan;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></span><a href="http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=2411"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: cyan;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=2411</span></span></a></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">There are enough citations here to make the point.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">New Black Panthers:</span></b></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: cyan;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party</span></span></span></a></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><a href="http://www.newblackpanther.com/newsite/102.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: cyan;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">http://www.newblackpanther.com/newsite/102.html</span></span></span></a></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I do not include a single quote here - just the links to Wikipedia and the NBPP's own "Mission" page. That should pretty much cover it. </span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Louis Farrakhan:</span></b></span></span><br />
<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~patinniss/farra.htm"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: cyan;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">http://home.earthlink.net/~patinniss/farra.htm</span></span></span></a><br />
<a href="http://thehive.modbee.com/?q=node/9725"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: cyan;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">http://thehive.modbee.com/?q=node/9725</span></span></span></a><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: cyan;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan</span></span></span></a><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Again, no need for a single quote here - just the links to Wikipedia and and a couple others. </span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Jesse Jackson:</span></b></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2420533/Jesse-Jackson-forced-to-apologise-again-for-racist-slur.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: cyan;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2420533/Jesse-Jackson-forced-to-apologise-again-for-racist-slur.html</span></span></span></a></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">There are a few choice words in here, from Jackson - read for yourself.</span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> If you need to hate, that's your deal. Just know that when you accuse someone else of a racism using argumentative methods that can be leveled back at you equally, your arguments lose all credibility. </span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The NAACP has done a good job historically of helping, REALLY helping, the cause of egalitarianism in this country with regards to black people. But there are plenty of people who are part of the group, or to whom the group has given public nods, that are easily racist as well. To say that the NAACP is a racist organization, however, is a fallacy, one which I will not knowingly commit.</span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">But all of this brings up a sociologial issue with memetic conditioning. Historically, there seem to have been one or more words that can shut down conversation, shut down thinking, allow someone to be instantly guilty merely by those words being directed at them, regardless of evidence or logic or truth. I will term these words "Villain Memes," or "Vemes." The practice of "Vemetics" is one that is used to great affect by many people who need an instant accusation. This can buy time in an argument, have someone lose their job, or used at the right time, in the right place, get beaten to death or, historically, stoned to death.</span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In this case, it is the "R" word. It used to be "Heretic." It used to be "Witch." It used to be "Communist." </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Hell, in the days when our colonies were struggling to be a country, it used to be "Tory!" </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Now one of those words is "Racist."</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><b><i>Other Vemes:</i></b></span></span><br />
<ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Antisemite</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Homophobe</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Misogynist, or the translation, Woman-Hater</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Man-Hater (Misandronist)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Human-Hater (Misanthrope)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Patriarch(-al)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Bigot</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Pedophile</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Pederast</span></li>
</ul><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In Conservative circles, merely calling someone a Socialist or Communist or Marxist is enough to discredit them. In my view, it takes a lot more than an accusation to make such a thing stick. And there are more folks who deny the Vemosity (yes I am having fun with this word) of the words Socialist, Communist, and Marxist.<br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"> What's awesome to the Veme-Slingers is when you can stack a bunch of them together. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
There will be some confused and angry people regarding this discussion. I am an American White Male. Which of course makes me a Devil according to some theologies. That doesn't make my logic bad all by itself though. A logical argument can be posited by anyone - to ignore or decry that argument based upon the person making it is, of course, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">ad hominem</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. We don't do that in rational company.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br />
But then, one would think that Vemes themselves, once identified as such, could be analyzed rationally as well. Good luck with that.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span> </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">- H. Todd J. Moore</span></span></span>H. Todd J. Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901907942987879752noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-34067687709407960312009-07-06T21:49:00.000-07:002009-07-06T21:51:06.319-07:00What does America really want government's role to be?Well, this blog seems to have gone by the wayside. But, if anyone is still reading, here is a little opinion piece about the current state of things. <br /><br />A little self-reflection on what is happening with the government. Hopefully it isn't too incoherent, but here goes:<br /><br />I was reading a poll conducted by Gallup is quite interesting. I basically shows that America is becoming more conservative, rather than liberal, as the elites would like you to believe. This was the case in basically all the categories dealing with political ideology, in terms of policy preferences, as well. Clearly, then, there is a disconnect between the real policy preferences that the majority of Americans hold and those which are being portrayed by the current administration and Congress.<br /> <br />So, this begs the question, why did Obama and the Democrats have major victories in the last elections. Well, clearly, it is because the Republican party no longer stands for conservative values or for anything, really. But, all is not lost. There needs to be a coup in the party, as many have already articulated since the losses which were sustained in November. I believe that there is a golden opportunity presenting itself to conservatives, if they play their cards right.<br /> <br />When Obama was elected, along with the coattail effect where Democrats increased their majority in both the House and Senate, people clearly saw someone who could bring change to Washington and therefore voted for it. They were not aware of what kind of change they were ushering in, though. They only saw a dislike for the Republican party, led by Bush, in which all things previously stood for became perverted. The nation was on the brink of an economic crisis, no doubt brought on by the excessive governmental waste that was occurring, as well as in the middle of a very unpopular war.<br /><br />Previously, Republicans had stood for reform in government, as well as accountability, but that reputation was squandered on the idea of gaining power. The ageless quote by Lord Acton, rings true here, as even Barry Goldwater mentions in "The Conscience of a Conservative." Simply stated, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." This is what became of the Republican party in recent years, as pork barrel spending and insidership became more important than serving the people.<br /><br />But, I digress. The point of this power discussion is simply that the American people became fatigued by it. They wanted anything that sounded good, and the particular brand of Kool-Aid being sold by the Democrats seemed like something good to try out. But, the people are quickly realizing that this was far more than they bargained for to begin with. This is reflected in the ideology poll, as well as the decreasing popularity of Obama's policies.<br /><br />Soon, it is likely that Obama will push through legislation reforming heal thcare, as well as legislation that will handcuff the American economy through useless cap and trade. This is not a matter of if but when, as the Senate is now filibuster proof. I believe that this legislation will be unpopular, overall, with the American people.<br /><br />The conservative and libertarian thinking legislators, as well as citizens with the ability to run for office must seize the opportunity to change things in the coming elections of 2010 and 2012. It is high time to kick the liberal-lite John McCains and Colin Powells out of the party and to reinvent the party as standing for the values of limited government. If this occurs, and these prospective legislators articulate their values in a genuine manner, I honestly think that the American people will respond in a positive manner. I just pray that it isn't too late when it happens.<br /><br />Here are the polls I drew from:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/121403/Special-Report-Ideologically-Moving.aspx?CSTS=alert" onmousedown="'UntrustedLink.bootstrap($(this)," target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.gallup.com/poll</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>/121403/Special-Report-Ide</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>ologically-Moving.aspx?CST</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span>S=alert</a><br /><br />I found it interesting that the mood of the public is seemingly moving against government run health care and also against legislation that would put climate change ahead of economic growth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-73945826578657910022009-02-18T14:58:00.000-08:002009-02-18T15:03:29.527-08:00Declaring Sovereignty:All of these (except for HI) are explicit restatements of what has always been in place, but not necessarily enforced, as detailed by the 10th Amendment.<br /><br />“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”<br /><br />HI is actually aiming for total sovereignty as it is claimed that HI was never really a state of the U.S. to begin with.<br /><br />However, I personally believe the intent of these bills is to let the federal government know that the states’ sovereignty will not be overwritten… say in case certain gun ban laws get passed, or with regards to emissions standards,… or even if “War Time / Martial Law” type plans come into play. (See the specifics detailed in the proposed NH legislation)<br /><br /><br />Some of these states legislation is still waiting to be passed, but is before the House. I have provided links to the legislations of the state if you want to read it for yourself, and I suggest you do, especially if you live in that state.<br /><br /><br /><br />Arizona: <a href="http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm" onmousedown="'UntrustedLink.bootstrap($(this)," target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.azleg.gov/Forma</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>tDocument.asp?inDoc=/legte</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>xt/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span>.htm</a><br /><br />California: <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sjr_44_bill_940829_chaptered" onmousedown="'UntrustedLink.bootstrap($(this)," target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>pub/93-94/bill/sen/sb_0001</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>-0050/sjr_44_bill_940829_c</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span>haptered</a><br /><br />Georgia: <a href="http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/sr308.htm" onmousedown="'UntrustedLink.bootstrap($(this)," target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.legis.state.ga.</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>us/legis/1995_96/leg/fullt</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span>ext/sr308.htm</a><br /><br />Hawaii: <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-1372.htm" onmousedown="'UntrustedLink.bootstrap($(this)," target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.supremecourtus.</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span>gov/docket/07-1372.htm</a> (and) <a href="http://www.hawaii-nation.org/" onmousedown="'UntrustedLink.bootstrap($(this)," target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.hawaii-nation.o</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span>rg/</a><br /><br />Michigan: (See HR No.4)<br /><a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2821rmjiv1sl0wvw55yxurwl55%29%29/documents/2009-2010/Journal/House/pdf/2009-HJ-01-22-002.pdf" onmousedown="'UntrustedLink.bootstrap($(this)," target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.legislature.mi.</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>gov/(S(21rmjiv1sl0wvw55yxu</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>rwl55))/documents/2009-201</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>0/Journal/House/pdf/2009-H</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span>J-01-22-002.pdf</a><br /><br />Missouri: <a href="http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/HR212.HTM" onmousedown="'UntrustedLink.bootstrap($(this)," target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.house.mo.gov/co</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>ntent.aspx?info=/bills091/</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span>bills/HR212.HTM</a><br /><br />Montana: <a href="http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm" onmousedown="'UntrustedLink.bootstrap($(this)," target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span>http://data.opi.mt.gov/bil</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>ls/2009/billhtml/HB0246.ht</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span>m</a><br /><br />New Hampshire: <a href="http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html" onmousedown="'UntrustedLink.bootstrap($(this)," target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.gencourt.state.</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span>0006.html</a><br /><br />Oklahoma: <a href="http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf" onmousedown="'UntrustedLink.bootstrap($(this)," target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span>http://www.ok-safe.com/fil</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>es/documents/1/HJR1089_int</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span>.pdf</a><br /><br />Washington: <a href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009" onmousedown="'UntrustedLink.bootstrap($(this)," target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><span>http://apps.leg.wa.gov/bil</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span><span>linfo/summary.aspx?year=20</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span>09&bill=4009</a><br /><br /><br />Pending legislation are: Alaska, Arkansas, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas.<br /><br /><br />That's a total of 21 states.Stephanie Grinagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01247946304192475631noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-60215599426022610422009-02-01T18:43:00.001-08:002009-02-01T18:44:51.440-08:00Oppose the Stimulus<p class="MsoNormal">Oppose the “Stimulus”</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">Before I state why we need to collectively oppose the stimulus let me first allow that the concept of a stimulus is legitimate.<span style=""> </span>If we have high yield public projects to invest in that will generate more income than the cost to borrow for the project than it is a stimulus.<span style=""> </span>For example imagine that my town of Waxahachie is isolated from the rest of Texas.<span style=""> </span>It is a recession.<span style=""> </span>The federal government allocates money to individual states for infrastructure projects that pass a cost benefits test (unlike this proposed bill which has no such test as of yet).<span style=""> </span>Texas decides to build a highway that connects Waxahachie to Dallas.<span style=""> </span>The amount of income, productivity, and increased commerce that is generated from the road more than pays for itself over the course of time and so the investment was a stimulus for the economy.<span style=""> </span>When the job is over the demand for construction will be higher than it was before leading to some of the government supported work force to head for the private sector construction jobs and the rest of that work force to find a job in the recently booming private sector.<span style=""> </span>Now let’s look at a proposal that wouldn’t work.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">Pretend now that the federal government wants to stimulate the economy by buying $250 million dollars of chairs for their workers.<span style=""> </span>Let’s assume that the inventory of chairs is so low that the government’s purchase would result in more than a wiping out of existing inventories, it would require firms to produce more.<span style=""> </span>So as a result the mahogany wood farm hires more workers to 1) plant more trees, and 2) harvest more wood.<span style=""> </span>Carpenters hire unemployed people to help them build the chairs.<span style=""> </span>Sounds like a positive so far – idle resources (seeds, workers) are put to work and the velocity of money increases.<span style=""> </span>The next year after the stimulus those extra wood harvesters and carpenters return to their idle status (aka got the pink slip) because aggregate demand has shifted left.<span style=""> </span>The government’s solution of a stimulus was only temporary and all that is left is 1) debt and 2) $250 million dollars worth of chairs.<span style=""> </span>The chairs, per se, do not generate revenue or improve the economy, they only devalue the currency and/or increase the national debt.<span style=""> </span>The previously unemployed workers are back at square one and might even be worse off.<span style=""> </span>Even if we assume that the carpenters, wood harvesters and their employers spent the money they received from the government, and that a trickle down effect and again an increase in the velocity of money occurs, some of that money would a) spent on goods which have a cost to produce so the trickle down truly is a trickle and b) any money spent by the carpenters, wood harvesters and their employees will distort the market.<span style=""> </span>Obviously the carpenter execs and the mahogany wood execs realize that the government money is only a one time expenditure. <span style=""> </span>But when they spend their government checks the goods sellers do not realize that this is also a onetime expenditure.<span style=""> </span>Imagine if they spent $200 million on Dodge Vipers.<span style=""> </span>The brilliant folks at Chrysler might increase production of the viper and could also end up bankrupt the next year.<span style=""> </span>Let’s apply this logic to our current stimulus package<span style=""> </span>HT: Peter Klein (<a href="http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2009/01/28/disaster-socialism/">http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2009/01/28/disaster-socialism/</a>)</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p> </o:p></p> <ul type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="">$1 billion for Amtrak<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="">$2 billion for child-care subsidies<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="">$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="">$400 million for global-warming research<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="">$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="">$650 million for digital TV conversion coupons<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="">$8 billion for renewable energy funding<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="">$6 billion for mass transit<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="">$600 million for the federal government to buy new cars<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="">$7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities (including $150 million for the Smithsonian)<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="">$252 billion is for income-transfer payments ($81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax)<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="">$66 billion for education<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">Add to this the anti-free trade provisions in the package which will likely result in a tariff/imports war, and higher taxes and where are we?<span style=""> </span>1934.<span style=""> </span>What made the great recession the great depression?<span style=""> </span>Higher marginal tax rates, increased <b style="">inefficient </b>regulation, anti-free trade laws, and massive wasteful government spending.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">Perhaps the most insulting part of this is that this increase in spending is likely to be permanent.<span style=""> </span>Government spending has increased higher than inflation since 1934.<span style=""> </span>I have two examples that illustrate why this happens.<span style=""> </span>Sugar subsidies cost the American consumer .07 dollars a year (7 cents!).<span style=""> </span>I don’t know about you but I’m not going to write a letter to Joe Barton (my rep) about 7 cents.<span style=""> </span>But those 7 cents add up to a 2 billion dollar subsidy to the sugar industry.<span style=""> </span>Another example is guns.<span style=""> </span>Gun manufacturers, workers, and users all have more motivation to lobby on behalf of their position, more-so than the average citizen who might not want guns on the street but isn’t monetarily, or personally, in the felt.<span style=""> </span>That is why the NRA spends millions of dollars lobbying Congress each year but anti-gun advocates spend only thousands.<span style=""> </span>You have here a collective action problem due to diffuse costs and concentrated benefits.<span style=""> </span>Every time the government increases spending you create additional concentrated benefits and diffused costs.<span style=""> </span>The tax payer simply is at a political and strategic disadvantage.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">I’ll conclude with two points.<span style=""> </span>First, the man who used to be known as Larry Summers was on Meet the Press last week and had this to say about the whether or not we should extend the Bush tax cuts, “First, it's a bad idea because we simply can't afford it. The president's inherited a trillion-dollar deficit, and a deficit with a baseline that is terrible as far as the eye can see. We've got to spend money now while we have a recession, while we've got this serious economic crisis, but as soon as the economy recovers we are going to have to find ways of getting the government's finances under some kind of control.” <span style=""> </span>So according to Dr. Summers we can afford to have government bureaucrats and politicians allocate money that we’re going to borrow but we can’t afford $300 billion of tax cuts to entrepreneurs and business owners (aka the upper-middle class and the movers and shakers of the economy).<span style=""> </span>This comes down to whether or not you trust our government to allocate resources better than the private sector (and baked into this is the questionable deflationary trap problem).<span style=""> </span>I don’t.<span style=""> </span>Lastly if this is a targeted (it isn’t) and timely stimulus then why is 71.4% of the money going to be spent after one calendar year when we might already be in a recovery?<span style=""> </span>Even a true Keynesian would balk at that.<span style=""> </span>Maybe we’d be better off just having the government buy us all a bottle of Scotch, after all, this is about animal spirits right?</p>Econoticshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12030424134724541660noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-18096374039466103322009-01-27T09:33:00.000-08:002009-01-27T09:35:21.580-08:00Is Tim Geithner Really “Too Big to Fail?”Many of the headlines over the past week read “Confirm Geithner or Else!” As corruption in Washington continues to run amuck, “too big to fail” seems to be the excuse to overlook past and current wrongdoings. <br /><br />Tim Geithner is now too big to fail. The economic crisis is too dangerous to let a man who is too big to fail sit on the sideline. Geithner must be “Superman.” He must have powers that are extraterrestrial, as there is no one else in the financial sector that has the ability to put the economy back on track again according to President Obama and members in the Senate who approved of his nomination. <br /><br />Well folks, all I can say is if you liked the way the economic crisis has been handled under the Bush Administration, you will no doubt be thrilled with what’s to come. For those who expected change, brace yourselves for a difficult dose of reality. Real change would have been a free-market solution. Instead, Geithner will continue policy that will further erode the free market and expand the power of the government.<br /><br />Tim Geithner has not sat idly on the sidelines for the past year. He has already had extensive involvement in the government’s response to the financial mayhem. Based on Geithner’s record, he seems to think that bailouts are the solution. He advocated the rescue of Bear Stearns and played a key role in the rescues of American International Group (AIG), Bank of America and Citigroup. It’s a good thing that top executives in these companies put the funds to good use. AIG felt lavish executive retreats were necessary. Bank of America paid huge bonuses to Merrill Lynch executives. Citigroup partnered with the New York Mets baseball team by paying a $400 million naming-right expenditure to call the stadium where the Mets play “Citi Field.” Some may rightfully argue the cost/benefit of such a decision, and it would be a legit argument if the company did not receive federal money. Besides, I thought the credit markets were frozen!<br /><br />Based on the testimony Geithner gave at his confirmation hearing, I am left wondering what exactly those “superpowers” are.<br /><br />Geithner said, “Senators, the ultimate costs of this crisis will be greater, if we do not act with sufficient strength now. In a crisis of this magnitude, the most prudent course is the most forceful course.” He says Obama’s stimulus plan “will meet that test.” (1)<br /><br />It is interesting that the scare tactics continue in an effort to give the government an excuse to spend trillions of dollars and hold stakes in our largest banks; when in reality, this “crisis” isn’t even close to what was experienced in the 1970’s. Has Geithner seen Obama’s stimulus plan? Perhaps he could explain how the same tax incentives that were part of Bush’s plan last year and the massive government spending that includes handouts to states to fund safety-net programs as well as free contraceptives would stimulate the economy. The aim is to stimulate the economy isn’t it? It’s possible that Speaker Pelosi was thinking about a different kind of stimulation…<br /><br />Geithner mentions the Senate’s passage of the second Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) tranche, but says “we have to fundamentally reform this program” to ensure there’s enough credit to support the recovery. He also says the nation needs “investments” in infrastructure, a strategy “to get us back as quickly as possible to a sustainable fiscal position” and then “comprehensive financial reform” so the world will “never again face a crisis of this severity.” (1)<br /><br />It seems that Citigroup didn’t have a problem getting credit. Nowhere in his testimony does Geithner mention repeal of the Community Reinvestment Act – the act which played a key role in the housing debacle. This act forced banks through government mandates to loan money to people who could not afford to repay which led to the birth of the subprime mortgage market. Instead of overusing the word “crisis,” his plan should focus on transparency and prudent lending standards. <br /><br />Geithner may not wish to tip his hand at the moment, but I would expect to see proposed changes to the Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement Number 157 which has failed in the attempt to value illiquid assets and has earned the phrase “mark-to-make-believe accounting.”<br /><br />As for infrastructure spending…there is an idea that’s never been tried before. His expertise in economics should reveal to him that most of the benefits of infrastructure spending are delayed and could take effect during an inflationary period. In addition, the money is rarely used for what it was intended, and we don’t see real economic growth when the government spends money. History has proven that the government cannot spend the country out of recession. This kind of spending can make our dollar worthless, however!<br /><br />Geithner’s responsibilities also include oversight of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It is comical that we entrust a person who has evaded taxes to be in charge of the IRS. Geithner claims his mistakes were innocent. However, if they were innocent, should America have confidence in a man who has difficulty using Turbo Tax (a software that people with no accounting/financial background can easily use), has difficulty understanding IRS Publication 503, and doesn’t realize he has to pay Social Security tax, Medicare tax and employed an immigrant housekeeper who lacked proper work papers?<br /><br />In summary, Geithner’s appointment further illustrates that there is no real change in Washington. In addition to Geithner’s tax problems, there is a very questionable record of “expertise.” He’s played a pivotal role in managing TARP funds. It’s quite clear that the first half of TARP funds were misspent. As President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, his supervision of corporate giants like Citigroup was questionable. Although Geithner talked about holding such institutions to the highest regulatory standards, the record shows that New York Fed relaxed the standards as the company bet big on subprime mortgages and had massive risk exposure to other perilous investments. <br /><br />So why is it that we have so much confidence in people such as Geithner to fix a problem when they have shown poor judgment and played a role in causing the problem? Answer: the elite financial club has its benefits.<br /><br /><br />(1) http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/21/live-blogging-tim-geithners-confirmation-hearing/<br /><br />This column is also cross posted at our new website: http://www.conservativetoday.org/Michelle Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121372533500690450noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-36973226325953895022009-01-20T08:46:00.000-08:002009-01-20T08:56:43.236-08:00Obama’s CoronationToday, people in all parts of the political spectrum should briefly set aside politics and reflect on the moment in history Obama’s inauguration represents. His victory represents a significant movement towards an end to racial divides. For that reason, everyone can be proud of America for the great strides that have been made over the past four decades to allow this moment in history. However, as historic as this inauguration is, it is possible to go overboard. It is as equally important to not lose sight of the growing problems facing America.<br /><br />The manner in which the media has portrayed Obama would lead one to believe that the coronation of a monarch was taking place in America as opposed to swearing in its 44th President. The masses couldn’t be happier. People have gone to great lengths to be a part of this historic event. From school closings and vacation days from the jobs that they once feared they would lose to opening up tight budgets to allot for the purchase of all of that special Obama paraphernalia. The most expensive inauguration in America’s history (makes Sarah Palin’s $150,000 wardrobe look like pocket change) would lead one to believe that the economy may be recovering. If only that were the case…<br /><br />The day after Obama’s victory, I wrote a column titled <a href="http://newconservativeunderground.blogspot.com/2008/11/americas-impending-hangover-how-its.html">“America’s Impending Hangover: How it’s Love Affair with Obama Will Be Short-lived.” </a> Today’s inauguration will mark the peak of “Obamamania.” It is now time for him to deliver on the mountain of promises in which he campaigned. He has roughly one year to blame George W. Bush. However, after that time period, the Kool-aid will run out; and people will expect results. Let’s go through some of the highlights of Obama’s promises, and the ones he has already broken…<br /><br /><strong>Foreign Policy<br /></strong><br />I predicted that this would be the area in which Obama would deviate off his campaign rhetoric the most. Remember his promises to end the Iraq war? Remember how he said he would begin withdrawing troops on his first day in office? We’ve gone from that analogy to his retention of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense – whose team he harshly criticized throughout the campaign. Obama never acknowledged that the surge allowed exactly what he wished – a responsible transition to the Iraqi army. One had to dig deep for this information, as the mainstream media would never report any kind of success in Iraq. However, the media will be changing its tune shortly on this topic in order to give Obama credit for the victory in Iraq – something that was well in hand long before he took office. For all of you anti-war folks out there - don’t be too disappointed when he escalates the war in Afghanistan. That’s one promise I believe he’ll keep.<br /><br />Obama’s pledge to close Guantánamo Bay is sheer political rhetoric to please his left-wing constituents that donated big money to his campaign. The bottom line is he cannot close this camp without a plan for its detainees. What kind of a plan could be devised on our soil to incarcerate suspected militant combatants - dangerous enough to the point where their home country will not take them back? Obama knows if he leans too far left on matters of national security, and America suffers an attack under his watch; the love affair is over. He has a second term to think about.<br /><br /><strong>Economic Policy</strong><br /><br />In my last <a href="http://newconservativeunderground.blogspot.com/2009/01/obamas-800-billion-bridge-to-nowhere.html">column</a>, I have already outlined the major flaws in Obama’s so called stimulus plan. In this column, I’ll focus more on what is absent from the plan that should be part of that plan.<br /><br />Let’s begin with the housing debacle. Nowhere do I see a call to repeal the Community Reinvestment Act.<br /><br />- The act that forced lending institutions to loan money to people who had no financial means to repay (so much for the deregulation argument)<br /><br />- The act that artificially drove the cost of housing “through the roof” by adding droves of buyers to a market in which they did not belong<br /><br />- The act that is largely responsible for the rapidly declining housing prices and foreclosures<br /><br />Stay tuned for a more detailed analysis, as this topic deserves a separate column.<br /><br />The number keeps changing, but as it stands now, Obama plans to create 3 to 4 million new jobs within the first two years of his presidency. Last I checked, the private sector creates jobs; and the government makes it more difficult, but we’ll roll with this for illustration purposes. If we go with the conservative estimate of 3 million, that’s roughly 4,110 new jobs per day. Our unemployment rate is currently 7.2 percent. If we net 28,770 new jobs per week, he’ll have that number back down to a stable 5 percent in no time! If that is the case, then there is no need to extend unemployment benefits, as it would be counter productive.<br /><br />Obama has championed the age-old failed tactic of borrowing and spending to prosperity. It’s never worked in the past; it’s not going to work now. Instead of multi-billion dollar bailouts for individual states, the banking industry and other failed politically connected businesses, absent are reduced tax rates and government spending. Real change would have been proper implementation of supply side economics which has NEVER been done. President Reagan was close; but he failed to restrain government spending and reduce the size of government to sustain long-term success.<br /><br />In summary, our new President has come to a crossroad. In order to be successful and continue to ride the wave of adoration and idolization, he must abandon his extreme left-wing ideology. Otherwise, when the world feels the effect of America’s 1+ trillion dollar deficits, this “slobbering love affair” (as Bernie Goldberg accurately describes it) will soon be over.Michelle Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121372533500690450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-85260533425545048042009-01-19T18:55:00.000-08:002009-01-19T18:57:36.240-08:00We're Moving! ConservativeToday.org<div class="bText"> <p>Fellow Conservatives:</p> <p>The Conservative Today website, forum and blog will be going live January 20, 2009. It is no coincidence that happens to be the same day as Obama's inauguration ceremony; we conservatives must step up to the plate to thwart ever-increasing liberal tendencies in this country. Obama's inauguration marks a historic event for both parties. Never in this country's history has there been such a blatant power shift in the wrong direction and now is the time to start fighting for 2012.</p> <p>Moral of the story is, stop by on opening day and show your support by checking out the articles and everything else we have to offer! If you feel so inclined, we are also in need of financial support, so if you can spare some change, that's great too. Please beware that there is a percentage deducted from each transaction that comes our way via paypal, so if you can be generous that's awesome!</p> <p>Thank you,<br />The Conservative Today Staff</p></div>Juan Lechugahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03581527575826553230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-7795403465336209722009-01-08T13:08:00.000-08:002009-01-08T13:17:06.552-08:00FDR's New Deal Made the Depression WorseWe hear over and over again how today's economy is the next "Great Depression.” Nancy Pelosi and President elect Barack Obama continue to call for an economic stimulus package to save America from an economic collapse. President elect Obama addressed the nation on January 8th claiming this crisis could "linger for years," and only the government can solve an economic crisis of this magnitude. Today's economic woes are a far cry from the 1930's Great Depression. However, the solution by our government remains the same. Can the federal government stimulate and save our economy? If it worked for The Great Depression, shouldn't it work for today's lagging economy? The truth is it did not work in the 1930's; and our government not only prolonged the Depression, but actually made the economy worse.<br /><br />One great myth is that Herbert Hoover tried the classical approach by staying out, and the economy only became worse as a result. Nothing could be further from the truth. Herbert Hoover raised taxes on the top marginal rate as well as tariffs. The top marginal rate was raised from 24 to 63 percent. The tariff hike became known as the "Smoot Hawley Tariff" and was the largest tariff hike in U.S. history. Excessive tariffs severely impacted imports and exports. This robbed the American consumer of low cost imports. Consumers were forced to pay higher prices as a result of fewer products on the market to satisfy demand as well as higher labor costs of American made goods. Declining exports resulted in fewer overseas consumers purchasing their products which hurt businesses. It was Hoover who started the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC). These actions prove that Hoover's approach was in no way indicative of laissez-faire economics. Hoover's policies failed and paved the way for Franklin Roosevelt's big government expansion called "The New Deal".<br /><br />Franklin Roosevelt's (FDR) New Deal contained an expansion of existing Hoover policies. Three years after Hoover raised the top marginal rate, FDR raised the top marginal rate from 63 to 79 percent. Entrepreneurs were not going to make many investments in a lagging economy to give ¾ back to the government in the slight chance they would make a profit. FDR enacted Hoover's idea of the RFC which was supposed to give low rate loans to struggling companies. Our government decided which troubled companies would get the loans and which ones would not. What ended up happening in many cases was government bureaucrats gave low rate loans to their friends and supporters regardless of whether they were in need.<br /><br />In addition to raising the top marginal rate, FDR also enacted tax increases on inheritance, corporate income, and excess profit taxes. Social Security excise taxes on payroll also affected business expansion and hiring. Excise taxes were levied on all kinds of different products. Alcohol, cigarettes, matches, candy, gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including wheelchair tires), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, and radios are examples of the products that had excise taxes put on them. These excise taxes were often paid by middle and lower income people - the very people The New Deal was supposed to help. <br /><br />Perhaps the worst program was the "National Industrial Recovery Act" (NIRA). This program forced manufacturing companies to pay wages that were above market levels. This put an additional load on already struggling companies which made it more expensive to hire and keep employees. This also affected the consumer who was forced to pay higher prices for goods and services. The "Agricultural Adjustment Act" paid subsidies to farmers to produce fewer crops, which was supposed to raise the value of crops and save the farming industry. This resulted in fewer crops produced so less crop workers were hired. As a result, the struggling American had to pay higher prices for food. The "National Labor Relations Act" gave unions more power in workplaces. This led to countless strikes, less production, and fewer jobs. It has been estimated there were as many as 14 million strike days in 1936 and 28 million strike days in 1937.<br /><br />A study was conducted by UCLA economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian in 2004 based on 1929 data provided by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The study concluded that the New Deal prolonged The Great Depression by about seven years. Prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent higher while gross domestic product (GDP) was 27 percent below where it would have been without the New Deal. Cole and Ohanian estimate the NIRA account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. They claim without the NIRA the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of 1943, only to be saved by World War II. After two years the US Supreme Court repealed the NIRA because it was considered unconstitutional. That did not stop the FDR administration from ignoring certain industries once protected by NIRA who continued to collude and price fix for another four years. Cole concluded the study by saying "…recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."<br /><br />The average unemployment rate in the 1930s was over 17 percent. It reached it's height in 1933 with a peak of almost 25 percent. One may ask how FDR was able to serve four terms if these policies were so bad. One theory, according to Jim Powell, author of the book "How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression," could be due to the fact that most of the New Deal programs were spent in political swing states in the West and the East where incomes were 60 percent higher than in the South. The Southern states were among the poorest states in the union at the time and received the least amount of money for New Deal programs. One can conclude that it appeared though FDR may have bought his four terms in office by distributing more Federal dollars where it would most benefit his political career.<br /><br />FDR is continuously touted as the model for liberal fiscal policy, and we can clearly see the New Deal was an expensive and miserable failure. With the Democrats in full control today, we will certainly hear more about how the government has to get involved to deal with this economic crisis. This economy, while in a recession, does not come close to the problems we were facing in the 1930s. However, our government has only scratched the surface on how they can save us from ourselves and further deepen the current crisis. If our government does enough, it very well could create an economy that would be worse than anything we have ever seen before.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081027150030.aspx">http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081027150030.aspx</a><br /><br /><a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx">http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3357">http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3357</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/guest/08/folsom/crisis.html">http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/guest/08/folsom/crisis.html</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-65882374863687275672009-01-07T04:29:00.001-08:002009-01-08T05:58:25.309-08:00Obama's $800 Billion "Bridge to Nowhere"Change we can believe in? For those who believed that “change” was coming to Washington, the details of Obama’s economic stimulus plan will be very disappointing. It turns out that “Obamanomics” is nothing more than a continuance of the failed economic policies of the past. What a surprise! Does the President-elect know that the change from “tax and spend” to “tax cut and spend” has been the type of “change” that the Bush Administration enacted? All throughout the campaign, Obama pledged not to continue the “failed policies of George W. Bush.” Now, he’s stealing a page right out of Bush’s fiscal policy. Let’s go through the details…<br /><br />We’ll begin with the tax proposals. Obama’s plan includes the following: On the individual side, he proposes a $500 individual tax credit ($1,000 for couples). On the business side, the proposal consists of an extension of the Net Operating Loss (NOL) carryback feature to 5 years (currently 2 years), tax credits to businesses that create jobs or avoid layoffs, increasing the amount that allows small businesses to write off a wide range of expenditures up to $250,000 (currently $175,000) and doubling the renewable energy tax credit.<br /><br />Fiscal conservatives understand that tax cuts only work when they are coupled with spending restraints – not when they are used as an inducement to win bipartisan support. Speaking of inducement; when the tax code is used to encourage behavior, the result is never what was intended.<br /><br />The problem with Obama’s individual tax credits is 1) checks of this nature were part of the Bush plan in early 2008, which failed to “stimulate” the economy; and 2) if this credit is made a permanent part of the tax code, many of the recipients are people who already have no federal income tax liability which basically makes it a form of welfare.<br /><br />On the business side, there is a catch to the NOL carryback feature. Write-offs are retroactive to expenditures made as of January 1, 2009. In other words, businesses have to invest the money in order to receive the credit. The problem with giving tax credits to businesses that hire or avoid layoffs is that businesses who were already planning on hiring will be the only ones to benefit from the credit. Troubled businesses that are forced to let workers go will not be saved by a small tax credit. Chalk this up to Obama’s lack of private sector experience. Apparently, he hasn’t looked into the costs of TOTAL compensation for a worker.<br /><br />Many of these tax credits are nothing more than extensions of the credits already enacted by the Bush Administration, yet we were led to believe that John McCain was Bush’s third term! In all seriousness, it is most unfortunate that the Obama Administration will not play the card that the Bush Administration missed – addressing the fact that the United States has the SECOND HIGHEST corporate income tax rate in the world. Instead of playing games with tax credits that have ridiculous stipulations, reducing the corporate income tax rate would bring relief to ALL sectors of business while simultaneously encouraging business to come back to the United States. More businesses in the United States leads to job opportunities and will curtail jobs being lost to tax-friendly overseas environments. In addition, businesses would have fresh capital to grow and expand.<br /><br />Moving on to the spending side of this turkey….<br /><br />Most of the spending in Obama’s plan is nothing more than welfare to individual states. Up to $200 billion is being proposed to expand the federal share of Medicaid which makes one wonder exactly how that will stimulate the economy. A majority of the remainder will be used to spur the growth of federal infrastructure spending. When was the last time infrastructure spending has pulled the economy out of recession? Another problem with infrastructure spending is that the money is rarely spent on what it was intended. When money of this nature is allocated to states, it’s time for politicians to become famous. It’s time for a new community center or a face lift for a school. There is no political publicity in road and bridge repair. Besides, if they actually were fixed, then it removes politicians’ ability to complain that there is a lack of funding! Lastly, infrastructure spending does not happen immediately as there are numerous federal mandates (government red tape) that require strict compliance. It is very likely that the economy could be in an inflationary expansion period by the time the spending proposals take effect.<br /><br />In short, the Obama plan grossly misses the mark. In addition, the $800 billion price tag is abhorrently understated. Obama’s plan will end up well over the $1 trillion mark if Congress approves. Reckless government spending at a time where our national debt is creeping up to 70 percent of our gross domestic product can make the last bout of inflation look mild. Let's not forget that "crisis" is a friend of the state. The scare tactics being used as a means to inject billions of dollars of "artificial" money into the economy will only pave the road for bigger problems in the future.Michelle Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121372533500690450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-53770497951830246362009-01-06T06:45:00.001-08:002009-01-06T06:45:39.058-08:00DisciplineWe've all had this problem before: you just don't want to do something.<br /><br />May it be going to work, doing an assignment, washing the car, doing taxes, etc. Whatever it may be, we've all had many times where our motivation for doing something was solely based on our mental discipline. Our duty to do something right, morally or otherwise, pushes us beyond our instinctual and emotional limits and finish the job we set out to do.<br /><br />In a society geared towards individuality, we have the tendency to forgo personal responsibility and rely on blaming outside influences. Your kid acts out? It's a disease and not your parenting. Your eating habits suck? It's Big Food's fault and not your patronage of fast food joints. Your grades are low? It's the school's fault and not your twenty missing assignments. I know first-hand. I was and still am at points flawed in the sad skill of deflection of responsibility.<br /><br />In this society that is geared towards maximum individuality, we are missing our societal discipline more so than ever before. The blame for the recession (which is well documented on this blog) being the most recent of a string of irresponsibility being passed around to anyone but the individual. <br /><br />Since the invasion of Iraq, we have slowly given in to selfish views on how to fight it and the greater War on Terror. Arguments for surrenderer have always had a tinge if selfishness. When I was a leftist, I know my arguments came out of a childish and paranoid fear of a greater war and absolute power in the hands of a few. The war has had little impact on the real material wealth of the country in compared to other wars and events, so there is no basis in the greater economy (as many leftist love to argue about). <br /><br />It comes down to personal beliefs and the need for the individual to be right, even if its against the best interests of their country. Sometimes the personal goes too far. There is an unhealthy love of individual righteousness in many people instead of a healthy love of simple individuality. <br /><br />There are times in our lives when our discipline will mean the world to someone or to a group or to a town or even to our country. There will be times we have to temporarily put aside our personalities and our individuality and step up to help someone else. <br /><br />You don't have to give up your individuality forever. <br /><br />Your rights won't disappear with your duty as a citizen of a free nation. <br /><br />Your duty as a citizen protects your rights.Jordanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10701922461580640235noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-63291404966227919282009-01-02T10:37:00.000-08:002009-01-02T10:39:59.770-08:002008 Election ReflectionI think the 2008 election was probably the most insane election I have ever seen and probably in the history of presidential elections. On the left we had a former community organizer who spent only a few years in the Senate running for the most powerful position in the country. On the right a former prisoner of war who was a well known Senator for many years. Obama’s Vice Presidential candidate was almost comical. Here we had campaign based on ‘hope and change’ and Obama picks Biden, who has been in the Senate for many years and had said that Obama was not ready to be President during his run in the 08 primaries. McCain’s Vice Presidential candidate was a brilliant move. Palin sent the Democrats in a tailspin. She ratified the Republican base and she had many of Clinton’s supporters jumping ship.<br /><br />Then we have the Main Stream Media (MSM). Never before had I seen such blatant irresponsible journalism in my life. They moved Obama to ‘messiah’ status. Failing to report on important issues surrounding his campaign. Wright, Ayers, Rezko to name a few. They gave him a ‘cakewalk’ throughout the primaries and the election. They refused to ask him tough questions about … well ANYTHING. The love affair they had with him was both obvious and sickening and completely unforgivable.<br /><br />Of course, the way the MSM treated McCain and Palin is a much different story. They attacked both on personal issues, especially Palin and her family. McCain is a revered war hero who did many great things as a Senator. Palin worked her way up from the PTO to Governor of one of the largest states in the country. It seemed as though any good that they did meant absolutely nothing to the MSM. They crucified Palin on any and all levels they could. From her being a beauty queen when she was younger to false accusations that her son Trigg was really her daughter Bristol’s.<br /><br />And we cannot forget the voters. More black Americans voted in this election than in the history of elections since they won the right to vote. Why - Simply because Obama is half black. Black Americans are the majority Democrats, however, they do not typically come out to vote. Could it be because Obama paid an offshoot of ACORN over $800,000 to ‘get out the vote’? I doubt it. There were also hoards of college students voting in this election. While college students are typically liberal, they too typically do not vote. It was also clear that neither of these groups truly knew what was going on in our country today (as in who lead Congress – Zogby Poll of Obama voters). They only knew that McCain is Republican and so was Bush. They completely disregarded or did not care about Obama’s very liberal message during the campaign. OR they bought into his promises of taxing the rich to give them money. Either way, most of them were completely uninformed regarding Obama’s past and the current events in this country AND abroad.<br /><br />Let us also not forget feminist groups like NOW, who blatantly and hatefully were against Palin as soon as she was nominated. Why – simply because she is pro-life. Never mind that she is a professional woman who also has a family. Forget that she has worked hard to get where she has due to diligence and brains. No, those things aren’t enough for the femi-nazi groups. In order to be truly backed by these so called women who support women you just have to be pro-choice or pro-abortion. Palin represents an entirely different feminist woman in this country. ALL women should have been and be proud of what she has and will accomplish. To think that Palin alone with abolish Roe v Wade is extreme ignorance on their part. These women claim to be smart but frankly, they are just plain stupid and arrogant.<br /><br />Alas, I have to give Obama credit – he ran a fantastic internet campaign that totally hit the younger voters. He got millions of dollars (from who knows where) and used it wisely. McCain or whoever would have run against Obama didn’t have a chance. With the free ride from the media, the uneducated voters and millions of dollars, Obama was really a shoe-in. McCain seemed to gain momentum after choosing Palin but he blew it when he voted for the bailout. McCain should have got down on that Senate floor and in front of the Senate and the entire world voted NO. THAT is the McCain that we all know. Let’s face it, McCain’s campaign was not run well. Obama’s campaign was run the complete opposite.<br /><br />There is so much more I could add to this but I don’t want to put people to sleep. I keep wondering if I should be pessimistic or optimistic about 2009. Obama seems to be gearing more towards centrist choices (pissing off liberals in the meantime). He has not come out and said he will not raise taxes on business or anyone in 2009 though. This is what keeps me fearful. I’m not sure how much economic history he has read but maybe that is what he should be looking into before January 20th. If he goes forward with the plans he touted during his campaign, this country is in big trouble. If he leans more centrist as he seems to be, the we have hope - yes I said it - we have hope! Because otherwise all we’ll have is change – BAD change.Kimberly Morinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13749664427433944904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-68830948773924177952008-12-29T12:37:00.000-08:002008-12-29T12:56:37.759-08:00The Irony of Illegal Immigrants in MassachusettsMy great grandparents legally came here from Ireland. My husband’s grandparents legally immigrated here from Canada. My entire neighborhood legally came here from Italy (yes I call my neighborhood ‘Little Italy’). Why is it that millions of people have immigrated to our wonderful country legally yet millions today are illegally entering the country without a blink of an eye from the government?<br /><div></div><br /><div>They take our jobs.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>They use our resources in emergency rooms.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>They drive illegally so there is no re-course if they cause an accident. They simply disappear because they do not ‘technically’ exist in the United States.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>MOST DO NOT PAY TAXES.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Their children enter our classrooms unable to speak English, again taking valuable resources away from AMERICANS.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>A recent article in the Boston Globe has me hot under the collar over the ‘sympathy’ that illegals are receiving. View the article in full here: <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/12/29/state_wage_laws_also_protecting_illegal_workers/">http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/12/29/state_wage_laws_also_protecting_illegal_workers/</a></div><br /><div></div><br /><div>A recent lawsuit brought by an illegal immigrant regarding underpaid wages in the news today. The illegal won the lawsuit, using STATE laws. The laws that are meant to protect CITIZENS are now being used to protect ILLEGALS.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>These people do not ‘exist’ nor pay taxes to ANY commonwealth. Then have the nerve to sue for underpaid wages??? I am not condoning abusing someone because they are illegal. They should not have been hired in the first place. The company involved should be fined for their own illegal behavior. I’m sure the company thought there would be no recourse since the illegal immigrant should not be working in the first place. HOWEVER, both the illegal immigrant and the company ripped us off by not paying taxes on the payroll or income or paying social security taxes. I’m sure any taxes on this income were NOT paid to the state or the federal government. Supposedly the man went to Boston Legal Services to pay taxes (which I find hard to believe), and that is how the complaint got started.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Why did this illegal sue? "I was just collecting what was rightfully owed to me," the fish man, who declined to use his name because he fears deportation, said in Spanish in his lawyer's offices at Greater Boston Legal Services. "They already pay us a miserable amount of money. Why do they have to rob us?" What the hell does he think he is doing to legal Americans??? HE is robbing us of resources that are meant for citizens. If he was truly concerned he would have taken the necessary steps to become a legal citizen, learn ENGLISH and get a job legally. HE robbed this country by not paying taxes yet the state turns around and sues on his behalf. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>“As part of its investigations, the attorney general's office does not ask workers about their immigration status, saying it is enforcing state law and not federal immigration law.” So they are wasting MY taxpayer dollars on investigating and enforcing state laws for people who pay NO taxes and who are breaking the law by being here illegally??? This is completely outrageous!!! I find it ironic that our tax dollars support illegal immigrants who use valuable resources and now also have the State Attorney’s office wasting our taxpayers dollars without pursuing the illegality of the immigrant. This truly shows how defunct our system is in this country. Way to go Massachusetts! </div>Kimberly Morinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13749664427433944904noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-81615805999171871802008-12-25T04:08:00.001-08:002008-12-25T04:09:23.154-08:00Red Bad, Green Good<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN37I3QjYQNozFx15EgVhycu1Q6NHwzNrQER4uRJDm_MdnmJPBSl7fm8Ph8In-iXBt5MyJVXr7RAk-EfwJqsrMkHEUwoMAfrz5bVdowQDIY7GgE-_Skh5QrYP_dXg4jH7bou12tv8OVXM/s1600-h/santer+copy.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 394px; height: 360px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN37I3QjYQNozFx15EgVhycu1Q6NHwzNrQER4uRJDm_MdnmJPBSl7fm8Ph8In-iXBt5MyJVXr7RAk-EfwJqsrMkHEUwoMAfrz5bVdowQDIY7GgE-_Skh5QrYP_dXg4jH7bou12tv8OVXM/s400/santer+copy.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5283698651049642306" border="0" /></a>Juan Lechugahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03581527575826553230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-14829798366443404952008-12-24T12:17:00.000-08:002008-12-24T12:18:54.773-08:00Merry Chri- Er... HaPpY HoLiDaYs.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx2ixgGgOCCZ2QATQzFsA7w_bH-ScSRLwHhS8TiO69Nn25Q6lBDE3y6lXQ5SWTTlrMz7J8tSVbfxXREW-yf-g-AngLKmlpzo714uVbUfNQjcOHf0dUIkhFlA7oWWPZLqtcX2mRiwDc5K4/s1600-h/Holidays+copy.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 394px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx2ixgGgOCCZ2QATQzFsA7w_bH-ScSRLwHhS8TiO69Nn25Q6lBDE3y6lXQ5SWTTlrMz7J8tSVbfxXREW-yf-g-AngLKmlpzo714uVbUfNQjcOHf0dUIkhFlA7oWWPZLqtcX2mRiwDc5K4/s400/Holidays+copy.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5283453695937179650" border="0" /></a>Juan Lechugahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03581527575826553230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-42550493177233002982008-12-22T20:08:00.000-08:002008-12-22T20:13:53.845-08:00Big 3 Bailout<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKFBhKXThx159dJO2XCKbR_S1ii91oc8AECwkwE_MH_5mH1LYwABJ5YeHuIfmYhMC9VvpMvifLsICaWXwLOUTYm2Mgs2wmdY0NGZYrE1Zu0OZsnn0mZFfaqp8KgoychYUttGx33GISzY4/s1600-h/Big3-final1+copy.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 350px; height: 325px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKFBhKXThx159dJO2XCKbR_S1ii91oc8AECwkwE_MH_5mH1LYwABJ5YeHuIfmYhMC9VvpMvifLsICaWXwLOUTYm2Mgs2wmdY0NGZYrE1Zu0OZsnn0mZFfaqp8KgoychYUttGx33GISzY4/s400/Big3-final1+copy.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5282833949729673090" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhU9_J2GTPe74SNS5PLZH2qzaiWaSdgFWqwLYbhLZnT49BiodsxDziftH2ts8yEHnS1FAUzjcbmGerDrT7QjEkMdD1IUGBAwptCXexiJC7KFk4I4vaf4EQ612EZYE1OSzBYRSo75HTihCk/s1600-h/Big3-final+copy.jpg"><br /></a>Juan Lechugahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03581527575826553230noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-78377394538132921612008-12-18T10:29:00.000-08:002008-12-18T10:46:02.640-08:00The Governor of New York’s “Obesity Tax” – The Absence of Logic and FreedomThe age of credit, bizarre monetary policy and the power of the Federal Reserve have given way to incredible levels of fiscal irresponsibility in all levels of government. State governments now have huge budget deficits which have led to ridiculous proposals such as Governor David Paterson’s “obesity tax.” Bad economic policy has now allowed the government to broaden its horizon to levy taxes on “goodies.” The governor’s proposals also include higher taxes on gasoline, taxi rides, bridge tolls, cable and satellite TV services, cigars, beer, movie and sports event tickets, music downloads (aka the “Ipod" tax), health clubs and spas and much more.<br /><br />While all these taxes are outrageous and quite indicative of classic liberal “tax and spend” policies, the focus of this column will be on the “obesity tax” because this type of tax leads to a problem far more perplexing than archetypal liberal fiscal policy.<br /><br />Nutritionists’ efforts to increase awareness and encourage healthy lifestyles are praiseworthy. However, their efforts become misguided when suggestions of a tax are touted. The result leads to a loss of individual freedom and erroneous taxes, as taxes should not be levied to encourage or discourage certain kinds of behavior.<br /><br />The governor’s proposal will levy an 18 percent tax on soda and other drinks that contain less than 70 percent of real fruit juice. What is next? A “French fry tax?” How about an overall fast food consumption tax? A processed food tax? Taxes on butter? Taxes on meat that is not 95 percent lean? Taxes on pork (a ham tax perhaps?) to offset “pork” barrel spending? The possibilities are endless.<br /><br />Advocates of the soft drink tax say soft drinks have empty calories, which means there is no nutritional value. While this is a true statement, is it prudent for the government to remove one’s ability to make their own choices? What role do government bureaucrats have in determining what is considered nutrient dense? Where is that line drawn? These are questions that people who are in favor of a national healthcare system must ask themselves.<br /><br />Crisis is a friend of the state and always comes at the loss of personal and individual freedoms. The Bush Administration has successfully nationalized the banking industry and has laid the groundwork for the largest artificial economic stimulation in America’s history that will be executed by the Obama Administration. One’s freedom to prosper will be in jeopardy when inflation reaches what could be a record high level and further erosion of the dollar sets in which weakens purchasing power.<br /><br />We now have what is deemed as an “obesity” crisis which calls for the government to step in and levy taxes on unhealthy food products. If the government is going to provide healthcare, it is going to use taxes to discourage unhealthy behavior; and it will eventually extend far beyond a tax on soft drinks.<br /><br />In conclusion, the government can take care of you for one small price: your freedom.<br /><br /><em>“Government never takes freedom in one swift move. It regulates and legislates it away, a little at a time– mostly in the name of 'protecting' you.”</em><br />–R. E. BierceMichelle Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121372533500690450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-53712661170185673052008-12-13T08:35:00.000-08:002008-12-13T08:51:29.805-08:00Christmas Under Attack…AgainAs we ring in the holiday season, the air is filled with the smell of fresh pine needles. The grass is covered with new fallen snow. Children across the nation are huddled by their television screens watching Christmas specials in anticipation of the most celebrated holiday in the world. Kids around the world are adjusting their Christmas lists with last minute changes hoping the days following the holiday will catapult their minds with creative and imaginative play. Hundreds of people decorate their homes with bright and festive Christmas lights; some with enough lights that would make the Grizwald family envious. It is a wonderful time of year; the Christmas season is upon us.<br /><br />Not so fast. For some time now, I have heard over and over again about how we shouldn't say the word "Christmas." Some have told me everyone doesn't celebrate Christmas. I have also been told to be careful, especially at work, where I may accidentally wish someone a Merry Christmas who doesn't celebrate the holiday. Saying Merry Christmas by mistake to the wrong person could lead to a lot of trouble if they happen to be an atheist or belong to a non Christian religion. A safe way to greet someone this holiday season would be "Happy Holidays." Even "Seasons Greetings" has been construed, by some, to be too "Christmassy." In reality, most people I have met who do not celebrate Christmas are fine with things the way they are and are not as sensitive as everyone would like you to believe. Instead, just like everything else, there are a small group of people and some small organizations that want to ruin it for everyone else.<br /><br />Year after year I hear these tales. These lessons are continuously regurgitated over and over again by the media. Every year we hear about some extreme atheist groups and groups on the left who come out brutally attacking this holiday. Most recently an attack occurred in the Washington capitol, where an atheist group was allowed to place a sign explaining why there is no God next to a Christmas Nativity scene. I cannot turn on the television without seeing someone screaming about Christmas decorations that offended them. Does this seem right to anyone? Is all this really necessary? Should there be a better representation of all religious holidays everywhere we go?<br /><br />The fact remains that 95 percent of all Americans celebrate Christmas. That leaves only 5 percent that do not celebrate the holiday, of which even less are offended by it. I see several stores and offices that do a tremendous job of honoring many of the religious holidays around us. I think that is fantastic, as long as they choose to do this out of their own free will and not out of fear. I do, however, see others that display only what most would refer to as Christmas decorations. Is that so bad? Should companies be forced to display decorations that show every feeling and belief that exists? Sounds like an opportunity for another liberal government mandate. Don't laugh! Something like this could be looming on the horizon. Many organizations would like to see legislation passed so their tiny group can get an "equal shake" this holiday season. Let me ask this question, if I were to visit the offices of these groups that are on the offense against Christmas, would I see a wide array of holidays being honored in their offices? My guess is I would not. One shouldn't criticize anyone until they choose to lead by example. If one of these groups chooses to do this, we need to ensure they include ALL religions no matter how minimal they may seem. A quick Google search will show there are thousands of alternative religions most people have never heard of. I hope they have plenty of room in their main lobbies so everyone is equally represented.<br /><br />Last time I checked, the Pilgrims sailed here for the religious freedom to worship whatever God they chose. With 95 percent of the people celebrating Christmas it is safe to say we are still primarily a Judeo-Christian nation and that is not going to change anytime soon. This great country was founded on Christian principles and "In God We Trust" is stamped on all American currency, to the disliking of some atheist groups. That being said in a free society all religions are welcome to come here with the freedom to believe, or not to believe, in whatever they choose. However, one has to keep in mind this is and always will be a Christian nation. I would never expect to go to another country where 95 percent of the people celebrate another holiday and expect to see an equal amount of Christmas decorations there. If I celebrated something different, I would never expect, nor would I want to see my beliefs pushed on those in that country. Why should this be any different here in America?<br /><br />For the record I am a conservative, but I do not consider myself a very spiritual person. I am not very religious and while I believe in God, I have more understanding for people who are atheist and those who celebrate other religions than one might think. I have never been offended by anyone else who has wished me a happy holiday for something I do not celebrate (yes it has happened before). I look at it as someone took a couple of seconds to wish me a good day for something they believe very strongly in. I cannot think if a higher compliment someone can give than that. I ask that you grant me, and most of the other people in this country, the same respect when my favorite holiday of the year comes around.<br /><br />That being said let me wish everyone a Merry Christmas. For those of you who do not celebrate Christmas, but are still respectful of it, have a Happy Holiday. Those who are not respectful of Christmas, I wish you well. Demonizing and attacking Christmas is only empowering the people who celebrate it. Christmas is not going away any time soon and either are 95 percent of the American population who celebrate it.<br /><br />Sources:<br /><br /><a title="blocked::http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461424,00.html" href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461424,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461424,00.html</a><br /><br /><a title="blocked::http://www.saychristmas.org/rights/default.aspx?cid=" href="http://www.saychristmas.org/rights/default.aspx?cid=3549" target="_blank">http://www.saychristmas.org/rights/default.aspx?cid=3549</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-31759669517111160682008-12-12T11:00:00.000-08:002008-12-12T11:06:24.432-08:00George W. Bush: Czar or President?Republicans in Congress, who are being closely watched by their constituents, stood their ground and killed the bailout bill for the “Big Three” automakers. Finally, a victory against corporate welfare; and Republicans are acting like conservatives again! Not so fast…<br /><br />Until today, the Bush administration was opposed to using funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to aid the ailing auto companies according to a <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aEPdKOfSuFjo&refer=home">Bloomberg </a>report. “Because Congress failed to act, we will stand ready to prevent an imminent failure until Congress reconvenes and acts to address the long-term viability of the industry.” This statement is indicative of the Bush administration’s position according to Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin. <br /><br />The last line of President Lincoln’s Gettysburg address states: “<em>and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth</em>.” It seems that the people no longer have a voice in their government. Our elected officials spoke on our behalf, yet President Bush feels he has the power to override the decision. <br /><br />Bush’s use of the term “czar” is very disconcerting. His administration has presided over government intervention at extraordinary levels in every aspect from national security to the most disturbing involvement in the economic sector. The administration’s intervention in the financial sector has led to forced partial nationalization of nine of America’s largest banks. Billions of dollars have been given to politically connected institutions to jumpstart and continue peculiar monetary policy along with the continued abuse of credit.<br /><br />As for the auto industry, the government takes a stake by way of the bailout and will appoint the industry with a “car czar.” Why the term czar? Is there an advantage to using the governing style of former Russian emperors? Just who will this car czar be, and what gives him/her the expertise in overseeing such a transaction? A business does not have to look any further than the federal government for examples of gross mismanagement. With the federal debt approaching $11 trillion and deficits that are likely to surpass $1 trillion, the government isn’t the institution to seek cost structure advice. Therefore, how does a person appointed by a President who has presided over the worst monetary policy arguably since the Hoover and FDR administrations going to get the “Big Three” back on track again? Answer: It won’t happen.<br /><br />We loan the industry the money so they can pay their bills, then what? Without the major changes that I and other writers have outlined in previous columns, the American taxpayers will be at a crossroads again shortly – this time with a $15 billion sunk cost.<br /><br />The events that have transpired over the latter half of 2008 have fiscal conservatives and free-market advocates in frenzy. True conservatives know that crisis is a friend of the state. Crisis and people’s desperation give the government the power to overrule the will of the people in order to experiment – experiment with trillions of dollars as if it were pennies. As Herbert Hoover laid the groundwork for FDR, George Bush has laid the groundwork for Barack Obama. George Bush has set up the framework for the largest governmental intervention experiment in possibly all of America’s history, as I believe it will surpass the New Deal. <br /><br />For those fiscal conservatives who still think they have representation in the Republican Party, it is unwise to have blind faith. Don’t be fooled by temporary victories such as the Senate’s. There is no need to be frustrated with Barack Obama or the Democratic Party. Obama will do what he was elected to do and execute the principles his party has always stood for and conservatives have always opposed. After all, it’s not his administration who is agreeing to appoint “car czars,” approved government handouts to select income groups passing it off as “fiscal stimulus” and handed out billions of dollars to irresponsible companies as if it were pocket change. <br /><br />Sadly, the world will have to see the fallout first before it sees the light…Michelle Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121372533500690450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-8666940811070481972008-12-11T05:53:00.000-08:002008-12-11T05:54:58.383-08:00Don't Take Money From FederalsThey may <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11190550">want your job</a> 'cause of it.<br /><br /><blockquote>The U.S. Office of Special Counsel wants Ogden Police Chief Jon Greiner removed from his job for running for the state Senate two years ago, a race that he won.<br /><br />The agency says Greiner violated the Hatch Act by running for the Utah Senate in 2006. The OSC threatened to file the complaint during the race, but Greiner appealed, saying his job does not violate the law.<br /><br />The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of state, county or city employees connected with programs that take federal money. In a 2006 appeal letter, attorney Jim Bradshaw argued that Greiner does not directly administer the Ogden police department's federal grants.<br /><br />"Weeks before the election, this allegation comes up for political purposes to drive him from the race," Bradshaw said Wednesday.<br /><br />A Special Counsel attorney rejected Greiner's appeal, and in October the agency filed a complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board.<br /><br />Running as a Republican, Greiner beat Democrat Stuart Reid for state Senate District 18 and took office in January 2007. He has since further distanced himself from the city's federal grant money, Bradshaw said.<br /><br />"No one is claiming there are ongoing violations," he said. "There's been a complete separation."<br /><br />The case is scheduled for trial in front of a federal administrative law judge on June 2. If Greiner is found guilty of violating the act, Ogden could be forced to pay the federal government two years' worth of his salary, or about $210,000. Greiner could be barred from working in any state or local job for 18 months.</blockquote>Jordanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10701922461580640235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-77255550759953712992008-12-09T17:20:00.001-08:002008-12-09T17:20:45.498-08:00Ringing the Alarm BellCall me Cassandra, but I'd like to point to the new Cardinal law #1: Thou shalt not underestimate the political phenomenon better known as Obama. He is not the same ultra-liberal senator we strongly disagreed with. The people he has appointed to key economic positions, (look at Dr. Romer for CEA, Jason Furman, Larry Summers etc.) are in the middle of the political spectrum and certainly qualify as supporters of the free market. They are NOT progressives or any other ultra-liberal flavor! Don't take it from me though, Bush's ex head of the CEA Professor Mankiw writes,<br /><br /><blockquote><br /><br />What would you call a group of economists who are skeptical of regulating mortgage markets, who think unemployment insurance and unions increase unemployment, who say that tax hikes retard economic growth, and who believe that the recovery from the Great Depression was a monetary phenomenon rather than the result of New Deal fiscal policy?<br /><br />No, it is not a right-wing cabal. It's Team Obama.<br /><br />Here's the evidence:<br /><br /> When Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, gave his opening statement last week at the hearings lambasting the rise of “risky exotic and subprime mortgages,” he was actually tapping into a very old vein of suspicion against innovations in the mortgage market.....Congress is contemplating a serious tightening of regulations to make the new forms of lending more difficult. New research from some of the leading housing economists in the country, however, examines the long history of mortgage market innovations and suggests that regulators should be mindful of the potential downside in tightening too much.<br /><br /> --Austan Goolsbee<br /><br /> Unemployment insurance also extends the time a person stays off the job. Clark and I estimated that the existence of unemployment insurance almost doubles the number of unemployment spells lasting more than three months. If unemployment insurance were eliminated, the unemployment rate would drop by more than half a percentage point, which means that the number of unemployed people would fall by about 750,000. This is all the more significant in light of the fact that less than half of the unemployed receive insurance benefits, largely because many have not worked enough to qualify.<br /><br /> Another cause of long-term unemployment is unionization. High union wages that exceed the competitive market rate are likely to cause job losses in the unionized sector of the economy. Also, those who lose high-wage union jobs are often reluctant to accept alternative low-wage employment. Between 1970 and 1985, for example, a state with a 20 percent unionization rate, approximately the average for the fifty states and the District of Columbia, experienced an unemployment rate that was 1.2 percentage points higher than that of a hypothetical state that had no unions.<br /><br /> --Larry Summers<br /><br /> Tax changes have very large effects on output. Our baseline specification suggests that an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly three percent.<br /><br /> --Christina Romer (writing with husband David)<br /><br /> Given the key roles of monetary contraction and the gold standard in causing the Great Depression, it is not surprising that currency devaluations and monetary expansion became the leading sources of recovery throughout the world....the new spending programs initiated by the New Deal had little direct expansionary effect on the economy.<br /><br /> --Christina Romer<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br />I'm sounding the alarm bell early here because the more centrist he is the better his/their chances are for 2010, 2012, etc... There are three types of policies/politics, economic, social/cultural, and foreign/national-security. He passed a CinC test already, or perhaps we failed ours. Interestingly enough, or perhaps with little surprise, he is already enraging the left because he is continuing Bush's national security policies, sans Gitmo. He already has come to the center with Israel. If he takes the center/center-right position for economics, what are we left with? Social and cultural politics? Forgive me for saying this but people are sick of Republican culture wars. Most of y'all aren't but now we're in the minority. I’m not saying the Dems are going to rule forever, their party is not competent enough for that. And we all know that the liberal Dems like Pelosi and Reid would be horrible for this country. But in the short run I don't think we've hit bottom. McCain was our best shot this year. <br />I’m not all doom and gloom though. In order to not have another Clinton we need to figure out how to fight back. I think we need to invent a completely new set of public policies we would pursue. Let me give you some examples: Education, income inequality, global warming, legal immigration… etc. <br />People want a party with solutions. And even though the do-nothing Dem Congress accomplished zilch from 06-08 who took the blame for that? We somehow did.<br />Newt Gingrich rebuilt the party by organization through the state level. If we accomplish our goal here we could see that same success. There is a caveat though. Gingrich was a man of ideas and our party became the party of ideas. We need to live up to that legacy as we rebuild.<br />Lastly let us not forget the lesson of Tony Blair - who snatched the Conservatives' clothes and wore them to victory in 1996. Obama campaigned as a center-left to center-right politician depending on the issue (some issues have no left or right, granted). He is now pivoting skillfully towards center-right. In other words he is browsing through our outfits and picking out what he likes. This is good for us as individuals but not good for our party. Later on I will type what we can learn from British Conservatives like David Cameron who was/is the remedy to the Blair//Brown dominance.<br /><br />As usual I cross posted this at another blog...<a href="http://neighborhoodgop.wordpress.com/">http://neighborhoodgop.wordpress.com/</a>Econoticshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12030424134724541660noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-35533659245616233442008-12-09T15:44:00.000-08:002008-12-09T15:51:51.968-08:00Rod Blagojevich: Windy City Politics at its BestDecember 9, 2008 marks the day the world gets an inside look into Chicago politics. This is not to say that people are unaware of Chicago’s tainted political image, as history has painted that picture very well. However, in lieu of the fact that one of Chicago’s own has just been elected President, people’s memories will be refreshed. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was taken into federal custody this morning apparently before he could go for his morning workout.<br /><br />“Blago,” as he’s often referred to in Illinois, has left his state in sheer disgrace. For those who haven’t paid attention, below is a summary of the Governor’s corrupt and idiotic policies:<br /><br /><strong>Economic Policy</strong><br /><br />Far left lunacy is actually a kind description. Perhaps the most famous was his idea of a “gross receipts tax.” For those who have studied basic accounting, yes, you read that correctly. To clarify for those who haven’t, our governor thought it would be a brilliant idea to tax Illinois businesses on revenue BEFORE expenses are deducted. If Blago had a modicum of economic knowledge, he would realize that this type of taxation would not only stifle economic growth, but also increase the price of products and slow job creation. How so? Taxes are a cost to business, which is ultimately passed onto the consumer. Just as materials and labor are factored into the cost of a product, so is a company’s tax burden. When costs increase, business is forced to do more with less, which eventually leads to layoffs, and takes away the ability to use capital to pursue opportunities that lead to growth. A tax of this nature would simply drive business out of the state of Illinois. Why not relocate to neighboring Indiana? In summary, the outcome of a gross receipts tax would mean higher prices for consumers, less jobs and would ultimately LOWER tax revenue for the government. After all, if business leaves, there will be no tax to levy. Perhaps politicians at the federal level will take note of this and rethink our federal corporate income tax rate.<br /><br />More recently, Blago threatened Bank of America by saying that the state would halt its dealings with the bank because it recently canceled a credit line to Republic Windows & Doors, a local factory on the verge of bankruptcy. Seeing that the current credit crisis stemmed from banks being required to comply with federal mandates that forced them to loan money to people who could not afford to repay, it’s not exactly a stellar idea that politicians use this kind of leverage to force lending institutions into making unwise decisions. Some politicians never learn, do they? Does this sound like extortion?<br /><br /><strong>Corruption</strong><br /><br />Speaking of extortion, let’s move on to what has brought about the federal charges Blago is currently facing.<br /><br />Instead of working on a plan to replace President-elect Obama’s vacant Senate seat with someone who is qualified, he thought it would be better to auction it off to the highest bidder. Why not enlist it on EBay?!<br /><br />Blago also threatened to illegally withhold state aid to the currently ailing Chicago Tribune on the sole basis that the newspaper’s editorial writers weren’t saying very nice things about him. He demanded that these writers be fired in order to receive aid. Since I do not receive state aid, I’ll continue on…..<br /><br />One of the most famous plays in Chicago’s corrupt political playbook is the famous “pay-to-play” politics. If you are a contractor looking to do business with the state government, Blago will throw work your way in exchange for a campaign donation. The deeper your pockets, the more business you receive.<br /><br />One can only wonder what more will be uncovered as the Feds begin to build their case. Plenty has already been caught on tape.<br /><br />Illinois residents are left to wonder if the corruption will ever end. As comical as is sounds, Blago was brought in with the intent to end corruption. He replaced former Governor George Ryan who is currently serving a six-year prison sentence (currently seeking a pardon) on charges of racketeering and fraud. Instead, the corruption continues, and Blago enjoys the lowest governor approval rating in over three decades according to Chicago Tribune polls.<br /><br />Blago joins a long list of Illinois politicians who have been tied to scandals. While President-elect Obama has not been charged with any wrongdoing in the midst of this controversy, he is cut from the same cloth of the corrupt Chicago political machine and shares many of the same political connections (Rahm Emanuel and Tony Rezko, for example). It would be unfair to accuse one political party of corruption, as both Democrats and Republicans have been convicted of crimes; however, the media has done a very good job downplaying the depth of corruption that plagues Chicago politicians. Obama faces an uphill battle in the eyes of those all too familiar with “Windy City” politics.Michelle Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04121372533500690450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-29663168343237576952008-12-07T11:12:00.000-08:002008-12-12T06:34:34.857-08:00Asleep At The Wheel - Wake Up AmericaFrom this previous Presidential election we can conclude the following:<br /><br />Approx 64 million people said yes to Barack Obama’s and no to John McCain’s campaign message.<br /><br />Approx 57 million people said yes to John McCain’s message and no to Barack Obama’s message.<br /><br />With approx 300 million people in the United States and 200 million being eligible to vote….we’re seeing 80 million people not saying anything.<br />Now I’m sure some of these did not see a message that resonated with them enough to support a candidate, but then there are so many who just do not vote.<br />Add on top of that the large amount of new voters who were drawn out and the number is rather staggering.<br /><br />With the majority of the media this campaign season being so one sided and international media also being so one sided it is very tough to get a clear picture of each candidate without taking the time to do your own research.<br /><br />When speaking with my brother who lives overseas after the election he stated he thought Barack Obama was the best candidate. When asked how he came to this decision from so far away he stated because ‘McCain is a finger on the trigger, ex war hero who has just towed the line with Bush’.<br /><br />Naturally I was taken back by this so I delved a little further.<br /><br />‘Have you ever heard of William (Bill) Ayers?’ I asked<br />‘No’<br />‘Have you ever heard of Jeremiah Wright?’ I asked<br />‘No’ again was the answer.<br />‘How many planes has McCain crashed in his lifetime?’<br />‘Five’ was the answer<br />‘How much has <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Palin</span> spent on clothes for the campaign?’<br />‘It was over $150,000’<br />‘Did you hear about her banning books in an Alaskan library?’<br />‘Oh yeah we heard about that’.<br /><br />Naturally I was shocked. Not because of the obvious one-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">sidedness</span> of the British media but the fact my own brother had fallen victim.<br /><br />Living in the US and being subject to all forms of media (TV, radio and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Internet</span>) with this campaign I’d been open to all sides. In the UK you only really have the news media to go on.<br /><br />Again using the UK as an example I found a man online who was told to take down his Union Jack (British flag) because some minorities in the area were offended and had complained. Now I know the UK has changed with the incoming minorities and the traditional culture being severely diluted…..but this is just ridiculous.<br /><br />How these people in the UK are not revolting over being told they cannot fly their own flag is beyond me.<br /><br />This all boils down to change. We’<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">ve</span> heard it a lot in the last months in the good <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">ol</span>’ US of A….but what’s it all about.<br /><br />Well obviously the UK has changed….and for the British people it appears this change is not good for them and their values and culture. But this change has not happened overnight…this has been small gradual change.<br /><br />You get the occasional person who is upset at something but rarely speaks out so it seems, thus it continues. Tiptoeing onward and upward until you look back and cannot recognize what it used to be like.<br /><br />Coming back across ‘the pond’ as we call it, the US is heading in the very same direction.<br /><br />Granted the country is still much younger, change is still happening and I believe it is not for the better (regardless of what those elected officials say).<br /><br />I asked someone (who shall remain nameless) during the primaries what they thought of Obama as he was a relative unknown.<br /><br />‘He’s an Arab!’ was the response.<br /><br />No matter what proof I stated the only response I got was ‘He’s still an Arab!’<br /><br />It has been proven time and time again that a large portion of the population do not understand the basic functions of government and who was indeed running in the campaigns. This is either through a lack of active involvement or just a lack of caring as politics was something they were never involved in. They hear one rumor (regardless of its truth) and that’s their opinion.<br /><br />However what is most troubling about this group of people is that the Obama campaign was able to draw them in, still without an understanding of the campaign and the government.<br /><br />A fantastic study was done during the closing weeks of the election and details can be found at <a href="http://www.howobamagotelected.com/">http://www.howobamagotelected.com/</a><br /><br />Be it the Republicans or the Democrats who draw in these new voters it is very dangerous to vote while not fully understanding why you are doing it. Not dangerous to the individual, but dangerous to the country.<br /><br />In the US you can live life, go to work and watch TV without coming across politics.<br />Not just Presidential politics either, but local and state politics as well.<br /><br />Unless it’s a scandal worthy of regular news there is not much coverage on regular TV.<br /><br />Too many Americans are (as I like to call it) ‘asleep at the wheel’. A voice is only heard when it effects them directly.<br /><br />Example:<br />For years this country has not had an energy policy. The US continues to import more and more oil thus relying on foreign nations. This has not only been dangerous but damaging to the US economy by sending huge sums of money overseas.<br /><br />However not until gas prices started hurting the average person were large amounts of voices heard.<br /><br />Action could have been taken decades ago but the masses remained silent as they were not directly affected.<br /><br />Now cries were heard, the offshore oil drilling ban was lifted and thanks to a looming recession the price of oil has plummeted from $150 to under $50 a barrel.<br />Still there are a huge majority of people who do not understand where the US gets its oil from. A poll conducted by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">EnergyTomorrow</span>.org shows that many people while upset over the recent high energy prices still do not have a firm grasp on the reasons for it and where the US in fact gets its oil.<br /><br /><a href="http://energytomorrow.org/mediaroom/?id=39&type=v">http://energytomorrow.org/mediaroom/?id=39&type=v</a><br /><br />And what do politicians want to do? Reinstate the offshore oil ban and put more taxes on the price of gasoline.<br /><br />An energy policy would help solve this issue from returning in the future, but where have the majority of voices gone? Back to their lives as they are no longer being bled dry at the pumps. While the issue remains unresolved…..the ‘huge’ voice has been lost.<br /><br />Come summer 2009….the prices will be back up and people will once again <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">cry out</span>.</p><p>Why is this?<br /><br />Why do so many Americans not care until it’s too late?<br /><br />Why does it take so much for the majority of people to act?<br /><br />Are they just lazy? Do they not care? Are they so wrapped up in their lives to bother?<br /><br />It’s a troubling and unanswered question which will affect the future of this great nation.</p><p>Another current issue is the economic crisis.<br /><br />Money has been so readily available that in 2007 the US as a whole spent more than it earned. The traditional ‘if you can’t pay cash you can’t afford it’ has long since vanished.<br /><br />People as young as 18 are able to borrow almost obscene amounts of money with very little proof of being able to pay it back.<br /><br />Sign up for this credit card and get a free t-shirt.<br /><br />It <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">doesn</span>’t matter that you have no income….we use your parents as backup.<br /><br />It all comes down to not being able to afford the item itself, but to afford the payments.<br /><br />Normally a $50,000 car is out of reach, you’d never have that kind of money laying around. But $400 a month for however many years…..that’s doable.</p><p>This then expanded in the 1990’s to lending for houses.<br /><br />It’s <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">OK</span> that you can’t afford the house under the ‘conventional’ means of borrowing money. We’ll lend you more than the house is worth at a special rate because even if you default the government will back up the mortgage. Enter Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.<br /><br />What they either failed to tell the borrower or the borrower was so dazzled at the prosperity of owning a home that they <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">didn</span>’t care was that the payments will increase after 5 years.</p><p>To me its just common sense…..if they can’t afford the house by conventional means then what’s going to happen when the payments adjust?<br /><br />And even with government backing, what’s going to happen when everyone or even a small majority who has these loans defaults?</p><p>Now this housing crisis can be traced back to the Democratic Party and the Community Reinvestment Act started by Carter and revitalized by Clinton.<br /><br />Both Bush and McCain in the last 5 years signaled the warning bells of the coming disaster but nothing was done and now the Democrats are pointing the finger at ‘Bush’s failed economic policies’<br /><br />Granted more could have been and should have been done, but once again the masses asleep at the wheel hear Bush being blamed and that’s it….its his fault. <br /><br />Thus those uneducated people all fall on the side of Obama without knowing the truth and of course…..why should they tell them the truth?</p><p>Come back to less than a month ago and to ‘solve’ this economic crisis the government is bailing out private industries.<br /><br />Investment companies with so many of these dodgy mortgages on the books – they need a bailout otherwise they’ll fail and cause more havoc.<br /><br />The big 3 auto manufacturers who lost sales due to the high gas prices are on the verge of failing – they need a bailout otherwise they’ll fail and cause more havoc.<br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">CITI</span> Bank who has so many of these dodgy mortgages on their books is failing – they need a bailout otherwise they will collapse.</p><p>This bailout bill offering a total of $700 billion of tax payer money was signed in to avert this huge crisis. If this was not put through immediately the whole economy would collapse. Congress goes on a two day vacation between this speech and the votes however, figure that one out.<br /><br />Over a month and over $1 trillion later the stock market is still in roller coaster mode, more industries are coming to Washington with their hands out and we the tax payer are on the hook for these enormous amounts of money.<br /><br />Not only that, but congress has now pledged over $7 trillion to save the economy.<br /><br />Where was the vote on that?</p><p>Where are the voices from the masses?<br />Well people are not directly being affected. Taxes have not gone up to cover this money and people are not being forced to spend much more in their day to day lives. Now when it comes to our children and our children’s children…..how loud will their voices be?</p><p>There are much more efficient ways to resolve this crisis created by government. But government appears to just be throwing money at the problem.<br /><br />Its <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">OK</span>, it’s not their money…..they don’t have to pay it back…we do. They’re just printing more. Where are the voices?</p><p>When it comes to those asleep at the wheel losing their jobs….who will they blame?<br /><br />Blame Bush…it happened on his watch.<br /><br />Blame Obama…..but he just inherited it from Bush.<br /><br />What do you think the one-sided media is telling those people?<br /><br />If they knew the truth…..do you think they would have voted the way they did?<br /><br />How are they going to learn the truth when all they get is one side?<br /><br />What is going to happen if we all just sit back and let ‘someone else’ deal with the problem?</p><p>Well right now that someone else is the US government.<br /><br />This economic crisis was caused by government, they are now being left to fix the problem they caused and they are grabbing power and nationalizing industries in the process.</p><p>If your house was burgled, your possessions stolen and you knew who stole them, would you let that person head up the investigation? Of course not.<br />But those who knew what was happening in the mortgage industry, said to the American people (many with their life savings invested in these companies) that everything is fine are the ones now saying they are solving the problem.<br /><br />Frankly I don’t trust them and you <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">shouldn</span>’t either.<br /><br />Once again government is not the answer.<br /><br />The government manipulated the free market system, they have literally destroyed the free market system and they are now spending trillions on dollars to solve the problem they say is the fault of the free market system.</p><p>We need to wake up.<br />If you’re asleep at the wheel too long….the vehicle will crash.<br />...and we're already a long way off the road.</p><p>-Tony Leach</p>Tony Leachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06667352761580601408noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-40743468269806168092008-12-04T05:21:00.000-08:002008-12-04T05:38:31.330-08:00Trouble in CanadaFor those who follow Canadian politics (*crickets*), there is a <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/03/jean-crisis.html">massive political crisis</a> brewing. The minority parties: the soft-leftist Liberals, the hard-leftist New Democratic Party and the leftist "separatist" Bloc Quebecois have agreed to attempt a backroom coup and take the Conservative Party of Canada and Prime Minister Stephen Harper out of power. The facade for this power grab by the shaky alliance is that Harper has done nothing to protect Canadians from the worldwide economic crisis. <br /><br />Nothing like this has been attempted in recent history and, in all essence, is a political coup by the left wing in spite of the voters wishes. Considering only six-weeks ago the arrogant "natural governing" Liberals were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40th_Canadian_federal_election">slapped around like Tina</a>, the voters wishes are pretty fresh.<br /><br />The Liberals have run Canada for a majority of its existence, but in the last 15 years have ended up running it into the ground with spending scandals, nepotism, bipolar economic policy and anti-Americanism (aka the poor Canadian's patriotism). Harper, on the other hand, while being not immune from criticism, has yet to have his hometown magically get a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Chr%C3%A9tien#Controversies">federally funded golf course</a> or attempt to hide <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_scandal">taxpayer money going to friends of the party</a>. The NDP and the BQ are just as out there.<br /><br />Keep an eye on this. Having our neighbor (and my kin) enter chaos is never a good thing, especially if the Liberals are trying to override the voters' will.Jordanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10701922461580640235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-6715561788369892752008-12-02T20:28:00.000-08:002008-12-02T20:36:30.625-08:00Creative idea for a stimulus package:<br />Let me get this out of the way first: I completely agree with what Professor Greg Mankiw wrote about high yield public investments. He said it perfectly, http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/passing-buck.html <br /><blockquote><span style="font-family:arial;">One thing all economists agree on: If there are public investment projects that pay a high rate of return, those are worth paying for, even if it means more borrowing. But that is always true. Even if we were at full employment and there were no possible employment effects of fiscal stimulus, we should undertake public investments that pass a cost-benefit test.</span><span style="font-family:arial;"><br />In this regard, two observations come to mind. First, since most infrastructure is used locally, the proper level of spending is best determined by state and local governments rather than by the federal government. Earlier, I suggested that fiscal stimulus could be decentralized. Each state governor could be allowed to determine whether to take federal money as state aid or have it paid directly to his or her state's citizens as tax relief. I still think that makes sense.</span><span style="font-family:arial;"><br />Second, more public projects would pass a cost-benefit test if we repealed the Davis-Bacon Act. This law requires contractors on these public projects to pay "prevailing wages," which are typically union wages well in excess of what would occur in a free market. If the government paid market-determined wages for infrastructure projects, we could have both more infrastructure and less government debt. Without doubt, that legacy would benefit future generations. </span></blockquote><span style="font-family:arial;"><br />I asked Professor Mankiw about income inequality earlier this year and he was gracious enough to respond. Professor, if by some odd chance you reading this – thank you so much, you are an inspiration! He told me that the problem with income inequality is the gap between skilled workers and unskilled workers. The highly skilled workers get good jobs, keep them, and have high wages. The unskilled workers don’t get good jobs at the same rate as skilled workers, have trouble keeping them, and their real wages are either stagnant, barely rising with inflation, or decreasing. The problem is that our educational system is not producing enough skilled workers, or to say it a different way, our education system is not properly “skilling” our workers. (And here I thought they made Kosher laws to cover that)!<br /><br />So here is my humble idea. Instead of throwing money at bridges to nowhere, or to bailout states that have been fiscally irresponsible, why not address the stimulus package to reform/strengthen the American educational system? <br /><br />Here is how it would work. Create regional (I have not figured out the right size and number of institutions but for now my idea is as follows) massive hybrid technical and liberal arts universities. These universities work with corporations, small businesses, entrepreneurs, etc, to figure out what jobs are in the region, who is hiring, and most importantly what they what, skill wise, out of workers. Any donation to the school from a corporation, or person is 100% tax deductible… The universities also coordinate internship opportunities on a greater scale than what we are accustomed to or have seen. Government is supposed to serve the people – this is a way of helping the market get what it wants and at the same time create massive stimulus through hiring professors, instructors, creating new buildings, new roads, sales of technology etc. Everyone gets helped. You could also use the stimulus to help people pay for enrollment. Now… the problem is how do you fund these institutions in the long run?<br /><br />So far in this plan we have already made any donations completely tax deductible. I would also suggest letting corporations take a tax deduction for any individual’s education they pay for or sponsor. Lastly, perhaps you could lower the corporate income tax and the small business income tax (I know two different categories) by 8% (or some other number), and allocate 2% of the corporate tax and business tax (I know it is IIT) income to pay for the schools. This way businesses have extra money to hire the workers they are partially paying for to train. You could also fund these programs through some sort of low rate consumption tax…<br /><br />I’m not a Keynesian but I think this is an interesting idea that might work for three reasons: 1) it addresses long term growth and short term stimulus, 2) it creates market transparency, and 3) I think it would pass a cost – benefit test.</span> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:11;" ></span></p>Econoticshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12030424134724541660noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1387413776178965189.post-80445133085704978842008-12-02T10:21:00.000-08:002008-12-02T10:37:12.161-08:00My thoughts on the GM bailout<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 0.75in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:arial;"><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" >These three graphs, HT: </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://mjperry.blogspot.com/">Carpe Diem</a></span><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" > <span> </span>of the great, magnanimous, and brilliant Dr. Mark Perry.<span> </span>For links to<br />the individual entries please see below...<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 0.75in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:arial;"><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" > </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://neighborhoodgop.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/paygap.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-72" title="paygap" src="http://neighborhoodgop.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/paygap.jpg?w=400&h=283" alt="paygap" width="400" height="283" /></a></span><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" ></span><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://neighborhoodgop.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/retired.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-70" title="retired" src="http://neighborhoodgop.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/retired.jpg?w=400&h=342" alt="retired" width="400" height="342" /></a><a href="http://neighborhoodgop.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/gm1.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-71" title="gm1" src="http://neighborhoodgop.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/gm1.jpg?w=400&h=316" alt="gm1" width="400" height="316" /></a>.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" face="arial" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><!--[if gte vml 1]> <![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;font-family:arial;"><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" ><!--[if gte vml 1]> <![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;font-family:arial;"><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" >Graph 1: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/11/bailout-ultimate-in-lemon-socialism.html</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;font-family:arial;"><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" >Graph 2: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/11/crippling-burden-of-legacy-costs-gm-is.html</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;font-family:arial;"><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" >Graph 3: </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/11/more-on-total-hourly-labor-costs-gm-vs.html">http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/11/more-on-total-hourly-labor-costs-gm-vs.html</a></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;font-family:arial;"><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" > </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;font-family:arial;"><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" >What can we take from these graphs?<span> </span>Firstly the Big 3 are not competitive with Toyota, Honda, Nissan, (not listed but also BMW).<span> </span>Next you might have some questions about why are the labor costs are so high for the Big 3. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;font-family:arial;"><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" >Let me put forth the most pertinent reason why the Big 3 can’t compete: Ladies and gentlemen allow me to introduce you to the UAW – the United Auto Workers. They make car prices higher (or produce a car at the same price as the competition with hundreds or thousands of dollars of less “stuff”), cause GM to lose profits, and have handcuffed the direction that the Big 3 need to take to advance, survive, and thrive. The UAW do not work in the American Toyota plants, or the American BMW plants, or the American Honda or Nissan plants. Now I have a question for y’all? Who produces better quality cars with high resale values? The automakers who deal directly with the UAW, the union who is supposed to make great cars, or Toyota, Honda… et al? We all know the answer to that one – and that was just one of the many reasons my wife and I bought and LOVE our Toyota Rav 4. (First “foreign” car she purchased – Mrs.<span> </span>Econotics is a recovering Chevyholic.) <span> </span>I put foreign in quotation marks because like many other car manufacturers on the list that are foreign owned they actually build the cars here in the USA.<span> </span>Ironically enough it is the big 3 that are cutting jobs here and producing their cars out of the US and in places like Mexico where labor costs are much cheaper than the UAW. Our Toyota is more American than her old Equinox!<br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;font-family:arial;"><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" >Let’s dig into how the UAW causes GM and the Big 3 so many ills.<span> </span>If you’ve been watching your local news you’ve probably heard the term “legacy costs” thrown around.<span> </span>Legacy costs are a company’s obligations towards their current and retired workers health care and/or retirement/pension.<span> </span>GM and the Big 3 pay their workers roughly the same hourly wage as any of the other auto makers, about 28-32 dollars per hour.<span> </span>However the Big 3 are so burdened by their legacy costs (just do the math 73 – 30) that they cannot compete with the non US owned auto-companies 73 avg per hour worker compensation versus mid to high 40’s average for non Big 3 competition.<span> </span>Lastly, and although it is diminishing, the UAW has something called a “job bank” which is basically a place for their workers to go and be paid not to work.<span> </span>And although many of the UAW workers recently accepted a Big 3/GM buyout there are still workers in the job banks (about 1,000 by 2010).<span> </span>But that’s not all… The workers who actually produce for the Big 3 support their retired brethren, and/or surviving spouses to the tune of (at GM) a 4.16 beneficiaries per 1 worker ratio(see graph 2).<span> </span>Social security in this country is considered a problem because our ratio will get down to 1 retiree per 1.15 active workers… in the 60’s the social security ratio was 1 per 4!<span> </span>In essence what GM and the Big 3 want us to do is to further subsidize their retirees with a big fat bailout check.<span> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;font-family:arial;"><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" >Has progress been made? <span> </span>In 2006 the UAW and the Big 3 sat down to address the impossibly high legacy costs.<span> </span>The UAW restructured their luxurious agreement and cut costs down for the Big 3.<span> </span>As you can see in graph 3 the compensation per worker will be 62 dollars!<span> That’s like downgrading from a BMW M-5 to a Cadillac CTS when you should be driving a $20,000 dollar automobile! </span>They still won’t be able to compete w/ other auto manufacturers!<span> </span>At this point you’re probably thinking why we should further subsidize this failure of an industry…<span> </span>Here’s more fuel for that fire.<span> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;font-family:arial;"><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" >The Big 3 Business Model was and is terrible. However it wasn’t just the executives to blame for the union didn’t help, although their incompetence can’t be questioned. It wasn’t solely the Big 3’s fault that they couldn’t produce small fuel efficient cars for a decent profit.<span> </span>Because the Big 3 already started in the hole per car produced to the tune of - $870.00 (big 3 industry average) their incentive was to produce big cars with a high price-tag. For example if you are an exec and you know that you can only produce 500 vehicles per day and that your costs are much higher than your competition would you produce and try to compete with them over small affordable cars that would sell for 8-15 thousand but that the difference in quality would be significant and obvious?<span> </span>Or would you try and compete over cars that sell for over 20 and 30 thousand dollars where the quality differences are less obvious and not as significant?<span> If you chose option 2 you should apply for a Big 3 executive position because you’d be no different than what they have now.</span><span> </span>The smaller and cheaper the car produced the larger the profit loss for the Big 3. The Big 3 had to rely on larger profits from big gas guzzlers, and big gas guzzling expensive cars, trucks and SUVs. Only too late did they change their business strategy and shifted towards a smaller fleet. And even then they keep losing market share (which btw some economists argue is good because they have an unsustainable market share). But most importantly the quality per dollar (car price) of their competition > their own quality. And while other auto-makers correctly interpreted the market earlier and with greater success and went either fuel-efficient and bang-for-your-buck i.e. Toyota, and/or specialty high quality luxurious vehicles ala BMW + Mercedes, GM and the Big 3 didn’t adapt to the market until they were bleeding (cash burn) billions of dollars per month. They failed. Or as many young people would say, what we have here is an “Epic Failure”…Pardon an analogy but the Big 3 tried to be a jack of all trades, in a market where individuals demand support a master of one or two products. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;font-family:arial;"><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" >The Big 3 have done nothing to ensure that they will be competitive in the future.<span> </span>Why should we as tax payers subsidize them?<span> </span>It would be like subsidizing the horse and buggy industry in the early 1900’s.<span> </span>Yes in the short run the jobs of the Big 3 and their suppliers won’t be lost but in the long run we would just be propping up an inefficient industry.<span> </span>The market can’t work if we try to imitate the success of the miracle of Lazarus so why reward a massive failure? The Big 3 are attempting to take your money – keep prices high and quality low, and keep producing cars no one wants… why bail them out?<span> </span>If we only do what’s good in the short run we are going to feel significant pain in the long run.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal;font-family:arial;"><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" >I realize some of you are worried about potential job losses.<span> </span>As I pointed out in econotics.com 1 out of 10 jobs in the US won’t evaporate if the Big 3 go under.<span> </span>For those who need some hard analysis read this </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/how-many-jobs-depend-on-the-big-three/">article</a></span><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" > and </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://businomics.typepad.com/businomics_blog/2008/11/general-motors-job-loss-dont-believe-it.html">here</a></span><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" >.<span> </span>Regardless of that though there are public policy alternatives to Chapter 7 bankruptcy!<span> </span>Chapter 11 bankruptcy let’s the Big 3 restructure their contracts, debt, and obligations, which means they can get out of bad contracts with labor, parts suppliers etc. The government can help them in Chapter 11 bankruptcy if need be, but at that point we would be helping those who are trying to help themselves – which ethically and economically is better for you and your tax dollars.<span> </span>If they don’t come out Chapter 11 (a possibility albeit imo an infinitesimally small one) then the other US auto industries who are foreign owned will increase production and partially save the former Big 3 suppliers. Job losses will occur, but it will not be as catastrophic as some shrill economic forecasters have predicted. In the long run we shouldn’t subsidize an industry that is not efficient. Why pay a worker to make rotary phones when he could be making cell phones? Long run importance has to trump short run implications.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">What troubles me the most is that a bailout of the Big 3 is a bailout of the UAW and corporate management all of whom have underperformed, to say the least. Do they deserve our tax dollars? Not a chance. Would Chapter 11 be better for everyone in the long run? Yes. Would Chapter 11 be catastrophic in the short run? Not likely. It is part of the creative destruction process of capitalism. A process that is in dire threat due to possible government intervention.<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">So call your rep today and tell them NO BAILOUT – only prepackaged government aided bankruptcy which is the Chapter 11 option… and that is assuming the Chapter 11 will be executed properly.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; line-height: normal; font-family: arial; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><span style="font-size:85%;">I cross posted this on my other blog: http://neighborhoodgop.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/on-the-potential-gm-bailout/</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white none repeat scroll 0pt 0pt; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in; line-height: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);font-family:arial;"><span style="color: rgb(68, 68, 68);font-size:85%;" ></span></p><p style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></p>Econoticshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12030424134724541660noreply@blogger.com1