Conservative Underground

Words that Shut Down the Mind:- Vemes

2010-07-15T08:40:00.000-07:00

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?"

Here is the fallacy laid out:

X is a Y.
X is a Z.
Therefore, All Y's are Z's.

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).

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.

This charitableness is not done in politics either, unfortunately. But perhaps it could be.

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...

Examples:

Jeremia Wright:
"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!"
Al Sharpton:

"White folks was in caves while we was building empires. We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it."
- Kean College speech, 1994

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=2411
There are enough citations here to make the point.

New Black Panthers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party
http://www.newblackpanther.com/newsite/102.html

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.

Louis Farrakhan:
http://home.earthlink.net/~patinniss/farra.htm
http://thehive.modbee.com/?q=node/9725
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan

Again, no need for a single quote here - just the links to Wikipedia and and a couple others.

Jesse Jackson:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2420533/Jesse-Jackson-forced-to-apologise-again-for-racist-slur.html

There are a few choice words in here, from Jackson - read for yourself.

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.

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.

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.

In this case, it is the "R" word. It used to be "Heretic." It used to be "Witch." It used to be "Communist." Hell, in the days when our colonies were struggling to be a country, it used to be "Tory!" Now one of those words is "Racist."

Other Vemes:

Antisemite
Homophobe
Misogynist, or the translation, Woman-Hater
Man-Hater (Misandronist)
Human-Hater (Misanthrope)
Patriarch(-al)
Bigot
Pedophile
Pederast

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.

What's awesome to the Veme-Slingers is when you can stack a bunch of them together.

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, ad hominem. We don't do that in rational company.

But then, one would think that Vemes themselves, once identified as such, could be analyzed rationally as well. Good luck with that.

- H. Todd J. Moore

What does America really want government's role to be?

2009-07-06T21:49:00.000-07:00

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.

A little self-reflection on what is happening with the government. Hopefully it isn't too incoherent, but here goes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Here are the polls I drew from:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121403/Special-Report-Ideologically-Moving.aspx?CSTS=alert

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.

Declaring Sovereignty:

2009-02-18T14:58:00.000-08:00

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.

“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”

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.

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)

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.

Arizona: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm

California: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sjr_44_bill_940829_chaptered

Georgia: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/sr308.htm

Hawaii: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-1372.htm (and) http://www.hawaii-nation.org/

Michigan: (See HR No.4)
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(21rmjiv1sl0wvw55yxurwl55))/documents/2009-2010/Journal/House/pdf/2009-HJ-01-22-002.pdf

Missouri: http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/HR212.HTM

Montana: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

New Hampshire: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

Oklahoma: http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf

Washington: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009

Pending legislation are: Alaska, Arkansas, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas.

That's a total of 21 states.

Oppose the Stimulus

2009-02-01T18:43:00.001-08:00

Oppose the “Stimulus”

Before I state why we need to collectively oppose the stimulus let me first allow that the concept of a stimulus is legitimate. 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. For example imagine that my town of Waxahachie is isolated from the rest of Texas. It is a recession. 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). Texas decides to build a highway that connects Waxahachie to Dallas. 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. 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. Now let’s look at a proposal that wouldn’t work.

Pretend now that the federal government wants to stimulate the economy by buying $250 million dollars of chairs for their workers. 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. So as a result the mahogany wood farm hires more workers to 1) plant more trees, and 2) harvest more wood. Carpenters hire unemployed people to help them build the chairs. Sounds like a positive so far – idle resources (seeds, workers) are put to work and the velocity of money increases. 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. 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. The chairs, per se, do not generate revenue or improve the economy, they only devalue the currency and/or increase the national debt. The previously unemployed workers are back at square one and might even be worse off. 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. Obviously the carpenter execs and the mahogany wood execs realize that the government money is only a one time expenditure. But when they spend their government checks the goods sellers do not realize that this is also a onetime expenditure. Imagine if they spent $200 million on Dodge Vipers. The brilliant folks at Chrysler might increase production of the viper and could also end up bankrupt the next year. Let’s apply this logic to our current stimulus package HT: Peter Klein (http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2009/01/28/disaster-socialism/)

$1 billion for Amtrak
$2 billion for child-care subsidies
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$400 million for global-warming research
$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
$650 million for digital TV conversion coupons
$8 billion for renewable energy funding
$6 billion for mass transit
$600 million for the federal government to buy new cars
$7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities (including $150 million for the Smithsonian)
$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)
$66 billion for education

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? 1934. What made the great recession the great depression? Higher marginal tax rates, increased inefficient regulation, anti-free trade laws, and massive wasteful government spending.

Perhaps the most insulting part of this is that this increase in spending is likely to be permanent. Government spending has increased higher than inflation since 1934. I have two examples that illustrate why this happens. Sugar subsidies cost the American consumer .07 dollars a year (7 cents!). I don’t know about you but I’m not going to write a letter to Joe Barton (my rep) about 7 cents. But those 7 cents add up to a 2 billion dollar subsidy to the sugar industry. Another example is guns. 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. That is why the NRA spends millions of dollars lobbying Congress each year but anti-gun advocates spend only thousands. You have here a collective action problem due to diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. Every time the government increases spending you create additional concentrated benefits and diffused costs. The tax payer simply is at a political and strategic disadvantage.

I’ll conclude with two points. 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.” 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). 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). I don’t. 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? Even a true Keynesian would balk at that. 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?

Is Tim Geithner Really “Too Big to Fail?”

2009-01-27T09:33:00.000-08:00

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.

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.

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.

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!

Based on the testimony Geithner gave at his confirmation hearing, I am left wondering what exactly those “superpowers” are.

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)

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…

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)

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.

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.”

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!

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?

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.

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.

(1) http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/21/live-blogging-tim-geithners-confirmation-hearing/

This column is also cross posted at our new website: http://www.conservativetoday.org/

Obama’s Coronation

2009-01-20T08:46:00.000-08:00

Today, 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.

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…

The day after Obama’s victory, I wrote a column titled “America’s Impending Hangover: How it’s Love Affair with Obama Will Be Short-lived.” 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…

Foreign Policy

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.

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.

Economic Policy

In my last column, 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.

Let’s begin with the housing debacle. Nowhere do I see a call to repeal the Community Reinvestment Act.

- The act that forced lending institutions to loan money to people who had no financial means to repay (so much for the deregulation argument)

- 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

- The act that is largely responsible for the rapidly declining housing prices and foreclosures

Stay tuned for a more detailed analysis, as this topic deserves a separate column.

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.

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.

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.

We're Moving! ConservativeToday.org

2009-01-19T18:55:00.000-08:00

Fellow Conservatives:

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.

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!

Thank you,
The Conservative Today Staff

FDR's New Deal Made the Depression Worse

2009-01-08T13:08:00.000-08:00

We 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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

Sources:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081027150030.aspx

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3357

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/guest/08/folsom/crisis.html

Obama's $800 Billion "Bridge to Nowhere"

2009-01-07T04:29:00.001-08:00

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Moving on to the spending side of this turkey….

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.

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.

Discipline

2009-01-06T06:45:00.001-08:00

We've all had this problem before: you just don't want to do something.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

You don't have to give up your individuality forever.

Your rights won't disappear with your duty as a citizen of a free nation.

Your duty as a citizen protects your rights.

2008 Election Reflection

2009-01-02T10:37:00.000-08:00

I 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Irony of Illegal Immigrants in Massachusetts

2008-12-29T12:37:00.000-08:00

My 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?

They take our jobs.

They use our resources in emergency rooms.

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.

MOST DO NOT PAY TAXES.

Their children enter our classrooms unable to speak English, again taking valuable resources away from AMERICANS.

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: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/12/29/state_wage_laws_also_protecting_illegal_workers/

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.

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.

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.

“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!

Red Bad, Green Good

2008-12-25T04:08:00.001-08:00

Merry Chri- Er... HaPpY HoLiDaYs.

2008-12-24T12:17:00.000-08:00

Big 3 Bailout

2008-12-22T20:08:00.000-08:00

The Governor of New York’s “Obesity Tax” – The Absence of Logic and Freedom

2008-12-18T10:29:00.000-08:00

The 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In conclusion, the government can take care of you for one small price: your freedom.

“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.”
–R. E. Bierce

Christmas Under Attack…Again

2008-12-13T08:35:00.000-08:00

As 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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461424,00.html

http://www.saychristmas.org/rights/default.aspx?cid=3549

George W. Bush: Czar or President?

2008-12-12T11:00:00.000-08:00

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…

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 Bloomberg 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.

The last line of President Lincoln’s Gettysburg address states: “and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sadly, the world will have to see the fallout first before it sees the light…

Don't Take Money From Federals

2008-12-11T05:53:00.000-08:00

They may want your job 'cause of it.

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.

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.

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.

"Weeks before the election, this allegation comes up for political purposes to drive him from the race," Bradshaw said Wednesday.

A Special Counsel attorney rejected Greiner's appeal, and in October the agency filed a complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board.

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.

"No one is claiming there are ongoing violations," he said. "There's been a complete separation."

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.

Ringing the Alarm Bell

2008-12-09T17:20:00.001-08:00

Call 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,

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?

No, it is not a right-wing cabal. It's Team Obama.

Here's the evidence:

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.

--Austan Goolsbee

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.

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.

--Larry Summers

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.

--Christina Romer (writing with husband David)

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.

--Christina Romer

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

As usual I cross posted this at another blog...http://neighborhoodgop.wordpress.com/

Rod Blagojevich: Windy City Politics at its Best

2008-12-09T15:44:00.000-08:00

December 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.

“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:

Economic Policy

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.

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?

Corruption

Speaking of extortion, let’s move on to what has brought about the federal charges Blago is currently facing.

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?!

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…..

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.

One can only wonder what more will be uncovered as the Feds begin to build their case. Plenty has already been caught on tape.

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.

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.

Asleep At The Wheel - Wake Up America

2008-12-07T11:12:00.000-08:00

From this previous Presidential election we can conclude the following:

Approx 64 million people said yes to Barack Obama’s and no to John McCain’s campaign message.

Approx 57 million people said yes to John McCain’s message and no to Barack Obama’s message.

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.
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.
Add on top of that the large amount of new voters who were drawn out and the number is rather staggering.

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.

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’.

Naturally I was taken back by this so I delved a little further.

‘Have you ever heard of William (Bill) Ayers?’ I asked
‘No’
‘Have you ever heard of Jeremiah Wright?’ I asked
‘No’ again was the answer.
‘How many planes has McCain crashed in his lifetime?’
‘Five’ was the answer
‘How much has Palin spent on clothes for the campaign?’
‘It was over $150,000’
‘Did you hear about her banning books in an Alaskan library?’
‘Oh yeah we heard about that’.

Naturally I was shocked. Not because of the obvious one-sidedness of the British media but the fact my own brother had fallen victim.

Living in the US and being subject to all forms of media (TV, radio and Internet) with this campaign I’d been open to all sides. In the UK you only really have the news media to go on.

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.

How these people in the UK are not revolting over being told they cannot fly their own flag is beyond me.

This all boils down to change. We’ve heard it a lot in the last months in the good ol’ US of A….but what’s it all about.

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.

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.

Coming back across ‘the pond’ as we call it, the US is heading in the very same direction.

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).

I asked someone (who shall remain nameless) during the primaries what they thought of Obama as he was a relative unknown.

‘He’s an Arab!’ was the response.

No matter what proof I stated the only response I got was ‘He’s still an Arab!’

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.

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.

A fantastic study was done during the closing weeks of the election and details can be found at http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

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.

In the US you can live life, go to work and watch TV without coming across politics.
Not just Presidential politics either, but local and state politics as well.

Unless it’s a scandal worthy of regular news there is not much coverage on regular TV.

Too many Americans are (as I like to call it) ‘asleep at the wheel’. A voice is only heard when it effects them directly.

Example:
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.

However not until gas prices started hurting the average person were large amounts of voices heard.

Action could have been taken decades ago but the masses remained silent as they were not directly affected.

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.
Still there are a huge majority of people who do not understand where the US gets its oil from. A poll conducted by EnergyTomorrow.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.

http://energytomorrow.org/mediaroom/?id=39&type=v

And what do politicians want to do? Reinstate the offshore oil ban and put more taxes on the price of gasoline.

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.

Come summer 2009….the prices will be back up and people will once again cry out.

Why is this?

Why do so many Americans not care until it’s too late?

Why does it take so much for the majority of people to act?

Are they just lazy? Do they not care? Are they so wrapped up in their lives to bother?

It’s a troubling and unanswered question which will affect the future of this great nation.

Another current issue is the economic crisis.

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.

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.

Sign up for this credit card and get a free t-shirt.

It doesn’t matter that you have no income….we use your parents as backup.

It all comes down to not being able to afford the item itself, but to afford the payments.

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.

This then expanded in the 1990’s to lending for houses.

It’s OK 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.

What they either failed to tell the borrower or the borrower was so dazzled at the prosperity of owning a home that they didn’t care was that the payments will increase after 5 years.

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?

And even with government backing, what’s going to happen when everyone or even a small majority who has these loans defaults?

Now this housing crisis can be traced back to the Democratic Party and the Community Reinvestment Act started by Carter and revitalized by Clinton.

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’

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.

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?

Come back to less than a month ago and to ‘solve’ this economic crisis the government is bailing out private industries.

Investment companies with so many of these dodgy mortgages on the books – they need a bailout otherwise they’ll fail and cause more havoc.

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.
CITI Bank who has so many of these dodgy mortgages on their books is failing – they need a bailout otherwise they will collapse.

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.

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.

Not only that, but congress has now pledged over $7 trillion to save the economy.

Where was the vote on that?

Where are the voices from the masses?
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?

There are much more efficient ways to resolve this crisis created by government. But government appears to just be throwing money at the problem.

Its OK, it’s not their money…..they don’t have to pay it back…we do. They’re just printing more. Where are the voices?

When it comes to those asleep at the wheel losing their jobs….who will they blame?

Blame Bush…it happened on his watch.

Blame Obama…..but he just inherited it from Bush.

What do you think the one-sided media is telling those people?

If they knew the truth…..do you think they would have voted the way they did?

How are they going to learn the truth when all they get is one side?

What is going to happen if we all just sit back and let ‘someone else’ deal with the problem?

Well right now that someone else is the US government.

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.

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.
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.

Frankly I don’t trust them and you shouldn’t either.

Once again government is not the answer.

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.

We need to wake up.
If you’re asleep at the wheel too long….the vehicle will crash.
...and we're already a long way off the road.

-Tony Leach

Trouble in Canada

2008-12-04T05:21:00.000-08:00

For those who follow Canadian politics (*crickets*), there is a massive political crisis 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.

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 slapped around like Tina, the voters wishes are pretty fresh.

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 federally funded golf course or attempt to hide taxpayer money going to friends of the party. The NDP and the BQ are just as out there.

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.

2008-12-02T20:28:00.000-08:00

Creative idea for a stimulus package:
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

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.
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.
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.

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)!

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?

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?

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…

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.

My thoughts on the GM bailout

2008-12-02T10:21:00.000-08:00

These three graphs, HT: Carpe Diem of the great, magnanimous, and brilliant Dr. Mark Perry. For links to
the individual entries please see below...

Graph 1: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/11/bailout-ultimate-in-lemon-socialism.html

Graph 2: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/11/crippling-burden-of-legacy-costs-gm-is.html

Graph 3: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/11/more-on-total-hourly-labor-costs-gm-vs.html

What can we take from these graphs? Firstly the Big 3 are not competitive with Toyota, Honda, Nissan, (not listed but also BMW). Next you might have some questions about why are the labor costs are so high for the Big 3.

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. Econotics is a recovering Chevyholic.) 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. 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!

Let’s dig into how the UAW causes GM and the Big 3 so many ills. If you’ve been watching your local news you’ve probably heard the term “legacy costs” thrown around. Legacy costs are a company’s obligations towards their current and retired workers health care and/or retirement/pension. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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). 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! In essence what GM and the Big 3 want us to do is to further subsidize their retirees with a big fat bailout check.

Has progress been made? In 2006 the UAW and the Big 3 sat down to address the impossibly high legacy costs. The UAW restructured their luxurious agreement and cut costs down for the Big 3. As you can see in graph 3 the compensation per worker will be 62 dollars! That’s like downgrading from a BMW M-5 to a Cadillac CTS when you should be driving a $20,000 dollar automobile! They still won’t be able to compete w/ other auto manufacturers! At this point you’re probably thinking why we should further subsidize this failure of an industry… Here’s more fuel for that fire.

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. 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? 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? 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. 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.

The Big 3 have done nothing to ensure that they will be competitive in the future. Why should we as tax payers subsidize them? It would be like subsidizing the horse and buggy industry in the early 1900’s. 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. 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? If we only do what’s good in the short run we are going to feel significant pain in the long run.

I realize some of you are worried about potential job losses. As I pointed out in econotics.com 1 out of 10 jobs in the US won’t evaporate if the Big 3 go under. For those who need some hard analysis read this article and here. Regardless of that though there are public policy alternatives to Chapter 7 bankruptcy! 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. 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.

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.

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.

I cross posted this on my other blog: http://neighborhoodgop.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/on-the-potential-gm-bailout/

New Year’s Resolution for Consumers: Add a “Credit” Diet to a Weight Loss Commitment

2008-12-02T09:26:00.000-08:00

The government has been non-stop in rewarding irresponsibility. A recession is the perfect excuse for the government to spend trillions of dollars propping up politically connected institutions. Capitalism goes further and further down the drain as the government continues to buy ownership in failed financial institutions. There is no end in sight to reckless government spending as more and more “needy” institutions line up for some cash. Currently, the government has not drawn the line on bailouts. In fact, there are plans for another $500 billion in spending. With China (one of our biggest buyers of Treasury bonds) enacting an enormous stimulus package of its own to the tune of $586 billion, one has to wonder if they will sell their Treasury bonds to finance their own government spending. Investors have turned to the U.S. dollar during these turbulent times, which can induce China to sell. However, upon sale of said securities coupled with insane amounts of government spending, it is very likely that the U.S. dollar will suffer a worse fate than it did in 2007. Don’t get used to those low gas prices just yet…..

The government refuses to learn from history. Government-injected spending has always prolonged the agony and has paved the way for bigger and more costly problems in the future. Over the years, “funny money” has severely weakened consumer purchasing power. What ever happened to the days of buying cars for cash, and a $20,000 mortgage? Answer: the Fed, World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailouts. In addition, these institutions were only interested in protecting large commercial banks. After decades of protection, now they are too big to fail! There’s a reason why small banks are virtually non-existent in your local neighborhood.

The IMF has been bailing out entire countries since the 1940’s. From Mexico to Hungary, Iceland, Pakistan, Tanzania, South Korea, Ukraine … the list goes on. As a result, the world has all of this “funny money” floating around. Currencies are devalued, global inflation sets in; and nations are riddled with debt. With each “crisis,” the price tag for bailouts grows. The Fed dealt with million-dollar crises in the early part of the 20th century. Today, the Fed is dealing with trillion-dollar crises, and the more artificial money the Fed injects into the economy, the more costly bailouts will be in the future.

Some economists are predicting a global financial apocalypse. I don’t believe the future is that dismal, but something does need to change because there will be a point in time where the Fed, IMF and World Bank will no longer be able to supply money to crashing economic sectors and nations. That time is coming soon – possibly in the next 20 to 30 years.

What is the solution? It’s certainly not the government. Rather than treat the disease, the government treats the symptoms. The remedy starts with the consumer. In the coming months, our new President and government officials are going to tell you, the consumer, to SPEND SPEND SPEND! Help is on the way. People in lower-income brackets may even get another $600 check from the government to spend away in order to “boost” the economy. It worked wonders last time, didn’t it? My condolences to all who thought Obama wouldn’t continue Bush’s economic policies.

There IS a solution. Consumers must go on a credit diet. People must learn to exercise some fiscal discipline. The government won’t do it, but consumers can lead the way. People have always been the solution to our nation’s problems, and that will not change. Consumer contractions in spending will force the market to react. Short-term deflation will pale in comparison to the long-term problems that lie ahead if consumers do not force the government to change its economic policy.

For those who have read my columns for some time, there is one message that is constant: BAD ECONOMIC POLICY. You, the consumer, can reverse course by changing your household economic policy:

1) Minimize credit card debt with an ultimate goal of paying off everything that is charged on a monthly basis. All credit cards charge a higher rate of interest depending on the type of card and individual risk. It is impossible to forge ahead when minimum payments comprise a portion of your monthly expenses.

2) Don’t buy too much house! The mentality that a big house = wealthy cannot continue. A home is NOT an investment when you will repay 3 to 4 times what it is worth in mortgage interest alone. In addition, state governments have raised property taxes to the point where one is basically “renting” their house from the government. Owning a home is still the best option. After all, why pay the landlord’s taxes through rent and forego a tax deduction? However, the key is to own a smaller home and avoid a huge tax burden and mortgage.

3) Take advantage of easy-to-use software programs that help with budgeting. Do not live beyond your means. If you are borrowing money for the family vacation, something is severely wrong.

In summary, the consumer needs to kick their addiction to credit. The government will continue to feed into the problem by propping up failed institutions for appeasing the hunger for credit. The only way to reverse course is for the consumer to overcome their addiction. It is a fallacy to believe that the supply of “funny money” is endless. What’s next? Quadrillion dollar bailouts? The government may have killed capitalism, but it cannot destroy the will of the consumer to prosper by making smart credit decisions. Opportunity will always be out there even in the most precarious situations.

Iraq May Be Won, But The War Isn't Over

2008-11-29T13:37:00.000-08:00

An amazing thing happened on Thanksgiving: the Iraqi Parliament peacefully agreed to a slow withdrawal of our troops that would have Americans out of Iraq by 2012. This act, above all other acts in the five years since we toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, is the victory we have wanted for so long. Despite the propaganda from the White House, the Pentagon and others about timetables, this is exactly what we all wanted. There is no greater sign of our victory that our free Iraqi allies and our diplomats hashing out a consensus on withdrawal and the Iraqi Parliament, without violence, passing the resolution by a majority. Victory doesn't mean the war is over, but that its ending faster than any of us imagined.

With our mission accomplished in Iraq (we should take that phrase back, in my opinion), we cannot be blinded to the fact that the War On Terror is not over by a long shot. A success itself, Afghanistan still requires our help in the pacification of the Taliban and Al-Qeada bandits that still throw out massive offenses each spring and summer. The drug trade in Afghanistan also requires our attention as a massive amount of funds to the terrorists come from the poppy/herion trade. All this must be looked too as our troops hold their head high as they leave a stable, democratic Iraq behind.

The biggest threat, though, is not the Taliban or even Osama bin Laden's group. Not anymore. The biggest threat is the hydra known as Jihad, as proven by the co-ordinated and cowardly attack on civilians in Mumbai, India. Since we've taken out most of AQ's command and control, the strategy has become one of ideological infection. The biggest threats are no longer foreigners crossing borders (though that tactic should not be ignored), it is home grown radicals and misguided misfits hoping for a place in history that aim their rifles and bombs at the innocent. London was an example of this. Even in my former home of Canada, several homegrown terrorists planned a massive attack upon the Canadian parliament, though their operation was very, very amateurish.

As during the Cold War, this is a war of ideas as much as it is a war of soldiers. We must not simply just fight them with guns, but with our words and our thoughts. We must make the citizens of the world totally reject that mass murder is a legitimate tool of petitioning one's government over an issue. We must also wipe out the idea that radical Islamist terror is blowback, a term the left has perverted for their own agenda. Any number of our covert and overt operations has created blowback in the Middle East and Near Asia, but that digresses from the fact that committing heinous acts of mass violence for a radical religious pan-Muslim nation is an inherent aspect of radical Islamist terror, not a symptom of our foreign policy.

Cross-posted at Generation Patriot

Escaping to Reality

2008-11-28T11:48:00.000-08:00

Lack of sleep bring many thoughts. There are the ones about my lunch for work. The ideas on a new car that will be purchased in many years. Thoughts on religion, politics and my wife's amazing cooking last night. One thought has held in my mind this night: escapism.

Since the turn into 20th century to the turn into the 21st, entertainment has gone from stage shows and big bands to video games, movies worth more than some small nations, reality TV, games on your phone and so on. From radio serials and variety shows to Battlestar Galactica and Hogan Knows Best. From playing outside in the fields and the alleys to fighting aliens or rolling around a big ball for a flamboyant extra-terrestrial king. Things have change a lot since the first days of the modern age. Entertainment escapism has become a worldwide, multi-billion (maybe trillion) dollar industry that has pushed further into introversion than ever before.

I'm a child of this age of online communities, adventures in your living room and acceptable alter-egos. I was born during the age of Atari and Commodore 64 and grew up during the exponential explosion of the DVD and the PlayStation-style consoles. I'm sad to say I used to cope with the troubles in my life by rushing to the PC and firing up a universe I could hide in (Privateer and Morrowind being my favorites). I had shelves of computer games and boxes of console games, not to mention the stack of DVDs I'd throw on at night to aid in my sleep. A habit found to actually hinder my sleep soon after moving away and not having a TV. Movies and games are wonderful escapes into places we can always visit, but never truly affect. Escaping to these worlds is a pleasurable limbo in which nothing is solved, but for a while you feel away from reality. Escaping is a drug in our times, just as bad as the ones people now gorge on to function in an ever increasing disconnected reality.

Hopefully, I got across in Utahn #4 my increasing disdain for cities: their collective mindsets and their suppression of the spiritual need to explore. That disdain plays into what's been rolling around in my head. I've held the notion that my slow pushing away of cities and of so-called "cultured" civilization was escapism. That it was my way of dealing with the reality of the spread of urban areas and that a majority of people live within city limits (80% of Utah's population lives in one long urbanized front). Alas, I'm increasingly coming to the solid opinion that what I feel is not escapism at all, but in fact a need to put my soul back into some form of reality outside of the modern human construct. For years, I have lived on television, computers, video games and countless other man-made gadgets to tie up my brain in a false world. Hell, books used to be enough escape for people before the invention of TV and Mario Bros. Now, with the growth of disconnected interconnectivity, I'd hope many of us would start searching for our own "escape" into the world of dirt, hard work, clean air and hands-on creation.

This isn't a rejection of technology all together. I am not a Luddite or a Zerzan disciple, though I used to be years ago and some of it has stuck with me (specifically the ideas of disconnection). Technology has done us much good, but as Socrates and Plato preached moderation, and we should as well. There is only so much technology can do for a person before he/she is hollowed out into the mindless consumer/watcher that the left warns us about, but it is not the fault of the company that provides us with such amazing gadgets or programs or games. It is the individual who must tear itself away from the screen and open the door to the outside. The company nor the government is the keeper of your natural soul. It is only you that can take a hike instead of watch another crap reality show on some fifth-rate celebrity family.

Hikers in the Maze in Utah's Canyonlands National Park.
The Maze is only accessible by a day long hike.

America’s Hefty Stimulus Packages: Money Just Might Grow on Trees!

2008-11-28T09:07:00.000-08:00

Think back to speeches President Bush gave during spring of 2008 assuring Americans and the rest of the world that the fiscal stimulus package, which gave checks to a select group of taxpayers (lower income people who pay little, if any tax), would keep America out of a recession. We saw the results of this effort in the latter part of the summer – a hemorrhaging Dow Jones Industrial Average and negative third-quarter GDP growth. Remember Bear Stearns, and the assurance to taxpayers that if they bailed them out, it would stop a domino effect of collapsing banks and investment houses? Then came Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac (both partly owned by the government) AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and many others lining up for federal handouts. The line for free money has now expanded to the auto industry, possibly the airline industry and network television.

On one side, we have the federal government handing out money with little consequence; and on the other side, the recipients of said federal dollars have plenty to spend lobbying the government. These actions give merit to the old saying “money grows on trees.”

All of the financial institutions who received government assistance actively lobby the federal government. As a matter of fact all of these institutions have received a very nice return-on-investment (ROI)*:

While lobbying should not be banned, it is worth noting how much money these cash-flow deprived firms invest in their “best interests.” If America was still a capitalistic society, lobbying would not be an issue. However, when the government decides to bail out poorly run and irresponsible companies from an ROI standpoint, capitalism has given way to a mild form of extortion!

In spite of all that has happened, the spending that the Bush administration has enacted is only a drop in the bucket compared to what the Obama administration plans to spend. Hard to believe, isn’t it? After all, the Bush administration doubled the size of our national debt. Obama initially proposed a plan with a price tag of $175 billion during his campaign. The cost of his package could now easily exceed the Bush/Paulson $700 billion plan. We all know how these plans have their way of “porking up” as they move through Congress. This, of course, does not include the cost of all of the other promises Obama has made: tax cuts for many of whom do not pay federal income tax and healthcare reform, for example.

All through the campaign, Obama convinced voters that a vote for McCain is a vote for a third Bush term. If he represents change, then why does he plan to continue where Bush left off in terms of injecting billions of federal dollars into large corporations that are horribly run and fiscally irresponsible? None of these companies are required to restructure, change their business models, streamline their processes or obtain new leadership. One has to ask how this plan is nothing more than a band-aid. If the aid carries these companies through a recession, what will their position be when inflation sets in and interest rates rise? The absence of a long-term solution is eminent.

The Obama administration doesn’t seem to be too concerned with the fact that our federal deficit will be over $1 trillion after all of the “fiscal stimulus” is enacted. It makes one wonder if money really does grow on trees. This is the change America has elected. Haven’t we seen this before? Does the “New Deal” ring a bell? When has government-injected spending been successful in the past? The harsh reality is that America’s total debt could very well exceed 80% of the nation’s GDP in two years – its highest level in over 60 years.

We Won

2008-11-27T07:46:00.000-08:00

Yup. We won:

Iraq's parliament approved Thursday a security pact with the United States that lets American troops stay in the country for three more years, setting a clear timetable for a U.S. exit for the first time since the 2003 invasion.
The vote in favor of the pact was backed by the ruling coalition's Shiite and Kurdish blocs as well as the largest Sunni Arab bloc, which had demanded concessions for supporting the deal. The haggling among the political factions highlighted sectarian-based tensions that hinder reconciliation efforts, nearly six years after Saddam Hussein's ouster.

The Shiite bloc agreed to a Sunni demand that the pact be put to a referendum by July 30, meaning the deal must undergo an additional hurdle next year. It took nine months of difficult talks for U.S. and Iraqi negotiators to craft the agreement.

Under the agreement, U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30 and the entire country by Jan. 1, 2012. Iraq will have strict oversight over U.S. forces.

Now this is something to be thankful for.

Thanksgiving....don't forget

2008-11-27T04:59:00.000-08:00

Just a quick post as I'm heading out the door to my in laws.
While I love them to death I shall be giving thanks this year for the fact I don't have to live with them anymore ;)

I shall also be giving thanks for this wonderful country giving me the opportunity to better myself personally and financially.
Those who think the American dream is dead.....look harder.
While it may not seem to be too obtainable.......it still truly is!!

So as you're sat around the dinner table this year; be it with your own family, your partners family or just by yourself.....take a few moments to give thanks for what you have.
And be sure to help clean up before you take that nap ;)

From myself, and the Conservative Underground:

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!

New blogger.

2008-11-24T16:31:00.000-08:00

Hi guys!

As my handle suggests I will write about economics and politics, aka public policy. A little info about me: I am married with two wonderful young boys. I am going to graduate from SMU with a B.A. in economics, political science, and public policy. I am going to law school next year, but I am not sure where yet!

Lastly: Like the vast majority of young people and self-identified "moderates" I am a social libertarian and an economic conservative. By the way, I identify myself as neither - as the great Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman once said, "I am a libertarian in principle and a Republican in practice."

My first article will be about the potential auto-bailouts and why I don't support them.

The Conservative Playground - Comic 1 - Hide n' Seek

2008-11-23T21:55:00.000-08:00

And so the Conservative Playground is born. This is a series of Sunday strips that will be posted in addition to the random weekday updates, centering around the a group of familiar kids.

Click the image for the large version.

State of Affairs - The Next Generation

2008-11-23T13:19:00.000-08:00

By no means am I an economic expert and by no means am I a government whizz, but as a tax payer and a recent addition to the American workforce I see changes being made and society is changing due to this.

Go back 10 or 20 years the whole situation was a lot different.

Children graduated in high school once. The whole duration of school was to graduate and to do well.

In sports the winning team got a trophy and the praise, the losing team went back to training, motivated for the next game and to redeem themselves.

When school let out the children would run home and out to play. Climbing trees, playing sports with friends and going wherever their imagination let them go.

Today I see children with severely diminished outlooks on life.

Children ‘graduate’ by just finishing the school year and not by succeeding throughout school.
In sporting events everyone gets a trophy, there are no losers only ‘good sports’.

So based on that what is the point in training, playing the best game you can and emerging the victor? Just show up, never practice and you get the same reward.

School lets out and the children disappear inside to hopefully get their homework done.

But sadly many jump on the game systems and turn on the TV where their imagination is not stretched, but given to them on a plate. Their brains does not create, they are simply told what’s what and to accept it.

A good example is when you open a book.

As you go through page by page you are told a story and your imagination sets the scene for the back drop and the characters come alive in your mind.

Not turn on a movie (maybe a movie based on the book) and what do you have?

You have the same scenes, the same characters but there is no imagination.

You simply accept what is in front of you and when the film has finished what do you have? A memory of the movie and what happened.

Children are no longer being pushed and motivated to succeed. They are no longer being told that if you hurt yourself climbing that tree you just cry for a few minutes on your grazed knee and you try again. Now the parents freak out and have the tree cut down to avoid it happening again. ‘How dare that tree hurt my child!!’

But imagine the delight on the child’s face when they overcome the tree and the grazed knee and reach the top to see the wonderful view around them.

No more are the children being given the feeling of triumph; the struggle to triumph has simply been taken away.

The boy who was too scared to climb the tree after he saw his friend fall will no longer have the newly motivated friend to help him. They’ll just both stay on the ground and watch the tree be cut down and the struggle removed…..along with the possibility of triumph.

What has happened in recent history that has caused this drastic yet mostly unnoticed change?

Why have parents gotten so paranoid about the dangers their children face, yet as children themselves they faced them and succeeded regardless.

As a child I would come home from school, change clothes and go and play in the park with my friends.

We’d climb trees, splash around in the stream, swing on the swings and jump off as high as we could and generally do dangerous things to find our limits.

Compare to today…the trees are fenced off, the streams are off limits and the potentially dangerous playground equipment has been removed.

How are children to learn their limits?

‘Learn from your mistakes’ I was told. You cannot learn from someone else’s mistakes.

Your parents must have told you ‘don’t do that, you’ll hurt yourself’. Did you listen?

No, you did it…..hurt yourself and learnt from your mistake.

Let’s move forward now 10 years from now….these children are young adults and entering the working world. How do you suppose they are going to deal with life’s difficulties?

We all know life is hard….you will fall down and you will hurt yourself. But we know that you must get up, dust yourself off and keep going. How do we know that and why do we do that?

Because when you were climbing the tree you fell, you cried, but you persevered and you succeeded.

These next generations of working adults are going to be different, very different indeed.
I fear that on the job training will not only be basic to the job in question but also for the basics of survival.

Working with some of them as contractors now I see they are expecting to be treated as regular employees and given all the benefits the company gives to all of its employees.

They are expecting to work as little as possible and be given a permanent position on a plate for the taking.

They are expecting to be given extra incentive to work other than the pay check they already receive and I for one do not wish to see how they act should the contract not be extended.

The causes for this I believe are a huge mixture comprising of society, the media and the home environment in which children are brought up in.

Let’s use the tree climbing as an example.

Should it be your tree and someone else’s child or someone else’s tree and your child, the fear of being sued is overwhelming. With attorney’s offices advertising to get you ‘free money’ if you’ve fallen or tripped and to reimburse for ‘emotional turmoil’ etc.

They don’t explain where the money comes from. You sue your child’s friend’s parents and I highly doubt they’ll want your child to be friends with theirs anymore. The cut down the tree so no one else can climb it. They sue you so you have to cut down the tree.

So in order to not get sued what do you do? You don’t allow it to happen in the first place. No struggle and no succeeding, just a fear of being sued.

Have you watch television recently?

Now don’t get me wrong there are so great shows on that really boggle the mind, still doesn’t beat a good book though.

But you put on most shows children are watching and what do you see?

Paris Hilton being released from jail surrounded by a media circus.

Britney Spears marrying someone for 5 minutes and then being taken to rehabilitation surrounded by a media circus.

Lindsey Lohan being arrested for drink driving and who is around her yelling, screaming and flash bulbs lighting up the night sky….oh yeah it’s the media.

When did someone being arrested or sent to rehabilitation become an acceptable headline that required such an immense amount of coverage?

We have shows now called ‘celebrity rehab’, glorifying what these idiots are doing.

What kind of picture is this painting for our children? What are they supposed to think with this being front and centre on television?

Personally I’d like to see more coverage on our brave men and women out of the front lines fighting against terrorism and not just the rare yet terrible incidents where they are demonized as killers of innocent civilians. They put their lives on the line for what…..less than $40 a year.

People like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton make how much per year? And what do they do for us? What sacrifices do they make each and every day?

Let’s go closer to home.

Normally when a building is on fire people are running out of it. But no, we have brave fire fighters who run into the burning buildings….what coverage do they get? How much do they make for putting their lives on the line?

Police officers, paramedics……plenty of worthy people our children should look up to and admire.

Picture a child today. How do you think they feel when they’re told a police officer is coming to school to talk to them?

When I was young, that was cool and something to look forward to.

Now…why what happened and are drug dogs coming with him?

I was damn lucky as a child. Not only did I have 2 elder brothers to look up to but my parents were together and still are. Going on 30 years + now and I am so proud of them.

As we all know divorces have gone threw the roof the last decade or so.

The stability of the home is no longer a solid father-mother foundation; it’s now a mother figure during the week and a father figure every other weekend. Worse case you can add in a few boyfriends of your mothers and a few girlfriends of your fathers and what do you have? A messed up child to say the least.

Children are impressionable and what they see is what they learn and grow up thinking is OK.

‘Do what I say not what I do’ does not apply, it never has.

Again you can say ‘don’t do it’, but until they do it they won’t learn.

I know many parents face divorce, but stay together for the sake of the children and I think that is very commendable. Your children come first no matter what the circumstance and that should always be the case.

You are the parent, not your children’s friend.

If your children hate you when they are young, you’re doing a good job.

If your children love you when they are older, you know you did a great job.

As a parent you need to give them a solid foundation, set limits that they know they cannot push and motivate your children to succeed on their own.

Is it not the schools job or the media’s job to raise your children.

The media will show you what it wants to see and the school will show you what you have to learn. You have to learn from what they teach.

You plop your children in front of the TV for 3-4 hours a day then that’s what they will learn from. Sit them in front of the XBOX or PlayStation for 3-4 hours a day and that’s the extent of their imagination, what the screen shows them.

Get them to read a book even for just an hour a day.

Allow them to expand their horizons and learn from experiences that may mean they come home crying a few times.

What knocks you down only makes you stronger for when you get up again.

If you stay down crying…..that’s all you’re going to get.

With the recent ‘government bailouts’ the ‘you are no longer allowed to fail’ generation is rolling in:

It doesn’t matter that the banks lent money they knew people couldn’t pay back.
It doesn’t matter that your team didn’t win.
It doesn’t matter that the unions made it a lot less profitable for companies to manufacture and thus now they are losing money.
It doesn’t matter that you didn’t try your best in school.

Because as long as things continue the way they are you will be taken care of.

‘Who pays for those people?’ you ask.

Why those who did work hard. Those who did succeed despite the struggle involved and those who bettered themselves despite previous failure.

Those who fall down crying, but get up again more motivated than before.

What happens when those people are no more…..I hope we never find out.

-Tony Leach

City/Country and the Pioneer Spirit

2008-11-22T15:28:00.000-08:00

It has only been 150 years or so since the United States expanded across the continent. Not that long ago in the history of Western civilization. 150 years ago my home in the Salt Lake Valley was nothing but vegetation and the cold wind coming from the Wasatch Front. Just over 150 years ago the pioneers coming into Utah first saw the Valley from Big Mountain. The first major settlers to see the valley were the ill-fated Donner Party, followed soon after by the first Mormon settlers who held to the low areas and avoided the weather that fell upon the infamous cannibals.

The View from Big Mountain

Last week, I stood upon the very mountain the first Mormons stood upon when they laid eyes upon the Salt Lake Valley. As you can see from the picture above, they saw their entire future from the top of Big Mountain; the entire Salt Lake Valley and beyond can be seen. I felt like I had just discovered the valley myself when I got out of my car and took in the view. What the Mormons must of felt we cannot fathom. What drove them to cross near half-a-dozen states and over one of the great American mountain ranges also cannot be easily explained. Whatever their emotions and motivations, they were one of many millions to settle the American frontier.

The American frontier still exists today, but in a odd reverse of traditional usage the frontier is within the borders of the United States, not on its edges. The largest cities in the country are located on the borders or in the old East and, unsurprisingly, most of these cities are centers of collective, urbanite thinking. Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, Detroit, Washington D.C.; grand cities held under the sway of their own bloated, over-civilized nature. You have to travel outside the borders of these beacons to find one ounce of the adventures that the brave Americans had not too long ago. When I lived in Los Angeles it took me near two hours to get out of the continuous linkage of cities that make up Los Angeles County. It was not until the highways dwindled to two lanes, until swathes of homes faded into rough hills of arid desert, until the sky became bluer and the air cleaner that I could feel truly outside of grasp of modernity. Los Angeles and San Fransisco hold millions, but are specs upon the map of California, and yet hold much sway in its politics. Driving through the desert I found people who's lives were completely alien to the residents of the cultural centers of the state. These people use firearms, drive big trucks, rely on less-than-clean sources of energy for employment; things that are abhorrent to the civilized of the Golden State. I've had a respect for the natural world for many years, but it never occurred to me until I moved to one of the largest cities in the country that city life truly did not meld with my nature. It wasn't until that asphalt and concrete replaced grass and dirt that I found the repulsiveness of metropolitanization and felt an affinity towards the country-minded folk and the land untouched by inorganic improvement.

This week displayed the great divide between those of the urbanite mindset and those who are of the country/pioneering philosophy. Alaskan governor and former Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin gave an interview at a turkey farm. While being interviewed, in the background, a farm hand was in the process of bleeding out a turkey. For those who have a reality-based mindset, this is simply what happens on a farm on a daily basis. To the anchor on MSNBC, it was a chance to lampoon Mrs. Palin for her apparent feeble-mindedness and inhumanity towards the fallen fowl. No less than five different mocking subtitles for the interview clip appeared during the MSNBC piece. As soon as the clip made the blogosphere, the cyber-intelligentsia took it upon themselves to suggest Mrs. Palin be the one bled out, or that the turkey was “slaughtered alive”, or that her support for the farming industry and for meat products is a barbaric one. Apparently, these people believe their meat is produced harmlessly, without killing, or that supporting the meat industry is something only dummies do. I would not be going out on a limb to say these people are city folk (but it does not necessarily mean each of them are from the city) and that the rigors of a life not found at the nearest store is one they cannot comprehend.

I've been living in and working in cities all my life. I am a born and bred city boy, but today it is the last thing I want to be. For most of our history people have come to the cities from the country. Today's world reverses that: people of means are now turning to the country for their freedom. There are those who love tall buildings, busy sidewalks, concrete and the collective atmosphere, but most of the country isn't even close to the visions of the urbanites. You look at a physical map of the US and it's not dotted with gray steel cancers, but with brown, green and yellow farms. It's covered in land untouched by modernity, save for new irrigation systems or hikers with iPods and GPS. It's covered by forests, deserts, plains and mountains open for new explorers to discover.

The United States is not just those who gravitate to the ends of the country and congregate themselves in condos, suburbs or the high rises. America is not just those who dress up to go to work, hold their breath for the newest celebrity gossip or spend a month's pay on uncomfortable shoes. America is also the farmer, the hunter, the small town clerk, the lone county sheriff; these citizens who hold to the ideas of smallness, of humbleness, of simpler, easier lives. The city/country mindset is not Democrat/ Republican, liberal/conservative, white-collar/blue-collar or city-dweller/farmer, it goes much deeper. It touches the very nature of those who stayed in the East and those who took up the motivation to cross dangerous land and create new parts of the country. Like me, a city dweller can have the country mindset or a small-town resident can dream collective sheep. It comes down to one's willingness to take one's life into one's hands and to shape it through the unknown and through an undying need to explore that unknown. I long to find new places, make new trails, find things few see for few really take the time to climb a mountain (even in a car) or explore old paths (physical or historical). The pioneer spirit lives on, both geographically in the wild between the East and West Coast, and within individual Americans looking to find their own Zion. Take time to explore, you never know what you'll find.

Cross-posted at Generation Patriot

Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies: Is this Change?

2008-11-22T09:18:00.000-08:00

Here are some quotes that may sound familiar to you:

"Unless we tax the oil companies, they will reap huge and undeserved windfall profits."

"When I proposed this tax I indicated that the revenues should be used for three basic purposes: one, to assist low-income households in bearing the burden of rapidly increasing energy costs; secondly, to improve the transit systems of our country, including not only rail but also buses and subways, and even the sharing of rides in other rubber-tired vehicles; and third, the development of alternative supplies of energy."

Do you recognize any of these quotes? Did you hear something similar during the 2008 campaign? In all actuality, these are quotes from former president Jimmy Carter around the time he enacted "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax of 1980". That is correct; we have tried this before. A windfall profits tax on oil companies is not change; rather it represents a government policy that has already failed us.

For starters, "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax" wasn’t exactly a windfall profits tax. It was an excise tax on domestic oil production based on the amount of oil a company produced. The more barrels of domestic oil they produced, the more they would pay in taxes. The average citizen was struggling with high energy prices at the same time oil companies were reaping huge profits. This was seen as unfair by Congress, President Carter, as well as the average citizen. Once the tax was enacted, the federal government would then reinvest this money in alternative energy supplies and inject the money back to other areas of the economy to help low income citizens deal with rising energy costs. After all why should these greedy oil companies keep this money when this money can be moved around to other people who need it more than they do? It only makes sense, right? This was a socialist concept supported by Jimmy Carter and the overwhelmingly Democratic controlled Congress.

It was estimated that the tax revenue from a windfall profits tax would exceed $320 billion during the years of 1980 and 1989. In reality, this tax brought closer to $80 billion in gross tax revenue. The net amount was actually much lower than this because the tax was deductible against corporate income. The final net amount was around $40 billion by the time this deduction was figured.

The graph below illustrates the projected tax revenue versus the actual tax revenue:

As the graph indicates, the realized tax revenue from a windfall profits tax never came close to the projected expectations. So what exactly were the results of "The Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax;" and why were the results so disappointing? How could something that seemed so good turn out so bad?

According to the "Congressional Research Service,” the tax had actually decreased domestic production by 3 to 6 percent. Domestic production dropped by the oil companies to avoid having to pay extra money in taxes. As a result of drops in domestic production, America increased their dependence on foreign oil by 8 to 16 percent. The windfall profits tax actually lead to more oil imports instead of producing the oil domestically. In addition, like most government mandates, this tax was very difficult for the oil companies to comply with. At the same time, this was equally as burdensome for the IRS to collect. It’s no wonder why this tax didn't meet the target revenue. In today's world, the last thing we need is to increase our dependence on foreign oil.

According to the Tax Foundation, US Oil companies as of 2005 spent nearly $150 billion just to comply with existing federal income tax alone. The Tax Foundation also states that between the years of 1980 and 2005 oil companies paid nearly $2.2 trillion (adjusted for inflation) in taxes at both state and federal level. In addition, the price of gasoline has both state and federal taxes figured into the price at the pump, which you pay when you fill your gas tank. The Democrats back in 1977 as well as today do not understand that corporations cover their costs in the price of the product they sell. In this case the product is gasoline. Increasing taxes on any company is going to be passed off onto you, the consumer. In the end, it will mean higher gas prices at the pump. So why are we crossing this bridge again when we see the data clearly shows it has not worked before? Is this the change America is looking for?

The average profit from a gallon of gasoline is about 8 percent, which is way less than most other industries. When a corporation makes a profit, the company will keep a portion of this profit as "Retained Earnings”, which is money for the business to operate. This money will then be used to find more oil, find more alternative fuels, expand and hire more employees as well as improve the way they produce gasoline. In essence, oil companies showing a profit can actually lead to lower gas prices due to better equipment, production efficiencies, and oil exploration. Probably the most overlooked aspect of this is the fact that oil companies have provided millions of jobs and increases in wages during these prosperous times. Increasing their costs to do business will only force them to cut back on these expansions or even worse, leave the United States for a more favorable business environment. Today the global market is more competitive than ever, and America should be looking for ways to attract companies to stay in the United States.

Finally, the profits that are not kept in retained earnings are distributed to the shareholders. Who are these shareholders? Well if you own a 401k or a pension plan, the chances are you own shares of stock in an oil company. About 40 percent of all oil stock is owned by mutual and hedge funds. Does our government have the right to tell you that you do not have the right to a prosperous and happy retirement? Who is our government actually hurting if a windfall profits tax is enacted the way Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama would like? The truth is they will be hurting everyone including the low income and middle class families they claim they to be assisting. In 1988, "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax" was repealed by Ronald Reagan because it was actually harmful to our economy. Why would anyone consider revisiting this terrible mistake 20 years after it was repealed? This does not represent change, but a failure in history our government is about to repeat.

Sources:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1168.html

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33214

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/edf8de04e58e4b14852570ba0048848b?OpenDocument

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/markets/thebuzz/index.htm

The Price of “Progress”

2008-11-21T11:49:00.000-08:00

“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” -President-Elect Barack Obama

Barack Obama's politics are full of love. He talks of “change”, “hope”, “unity”, “an end to divisiveness” and other such soft, warm words. His programs and ideas promote an new, motivated American citizenry ready to revolutionize the nation and the world with the power of their idealism. Before his nomination, even I had a tinge of euphoria when I heard one of President-Elect Obama's speeches. He gives you the image of the new America and the new American. Barack Obama's politics are not a new [link to Jonah's LA Times article]. Barack Obama's politics are dangerous.

The benevolent, caring government is an idea that spans ages. It goes back to the days of state religion and monarchy. The kings and queens with intelligence saw that their popularity relies not on their narcissism or greed, but the love of the people. The love of the people came from their comforts, their patriotism and their faith. Elizabeth knew this and she earned centuries of admiration from the British and the Commonwealth. The American Progressives tapped into this populism and exploited it. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican that is idolized in some circles, held that the government could do anything that wasn't expressly forbidden by the Constitution to help the people. Woodrow Wilson held that the nation needed to become an ideological organism, a body politic and went so far as to suppress all opposition to his presidency during World War I. Franklin D. Roosevelt is held in high esteem for his speeches and uniting persona during the Depression and World War II, but such unity came at a price. FDR created vast amounts of authoritarian bureaucracy and formed the Civilian Conservation Corps, a paramilitary group eerily similar to those in Italy and Germany. All held the people as their mandate and as their will made manifest. All entrenched large benevolent government into the American psyche.

Ideologically, the benevolent government is the basis of communism and fascism. The former being a more international movement and the latter being more focused on a nation's traditional culture and its greatness. By the traditional American definitions of left and right, both are of the left. History has shown us the consequences of these forms of government in Europe and at home through the American Progressives. With President-Elect Obama, are we to expect a modern Progressivism? Are we to expect a new National Reconstruction Administration? A new CCC? A new push for a New Patriotism? A New America? Where does this push for change end? We sit on the threshold of a new historic thrust into benevolence and social revolution, if Obama's rhetoric is to be made true. The past will become irrelevant. Social and legal tradition will be ignored. The American Revolution will be supplanted by a new revolution of the mases that will have all the hallmarks of a political mob.

Please, do not take this as an premature indictment of President-Elect Obama's policies. As this is being written, his actual policies are largely unknown and his true beliefs still in question. Please, do not take this as a reactionary view or an alarmist screed. The future is unknown and the actions of Mr. Obama are anyone's guess. This is just a warning based on the rhetoric of Mr. Obama and information taken from his platform. This is just speculation based on the facts we are supplied with.

The Roman Republic was part of the foundation of philosophy of the American Patriots that gave their lives for our nation's liberty. For hundreds of years, Romans lived in relative freedom and prospered. When the Republic started to fracture and collapse, a popular figure, one loved by the masses took hold and birthed one of the greatest empires of Antiquity. Yet, this national greatness led to the loss of liberty, began a long march towards deep-seeded moral corruption which laid the path to the downfall of the Empire and the creation of the violent and tyrannical Dark Ages.

When liberty is sacrificed for pragmatism, when morality is sacrificed for greed, when a great and moral people fall, tyranny arises.

We have been warned.

Cross-posted at Generation Patriot

A memo in regard to welfare

2008-11-20T20:30:00.000-08:00

One of my academic concentrations is Criminology. Therefore, I feel that it is my duty to approach social issues in today's time, from as much of a Sociological perspective as I can. I am going to start by looking at the issue of welfare and the perceptions of liberals and conservatives regarding this.

As a college student, I have been well-versed in the liberal rhetoric regarding the reasons why we should have a welfare system. Here are a few: There are constraints that do not allow lower class people, especially minorities, to break the bonds of being limited to tertiary jobs where they are limited to less than $21,000 a year. Poor educations in minority neighborhoods combine with a lack of economic opportunities to cause this. Therefore, there needs to be something to help these people along in order for them to survive.

These arguments are liberal 101 when it comes to this issue.

What they fail to account for is the fact that dependency is not going to solve any of the problems they cite as being the cause of this poverty. The only way to get out of poverty is to better yourself through means of education and jobs. In order to get these things, it may take minorities moving out of urban ghettos, much like some have.

Coupled with this, the institution of family must be restored in America. This means we should get rid of programs that reward being single and having multiple children. We must promote the family structure. By doing this, we will be providing positive role models for the youth of America.

Crime is glorified in this culture as well. This needs to stop. I realize that urban culture is unique, but if these people ever want to better their situations they need to stop embracing these things. Crime being viewed as legitimate in lower class areas is merely the result of a culture that doesn't want to work for what it has.

I often hear liberals bash others for stereotyping minorities, but many of these stereotypes have been born from the findings of Sociologists themselves, most of which are liberal in nature. I once read a book entitled "Slim's Table." It is by a sociologist named Mitchell Duneier, and studies a restaurant setting of Valois, where older Black patrons spend much of their time. They are of a lower class, but hold the same stereotypes that others do about the youth in their neighborhood. They are not sympathetic to Republican leaders, but hold many conservative views when it comes to their beliefs about the youth.

My overarching point here, though it may be lost, is that we need to stop compounding problems with methods that seem to be in the best interest of the targets, but really only perpetuate a culture of poverty and violence. Jason Lewis, a local talk radio host put this best for me. He said something to the effect that if Dairy Queen started handing out free hamburgers and shakes to everyone in a neighborhood, people would start believing that they needed them. This is how the welfare system is in America. It does not provide any better benefits than the tertiary sector of jobs, but also provides just enough to where people don't feel the need to rid themselves of it. There has to be a better way.

My Response to GM’s “Urgent Message”

2008-11-20T11:19:00.000-08:00

If I were in the “Big Three’s” top management, I’d be ASHAMED to send this kind of a letter to customers – pathetically asking for financial aid. As a matter of fact, this is so pitiful; I’ll commit it to a column. My comments are in italics below each paragraph.

Dear Michelle,
Dear under-worked and overpaid GM executive,

You made the right choice when you put your confidence in General Motors, and we appreciate your past support. I want to assure you that we are making our best vehicles ever, and we have exciting plans for the future. But we need your help now. Simply put, we need you to join us to let Congress know that a bridge loan to help U.S. automakers also helps strengthen the U.S. economy and preserve millions of American jobs.

I’m glad you think I made the right choice, but I wish I could say the same for the decisions GM has made over the years. If GM is making their “best vehicles ever,” why are 4 of your 6 brands’ market share rapidly evaporating to your competitors? GMC, Pontiac, Saturn and Buick have not been viable players in the market for quite some time. Exactly what are those exciting plans for the future? I’ve been hearing about all of this good news in your annual reports for the past 10 years – I’m still waiting.

Despite what you may be hearing, we are not asking Congress for a bailout but rather a loan that will be repaid.

Repaid, how? Has GM realized that they cannot continue on the current path? Explain to the taxpayers what changes your company intends to make and convince them that a loan will not simply prolong the inevitable. Chrysler’s Lee Iacocca at least had a sound PLAN… not just a promise of a bright future and to make the “bestest” vehicles ever! He also did not use federal dollars. The government simply guaranteed private loans in exchange for stock warrants. Seeing that Chrysler is now back in the same predicament, why should the taxpayers commit resources AGAIN?

The U.S. economy is at a crossroads due to the worldwide credit crisis, and all Americans are feeling the effects of the worst economic downturn in 75 years. Despite our successful efforts to restructure, reduce costs and enhance liquidity, U.S. auto sales rely on access to credit, which is all but frozen through traditional channels.

Successful efforts? Why is GM’s labor cost almost double that of their competitors’? Exactly what has GM restructured? Why do losing divisions like Pontiac, Saturn and GMC still exist? Why did the executive team use corporate jets as transportation to beg taxpayers for money? Is that an example of cost reduction? I think GM’s problems go far beyond the limited access to credit markets.

The consequences of the domestic auto industry collapsing would far exceed the $25 billion loan needed to bridge the current crisis. According to a recent study by the Center for Automotive Research:

• One in 10 American jobs depends on U.S. automakers
• Nearly 3 million jobs are at immediate risk
• U.S. personal income could be reduced by $150 billion
• The tax revenue lost over 3 years would be more than $156 billion

Please don’t insult the average consumers’ intelligence by quoting an Ann Arbor think tank. Let’s look at the bigger picture. This is not about lost jobs and tax revenue because a reckless loan to a company who STILL doesn’t have a firm grasp of competition in a global environment will only make the OVERALL economic environment worse, and put GM, Ford and Chrysler in a shoddier situation in the future. How many jobs and lost tax revenue will be at stake at that point? Do we patch the leak here, or do we figure out what is causing the leak?

Discussions are now underway in Washington, D.C., concerning loans to support U.S. carmakers. I am asking for your support in this vital effort by contacting your state representatives. Please take a few minutes to go to www.gmfactsandfiction.com, where we have made it easy for you to contact your U.S. senators and representatives. Just click on the "I'm a Concerned American" link under the "Mobilize Now" section, and enter your name and ZIP code to send a personalized e-mail stating your support for the U.S. automotive industry.

Let me assure you that General Motors has made dramatic improvements over the last 10 years. In fact, we are leading the industry with award-winning vehicles like the Chevrolet Malibu, Cadillac CTS, Buick Enclave, Pontiac G8, GMC Acadia, Chevy Tahoe Hybrid, Saturn AURA and more. We offer 18 models with an EPA estimated 30 MPG highway or better — more than Toyota or Honda. GM has 6 hybrids in market and 3 more by mid-2009. GM has closed the quality gap with the imports, and today we are putting our best quality vehicles on the road.

I’ll show my support for GM by offering the following suggestions:

1) Stop whining to taxpayers, and file Chapter 11. You’ve let the United Auto Workers’ Union govern you, and as a result your labor costs are almost twice that of your competitors. Chapter 11 bankruptcy laws will allow you renegotiate your labor contracts, pension plans and other employee entitlement programs in an effort to reduce costs. GM, Ford and Chrysler can no longer afford to sacrifice the quality of their vehicles to make up for higher labor costs.

2) Replace management across the board. Your leadership is horrendous. Your current CEO has seen GM’s stock drop NINETY-FIVE percent during his watch. If an NFL team loses ninety-five percent of their games, do the head coach and his coaching staff return next year? Hire leadership who has an understanding that corporate jets and other executive perks cannot be afforded in a highly competitive global environment. A cost-reduction effort needs to be implemented at ALL levels – not just the bottom.

3) Dissolve your unprofitable brands, and consider joining forces with one of your American competitors – perhaps Chrysler. These actions will result in an immediate costs savings of billions.

4) GM is still lagging behind in fuel efficiency in spite of your boasting about new hybrid vehicles. Fuel efficiency is the road to victory in regaining market share.

Please share this information with friends and family using the link on the site.

I most certainly will – just not in the way you intended.

Thank you for helping keep our economy viable.

Thank you in advance for scrapping your plan to beg for money and devising a long-term strategy that will restore confidence in our markets.

Bush should have never been pulled into the picture

2008-11-19T23:31:00.000-08:00

Originally posted at RedState

If we've finally learned to cool our heels and drop the fingers, conservatives are beginning to realize that we have sucked it up this decade. But one thing is certain. The accumulation of frustration that has been building up since '07 was pretty clear in the loud of chorus of boos during John's concession speech on the night of the fourth. But wait. Are we quick to say who they were booing? Sure, the mention of 'The One' probably triggered an instinctive backlash of muddled curse words and vocal boos and hisses. Yet, who's to say there weren't those in the crowd who were just a teensy peeved at McCain? A pretty common diagnosis of our failure was an unpopular incumbent, a messianic challenger, yada yada yada. They say Obama's timing was right; that he would have won regardless our chosen candidate. But oh no! It was the BUSH factor! It must have been the President's fault! But... has anyone bothered to realize that it was in McCain's full capacity to kick Georgie out of the picture?

"I am not President Bush."

In theory, if all Americans knew what we conservatives know, that sentence alone would have been enough for there to have been an ah-ha! for the voters, let alone the grassroots. But as we know, Americans don't know that and tend to be attracted to very long coattails.

The President's ideological platform (and no, I'm not talking about the Bush doctrine) was for certain sound enough (or we wouldn't have reelected him in '04). Sure, W didn't run as conservative a campaign as HW did, but did that kick us in the arse? The very vast majority of the perceived dissatisfaction of our President has been induced by arbitrary incidences of alien origin. In other words, the platform didn't screw Bush; we know that much. Black Tuesday screwed Hoover. Watergate screwed Nix. The Iranian hostage crisis screwed Carter (well, he was already screwed). But in this case, like Obama's uncanny power to do magic, it seemed as if the real Bush "doctrine" disappeared. If at all, the President's domestic prowess seemed to be nonexistent this election cycle.

McCain had an open kill here. He really only had two options: renounce George completely, or strengthen his principles while defending the President in subtlety. It's evident he didn't choose the latter. The smart thing for John to have done would have been to tell the voters that he would not run a campaign of 'what-ifs'. They really are nothing new, but politicians these days seem unwilling to detach these 'what-ifs' from core party platforms.

To sum things up, an ideological campaign would have given John a win. His arbitrary one cost him it.

So yes, I just said it. It was not Bush's fault.

How Much of a Role did Mark-to-Market Accounting Play in the Credit Crisis?

2008-11-18T12:16:00.000-08:00

Not many people outside of the financial world would consider the possibility of a technical accounting rule playing a role in the credit crisis. Unfortunately, it takes a crisis of this magnitude to bring these concepts to light.

In a nutshell, mark-to-market accounting assigns the current market price to a held financial instrument. For example, if you buy 100 shares of XYZ Corporation’s stock at $10 per share, the value of your shares would be worth $1,000 (100 shares x $10/share). Six months later, the stock is trading at $20 per share. The “mark-to-market” value of the stock would now be $2,000 (100 shares x $20/share). By employing mark-to-market accounting, the net worth of your asset just doubled. In the simplest terms, this practice makes sense. The current value of the stock should be recorded on a company’s books regardless of whether this affects their balance sheet positively or negatively. However, there are two things to consider: 1) potential for major abuse when applied to more complex financial instruments – especially debt instruments and 2) how both realized and unrealized gains/losses affect the market’s perception of an entity.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement No. 157 in November 2007 with the intent to establish a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and expand disclosures about fair value measurements. (1) FAS 157 established a hierarchy of asset classes which attempts to assign values to assets that are not as liquid as a stock that trades on the market everyday. In other words, how is a value assigned when it cannot be assessed by its current trading price? The trade value of a stock can be verified at any time, but what about financial instruments that do not trade in the market on a daily basis? Assets are broken down into three levels:

Level one: consists of assets that have an identifiable market price (price of a stock that trades on the market).

Level two: is a class of assets that do not have market prices. A model is then constructed to determine the assets’ fair value. Some inputs include but are not limited to prices of similar securities and interest rates.

Level three: is comprised of assets that don’t have market prices, and the valuation techniques used to price “level two assets” are not available. As a result, an entity is allowed to use its own assumptions bearing in mind that the asset should be priced based on what a willing buyer would pay.

The analogy behind the level three asset classification is what gives what gives way to the famous term “mark-to-make believe.”

The value of mortgage-related securities relies heavily on assumptions – assumptions that had a positive effect during the housing boom, but now have a very negative affect as banks are now recognizing billions of dollars in losses.

What happens when investors panic and sell? What assumptions can be used to value financial instruments being sold in mass panic? This is where things get murky. Assets being sold out of panic make it extremely difficult to assign value. In addition, the inputs that are used are nothing more than educated guesses by accountants. What a way to halt trading in the market when things go astray! The problem with many valuation techniques is that they overstate the value of assets, which then overstates losses.

Mark-to-market accounting also wreaks havoc on the liability side of things. Bond prices are inversely related to the company’s risk. In other words, if the price of a bond falls, it is in response to the market’s perception that the company’s risk has increased. Think Goldman Sachs and Lehman brothers here. Mark-to-market accounting allows these entities to record GAINS on their income statement. One may ask why on Earth they would be allowed to do this. For those who stayed awake during Accounting 101: remember the basic accounting equation? Shareholders’ equity = Assets – liabilities. When the value of the bonds decrease, the result is a decrease in total liabilities which means shareholders’ equity INCREASES…hence the gain. It’s a wonder how Lehman Brothers was able to report $2.4 billion in pre-tax profits by “marking to market” its liabilities. Then, shortly after the collapse of the market bubble, the company is bankrupt. (2)

In summary, the FASB and the Securities and Exchange Commission should rethink the use of mark-to-market accounting in publicly traded companies. Perhaps it should remain only in the futures exchange where the practice originated. Accounting should be uniform and give a conservative, accurate picture of where an entity stands. There are too many unknown factors, and blind assumptions are made when applying valuation techniques. This gives way to artificial market bubbles and extreme volatility when the bubbles burst. If entities are able to use mark-to-market accounting which allows unrealized gains to manufacture synthetic profits which then quickly spirals into realized losses, the housing bubble and burst will the first of many in the future.

(1) http://www.fasb.org/st/summary/stsum157.shtml
(2) http://seekingalpha.com/article/97845-mark-to-market-accounting-kill-it-before-it-eats-us-alive

Chasing Fairy Tales

2008-11-17T03:23:00.000-08:00

Oh lordy, I must have gone back in time because it feels like 2000 all over again. A long, drawn out presidential campaign with a heavy partisan tinge. Emotions riding high on both sides. The victorious candidate being called illegitimate. Except, this time, the winner had an electoral college blow-out and its not his victory being contented, but his status as a natural-born American citizen.

According to reliable sources, Barack Hussien Obama II was born in Hawaii, but don't tell that to the vast swathes of narrow-visioned layman intellectuals trying to add another stain to the already soiled history of American presidential elections. They contend that President-Elect Obama's birth certificate was faked and that he was actually born in Kenya, which would make him a naturalized citizen, not a natural-born citizen and disqualify him from holding the office of the President of the United States of America.

Common sense has apparently fled in the face of absurd personal and/or political vendetta. Despite not being totally vetted by the media as John McCain or Sarah Palin were, Barack Obama was vetted by an institution much more biased and very, very thorough: the Clinton political machine. If the sue-happy individuals would just stop and think, maybe they'd realize that half the legitimate points brought up by McCain/Palin (Ayers, Wright, radical leftism,etc) were originally brought up by the Clinton primary campaign. You would think one of the most ruthless political dynasties bent on making Hilary Clinton president would be able to find such major dirt on her biggest threat. Then again, the birth certificate experts believe they're smarter than hundreds of thousands of experienced political mudslingers and the entire American public.

Like equating the President-Elect to old, dead genocidal dictators, these fairy tale charges do nothing for the grander plan of the new grassroots conservative movement: victory in the marketplace of ideas. Conservatism isn't insane personal hates dressed up as noble political endeavors. Conservatism isn't de-legitimizing a president simply because we don't like him. That's something for the lefties and the Democrats to do.

At the core, conservatism is the long-standing, righteous American ideology of traditional values, free markets, a strong national defense and a federalism that does not overreach. These are easy ideas to preach if we stick to the path of actually preaching them instead of charging at windmills in the distance.

How are we to win over the minds of the young student and the working man if we're too busy trying looking through trash heaps looking for pieces of gold?

Dems and National Security: Where Change Is Actually Needed

2008-11-14T06:25:00.000-08:00

Since President-Elect Obama's victory two very important national security issues have been brought up and commented on: the status of the prisons at Guantanamo Bay and the Missile Defense System. Both answers have been discouraging.

Mr. Obama gave no guarantees that the MDS program in Eastern Europe would continue. This answer comes only a few days after Russia brazenly moved missiles in the direction of Poland and a few months after Russia invaded Georgia. Earlier this year threatened the Ukraine with nuclear destruction if it joined NATO. This answer comes during a time with an uncooperative Iran testing long-range, nuke-able missiles with increasing frequency. This answer comes when North Korea is on the verge of a new era of leadership or a new world of chaos as the Stalinist state deals with competing strongmen.

Apparently, our new president has not learned anything from the Cold War. The benefits of the containment strategy are up for debate, but the deterrence strategy was undeniably one of the major reasons the Cold War never went hot between the United States and the Soviet Union. Our ability to retaliate in such force as to completely annihilate the Soviet Union kept the Communists from attempting such an insane idea. Our conventional force acts a deterrent as well. North Korea could easily overpower the forces we have just outside, except that tens of thousands of dead American soldiers would not bode well for the power hungry dynasty. There's a reason our only major enemy during the two decades since the fall of the Iron Curtain has been fanatical terrorists bent on our complete annihilation and its not our lack of things that go boom.

Concerning Gitmo, President Bush has had quite the time trying to explain to the public and to the Democratic left the complexity of the operation and the reality of their detainment. Many of the terrorists and terrorist suspects at Gitmo were picked up on the battlefield. Out of the original 600 prisoners, now there are only 250. Some of those released ended up back in prison, picked up while aiming their rifles at American soldiers. Some have even been been culprits of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks. Many of those still in prison have nowhere to be sent as many nations think having terrorists and terror suspects in their borders an abhorrent idea. These terrorists are not normal soldiers, but they are also not the straight up criminals you find daily in American courtrooms. This is a new war in which both national security and criminal justice must be sated. This is not an easy task, and as White House Spokesman Dana Perino has pointed out the Democrats are about to discover this jarring fact.

"We've tried very hard to explain to people how complicated it is. When you pick up people off the battlefield that have a terrorist background, it's not just so easy to let them go," Perino said. "These issues are complicated, and we have put forward a process that we think would work in order to put them on trial through military tribunals."

There are two major questions we must ask the President-Elect if he plans on shutting Gitmo down. Firstly, will the terrorists and terror suspects have access to American civilian courts? Secondly, where are these terrorists and terror suspects to go if no nation takes them?

The first answer can be found in the Supreme Court's ruling Boumediene v. Bush. This is a ruling in which a terrorist was given access to American civilian courts so he may challenge his detention. The 5-4 decision was along ideological lines and outraged the White House as well as national security experts. The ability of terror suspects to challenge their detention through civilian means, and the idea that the War on Terror is only a law enforcement or a military matter, will subvert our defenses against an enemy that has created a version of asymmetrical warfare that requires both law enforcement and military methods to defeat it.

The second answer can be found in another ruling in which 17 Uighur terror suspects found in Afghanistan were allowed entry in to the United States since no other nation would take them. These suspects were not found to have committed crimes against the United States, but there is a significant Islamist insurgency by Uighurs in China. The biggest threats against the 2008 Olympics in Bejing were from these Islamists. Although not our enemies by action, these men are of the same mind and ideology as the bombers in Iraq, the murderers in Spain and Britain and the suicide pilots on 9/11. It is one thing to let these men go because they are not a direct threat to us; it is another thing to send them into a completely alien culture they may find detestable at minimum, an abomination at most. We have millions of non-citizens crossing our borders illegally to find better jobs and lives and there are millions more are trying to get into the United States through legal means. Why would should we allow 18 non-citizens that may have ideological and cultural animosity towards us? One is not an American purely by the fact one resides in America.

President-Elect Obama needs to set his mind straight on these issues. Both involves the lives of Americans and both involve the security of many nations, not just ours. We cannot allow aggressive, imperialistic nations to intimate us and our free allies nor can we just throw back to old, static strategies when it comes to a new breed of military enemy in a new, complex world. Mr. Obama needs to adhere to his talk of change because if he sticks to the rhetoric of the old Democratic Party and of the left wing nothing good will come of it.

Cross-posted at Generation Patriot

Ax the Hitler References

2008-11-14T04:32:00.000-08:00

There's been a lot of scuttlebutt about Obama's forced community service program. Several have gone to the extreme of comparing Obama's program to the Hitler Youth. This is quite the false comparison. I had to do such a program in Canada and while an unwelcome addition to massive homework and tests that required little thinking and much regurgitation, it wasn't anything like the Hitler Youth.

Obama's community service program along with his push for a slew of new “corps” are nothing like the totalitarian and bigoted Nazi movement. If conservatives want to make comparisons try FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps. The CCC was a government-led paramilitary organization that went around the country building roads and the like. The Progressive ideology was ingrained into the group: a people united, acting as one organism, can accomplish anything. This is much closer to Obama's goal than the extermination of non-Aryan races or the domination of the world.

If conservatism is going to take root once again in the American psyche we cannot be made the fools like the few bigots and know-nothings that get on TV make us out to be. Conservatives and conservative ideology are complex and intelligent. Nazi comparisons make us no better than the leftist pseudo-intellectuals that compared Bush to Hitler, Christians to Nazis and Iraq to the Holocaust.

Prison Break

2008-11-12T22:11:00.001-08:00

Did Capitalism Fail or Did Our Government Fail?

2008-11-12T18:45:00.000-08:00

In September our great nation was faced with a financial crisis not seen since the 1930’s. In response to this financial crisis, President George W. Bush called for a bill to save our financial markets. On September 28, 2008 America passed the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008”. This bill provides over 750 billion dollars of tax payer dollars to attempt to restore credit and regain confidence in a downward economy that has grown to epic and global proportions. In essence the bill will allow the federal government to buy into the financial system through the ownership of preferred stock. I firmly stand against this action and have concerns about the federal government buying ownership into the financial district.

First lets go over how all this happened. In a nutshell this all leads back to the "Community Reinvestment Act" which forced banks to comply with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by giving out loans to people regardless of whether or not they could pay for them. Fannie and Freddie, partly owned by the federal government, offered to back these bad loans if any of them were to foreclose. With the government backing these loans, banks felt they had nothing to lose since they had to comply with the federal mandates or face costly lawsuits. So banks got creative with how they issued loans (Arm, interest only, no money down, etc.). Fannie and Freddie continued to make money as long as home values increased and as long as more loans were issued. The more loans the more money Fannie and Freddie made. Fannie and Freddie then bundled these mortgage loans into "mortgage backed securities" and sold them as investments to other banks who bought them. Next came high oil prices and inflation started to rise. Interest rates went up and more people started to foreclose. With too many foreclosures at one time, Fannie and Freddie couldn't back these loans and the downward spiral continues to this day.

What happened was not the result of the free market or deregulation, as the left would have you believe. What happened had everything to do with the fact that a bad government policy failed. Fannie and Freddie removed an important element of capitalism…..the element of risk. When risk is removed there is no fear and therefore there can be no failure. Risk is an essential part of capitalism. The old saying “the higher the risk, the higher potential for return” still holds true today as it did hundreds of years ago. In this case there was no danger in giving out risky loans because banks were assured they would be backed by the government. For example, let’s say you and I go to a casino, and I force you to play the slot machines. Then I tell you not to worry because if you lose any money I will cover your losses. Are you going to behave differently in that casino if I tell you I am going to back your gambling that day? Of course you will, and our financial markets are no exception.

So what does our government do? They buyout Fannie and Freddie so they are completely owned by the federal government, and bailout our banks by buying shares of preferred stock as collateral. Our federal government failed us by trying to make everything fair instead of letting the market determine who can pay back a loan. In a normal market banks all take a reasonable amount of risky loans, but too many can jeopardize their business. The federal government failed to regulate Fannie and Freddie and failed to enforce the existing laws we already have in place. As a result the federal government now has complete ownership of Fannie and Freddie, as well as a substantial stake in our largest banks.

So what should our government have done? For starters our government had no business mandating companies to take bad loans in the first place. I would love to see everyone own a home, but as we have seen too many people owning houses they cannot afford can lead to a disaster. I would like to see the government dramatically change the “Community Reinvestment Act” and reduce the power Fannie and Freddie have in the marketplace. Next, I would like to see the government stay out and not offer any tax payer money to financial institutions. However, as I stated above our government broke capitalism so now our government believes they have to come in and fix it. I am against the government owning any shares in our financial sector. If it is decided that federal help is mandatory then I would rather they issued bonds or loans coupled with legislature that completely changed the way Fannie and Freddie operate.

As a free market capitalist I am weary whenever the government buys into the private sector to “help out”. Usually when the government gets involved with anything they cause more problems than they solve. When this is all over is our government going to sell those shares back and get out of the private sector? That remains to be seen, but I have my doubts. What voice is our government going to have now that the government has a direct steak in the financial world? What kind of new regulations are going to be put in place while they are partial owners? Is the government going to mandate how these companies invest their money? I don’t recall hearing GW Bush say a bad government policy had a hand in causing the financial crisis. As other industries fall on hard times as a result, is the government going to bail them all out? The fact is we do not have the money to subsidize the private sector, and our federal government shouldn’t be in the business of running it in the first place.

Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122398468353632299.html
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/28/news/economy/Sunday_talks_bailout/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

Because Communists weren't dangerous at all...

2008-11-12T00:05:00.000-08:00

...but people who have moral objections to gays (more than half of California) are.

AntiGayBlacklist.com

I get their anger. I'd be pissed too if my campaign lost.

I don't get their racist, bigoted reaction.

At Least Adolfe Won't Have to Explain His Donation to Gurring

2008-11-11T18:23:00.000-08:00

From Politico, h/t the Washington Independent:

Now that Sen. John McCain has officially lost the presidency, Politico reminds him that he still has an audit to look forward to.

According to the report, President-elect Barack Obama, who opted out of public financing for his general election bid, will likely avoid an examination of his campaign’s books by the Federal Election Commission. Because McCain did accept public funding, an FEC audit is mandatory, at the campaign’s expense. Fortunately for him, Politico reports the McCain campaign allocated $9.4 million to pay for it.

Good thing Obama is avoiding it (/sarcasm), then they'd find this:

Meanwhile, last week a reader made a donation to the Obama campaign under the name "Adolfe Hitler" (Don't ask me why the "e") of "#1 Reichstag Building, Berlin, Germany", charging it to his Mastercard and is now getting welcome-to-the-big-change emails:
Dear Adolfe,

Thanks for joining this movement. It will take all of us working together to bring change to this country, and we wanted to make sure you know about all the opportunities to get involved in your community and online.

Check out the resources below — learn how you can connect with fellow supporters, organize in your neighborhood, build our national grassroots organization, and stay informed with the very latest campaign news.

Corporate Bailouts: Will They Prolong a Recession?

2008-11-11T09:49:00.000-08:00

I’m sure I’m not the only taxpayer frustrated by Washington’s generosity to irresponsible, politically connected corporations. We hear that the credit markets are frozen. Without federal dollars, America would see a domino effect of banks failing one after the other. If you believe this, I have some land I’d like to sell you. Look through your “junk mail,” both snail and online, and see how many invites you receive for credit. Take a stroll to your local car dealership this weekend and see how quickly they’ll get you financed. While it may be true that people who have less than appealing credit or are overextended may not be getting offers, but is that a bad thing? Aren’t reckless loans what got us here in the first place? Isn’t it natural for banks to hold back on lending in harsh economic times? What is the demand for borrowing when people are afraid of losing their jobs?

President Bush’s $168 billion economic stimulus plan in February of this year was supposed to give the economy the boost it needed. Then, along came Bear Stearns. The federal government extended a discounted loan to JP Morgan Chase to entice them to buy Bear’s troubled liabilities. Case closed – economy saved…hardly. In October, the market began to hemorrhage. State governments are now asking for federal dollars along with the troubled auto industry. President Bush addressed the nation assuring us that the federal government would rescue the falling economy. The government being the rescuer is the equivalent of a small raft being thrown to someone drowning in the ocean in the middle of a hurricane, when the one throwing the raft was the cause of the storm!

The federal government now has plans to take stakes in nine of America’s top financial institutions and equity investments in potentially thousands of other banks. One month later, the DOW continues to plunge, consumer confidence is in the tank and the threat of more foreclosures still exists. The threat of a global recession is eminent. What does our President-elect say? More economic stimulus is needed! Why not, as it has worked so well thus far. Don’t forget; he was hired to fix the economy!

One only needs to take a look at history to see how well government intervention works. Did President Hoover’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation of 1931 and 1932 end the Great Depression? Hoover gave federal loans to politically connected companies much like the Paulson/Bush plan. When President Roosevelt took over, he invested heavily in the country’s infrastructure and took the Keynesian approach. Both of these approaches turned a bad recession into the Great Depression and further prolonged misery.

Critics of capitalism and a laissez-faire approach fail to realize that economic downturns are part of the overall economic cycle. Recessions do not mean that capitalism has failed. That also doesn't mean that government oversight is not needed; but there is a difference between proper oversight and intervention. The problem with government intervention is that it prolongs the downturn and creates new problems in the future. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the outgrowth of “The New Deal” along with the waves of entitlement programs that the government is currently having a difficult time funding.

The Bush administration wasn’t interested in bailing out the “dot com” companies at the beginning of this decade. Is the tech sector dead as a result? America had an 8-month recession with a decent recovery. While the credit crisis is far more severe, over-reaction can make a bad situation worse. The federal government has already spent over $1 trillion to try and stop the bleeding. The new administration plans on spending more and possibly a move to bail out the ailing auto industry. As it stands, the federal deficit will exceed $1 trillion next year. The potential effects these actions will have on the value of our dollar and impending inflation, one has to ask if we are pouring water into a leaky bucket and what the opportunity cost will be from allocating an incredible amount of resources to banks, individual states and companies that are poorly run.

Can You Imagine Mini-Pelosi?

2008-11-11T00:13:00.001-08:00

Wouldn't that just be the creepiest thing ever?

Conservative Underground Gear

2008-11-10T08:51:00.001-08:00

create & buy custom products at Zazzle

Making a post here so folks can link to the panel from the sidebar.

Arizona Supreme Court to Ban Proper Legal Terms

2008-11-10T08:08:00.001-08:00

Well, this proves that AZ is truly John McCain's state.

Illegal-alien and open-borders advocates may succeed in getting the Arizona Supreme Court to ban numerous immigration-related phrases, including “illegal alien” and “open-borders advocates.”

In a significant blow to the First Amendment and the use of legally-correct terminology, Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor has advanced the demands of the Arizona Hispanic Bar Association by moving to ban the following language from all of the state’s courtrooms:

Aliens
Illegal aliens
Resident or non-resident aliens
Illegal immigrants
Illegal immigration
Illegals
Immigration epidemic
Immigration crisis
Immigrant invasion
Pro-illegal immigration activists
Open borders advocates
Anchor babies
Proponents for amnesty

Oil Speculation: Good or Bad?

2008-11-08T08:36:00.000-08:00

One of the most difficult things to hear during the Presidential campaigns was the continued bashing of oil speculation. We elect officials to represent us in Washington and carry out the people’s business, yet most do not have even a beginner’s grasp of how our markets work. I don’t know which was worse during the campaign: Obama’s instance that high oil prices were due to the war in Iraq coupled with investor greed, or McCain’s populist pandering that illustrated his ignorance on the topic as well.

In order to understand the truth behind oil speculation, we must first understand a very simple concept of economics: supply and demand’s effect on prices. Speculation does not just begin on a whim. In other words, investors don’t dump investments in other sectors to flock to the commodity market as Paul Krugman would like you to believe. Increased demand is what drives oil speculation. Globalization has caused global poverty to decline rapidly this decade. In fact, since 2002, the world economy has grown 4.6% which happens to be the highest sustained rate since the 1960’s according to Michael Mussa of the Peterson Institute.(1) When economies prosper, an increased demand for oil is the result.

Now that we have established the motive for speculation, the process must be explained. Speculation is not greed driven. It’s a HEDGE against future price increases. If an investor buys oil futures, that person is betting on the fact that oil prices are going to continue to rise. The contract locks them into today’s prices. However, if one person buys a futures contract that means someone else is selling it. The seller has different expectations than the buyer. The seller believes that prices will DECLINE in the future. In addition, the person bidding up and buying oil futures must then turn around and sell the oil later. This means that the more people’s bidding drives up the prices, the greater prices will FALL in the future. The economic growth the world has enjoyed since 2002 has now come to a halt with the global credit crisis. This means that demand for oil is no longer as strong as it was before. As a result, crude oil is currently trading in the low $60 range as opposed to the $140 range this past summer.

Critics of speculation argue that speculation restricts supply. This statement is false. If a person buys an oil contract now to lock in today’s prices, they cannot sit and hold the oil off the market. They have two options: 1) take delivery of the oil or 2) sell the contract to another investor. In any event, when the contract expires, there is no net effect on oil supply.

Think of speculation as an insurance policy. If you own a company whose profitability is severely hurt by high oil prices, it’s in your best interest to lock in today’s price. If you are correct and the price of oil continues to rise, your business can survive and your employees whose livelihood depends on the success of your business will thank you. If you are wrong and prices drop, you will lose money; however you are still in business and can recover as opposed to shutting your doors had the opposite happened.

Should they not be allowed to do this? Are critics saying that business can’t hedge to survive? What’s the alternative? Should companies close their doors, lay off workers and be deprived of capital to grow? Who does that hurt?

The bottom line is this. If speculation was driven out of pure greed, then we would have seen what we saw in early 2008 years ago. After all, if it’s solely greed driven, then these greedy speculators can drive up the price any time they wish. Remember that there are two sides to these contracts. The global credit crisis blindsided the market, and now people are seeing instant relief at the pump thanks to those greedy speculators who are now recovering from losses.

(1) Samuelson, Robert J. “Let’s Shoot the Speculators!” Newsweek (July 2008) Online.

How Did This Happen?

2008-11-08T06:33:00.000-08:00

Tuesday evening our country has taken a sharp turn to the left. Barack Obama has won a historic election to become the 44th president of the United States. Congratulations are in order to a man who ran a brilliant campaign to reach the highest office in America.

Obama now joins the ranks of Pelosi and Harry Reid as they lead our country and the free world into the future. Once thought of as unthinkable, today an Obama presidency and comfortable Democratic congressional majority has become reality. America, previously known as a center-right nation, is bound to move further to the left under new management in January. This is the darkest day for modern conservatism since the election of Jimmy Carter 1977. How did we get here you may ask? I will explain some of the highlights.

I cannot continue without talking about George W. Bush and compassionate conservatism. Compassionate conservative was the theme GW Bush campaigned on when he first ran for office on 2000. This was a vehicle to “extend” the ideology of modern conservatism to a larger platform. Compassionate conservatism swept the nation as a moderate “mean between the extremes” and was eventually adopted by most of the Republicans who controlled congress, whether they knew it or not. GW Bush welcomed this and refused to veto a single bill while the Republicans and Democrats in congress used this as an opportunity to get the pork bills passed they have been waiting on. Compassionate conservatives made decisions according to the free market as well as proposed new social programs to America’s impoverished. Unfortunately it is difficult to fight for both. GW Bush governed like a conservative when it came to some things, but governed as a spend crazy liberal at the same time. The results lead to a federal debt which has doubled in size. I seriously doubt a liberal in the White House would have done much worse as far as spending is concerned. GW Bush is a mixed character for me, where I agree I agree wholeheartedly (Kyoto, war on terror, Iraq), but where I disagree I could not disagree more (NCLB, Prescription drug program for seniors, Financial bailout, Iraq war strategy, open borders). This is consistent with the idea of compassionate conservatives, when you play both sides of the fence you end up with liberalism with tax cuts and record level deficits. Our dollar reflected this spending which contributed to the fall of the dollar against the Euro. Conservatives failing to act like conservatives on most domestic issues became the finger that pushed the first domino and the push to socialism was already underway.

John McCain was nominated as a “moderate” Republican who had a reputation of getting things done. He also had a reputation of fighting against his own party, most notably was the criticism of the Iraq war by GW Bush and the tax cuts in lew of spending. The McCain campaign came out slow in the beginning but after Obama failed to visit the injured American troops in Germany the McCain campaign saw an opportunity to go on the offense. The campaign rose and began to exceed everyone’s expectations by sticking to conservative principles as well as 20+ years of history fighting pork and spending. The campaign reached an all time high when the announcement of Sarah Palin, a woman conservative was added to the ticket. The country was ablaze with enthusiasm after her speech at the GOP convention, many had forgotten Obama was even running. McCain saw record turnout at all their support rallies. With the debates coming up, few thought the momentum would turn and oh how it did.

In the middle of September, we all know America was hit with the worst financial crisis since the S&L crisis in the 80’s. The world was aghast while the markets tumbled and everyone looked for a leader in the mist of a financial crisis. John McCain volunteered to suspend his campaign and see to the crisis personally so a good bill can be constructed. Obama was advised to dodge the crisis to prevent any association with the crisis. Instead he stayed on the campaign trail and continued to hammer Republican policies and free market as the cause of the problem. In all actuality it was bad government policy started with the Democrats that lead to the downturn. The McCain campaign failed to point out the true causes and looked for a solution. Nancy Pelosi’s partisan debacle fueled the fire in the House came out against the first bailout bill. Everything was looking McCain’s way at this point. McCain showed up flat in the first debate the following night, possibly fatigued after months on the campaign trail and racing to help with the first bill. He failed to call out Obama on most of his liberal rhetoric. Obama came off polished and poised and reached out to independents with the usual liberal arguments masked as change. All of which could have been easily refuted by sticking to the facts and explaining. McCain did none of this, he gained some points back on foreign policy but the economy was on everyone’s mind at the time.

Then came the second bill which was ladled with pork. Instead of standing with House Republicans and fighting for a more conservative bill, he supported a pork ridden bailout package. I cannot remember McCain speaking out against the pork in this bill and if he did, he did not articulate it well. The second debate didn’t do anything to advance McCain’s cause either. A tie benefits Obama who had no executive experience. It wasn’t until the final debate was Obama called out on most of his rhetoric…too little too late I’m afraid.

Finally Sarah Palin, once listed as a brilliant pick, was under tremendous scrutiny. Showing up well in most interviews early on, she began to falter later. A two hour interview with Katie Couric turned out to be an edited attack focusing on the things she did not say or articulate well. I am not making excuses for Sarah, I hold my leaders to high standards. Sarah was being molded into a politician, when in all actuality she was a get the job done “real” person and that is who she needed to be on the campaign trail. She showed up nervous and articulated poorly in the Biden debate. Any steam by selection Sarah at this point was out of fire. She came off as a “hockey mom” running for VP instead of the change agent governor of Alaska. This could have been due to a bad policy by the McCain campaign advising her to behave this way. The polls began to widen further.

Which leads us to where we are today. Obama ran a brilliant campaign and articulated his ideas to tie McCain to GW Bush and compassionate conservatives. Republians failing to live up to true conservative ideas is what lead to the push to the left. Now subjects once frightful and out of reach now are a possibility. Fairness Doctrine, universal insurance or healthcare, windfall profits, and wealth redistribution, are all possibilities. The Democrats will waste no time in putting their agenda forward, all we conservatives can hope for now is that the Republicans that did keep their seats and moderate Democrats can work together to keep this great nation free and capitalist. I do not feel one bit sorry for the Republicans who were voted out, they got what they deserve for ditching their principles. Liberalism always makes a case for true conservative ideas just by being who they are. Let’s just hope the next generation of Republicans have learned from these mistakes and will stick to conservative ideology moving forward. This didn’t happen because socialist ideas made sense, it is because the “watered down” version of conservative ideas being presented by the Republicans did not work. Republicans need to take a long hard look at the enemy which lead to this, unfortunately that enemy stares right back at them in the mirror.

Religious Liberty and Gay Marriage

2008-11-08T05:34:00.000-08:00

Unsurprisingly, the gay community is throwing a huge fit over the victory of Prop 8 (no mention of Prop 101 and Prop 2, though), and they're taking it out on the only minorities deserving of intolerance: Mormons and Utahns. According to AP, the advocates are calling for a boycott of Utah tourism and for investigations into the tax-exempt status of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. From the AP:

Utah's growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Mormon church for its aggressive promotion of California's ban on gay marriage.

It could be a heavy price to pay. Tourism brings in $6 billion a year to Utah, with world-class skiing, a spectacular red rock country and the film festival founded by Robert Redford, among other popular tourist draws.

"At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one," said gay rights activist John Aravosis, an influential blogger in Washington, D.C.

"They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards," he said. "You don't do that and get away with it."

In their fight to attain the rights they think they have, the gay marriage advocates have forgotten two very important actual rights: freedom of speech and religious liberty.

Enshrined in the First Amendment, free speech and religious liberty are a cornerstone to the foundation to our republic. Our ancestors fled religious persecution in England and soon after the mother country was at war with itself over religious and political matters. The Founding Fathers saw the stability of allowing people to believe in whatever faith they wished and it has done us well for 230 years. Free speech is inherent in the protection of religious freedoms.

Mormons weren't the only religious group involved with the pro-Prop 8 campaign, but their singling out is an example of what may happen when fanatical advocates get full reign on their causes. The calls for the revocation of the LDS's tax exempt status is based on a very lazy invocation of the separation of church and state. The advocates believe that because the Church encouraged its members to support Prop 8 means that the church violated that wildly cited, but rarely understood principle of our government. The separation of church and state is to prevent the church from becoming the state, as it so often did in medieval and Elizabethan times in Europe. The principle has nothing to do with preventing the faithful from getting in to political campaigns or from churches from encouraging their members to. The Mormons weren't stupid with their call. As far as I know, no church money ever went into Prop 8 coffers; even the leadership refused to donate. Mormon investment into Yes on Prop 8 was by individuals who had every legal right to donate or not to donate. There were even LDS members who were against Prop 8 and made sure the church knew it. If gay marriage advocates in their current form get their way in a court-friendly state, the tax exempt status of churches and the religious freedoms of its members may be in jeopardy.

I'm an atheist, but I am also an American. My views on God (or lack of a god) are irrelevant when it comes to violations of religious liberty and free speech by political zealots. I'd just as soon defend gays against the LDS if the LDS was attempting to silence them through the legal system. What people need to understand is that gay marriage is not a civil rights issues, as there is no civil right being violated as it was during Jim Crow. Marriage is a privilege regulated by the state as the state deems necessary for the public good. It is not having your right to vote blocked by a poll tax, or having cops force you out of a public area because you are black. This issues is an issue for each state to decide on its own and through its voting populace. Anything else would just fan the flames of the gay marriage zealotry and force the traditionalist and religious factions to entrench further.

That's the last thing we need.the last thing we need.

Cross-posted at Generation Patriot

Okay, So They ARE Protesting Blacks...

2008-11-08T05:25:00.001-08:00

...but it's just the ones in Westwood. From Rod 2.0:

The verbal harassment follows a steady stream of racist comments left on this blog and many others across the gay virtual community. At least a dozen racist comments have been removed from this blog since Tuesday, such as, "Thank you Black people for denying gay people the same rights that you deserve and have", "Black people make me feel like a piece of shyt when it should have been a night of celebration for all," and the succinct, "F--K you niggers."

I'm losing respect for the gay marriage community more and more since Tuesday.

Nothing to See Here

2008-11-08T00:43:00.000-08:00

Well, he may not be getting business in the White House, but the Senators could certainly use some help.

The end of private capital as we know it...

2008-11-07T19:10:00.000-08:00

There is small wonder at what President-elect Obama's administration will be like if Nancy Pelosi is any indication at all to the future of legislative power. Saved from the loss of a filibuster, Congressional Republicans now face the daunting task of achieving the improbable. Even with the impossible having been wiped off the plate, the GOP will be hard pressed to preserve even the smallest facets of American conservatism. Speaker Pelosi has shown no hesitance whatsoever to pushing a two-part stimulus through Congress before the 111th reconvenes in 2009. While this has and will remain a slap in the face of conservatives, the President-elect has made clear his "economic priorities" over the well-hidden rhetorical promises made in Grant Park on the night of the 4th.

Already, we have begun to see a dramatic partisan shift to hail the end of the conservative era. Obama's appointment of Rahm Emanuel (IL-05) to chief of staff hardly helps. If anything, the appointment is in utter defiance to the lies of bipartisanship and "new change". As the RNC points out, Emanuel bears a striking partisan record, having shown indignance to Republicans all the while being entrenched in the Chicago machine.

Coupled with the leadership of Pelosi and Reid, the President-elect will certainly not be afraid to use his pen, but not in veto like President Bush. Yet subtlety is the Democrats' greatest weapon. Should the liberals be able to succeed in passing the stimulus, private capital will be furthered undermined by government thwarts. The essence of it all becomes terribly frustrating for conservatives to stand by and watch as free market principles known and loved are reduced to dust. Even more daunting is the inexplicable ability of the left to veil the correlation between capital and market. In consequence, we may witness the steady deterioration of the private sector over time as we know it. Yet most Americans don't quite seem to notice; especially when many still believe that 'making history' trumps 'becoming history'.

ExxonMobil's $400 Million Insult

2008-11-07T06:36:00.000-08:00

The following article provides a simple, in depth explanation of how oil companies achieve record profits but do NOT gouge consumers. Bill O’Reilly -- ARE YOU LISTENING??? Before you think a windfall profits tax is the answer, understand that is a cost that you, the consumer will pay. Corporations do not pay income tax. The tax will pass on to you at the pump. Also note that the federal government makes more money per gallon (by way of gasoline tax) than the oil companies do. Oil companies make about $.05 cents per gallon profit, yet the federal government gets $.46 cents per gallon in tax revenue. It is quite interesting that a nickel per gallon profit is considered obscene.

This article was brilliantly written by Glenn Kenny. As a former employee of “big oil,” I concur with his analysis:

http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2006/05/24/exxonmobils-400-million-insult.aspx

Gay Marriage and Federalism

2008-11-07T06:18:00.000-08:00

With gay marriage bans passing in three states (Prop 8 passing in California, Prop 102 in Arizona and Prop 2 in Florida), the issue of gay marriage seems to have taken a new turn. Surprisingly, California voters defied the California Supreme Court and overruled their ruling from earlier this year, even with the Governor supporting the decision. The question this and the other voter-backed propositions bring up is how are we to reconcile a very motivated gay movement with the will of the voters of 41 states? The answer has always been there: federalism.

The US Constitution gives the federal government certain powers and delegates all other powers to the states through the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. For the most part. social issues have been a state matter. Abortion and gay marriage have put major pressure on federalism and its advocates. Roe v Wade forced every state to allow abortion through a very expansive reading of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This reading has led to other expansive rulings like Kelo (making eminent domain no longer just a public need tool). California's own expansive reading of the Equal Protection Clause was the basis of the California Supreme Court's ruling making gay marriage legal. This precedent may be the basis of any gay marriage case taken to the Supreme Court. Other than the destruction of federalism, a SCOTUS ruling that forces gay marriage nationwide would ignite a new front in the culture war that already has some very nasty battles.

It may not make any gay marriage advocates happy, but federalism is the best way to get what they want. Focusing on more liberal/libertarian states would create havens for gay marriage, just as some states have more conservative/libertarian gun laws than other states. This is the beauty of federalism: a nation united, but as diverse as the Amazon jungle. Some states may have full and equal straight/gay marriage, some states may have separate-but-equal marriage/unions and some states may outright ban gay marriage. That's how it is.

Marriage isn't race. Anyone who equates the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s to gay marriage is making a false analogy. The oppression in the South during that time was in violation of the 14th Amendment. Marriage, unlike voting, is not a right, it's a privilege regulated and licensed by each state. As such, each state's voters, through their legislature, determine their social structure for which marriage is a part of. If a state wants to protect gay marriage, they need to amend their state's constitution through the legislature, not force it through judges that may forget what their job is.

I'm all for gay marriage. I think gay couples who wish to make the pledge of marriage and build a family should be allowed to, but not at the expense of the foundation of our nation's political structure. It's not worth giving a future president and/or congress unlimited powers through the courts because gays couldn't handle working within the framework that has created the most diverse, most stable nation on Earth.

Cross-posted at Generation Patriot

Protest Against Blacks and Latinos? You Nuts?

2008-11-06T20:08:00.000-08:00

With the victory of Prop 8, the gay marriage groups need to vent and so they pick the Mormon church.

Except that Prop 8 was carried by blacks and latinos, not the minority of Mormons in CA.

I guess they don't want to be seen protesting in Compton or East LA.

CA Prop 2: Why Your Food Will Get Expensive

2008-11-06T04:26:00.000-08:00

An overlooked proposition in CA passed. It sets political standards for the treatment of farm animals. It's expected to decrease production and increase food prices.

They be messin' with my steak!

On The Job Training

2008-11-06T00:04:00.000-08:00

Day one of a Barack Obama administration.

What is sad is that I'm likely to have endless amounts of material for these comics over the next four years.

Can you say foreshadowing?

Patience

2008-11-05T14:04:00.000-08:00

Watching the election through the past few months, I could not help but feel a sense of hopelessness. Many applauded the selection of Senator McCain as being a uniting force for the country, as he is a maverick who is willing to cross party lines. I saw him for what he was, not a true conservative in any sense of the word, and someone who is willing to put his political aspirations ahead of the party.

This was a problem for me, as well as many other conservatives, as we did not have a rallying point to get behind. But, I held out hope that he would still win, based on his moderate stances on many issues. I figured a moderate McCain is better than the alternative.

Then came Sarah Palin, the conservative uniter that we had all been waiting for. But, was she really? I applauded the pick initially, but as I learned more about her I realized that she would never garner the support needed to truly unite the ticket, as well as the nation. Her apparent lack of knowledge on many issues made a mockery of our ticket, as being conservative was quickly equated with being merely simple in mind and policy. I have nothing against Palin, but I do not believe she was ready for such a task.

The overwhelming disdain for President Bush did not help the cause. What was worked so hard for was destroyed so easily. The Republican Revolution, following the Reagan Presidency was a clear mandate from America to shrink government and become fiscally responsible. It also spawned great leaders such as Newt Gingrich, as well as Reagan. But these values were quickly perverted and took a backseat to socially conservative values as President G.W. Bush took office. This being said, the events surrounding 9/11 didn't help the cause, as we waged wars that stretched our budget. I do think, though, that history will be far kinder to him than the present perceptions.

Now, though, the party lays in shambles as we do not have an identity. This must be recaptured if there is any hope for America to go back to what she was founded on, personal freedom and small government. This country was founded on the belief that high taxes are death.

It is going to take time to recapture the core conservative values of low taxes, small government, protection of individual liberties, accountability, etc., but I believe that a grassroots movement can help throw out the big government liberals, who are posing as conservatives, as well as bring these values back to the forefront in the coming years. It will take a new kind of political warfare in these changing times, though.

We are in a dark time, but giving up is not an option that any American was ever given. We must persevere if there is any hope for this country. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

This is one of those times.

Go Joe...

2008-11-05T13:07:00.000-08:00

This is the beginning of the Conservative Underground comic, which will update randomly at least once a week.

Enjoy.

America’s Impending Hangover: How it’s Love Affair with Obama Will Be Short-lived

2008-11-05T12:36:00.000-08:00

As I stared in disbelief at the cheering crowds last night, I couldn’t help but think about how lost we are as a country. What was shown on television last night would lead one to believe that America is experiencing great prosperity as opposed to an ugly, looming recession on the horizon. No one was worried about the net worth of their life savings last night. What is more astounding is the blind faith so many have in one person who they believe will make America’s problems go away overnight – as if the President and federal government have solved so many problems in the past.

Change we can believe in! We are going to get change all right, but it won’t be for the better. Last night’s election was a blind vote for change coupled with a protest against George W. Bush. The country’s unfounded hatred for President Bush has caused America to cut its nose off to spite its face. We have now elected a candidate to be chief executive with less experience than most front-line managers. Barack Obama has never run anything besides a brilliant campaign well funded by Hollywood and the media with a slogan that was a sure winner. His work is non-existent in the private sector, yet we are expected to have faith in his belief in the free market. This presidential ticket has no military experience, yet we are to believe he will “use our military wisely.” His record in the state of Illinois does not amount to much – 129 “present” votes, and not a single piece of significant legislation that have improved the lives of Illinois residents. Although many in the IL General Assembly use the present vote, that vote will not be an option as Commander In Chief. These criticisms may be old news, but it’s mind-boggling how America has so much faith in a person with a resume that is almost a blank page.

Fellow conservatives whose disappointment I share, look no further than President Bush and the Republican Party for blame. I cannot remember a time where the GOP has governed so poorly – perhaps the days of Herbert Hoover. President Bush enjoyed a Republican majority for 6 of the 8 years of his Presidency. If one had been in a coma the past 8 years, they might wake and think that our national debt has shrunk greatly along with the size of government. Instead, the harsh reality is that the size of our government has more than doubled, and so has the size of our national debt. In addition, our current federal deficit is in excess of $400 billion.

The clear abandonment of conservative principles has led us to this point in time. When the GOP abandons its principles, it gives the media and the Democrats the opportunity to use party affiliation to pin blame of failed liberal policies on failed conservative principles. In other words, if it’s a Republican idea, it’s a conservative idea. We conservatives know better, but the masses don’t. Most people believe that we have been governed under conservative principles the last 8 years, and they have failed the nation. What they don’t know is that there hasn’t been a whisper of conservatism in the Bush administration. This will be one of the harshest lessons that an Obama presidency will teach the nation.

Because Republicans have failed the nation, Obama’s victory was inevitable. John McCain fought hard, but the mistakes and missed opportunities the campaign made showed that he wasn’t the right person for the job. His populist approach, his vote on the bailout and the fact he did not show up for the debates saved conservatives from having another President water down conservative principles. This is a fate worse than an Obama Presidency – America cannot afford to destroy conservative principles further.

We have been governing center-left for the past 8 years. When the American people realize this, they will see that Obama brings no change at all. One has to look no further than the Carter administration to see the results of America governed by the far left. If stagflation excites you, you may get to experience it again! My critics say I’m wrong and that he will govern from the center, but that is a pipe dream with Pelosi and Reid at the helm in Congress. The following is not governance from the center:

Increased taxes on our biggest job providers with the proceeds distributed to those who pay little or no taxes. One has to ask if a $500 check is better than upward mobility in their career. Companies will continue to do more with less as they will be forced to cut employee overhead and continue to relocate to overseas environments that are more tax friendly.
Expanding the role of government in healthcare. Haven’t Medicare and Medicaid done enough damage? This topic needs a separate blog, but it is an idealistic dream that the government will make healthcare affordable for people when it is the very body that has blown costs out of proportion. Not convinced? Look and see what other sectors the government is involved in (i.e. housing and education) and see how well costs are controlled.
Over $1 trillion dollars in NEW spending. See what that does to the value of our dollar in the coming years. I balk at the fact our national debt could exceed 50% of our GDP in an Obama administration.

Government disappoints, so I ask the American people why they want more. Why do they believe one man can change government to be efficient? Why will history be wrong this time? Truth is; it won’t. If Obama governs from the far left as I predict he will, America is going to suffer from a tough 4-year hangover. Soon they will see Obama’s policies for what they are – resurrected failed policies of the New Deal and Great Society. The champaign toasts and dancing in the streets will soon give way to sheer discontentment. The cold, harsh reality of a real recession will be on the minds of Americans as they see their jobs dissipate and the value of their investments continues to shrink.

The 2006 election was about change as well. Currently congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush. Americans will soon learn the harsh lesson that congress really governs the country. If you like the way things have been going under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid the past two years, you will no doubt be delighted with the new administration. How could Obama move the Congress in a new direction when he was one of the most partisan members of Congress? He’s never once taken a stand against his party, why would he do so as President?

In summary, to all the disappointed folks out there – don’t despair. Conservatism is not dead. Liberals make a case for conservatism just by being who they are. We are still a center-right nation. I have confidence that far left governance will make the strongest case for fiscal conservatism since 1980, and perhaps the GOP will consider a strong libertarian in 2012. Remember this election was not a vote against conservatism, but rather a vote against a President who temporarily subdued it.

And we have a winner...

2008-11-05T12:27:00.000-08:00

After a long two years of campaigning, the American people have spoken and have elected Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States. An historic election to say the least, was also an election full of problems. Cases of voter fraud ran rampant, passes given over past affiliations to Democratic candidates, while Republican candidates were raked through the coals, reckless spending, the list goes on and on. Yes we have our first multi-racial President which is wonderful for this country, but at what cost? Did we rush to judgment just to overcome this barrier? This is part of the problem though, neither side presented good candidates. If this is what we have to look forward to in elections to come, then we honestly have nothing to look forward to. There were far more qualified candidates of varying races that could have run from both sides to make this a truly historical election.

It seemed as though this year especially so many voters were completely uninformed on the issues, voting on race rather than substance. Don't want to believe me? Voters in urban areas turned once red states into blue states this time around. Many interviewed on the mainstream media flat out admitted that they were voting for Obama solely based on his race and nothing more. When you asked Obama supporters what they liked most about his platform they couldn't give you any answer other than the standard "change".

Obama surprised me last night, calling on Americans that didn't vote for him to stand with him and move forward. Just the same way liberals stood by George Bush the past 8 years? Why should we just suck it up and go with the flow, no one gave George Bush that chance in 2004. Bush may have done some things wrong but he has kept us safe, and while he knew decisions he would make in order to keep us safe would be unpopular, he made them for the good of this country. I don't know whether or not Obama will have Americas (as a whole) best interests at hand when he makes decisions. That I guess is what is so troubling with this election. The sheer unknown. We have no idea how Obama will perform. A novice in the Senate, who has spent most of his days campaigning rather than passing legislation. It will be interesting to see the way his presidency takes shape, and to see how many people are still supporting him after 4 years.

I hope for Americas sake we can make it through these four years unscathed. I hope Obama can do a decent job, and I hope he will do more to unite the country rather than polarize it, but I, like so many others have my doubts.

On Prop 8

2008-11-05T04:57:00.000-08:00

It looks like Prop 8 will pass in California and I suddenly had a fear: what if Prop 8 passing means a push to make gay marriage legal nationwide through SCOTUS? What if they wait until Obama picks a justice or two?

Prop 8 may be a nail in the coffin of federalism.

Day One, Part Deux. Pardon my French.

2008-11-05T01:03:00.000-08:00

"It is not the critic who counts, or where the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better, the credit belongs with the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with blood and sweat and dust, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt

Today is a bitter day for conservatives. We have been dealt a harsh blow by the American populace, as they chose to reject the Republican party for the promise of a fresh, new way for governance. It is ironic, then, that the leader they chose espouses an ideology whose origins stretch as far back as Jean Jacques Rousseau, and possibly further. Intent on the Utopian belief that all people are meant to be the same, as opposed to equal, Barack Obama proposed further empowering the government, allowing it to expand itself into our pockets and confiscate what we have earned for the sole purpose of closing the gap between the classes. Fairness is what he termed it, yet, under the even most basic understanding of property rights, it is called theft. This is a candidate, now set to take the highest office in the land, whose entire platform revolves around the idea that the crafters of our U.S. Constitution were fundamentally wrong when they went about framing the most effective and lasting code of laws that any nation has ever seen. He considers the lack of socialist policies in the Constitution to be a failure, yet he will be sworn in to protect and abide by a strict set of rules he believes are flawed?

This is our leader. The Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, the international face of the United States.

We have begun this movement to bring conservative ideals, the Reagan manner of governance, back into the American way of life. Liberals would like you to believe conservatism is dead, a relic of the long forgotten past which must be left behind to move toward the future. A future, they say, where everyone is equal, and nobody suffers. A utopia. An intrinsically flawed concept which entirely ignores the human condition and has historically been proven to eliminate prosperity. Presented to us are these ideas for the rise of the proletariat, even when it has been shown repeatedly that they are never lifted. Rather, the bourgoise, the hated aristocracy, the class from which the wealth originates, is pulled down to join in the squalor for the sake of equality, effectively eliminating the possibility of prosperity for everyone.

Misery loves company, after all.

We are at a crossroads as conservatives. If we remain on our current road, forsaking the values we have long held dear and which have allowed this nation to become the strongest and wealthies in the world, we certainly will become relics of the past. If we continue to promote government intervention in the markets, spending increases, and federal expansion, we will lose our system of value to adopt that of the left wing. It is those gross missteps which were protested today, albeit foolishly, by a thin majority of Americans, not the ideals we believe in.

Right now is the time for us to decide what our identity is. Are we truly the war mongering, privacy hating, socially intolerant, fiscally irresponsible monsters the media portends we are? Or are we, in fact, the same people who created the longest period of peacetime prosperity in history?

This is the Conservative Underground. We have decided who we are and what we believe. We believe what the founders did, and we stand ready to fight, especially in the face of insurmountable opposition, to ensure that the true American value system remains alive and stronger than ever.

Day One

2008-11-05T00:34:00.000-08:00

Welcome to day one, people.

Our generation needs to build a coherent conservative movement on par with William F. Buckley's shining city known as National Review. We must take the future in our hands. We must be independent-minded allies. We must be intelligent and persuasive.

I named my blog Generation Patriot because I believe our generation can overcome the failings of the Boomers and Gen X. We won't be the generation that let America rot under socialism, apathy and reversed morality. We can make a consensus and we can bring the founding principles back to government and to society.

Let's get to work.