The Representative Replies

If you'll remember a few weeks ago, I sent a letter to my U.S. Representative that represents my district. To my surprise, I actually got a letter back! Now, I'm not naive to think that he specifically took note of my letter and decided to reply back, but I do feel that my letter must have been one of many that voiced a common concern regarding the AIG bonus legislation. There must have been so many that he (or at least his staff) felt the need to respond to the criticism.

An even bigger surprise was that he actually agreed with me.

His letter was two pages long, but the nut of it was on the first page. Here's what he wrote, with emphasis mine.

Thanks for contacting me in opposition to H.R. 1586, the AIG bonuses legislation that I now call the "take-it-back-with-a-tax" solution. With hindsight, I should have not voted for this bill.

As you probably know, the AIG bill was brought up hurriedly because of the public outcry over the bonuses. It had broad, bipartisan support. The vast majority of the House voted for it, both Democrats and Republicans. Most Members understood the bill was meant to recover outrageous sums paid with the help of US taxpayers to the very AIG traders who were responsible for AIG's incredible financial mess. And although I recognized possible constitutional problems, I thought we should leave these for the courts to decide because mounting public anger over coddling Wall Street was eroding the ability of Congress to properly meet the huge financial challenges facing the country.

Democratic governments both lead and follow their electorates. Congress might have done a bit more leading on this one. At the least, we might have slowed the rush to judgment.

He then goes on to say how he now understands the situation was a bit more complicated than initially thought. He understands that the stimulus bill they passed contained verbiage specifically allowing these types of bonuses. He understands that most of the targets of this bill have no blame for AIG's financial mess. In fact, he said, "They are no more guilty than anyone else working on Wall Street for outsized pay."

In other words, he admitted that it was wrong for them to rush to a decision in this matter without fully weighing their options or repercussions. While I am glad that he fully admitted their error (after all, they are only human), I was a bit disappointed at his almost casual reference to ignoring what he thought to be a breach of constitutionality. I didn't appreciate him having the attitude that, 'Oh well, we've got to do something, and even though I know this goes against the Constitution, the courts can figure it out in the end.'

I also didn't like that they knowingly and intentionally wrote this law to directly attack a specific group of people. That is regrettable, and won't be forgotten soon. However, in regards to that, he had my favorite line of the entire letter:

[This bill's] take-it-back-with-a-tax solution should die in the Senate and be relegated to the dust bins, just further evidence that the Senate is adult supervision for the House.

Indeed.

I'm not going to harp on it any more this time, but I will wait and see what comes down the pipe. If another senseless bill gets passed with similar attitudes (act-first-to-look-busy), then I will bring it back up. For now, I will assume the lesson is noted and learned and he will try to do better in the future, appreciative that in the end his viewpoint steered toward a more rational and reasonable direction.

One Lump Or Two?

Well, tomorrow is Tax Day. The day when some of us have to grudgingly write a check to the government(s) to atone for a lack of taxation the prior year. It's also the day when thousands of Americans across the country will get out of their comfy chairs and attend various Tax Day Tea Parties. My wife and I will be two of them, and will be attending the one in Atlanta.

Over the past few weeks, as this movement has gathered steam, I've noticed the decidedly absent reporting of these events by pretty much every major media outlet. Of course, as one would expect, Fox News has been covering them heavily. Several of their talk show hosts will actually be attending a Tea Party themselves. I think the other outlets basically decided to ignore the whole concept hoping it would go away.

Well, it didn't.

So, without being able to avoid the issue any longer, they have increased their reporting of the protests over the past week or so.

Boy have they ever.

The only problem is that they just don't seem to get it. Part of that is the fault of the attendees themselves, displaying signs at the Tea Parties held earlier this year. These were sporadic and disjointed, lacking the full cohesiveness of the movement's events tomorrow. Most of these had attendees holding signs blasting Obama specifically, blaming Democrats for everything bad, or some other misguided notion they felt compelled to shout. I think it's because of these actions that the major media outlets and the left in general have dismissed these rallys as right-wing events designed to target Obama and his party, mostly as a way to vent their frustration at losing the election last November.

What a ridiculous notion.

Don't get me wrong; those people will still be there, and those voices will still be shouting. However, over the past weeks as this has grown into a full-fledged movement, the message has been clarified and solidified. Just as the media outlets finally decide to cover it, they cling to the exact wrong things, misunderstanding the message these protests are supposed to send.

If you're still on the fence, not knowing what to think, allow me to educate you.

These protests, while they are on Tax Day, are not primarily about taxes. April 15th was chosen for several reasons, most of which revolve around spending, not taxation specifically. The problem is that the government can only get money from three places: taxes, debt, or printing. All three present very negative outcomes for the average citizen, the taxes hit home the most. Besides, April 15th seemed to be a good date on the calendar that sat far enough in the future for the movement to have enough time to get coordinated and focused.

The left (and other media outlets) just do not get it. They claim this is about taxes and are quick to point out that, uh oh, no taxes have technically been raised yet. They also jump to the conclusion that this is solely about Obama and the perceived notion that the people in the right are just sore losers, just itching at the chance to complain about the current administration any time they can.

This is NOT about those things. This is about us, the People, protesting what we believe is an injustice, just as the people from the Boston Tea Party felt the British taxes were an injustice. This is about not wanting our children to have to cover debts that we are incurring and have been incurring for nearly a decade. This is about knowing that the only way the government is going to get out of this debt (if such a thing is even possible) is by raising taxes to unholy levels or by printing as much money as they can get away with. This is about a Congress that takes it upon themselves to selectively punish corporate executives (i.e. AIG bonus recipients) that followed the letter of their law, while ignoring other execs that did the same thing (Fannie/Freddie bonuses). This is about suffering through the last six months of goverment bailouts of companies deemed 'too big to fail', without letting the market sort it out. This is about a government that graciously bails out the auto companies with money it doesn't have, then dictates to those companies how they should run their business. This is about a federal government who grows larger and larger while making the state goverments' roles in their own affairs smaller and smaller. This is about Congressmen who continue to inject earmarks and unnecessary spending into every bill they write. This is about a government who signals they will print money to pay for programs because nobody will lend it any more money, thus devaluing our currency bit by bit. This is about BOTH parties straying from the values that made our country so unique in the beginning. This is about officials who think that The Constitution is a dated document and should be ignored because the conditions of that past day no longer exist, rather than seek to amend it as was originally intended.

This is not about taxes.

This is about just how far we've gotten from where our Founding Fathers wanted us to be.

This is Step 1 of the effort to get us there again.

Fascism, Here We Come

The other day, Obama fired the CEO of GM. Yep, a sitting president actually dictated that a public company's head would step down. Did GM ask for this? You bet. The day they decided to deal with the devil, they should have known that they'd get burned. The Government is giving the money, but dictating exactly how it can be used. Alone, that concept isn't all that far-fetched; after all, if somebody wanted money from me, then I would want to know what they were going to do with it. I wouldn't force them to spend one way or another, but I would certainly withhold funds if they were going to do something I didn't agree with.

The difference between me and the government is that I can't just create money out of thin air. If I could, then I could go around and give people tons of money just to do with it what I wanted them to do with it. If I could print money, then I could go to the struggling automakers and say, "Look, I can help you out, but I want you to start making nothing but hybrids". (Just wait...)

Do you see how immoral this is? The Government can make as much money as it needs to in order to establish and direct its agenda. So what if the majority of Americans don't buy Hybrids, the Government can now force you to buy them. So what if the financial sector is a mess and people were profiting by selling nothing but prettied-up crappy mortgages? With unlimited money anything can be directed fixed.

The U.S. Government is acting like a loan shark and counterfeiter rolled into one. Oh, sure, it's real money; it's just that it is backed by NOTHING. Plus, it has the not-so-cool side effect of reducing the value of the pre-existing dollars (i.e. inflation).

On top of the GM deal, Chrysler is being forced to merge with Fiat in order to also keep receiving funds. As my title suggests, it's just two more steps closer to fascism.

No, I'm not comparing Obama to Hitler and Mussolini. If you look around, you'll see that the word 'fascism' has come to be identified primarily with those two, when in fact it merely provided the building blocks for their radical viewpoints and agendas. You don't have to be a radical nationalist (Mussolini) to be a fascist, and you certainly don't have to be racist (Hitler) to support a fascist state. The definition of fascism is:

A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)"

Doesn't sound so dissimilar to our direction now, does it? I'm NOT saying we're there...yet. I'm saying that with moves like the GM firing, we move a little closer toward that end.

Read these statements, and see if you spot any parallels between them and the voiced viewpoints of some of our elected officials:

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all.

Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.

We demand profit sharing in big business.

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

We demand...the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state and municipal governments.

In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...

The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

[We] combat the...materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good .

Sound familiar? I'll bet you've heard some of these very things over the years in our country. The thing is that these are not new concepts, though the source for these statements might surprise you.

They come directly from the Nazi party platform, adopted in 1920.

There's no doubt that Hitler was an evil man promoting evil actions. There's also no doubt that Obama is NOT an evil man like Hitler. However, there are striking similarities between the values and principles of the fascist movement in 1920 and the values and principles of some of our people and politicians today.

I'm sure our founding fathers are reeling from dizziness after having rolled over in their graves countless times over the past decades as we slowly eroded their own values and principles away.

Hannan Strikes A Chord

By now, in conservative circles at least, you've probably heard of Daniel Hannan who flat out scolded Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the UK a few days ago. It's all over YouTube, and he's recently become immensely popular in the world despite being an unknown over here in the US. However, despite the distance of the Atlantic Ocean physically separating him from us, his message resonates tremendously here at home. Take a look when you get a chance and see if you don't agree with him. This kind of blasting doesn't happen too often from our own elected officials...perhaps it should.

However, mark my words: Sometime today, over the weekend, or next week, the left-wing political machine will go on the attack on this guy. He's risen too far too fast with TV appearances, the YouTube videos, and blogs galore for them to sit idly while his viewpoints go unopposed. It won't be worthwhile debate, though; no, it'll be the same kind of attacks that Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, and others underwent (and are undergoing). They'll find out something about an affair, a money problem, or some other nonsense and will blast it in the regular media in order to get this guy discredited and to distract you from his message. If it has substance then that's one thing, but if it's like any of the others in the past, then it's all a smokescreen.

I bet they're already working on it.

American Idol Would Have Been Way Better Than This

Man, what a snooze-fest. Then again, most of these are, so can't fault him for that.

One little itsy bitsy comment though did stand out to me. The question was whether or not he would accept a budget from the Senate that didn't include his middle class tax rebates and Cap-and-Trade system in it. He didn't really provide a simple answer (not suprised at that - what politician does?), but what stood out to me though was when he said:

I expect that there's serious efforts at health care reform, and that we are driving down costs for families and businesses, and ultimately for the federal and state governments that are going to be broke if we continue on the current path.

(emphasis mine)

So let me see if I have this straight. The current plan is not working and will go broke at some point in the future. The country is technically broke now overall, and if you continue with this budget we'll be even more broke and our money will be worth less. So you're saying that you'd rather be broker-than-broke NOW, rather than broker-than-broke IN THE FUTURE??

I mean, we are 100% guaranteed to have to print money in order to pay for these programs (the health care is just one of them, but is the one highlighted in the quote above) because there's not enough money around. So he's trying to convince us that it's better to devalue our currency and definitely be broke now with the hope that it will pay off in the long run.

Hmm; guaranteed brokeness now vs. waiting to see if there's a better idea to, I dunno, maybe AVOID the whole broke situation?!?.

If the Medicare/Medicaid Trusts were going to die in a week or two, then maybe there'd be some justification for pulling out all stops and getting crazy with the currency. But it's not. Current estimates are that Medicare will go broke sometime around 2018. I'm not saying we should do nothing; I'm saying that it's not urgent we do THIS now.

Ok, I fibbed - there was one other comment that irked me. Here was the question posed:

At both of your town hall meetings in California last week, you said, quote, "I didn't run for president to pass on our problems to the next generation." But under your budget, the debt will increase $7 trillion over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says $9.3 trillion. And today on Capitol Hill, some Republicans called your budget, with all the spending on health care, education and environment, the most irresponsible budget in American history.

Isn't that kind of debt exactly what you were talking about when you said passing on our problems to the next generation?

To which he replied:

First of all, I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them.

Hogwash. Let's remember, Mr. Short Term Memory, that for the last two years of Bush's 2nd term the Democrats controlled Congress. Now don't misunderstand; while Congress was under Republican control, they were rabid spenders and went against conservative spending policies. Recently, however, Republicans seem to have recently had an epiphany about what sort of fiscal values they're supposed to have and have begun to take a stand. Now, whether it's because of determination to be the biggest obstacle they can be or because it's genuine is irrelevant to me. (for the record, I believe it is not genuine...'genuine' and 'politics' don't really work well together...) For now though, they're on my side (most of them).

However, let's pretend the actual deficit inherited was zero. It's still going to be almost $2 trillion by year's end!! With those kind of numbers, who cares what the deficit was when he "inherited" it!?!

C'mon!

Money Grows On Trees

Well, technically money is made from paper, so...I suppose there is an indirect truth to that title. However, the government would have you believe that it literally grows on trees, and all we have to do is 'harvest' (print) more.

Again, technically, they're right. They can print until the cows come home and it will increase the available money supply. They've done it before, and will likely do it again; probably more this year.

To clarify, they have not yet created this money. Last Wednesday, however, they announced their intent to do so. This, predictably, created a huge spike in gold prices. Gold, as I'm sure you're aware, is typically used as a hedge against inflation, which is exactly what will occur as the Fed pumps out more money.

Let me summarize what they're talking about doing, and then I want you to ask yourself if you think it's right.

Generally, the government raises money primarily through taxes, but more funds are needed, it raises funds by selling U.S. Treasury bonds. The problem is that the rest of the world is very hesitant in purchasing more of our bonds because they lack faith in our Dollar. So if the government can't find buyers for the Treasuries, guess who it sells them to?

ITSELF.

Yep, essentially, the Federal Reserve purchases the Treasuries, then prints money in order to pay for them. They literally create money out of thin air. The government gets the money it 'needed', and the Fed gets a big I.O.U from the government in the form of the Treasuries.

This is insane!

Obama is so determined to pass his agenda (the ginormous budget) that he's essentially forcing the Fed to print the money to pay for it. Do you understand that? There is NOT enough money to pay for this budget, so the solution is to create money and get something for nothing. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and that applies to our government as well.

It would be one thing if I just disagreed with how the money is to be spent (which I do), and we actually HAD the money. Then the argument could be about more substance and debating liberal vs. conservative agendas. However they're forcing the issue even when funds are non-existent, so it doesn't even matter what philosophy you follow.

It's like this: imagine if you really want to buy something that you think will, in the end, turn a profit AND perform a charitable service to the community. Cool deal, huh? Now let's pretend that you're flat broke. No; not just broke, but "on-the-verge-of-bankruptcy" broke. The only way to purchase this thing is to rack up every credit card you have and then go get more and rack them up too. Would any sane person advise you to do this? Would any bank lend you the money based on your belief? NO, but that's exactly what Obama is doing; only their credit limit is essentially unlimited since they (unlike you) have a really nifty printing press down in the basement somewhere...

More can be said about this issue, and I was going to elaborate, but I found this article yesterday that says it for me. No need in repeating it here. Please read it and think about it. We're heading down a road that's never been traveled, and, like the old Frost poem, it's probably going to make all the difference.

An Open Letter to My Representative

I just wrote a letter to my district's U.S. Representative here in Georgia, and I wanted to post it here. Obviously I don't expect a reply - they must get thousands of these every day. Still, I felt compelled to do it, and feel better for it. The full text is below.

I wanted to take a short moment to express my dissatisfaction of your vote yesterday in H.R. 1586. While I do not agree, on a personal level, that the executives in question should be receiving bonuses, I do not think the U.S. Government (i.e. YOU) should be using legislation to punish someone for following the letter of the law. As you heard time and again on the floor yesterday, the only reason these bonuses were even being paid was because of the verbiage in the stimulus bill passed weeks ago. I never once heard a valid response from the Democratic side in response to these charges, whether from Frank or anyone else.

It frustrated me to see that Georgia was split specifically down the party line, with Democrats (including you) voting Aye and Republicans voting Nay. Do I need to remind you that you're not being kept there to represent your party; you are there to represent US.

Your vote may or may not be representative of the population at large, but if so it is because they are angry, hurt, and in general misinformed about how things like this come to pass. You can't legislate things like this with knee-jerk reactions to raw emotions. This bill lasted all of a day from conception to voting. We pay you to exhibit levelheadedness and in general be non-reactionary to things that come up day-to-day.

I would have preferred that you, as a body, came out and said "You know what? We messed up, folks. We were a bit too hasty with that bill, and we fully admit that we weren't able to correctly process it in a manner that suited its complexities. We know you feel it is not fair for these bonuses to go out, and that is a sentiment we share. However, in lieu of treading on our Constitution, we have to abide by the law. We can not, and will not, craft legislation in order to punish someone for doing what we told them they could do. We should have caught it, but we didn't. We're sorry."

A pipe dream of mine would be for you to continue:
"Furthermore, in an effort to amend for our carelessness, we are voluntarily reducing our salaries by a collective amount of $165 million in order to make up for the bonus money we let get away. This is to be effective immediately. You can rest assured we will do our very best to make sure something like this never happens again."

Would that have been too hard?

Please feel free to use any of the above text in sending your own letter if you wish. (You may need to remove the Georgia part if you're not from here...) Here is the URL for writing your representative:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Here They Go...

It's official. Mob rule has won over the hearts of Congress. People demand justice without knowing all the facts, and Congress answers by attempting to pass a resolution to fix their last boo-boo. Here's the link.

[Update: Not sure what happened, but there was a newer, shinier bill that they actually voted on. Here it is.]

From what I understand, Congress is set to vote on a resolution (HR1572 HR1586). It's not yet on their site, but don't worry; I'm sure it'll be there for 5 days for us to review. Oh wait..they're VOTING today...got it.

Anyway, the purpose is "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid by business that receive TARP assistance." Eh? What's that? They're going to revise the 1986 code to include TARP verbiage?? TARP didn't even exist until last Fall!!

[Update: The newer bill's text is actually To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients]

Let's review (from perspective of Congress):

AIG is in trouble - oh crap - let's save them (buy them).

Done.

Uh oh! Stimulus needed! But let's rethink that bailout stuff from last year. Y'know, not allow bonuses or extra stuff until they pay us back (the People will love that...)

Done.

Well, on second thought, let's not be too hasty. We'll say it only applies to bonuses after...uh...say...Feb 11.

Done.

Crap!! They're mad at those bonuses we protected! What do we do? Oh yeah, we're THE FRICKIN U.S. GOVERNMENT!! We can do anything! Let's get mad too! Let's tax the hell out of them! Say...100%? 1000%? Nah - we'll let them keep a bit. We'll say 90%. Besides, the state and local governments will probably take care of the other 10%. (Thank you, Mr. Rangel)

Done.

Hundred bucks says they're not "done".

Ooops - I mean 10 bucks, after taxes.

AI n't it G rand?

By now you've probably heard about the $165 million in bonuses that AIG is set up to give out to its executives. When I first heard the news Monday morning I was livid. How could these executives accept these bonuses in the face of the fact that had they not been bailed out by the government, they wouldn't even be around to GET the bonuses. Had the government not stepped in and basically taken over the company, the executives in question would have long since been forced to find other work and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Thank God the government stepped in. Otherwise I'd have nothing to write about.

So, as I said, I was livid. I'm sure you were too. We have a right to be - this is an outrage. Like in the movie Network, we're "mad as hell, and we're not gonna take it anymore!" Only, in this case, I think we're mad at the wrong people. And the administration and Congress are only too eager to let us direct our anger at those execs. Who we should really be mad at is the folks in Washington who are squarely to blame for this debacle. How, you say? I'm glad you asked.

Do you remember the stimulus bill from a few weeks ago? I had a lot to say about that. You'll remember how it flew through the halls of Congress without any one member reading the whole thing. Little Easter eggs were bound to come out as time goes on, and as it happens, a couple of those directly relate to AIG bonuses. Yep, if you take a look at the stimulus bill, then scroll all the way down the bottom (kinda neat how it's just tucked there at the end, huh?), you will see `SEC. 111. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. Once you get on that page, look at (b)/(3)/(D)(i), you'll see the following text:

[The Secretary shall require each TARP recipient to meet appropriate standards...including] A prohibition on such TARP recipient paying or accruing any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation during the period in which any obligation arising from financial assistance provided under the TARP remains outstanding...

To translate: Any recipient of the government bailout funds can't pay out bonuses as long as their loans are still outstanding. AIG obviously received these funds, so score 1 for the government right? I mean, Holy &#@%! The big G actually got one right - this is a bona fide restriction that says you can't pay out bonuses while you're on our dime. Perfect!

If only the document ended there. Sadly, keep reading... (section iii a few paragraphs later...)

The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.

(emphasis mine)

Excuse me, but whiskey tango foxtrot? This statement just single-handedly AUTHORIZED every bonus that was stated in a contract before Feb. 11. You guessed it...that would be inclusive of the AIG bonuses in question. And guess who put it in there. Guess who was responsible for putting this little escape clause in there? Chris Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman. Mr. I Think the Government Should Tax 100% of the Bonuses himself. Oh, to hear Dodd's aides tell it, he had no clue about the AIG bonuses at the time that he put that amendment in there. Sure. Not only have these bonuses been on the books since last year, but Dodd was the highest paid recipient of AIG political contributions in 2008. You do the math.

AIG tells Congress and the public at large that they were contractually obligated to pay these bonuses. In effect, they'd be subject to lawsuits if they didn't pay out the money. Yet despite this, the government seems to think that it has the authority to come in an declare a contract null and void to suit its own political purposes. It's very popular to be against big business and seeming excess among corporate executives, especially those who obviously failed in their tasks. Like I said, before yesterday everybody in Washington was ready to tear down AIG over these bonuses. However, no matter how popular it may be to come in and void these contracts, in doing so the government would be directly violating the Constitution, which explicitly protects contracts. Think of the precedents that this would set. If the government can come in and change/modify/cancel a contract because it currently suits its needs/desires, then what is a contract? Why bother establishing one? Bankruptcy laws were specifically designed to circumvent contractual obligations, since "bankrupt" basically means "we can't fulfill our contracts". Bankruptcy: wow, wouldn't that be a novel idea - getting around these contracts by allowing AIG to fail! Now why didn't they do that?!

Well, they didn't; and since they're painted into a corner between public outrage and political viability, they're grasping at straws. One suggestion (as mentioned earlier) was to tax the bonuses at 100%. Are you kidding me? 100%? Can you even imagine how the verbiage would have to be on that kind of resolution? As if they'd write a law to cover a specific instance of a specific company paying specific executives a specific bonus for a specific purpose with specific money. Great idea.

Now, don't misunderstand me; I would be happy if these execs weren't being paid a dime in bonuses, but unless there is a rational, legal, and Constitution-backed methodology for preventing such payouts, then the feds need to just back off. It sucks, it's frustrating to us nobodies, and it's unfair, but it's the law. And they're the ones who wrote it a few weeks ago. Good job, Dodd. I'd hate to be you in 2010...

One final question on this issue. Where the heck were these Washington nitwits declaring outrage when AIG was fulfilling their other contracts? I'm not talking about millions either...try that times a thousand. I'm talking BILLIONS. What? You didn't know? Oh sure, AIG has been steadily funneling money to other institutions all over the world - to the tune of around $44 billion to American companies and $62 billion overseas. (!!!) Did you catch that? Over $100 billion, distributed from our government, through AIG, to these other institutions. I bet you didn't know your tax dollars were going to Europe did you? As Glenn Beck said yesterday, it's like a huge elaborate money laundering scheme. Think not? Who owns AIG again? Oh yeah, the federal government. So who was ultimately responsible for these monies being distributed to these institutions? Bingo.

And despite all this, they have the audacity to bitch and moan about 0.16% of that amount??? The cynic in me sees these shenanigans as a smokescreen to misdirect us, the American people, from the real travesty here. The travesty that we even bailed this company out to begin with. You know, the AIG company as a whole wasn't that bad of a bad company; in fact, their insurance division was actually profitable. It's just this one division or two that has caused the problems. If we would have split them off we would have had a potentially viable company there.

Next up we can all start complaining about the bonuses Lehman Brothers is going to pay out to its execs next week. What's that? Oh yeah. They were allowed to fail, so we're NOT talking about them, now are we?

Stem Cells: Arguing About the Wrong Things

There's been some recent debate about the whole stem cells thing. Once again, Obama is reversing something that Bush did during his tenure. The short version of the issue is that Bush placed restrictions that researchers could not receive federal funds to work with embryonic stem cells, however they could use existing lines (created before 8/9/01) for research.

The left clamored that this was a ridiculous restriction and would harm research potential, preventing or delaying serious progress to be made toward fighting such diseases as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. The right complained that using these cells was akin to taking a life and is wholly unethical.

Both sides went at it, and now that Obama has brought it back up they are going at it again. The problem is that they're arguing about the wrong things. The argument should be whether or not the government should fund the research at all.

My point is simply this: when this issue came up, the question was should the government fund this controversial stem cell research, but the only angles that were debated in Congress were 1) Is it ethical? 2) Can similar research be done on non-controversial stem cells, such as adult, etc.? 3) What will the research gain us? and so on. The much simpler questions that should have been asked before any of that was, "Should we even be funding this, regardless of the ethics involved? Can't this be taken up by the private sector? If we do fund this, can we even do it more efficiently than the private sector?" The questions as to its potential effectiveness at curing diseases can be debated separately, but if there is a real chance for that, you can rest assured that some private funds will spring up to investigate further, without the need for government interference funding.

Both sides were incomplete in their questioning because they were using the situation to further their own political ideologies. The right voted against (and Bush was against it) because they were fundamentally against this type of research at a strictly ethical level. They didn't vote against because they thought the government shouldn't fund it at all. The left voted for it because they think the government should fund...well, everything.

I think when we confront these situations, the debate should be whether we need to stem the flow of federal money into these programs in the first place; let's leave political ideologies out of it.

Sorry, couldn't resist the pun.

I Agree With Obama...And It Hurts.

Last week, the Obama administration declared their intent to reverse the so called Provider Refusal Rule, or more simply known by the "Conscience Clause". This was a last minute 'shove it in on the way out' piece of legislation from the Bush administration. It actually went into effect the day Obama was inaugurated.

Basically, what Bush's regulation stipulated is that a health care provider can not be persecuted if he/she chooses to not perform a procedure or apply a treatment that goes against their religious or moral convictions. Usually this directly relates to performing an abortion, though I don't believe the regulation is that specific.

Look, I don't agree with Obama's stance on abortion (I most assuredly do NOT), but I just can't justify this sort of rule being put in place. I can't stand when government jumps in when they have no business making a move in the first place.

If a health care provider conscientously objects to performing a procedure, then they are within their full right to refuse to do that. However, just because they choose to, essentially, disobey an order, they are at the full mercy of their employer. At the very point in time when they are given that task to do, they have a choice to make. Do they refuse the treatment, knowing that it will possibly cost them their job and, perhaps, the scorn of coworkers? Or, do they compromise their morals and do the procedure in order to preserve their job, etc.? It is by no means an easy decision, but it is that person's alone. The government has no business taking that decision out of the provider's hands and making it for them. An employer is within their full right to ask somebody in their employ to perform a task (as long as that task is not illegal); the consequences of not following through are up to them.

If someone came to me in my job and asked me to write some software that, I dunno, maintained a database of pregnant teens or something, I would be within my rights to refuse to perform the task, but I had better be prepared for the consequences. If, on the other hand, I was asked to write some illegal software, I could easily refuse that and have legal recourse if I were to lose my job.

When I first heard of the 'conscience clause' I wasn't sure if it protected the provider from being persecuted or from being prosecuted. From everything I can glean, it seems it is solely to protect from persecution. If it had protected from prosecution, then I would be in favor, since I do not believe a potential patient has the right to sue because the provider refuses to perform the procedure. However, let's make it a little grayer. If said procedure would unquestionably save the patient's life, then that should then fall under whatever regulations and guidelines were spelled out in the healthcare provider's professional organization (AMA or whatever). The provider, if he/she refused treatment, would undoubtedly face penalties from the organization, but not necessarily from a lawsuit. I don't think the government should impose laws that force an individual to perform treatment under threat of breaking the law. Let the orgs handle it however they deem fit. This same mentality could be applied to other organizations too, like Major League Baseball...

When I was discussing this with a friend, he pointed out a phenomena that he's noticed over time that is clearly illustrated by this piece of legislation. This entire issue came up when a Republican was in charge of the White House, and the solution was to pass a regulation that imposed a moral standpoint into a law. Because Republicans, in general, oppose abortion, this was an avenue to allow providers to gracefully refuse treatment under protection of the law, thus facing no consequences. Now that a Democrat is in charge, the goal is to reverse the decision because it is supposedly supressing rights of patients to treatment of their choice. (Incidentally, no such right exists...) In other words, the two sides are constantly using their power to either enact legislation that supports their view of the world, or reverse legislation supported by the other side. (Yes, this is over-simplified, but it's hard to disagree with the premise.)

Now, let's pretend for a moment that this issue would have come up sometime this year for the first time, sometime when the new president is deeper into his term. A time when this rule was never enacted by Bush. I would bet that if a case made national news that caused this whole discussion to begin, you'd have various rights groups breathing down the necks of Washington lawmakers, demanding they pass legislation to protect providers' rights to choose to perform procedures in their own best judgement. They'd look at the employers (hospitals, etc.) as the enemy, oppressing their employees and forcing them to perform procedures to which they objected. In the specific case of abortion, it's unlikely they would do anything of this sort, but the general idea of discriminating against providers refusing procedures based on conscience would likely raise their hackles. Irrelevant, really, since the die was already cast in a Republican administration. However, it illustrates how the two sides can take a single situation and try to pass legislation that promotes their own agenda for completely different reasons, despite the fact that the effect is the same.

In the end, it's just and fair that this regulation is being removed. It had no business being put on the books to begin with. So, in effect, I actually agree with Obama on this one. Ouch.

Look at the bright side - it's one fewer tentacle the government has into our lives, and who can argue with that?

Money? We've Got Plenty!

Well, now they've done it. Congress has just proved that not only are they completely incapable of restraining themselves, they are also so full of hypocrisy that it's oozing out of their ridiculously inflated heads. 

Only this time there's plenty of blame to spread around...among both parties.

In case you didn't know, in the words of Genie from Aladdin, just ruminate whilst I illuminate. So the House has just passed a so-called "Omnibus" bill, which basically doles out money to just about everyone but me. Losers. Apparently they didn't think there was a need for researching the effectiveness of dog saliva as a mosquito repellent, a project currently being researched by The Jasonian Institute of Alternative Preventative Restrictionary Annoyances, or JIAPRA. Just rolls off the tongue doesn't it? 

Anyway, so it's around $400b and is L-O-A-D-E-D (with a capital oink) with earmarks. To the tune of, I dunno, NINE THOUSAND of them. This time around, nobody is denying they're in there, and there are plenty of earmarks from both sides of the aisle. What's interesting about all these earmarks is that we've all heard Obama say, time and time again, that he was going to remove earmarks from legislation. I say if that's his goal, he's off to a horrible start. Oh, rest assured the powers that be have been cornered about this very hypocrisy. The response? 

Them: "Well, certainly we are going to do that in the future, but this bill actually started last year, so..."

Us: "But it hasn't been signed into law yet, right?"

Them: "Nooo, but..."

Us: "So you could, I dunno, NOT pass it until it was cleared up?"
Them: "But we promised those groups that..."

Us: "What about your promises to us?"
Them: "Yes, but you don't give us mon-- uh, I mean to say.."
Us: "I think I've heard enough. Thanks."

[We walk off.]

Them: "Next one! Promise! You'll see!"

I bet we will.

I'm not going to go into listing all the ridiculous things that are in this bill, you can surely find it online with VERY little effort. What I will do is post a link to the actual bill's PDF file, available at house.gov. This is a scanned document with hand written corrections all over it. I haven't looked at the whole thing (very few probably have, including those in DC), but a few things in the first few pages just jumped out at me. First, go ahead and go to page 3 and start reading the numbers. You'll quickly notice a pattern. Nearly all of the appropriations are larger than the requested amount! So some group requests a sum of money and not only do they get it, they get MORE. This is not on one or two of them - keep reading. I also noticed something else on page 3 (and others). Remember how I said they weren't denying earmarks? Check out that text - Insert Earmarks, which has been scratched out and replaced with "Table". Niiiice.

Here's another little not-very-reported note about this bill. Mr. No-More-Earmarks himself actually was a cosponsor on one of the earmarks in this bill!! Apparently, when he proposed it as a senator, it wasn't an earmark, per se. It was still porkish, so whatever (pork, earmark...all I hear is 'waste'). Apparently, in true Washington fashion the farmers filled up the trough and it in fact became an earmark. However, fret not: he's going to be squeaky clean now, since his name was just removed from it. The amount hasn't changed ($7.7m), but at least he was able to get his name withdrawn so that he can now say he never put an earmark on it. Must be cool to be the boss...

Do you see what's going on here? They don't care about the country or this financial crisis. NONE of this stuff should be in here. It has nothing to do with the government looking out for us. It has to do with legislators wanting federal monies for their own districts back home. And we're ALL paying for it.

But wait - that's not all!

Obama has also released the fiscal budget! Nearly $4 trillion! For years, everyone on the left railed on Bush for expanding our deficit after Clinton had surpluses (which technically weren't surpluses unless you  use Washington accounting 'standards'), and with one fell swoop, Obama will increase the deficit that Bush created by a huge amount, no matter how you look at it. Check out this graph:

So, the budget 'suggestion' to Congress (after all, it still has to be debated/approved) is $3.6 trillion. The deficit portion of it is...wait for it...$1.75 trillion. That's right - HALF of it is deficit spending!! They're basically spending two dollars for every dollar they bring in. Only the government can get away with that. You and I would have to go to credit counseling or something...

For some perspective, Bush's last year in office we had tons of bailouts right? I remember cringing at the thought of bailing out the various companies for billions of dollars. Despite all of that, it "only" produced a somehow-not-so-big-now deficit of $455 billion. 2009's will be nearly 4 times this figure. Amazing. Toward the end of last year (Sept '08), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the deficit to exceed $400b for the next 2 years if current policies remained in place. Well, thank God that the policies were changed! That would have been horrible!! Oh wait...

Don't worry though, Obama said. He still plans to reduce the inherited deficit by half by the end of his term. So he's saying either he or the next president will have a deficit of around $225 billion by 2013. Old Scratch better be buying a parka, cause it's apparently gonna be getting cold down there.

My explanation? Obama is striking quickly while the flames of his fiery stampede to the White House are still burning. He has put just about everything he ever dreamed about in this proposal. I think (hope) much of it will get cut, but you can bet that not all of it will. Perhaps that is a not-so-subtle intent. Throw everything he can knowing that at least some of it will get through. If he does that every year he'll eventually get what he wants.

Just yesterday, Obama said this: "We will, each and every one of us, have to compromise on certain things we care about but which we simply cannot afford right now."

No $h!t, Sherlock. 

How's about you start sippin' on some of that medicine you're selling?

Transparency. That's a joke right?

If you looked carefully at the Change.gov site (that's the Obama Administration's transition website), you'd come to the following page. If you take a close look at the content of the page, you'd read:

End the Practice of Writing Legislation Behind Closed Doors: As president, Barack Obama will restore the American people's trust in their government by making government more open and transparent. Obama will work to reform congressional rules to require all legislative sessions, including committee mark-ups and conference committees, to be conducted in public. By making these practices public, the American people will be able to hold their leaders accountable for wasteful spending and lawmakers won't be able to slip favors for lobbyists into bills at the last minute.

Now, pardon me for being cynical, but hasn't this ethical mantra already been violated? I mean, here we are with the absolute biggest piece of legislation (in dollars) to EVER be passed, and they're hammering the details...where? Are they on the floor with all congressional members involved? You know, from both parties (since they're so bipartisan)?

No. They're behind closed doors. Talk about your transparency. Check this out, but here's the important part:

Reid also said he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met yesterday with Obama to discuss a compromise. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Budget Director Peter Orszag met behind closed doors with Democrats about a plan.

Oh wait - I just re-read the statement. It said that Obama will work toward more transparency. Oh ok...I guess we can just do that after this bill, right? Got it.

You're doing a great job of restoring my trust. Keep it up.

The icing on the cake, however, is the so-called compromise that the Democrats have reached. They reduced the overall cost, but I don't know if they think this will appease us or infuriate us. Then again, they probably don't care.

This is how it happened. No, really, it did...

Them: "Hey guys and gals and transgenders and aliens, both legal and illegal! We wanted to let you in on the good news! We reduced the bill by like, $100 billion bucks!"

Us: "Holy crap - that's awesome! What did you get rid of? That ridiculous Smithsonian thing?"

Them: "Huh? Oh-HA! That's a good one..."

Us: "The STD stuff?"

Them: "Dwellings-of-higher-powers-of-various-religions no! Try again."

Us: [dismayed] "Let me guess. All the stuff that Republicans got squeezed in there?"

Them: "BINGO! I knew you'd get it! You know, like the tax credits for homebuyers, the auto interest deductions..."

Us: "Oh, well. I guess that's to be expected."
Them: "Hey there, cheer up. We let Arlen Specter keep his $10 billion for the National Institute of Health in there! HE'S a Republican."

Us: [stares blankly]

Them: "You know...cause he, like, voted with us and stuff."

[crickets begin chirping]

Them: "Sooo..anyway. That's the good news. Later."

Us: "Hang on! Is there any bad news?"

Them: "No! Oh no no nooooo no........Yes."

Us: ?

Them: "The per-worker credit was also reduced and will essentially amount to only $13 bucks extra per paycheck. Toodle-oo!"
[Then they walk off and fist bump each other saying "One ta nuthin!"]

I wish I could say that I hope this succeeds, but I don't. I honestly hope it fails miserably. Luckily, I feel pretty safe in this happening. Don't get me wrong - I want our economy to boom again, but not at the expense of increasing the already size-gazillion government foothold over...practically everything.

We'll see...

Stimulate This

Ahh...the so-called stimulus package. No, it's not a new medical device or even a clever name for someones manhood (though that is clever...[back pat]), but if it were either of those then it might be more worthy of appreciation. How about what it's actually called: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Wow. That just..sounds so impressive.

Only it's not. Well, to be fair, it's price tag is very impressive. Nearly a trillion dollars. Let me show you how many zeroes that is.

1,000,000,000,000

Can you wrap your head around that number? We've gotten so complacent in hearing billions thrown at this economic problem that we're a little numb. Unfortunately, we can't afford to be.

Literally.

Of course, to be honest, the main problem is not its size. If that trillion dollars were spent in such a manner to actually do some stimulating, then far fewer people would be complaining. As an aside, 1 trillion dollars in my wallet would unequivocally stimulate me personally. Just sayin'.

Let's call this bill what it really is: The Take Advantage of the Democratic Majority and Pay Back All Our Interest Groups Act of 2009. On second thought, that might not fit on a T-shirt. How about: The Extremely Naive Imma Get Mine Act of 2009. Even opponents would support the acronym: ENIGMA. Yeah...has a nice ring to it.

You see, the vast majority of the crap in this stinker has absolutely nothing to do with stimulating the economy. It's got money going to just about every special program around, and a hefty dose of new ones for good measure. I'm not saying these groups don't need to be created, or the existing ones don't need to be funded (though I probably would on most of them); what I'm saying is that it doesn't belong in this bill!

You've got Obama at the White House telling Americans, "We need to do something NOW. Something FAST. Here, take a look at what I did. Well, actually, I didn't do it; Nancy Pelosi and Co. did it. But trust me, it's good. Listen, and listen carefully: if we don't do something it will be a CATASTROPHE!" [soundtrack: duhn duhn duhnnnn] Look, man, if it's so dang important and urgent, then why bother putting all this crap in there? Let's do some real stuff that has been PROVEN to provide stimulus. Forgive me, but I don't think that improving STD education (350m) is going to stimulate the economy.

Furthermore, did you catch how the Democrats are so forgiving of their own dissension (i.e. the Democrats who voted against this bill in the House) but so critical of the Republicans who did the same? They say, "We understand that certain members come from conservative districts and have to vote as such", then in regards to Republicans, immediately follow with, "We'll go district by district to hold them accountable." WTF? It's ok for Dems from conservative districts to vote conservatively, but not ok for Repubs to do the same?

So what has been proven to stimulate the economy? Two words: TAX CUTS. Not tax rebates, not temporary discounts, just plain ol' across-the-board cuts. This has been proven throughout history to be very effective at stimulating the economy. When did they work? Bush imposed significant tax cuts right after becoming president in 2000 that brought us out of a recession. In the same vein, in 1964 there was a cut in personal taxes, which created a rise in consumer spending. Don't stop there - what about the Mellon tax cuts of the 1920s and of course the Reagan tax cuts of the early 80s. In every case, across the board tax cuts immediately spurred growth and cause a rebound of trouble economic times. How about 'across the pond'? Ireland's economy was in dire straits in the mid-80s. They decided to significantly cut government spending and lower taxes on both businesses and individuals. Their per capital income went from being 63% of the UK's average to actually beating it in 2000.

"Hold on," you say, "If you lower taxes you will reduce revenue." Let me respond by saying, "WRONG." Historically, you can actually increase government revenue! After the Reagan tax cuts, for example, income tax revenues went from $244b to $446b throughout the 80s. Holy Hairpulling, Batman! Despite the possibility of increasing government revenue, that's not really something I care about. I'd much rather that revenue was reduced, would would hopefully force shutting down some wasteful spending programs. But regardless of whether or not revenue was increased, it can definitely be shown to stimulate the economy.

How? Well, it's actually rather simple. Like it or not, it's the rich that keep this economy going. They buy big, expensive things. They invest their money. They create businesses. When you reduce their taxes, they have more to spend, and they loooooove doing that for all those things. Additionally, there's a overlooked side-benefit: they don't feel forced to shelter so much of their income from the government. Eh? You mean you didn't know that the more you tax them the less they report as income? Ah, how naive. The rich will always look for loopholes to reduce their tax burden, but if their burden is lower, then they don't feel the urgency to look as hard. Think about it on a personal level - when you made minimum wage you paid taxes and likely deducted nothing. You just did the 1040EZ and went on with your life. Now you're older and make a lot more money, and you probably wouldn't think of using the ol' 1040EZ anymore. It's much more effective to itemize your deductions and minimize your tax burden. I'm not rich at all, but even I do this! It's all a matter of scale. When I was taxed at minimum wage, I paid next to nothing in taxes. 25% of a buck is only a quarter, after all. But 25% of $1000 bucks is a whopping $250!! Big difference, huh? It's when the tax burden becomes great enough to warrant your attention that you start thinking of ways to make it as small as possible. The reverse is true too, if the burden is reduced, then you don't feel the need to invest the time and envergy to reducing it.

What about job loss? We're losing jobs at an incredible rate - how do tax cuts help with that? I'm glad you asked. You did ask, didn't you? Well, it happens at a lot of levels:

• Like I said earlier, rich people buy things. If they want to buy more than they are now, then that increases demand. When you increase demand, supply will naturally creep up to meet that demand. This means that factories have to make more widgets which means they need to hire more people. Result: more jobs.
• Rich people with more money also take that money and invest in companies as anything from stockholders to venture capitalists. This causes the businesses to grow and - you guessed it - hire more people. Result: more jobs.
• Finally, rich people do something else that directly creates a growing work force. They start businesses. A friend of mine heard a good line on the radio the other day, and it pertains to this fact. Think about this - you'll never get a job from a poor person. Poor people don't hire you; rich people do. Result: more jobs.
  

So let's review - tax cuts, while technically only applying to that portion of the population that actually pay taxes, actually dramatically improve the economy on nearly every front and would undoubtedly turn our economy around. History is on the side of tax cuts.

The problem with tax cuts are that they become an emotional issue for people. How can you tell someone who is poor that you're not giving them any money, but instead you are cutting taxes on everybody else; i.e. essentially giving them more money. It's a hard sell, and it's one that Democrats classically use to oppose tax cuts. On the surface, it seems a bit unfair. However, one could equally argue that it was unfair for that same person to not be paying taxes at all. I don't want to veer too far off here, but look at it this way: nobody argues about the sales tax and that's because everybody pays the same amount no matter how much you spend. You'll pay the same percentage if you buy a car or a box of toothpicks. In other words, it's unemotional. Unfortunately our income tax is not structured that way and as such, becomes very emotional for people. The Fair Tax would alleviate this, but that's a topic for another day.

Unfortunately, the people in power don't and will likely never support tax cuts. They will continue to play the poor card and the "economic equality for all" tag line. They will strive to remove every incentive for someone to work out of government dependency and establish themselves financially; in short, to live the American Dream. They will take this nationwide crisis and use a call for a solution as an opportunity to push their own agendas. It's a shame, too, because the right kind of stimulus could do just that: stimulate.

The saving grace in all this is that the American people, so far, arent' standing for it. At last check, the approval rating for this bill was in the 30s. It has plummetted from when it was originally proposed. The American people are thinking: "Hang on. We're not saying we agree or disagree with all this stuff, but shouldn't we be trying to get out of this crisis right now before we, oh I don't know, fix the Smithsonian up ($150m)?"

I know I am. Let's stimulate this economy the tried and true way: tax cuts. We can debate all of this special interest spending through the normal legislative process. Don't sit there and tell me there's a major crisis and the time for action is now and shove this piece of paper (actually several hundred) down my throat yelling, "Sign it! Sign it! We have to do it now!", while putting so much extra crap in the fine print that the thing just stinks. You're like a predatory lender, only you're a predatory spender.

It reminds me of another president not too long ago being criticized for basically using the same emotion, fear, as leverage for his agendas. Actions which were a campaign point for Obama and the Democrats during the past elections.

I guess it's different when it's their agenda...

Obama's no fool...

Earlier this week Obama met with Bush to discuss transition issues, etc. These type of talks are typically not public affairs and tend to be more private in nature. In other words, the media is not present behind these 'closed doors'. I say this because Obama staff broke that unwritten rule and leaked details to the press about the visit. However, this was a very clever move, even though it pisses me off.

During their talks, the issue of the auto-bailout came up and it was said that Obama pushed for the bailout to be passed, and Bush (who apparently is being resistant) asked for some things in return for his support; namely Democrat approval of the trade pact(s) with Columbia. Tough call for Obama - he backs (and is backed by) unions and labor forces which directly oppose said trade agreements with Columbia. They say of course that it is because of mistreatment of workers down there, but in reailty it has a lot more to do with fear of losing revenues, etc. to Columbia. Anyway, turns out it's not so tough a call for Obama after all. In a brilliant political move (whether by him or by a staffer) it's leaked that Bush is trying to horse-trade behind the scenes. What's the fallout?

1) Bush is made to look like he is not supportive of American laborers.
2) Obama can say (rather honestly), "Look I tried to get the bailout money and help the American work----SNORE...insert rhetoric here...SNORE--, but you know Bushie, he's stonewalling me until he gets what he wants."
3) Obama can bide his time if need be and wait until he's in office and then do whatever he wants anyway, while looking like he tried to 'cross the aisle'.
4) Bush's approval rating can dip even lower.(Is it at absolute zero yet?)

No, Obama's no fool, but the American people are. Most out there probably have no clue how politics work and that this 'horse-trading' is done each and every single day in Washington. It's how 'pork' even gets added to bills in the first place. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours; either now or later. How else can you explain NASCAR racing track owners getting millions in the much-talked-about bailout bill after it went through the Senate? I love NASCAR, but it has NOTHING to do with the financial meltdown in the banking industry.

Bush played the same game he's learned to play since entering Washington, but the public at large will despise him for it.

Brilliant move, Obama. Check and Mate.

Am I in the Twilight Zone?!

A few days ago I wrote a nice little fairy tale that most certainly did not have a fairy tale ending. It portrayed the current attitude in Washington toward corporate bailout, etc. It used the analogy of the money being candy, and that if you give in once, then everybody will come knocking.

Enter American Express. Yep, now they're knocking at the door. Though their requested amount is a "paltry" 3.5 bn dollars, they actually had to change their business definition just so they could qualify for bailout money. Yep, after an emergency ruling, the Fed now considers AMEX a "bank holding company" which entitles them to bailout dough. Which brings me to my first point, I now wish to be a bank holding company.

However, that's not the main thing I wanted to vent about. I wanted to vent about the very high probability that we will bailout the auto industry as well. Actually, that's not precisely accurate. We will only bailout the 3 automakers which happen to be in Detroit. And happen to be employed by union workers. And happen to be losing money by the truckloads. And happen to make crappy cars. That's right - Toyota, Nissan, Honda, etc. are doing just dandy other parts of the country and there's nary a union worker in sight.

So the "Big 3" want bailout money (or more in the case of GM and Ford, who have already received 25 bn that they burned through in a couple months), and it seems at this point e they will likely receive it. But should they? Should we bail out every failing industry? How about the film industry? It's been hurting for a while; perhaps they're entitled to some help as well? After all, there are hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake in that industry as well. I'm not heartless. I do understand that many jobs will likely be lost if any or all of the Big 3 would go bankrupt. But let's play devil's advocate: if they DO get the bailout money, will they still be able to keep all those jobs? The answer may surprise you: probably not.

Rewind nearly 30 years ago to another government bailout of Chrysler. There is a common myth that this government bailout gave the company a leg to stand on and they bounced back from near death to become successful yet again. However, let's look at the facts. Despite the money being intended to keep the company from going bankrupt and laying off workers, they STILL laid off nearly HALF of its employees. Estimates at the time figured that these losses were comparable to what would have happened had the company actually gone into Chapter 11. So the bailout essentially failed at its main intent. How about bankruptcy? It's true that it never went into Chapter 11, but it essentially went through all the motions, completely screwing creditors in the process. In some cases it was able to pay off hundreds of millions of dollars of loans at 30 cents on the dollar. Sweet deal for the shareholders which would have lost everything had they gone bankrupt. Here's a great article that details the ordeal from a 1983 perspective (isn't the Internet great?).

http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/bg276.cfm

The two quotes I especially liked that are very pertinent today are:

Confronting the Chrysler myths with Chrysler facts reveals Chrysler's true financial condition and the real impact of those federal guarantees. It shows that if the bailout is indeed the model for an American industrial policy the consequences could be disastrous.

and

When Chrysler was on the verge of bankruptcy in 1979, the marketplace was signaling that the slackening automobile market would only support three U.S. car manufacturers. By granting the Chrysler loan guarantees, Congress ignored that signal. If Chrysler survives, it will probably mean that the shrinking automobile market will be shared by four ailing domestic automakers, rather than the two or three relatively healthy car manufacturers that would have emerged had Chrysler been allowed to go into formal bankruptcy.

Get your damn heads in the game, Washington. If a company is doomed to fail, then let it fail. Don't try to prop it up with my tax dollar when it should fall. You know, there's a nice legal entity for dealing with a failing company that handles creditors, shareholders, and typically, management as well. It's called Chapter 11. Let these companies go bankrupt. The creditors will lose some, the shareholders will lose a lot, the management will be recycled, and the company can refocus and start over. The taxpayers? It won't cost us a dime.

Farmers burn their fields to replenish the nutrients in the soil so they can reuse it. Steel is tempered with intense heat to make it stronger. If these auto companies rise from their own ashes they will be better for it. If they don't, then why would we have wanted to prop them up to begin with?

A Tale of Children and their Candy

Once upon a time there was a family, the Publics. The Publics had a little boy named Bear. Bear was Stearn, but boy did Bear love candy. LOVED it. Especially those gold foil wrapped ones. Anyway, Bear wasn't very good with his candy and finally got to the point where he had very little candy left.

Bear cried when he got home, "MOMMY!!! I NEED MORE CANDY!!"

Mommy came in the room. "Bear? What's wrong dear? What did you do with all the candy you had?" Bear replied, "I don't have it anymore. I had lots, and was even holding some of the other kids' candy too. But you know how I love it so much, and I ate it all! Now everyone wants their candy back and I don't have it! They're gonna beat me up!" Mommy deliberated on the issue and finally decided to give in and give Bear the candy.

A few days later, the Public twins Fannie and Freddie were found crying in their room. Mommy came running up the stairs, "What's wrong children?" "We don't have any more candy!" they replied in unison. "Let me guess," Mommy said, "if you don't get any more candy you'll get beat up?"

They looked at each other. "How'd you know, Mommy?" "How many pieces do you need to not get beat up?" Mommy said. Again they looked at each other. Fannie said, "We need 100 billion pieces of candy. Each."

Mommy (whose name was Connie, short for Congressa) shook her head and sighed. Just at that time, Daddy (whose name was John Q.) walked into the room. "What's the problem, Dear?" "Oh, John. The twins are saying they need more candy." John glared, "Listen, I'm still upset about the twins lying about how much candy they had a few months ago." "I know, I know," Mommy pleaded. "But I'm sure this time will be different, and we can trust them again." John was firm, "I still say no." Mommy grew furious, "Well, I don't care what you say! You don't care about the well-being of our children anymore! I'm giving them the candy - every single last piece!" With that, she slammed the door on him, leaving John in the hall.

A few days later John was walking through the kitchen when he saw Mommy filling their other son crAIG's backpack full of candy. "What is that for?" he asked. "I don't want to hear it, John! This is our son we're talking about!" "But crAIG hasn't even come asking for candy yet..." "This is a precautionary measure, John. If I don't give him this candy he might get beat up one day! I can't see my boy get hurt!"

The next day Daddy noticed some papers on the dining room table. Upon closer inspection, he saw that it was a receipt for 700 billion pieces of candy. "Connie! Get in here now!" She came in defiantly with her head held high. "What is the meaning of this!?!?" John said, his face turning red. She answered, "I've done what needed to be done. You'll have to trust me. I wanted to give enough candy to all the children in the neighborhood so that they wouldn't beat each other up and they would start being friendly again," she answered calmly. "But where in the world did you get the money to pay for this?!?" he said. "It wasn't a big deal, You had plenty of money in your wallet." At this point John was ready to strangle his wife. "Connie - don't you see what your rashness has done? When you give a child candy when they ask for it, they're going to ask for more. When you give them more, they're going to ask for even more. Then other kids in the neighborhood will want the same candy that you're giving the kids. Don't you see the pattern?" Connie just stood there dumbfounded.

At precisely that moment, some neighborhood kids showed up in the driveway. The triplets, G.M., Fordy, and Chryssy all filed inside. "So, uh...we heard you had some candy?"

As Connie smiled at them with a wink, John sighed and buried his face in his hands, longing for a divorce and wishing for a new wife.

Get out (of work) and vote!

This is the newest message from Obama. Get out of whatever you're doing next Tueday and help him win. I guess Step 1 on the road to change is to avoid whatever responsibility you might have next Tuesday and do whatever you can to get yourself and others to vote for Obama.

The messages:

Vote next Tuesday!
...Admirable

Get out of work...
...Deplorable

Here's the ad: http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/dayoff

Why should the citizens of the US just put their lives on hold for a day just to vote him in? Let it be known I would be just as upset if McCain tried to pull this stunt...this is completely non-partisan. It kinda reeks of egotism and self-importance. In effect, his campaign is saying that working a phone bank or physically travelling to a battleground state is more important than your job/school day. Actually, that's exactly what they're saying. I wouldn't avoid work for McCain and I would hope few people would. Hell, I never even take sick days...

Another frustration stemmed from the tone - it said you can't 'make history' from your couch or while playing video games, which I agree with - who wouldn't? But then it says you can't make history from your job. Now, I don't think every single job in this country impacts history, but it definitely keeps the wheels turning and keeps us moving forward. I guess they're ok with half the country (his support according to polls) just pausing for a day.

I'm not suggesting the world will end if half the people didn't work/go to school for a day, but it's mainly the principle of the matter. It's not like someone's out there saying, "Ok, there's been a huge [insert natural disaster] and the area could really use your help. Please consider donating a day of your time to the people of this plight and let's work together to improve this situation blah blah blah." No, instead it's take a day off and help ME get elected.

It reminds me of an interview I heard about from a friend that aired on TV some time ago. The two opposing sides were represented as usual, but I don't know who they were. The Obama supporter made some statement to the effect of "Look at attendence numbers. Obama consistently attracts 15, 20, 25 thousand people at his rallys. McCain is lucky to draw half that." His implication of course was that Obama was obviously more popular with the American people and they're kicking ass. This attempt was foiled when the McCain supporter calmly interjected, "That's because McCain's supporters are at work."

'Nuf said.

I'll be working next Tuesday, but it won't keep me from voting. Where will you be?

Annoying "Facts"

So; only 12 days left in the election. I thought I'd take a quick minute to throw out one of the common party-lines from Democrats and voice my frustration over it. Note that I'm NOT saying that Republicans do not also have their own party lines. They most certainly do. In politics, who doesn't?

This one just grates on me because it panders to people as if they're idiots and it is consistently glossed over by any opposition; be it McCain in EVERY debate or opposing commentators on news channels. They never respond the way I think they should. And since I'm all-knowing, then they're wrong. (or was it a know-it-all? I forget...)

So there.

Back to topic - here's the "fact"oid. Americans consume 25 percent of the world's produced oil, but our nation holds less than 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves

The very first time I heard that it made me immediately want to get on the Internet to disprove its implication. I admit, I automatically got cynical about it, assuming (rightly as it turned out) that it was completely misleading, despite being based on facts. What irks me about this statement is that it implies that we consume 8 times what we can make. Admittedly, the wordplay is clever and has obviously pulled the wool over people's eyes, because it never gets clarified by opposition.
When someone hears it or reads it, their mind focuses on the 25 and 3 percent numbers and 25 is a lot bigger than 3, so we must use more than we make. This couldn't be further from the truth, though it's exactly what they want you to think. In actuality, when you look at the numbers, you find that our proven reserves are about 30 billion barrels. These numbers are from 2008. As for consumption, we consume about 20 million barrels per day.

So, 25% = 20 million/day and 3% = 30 BILLION. Hardly using 8 times what we can make. In fact, if we were able to extract and refine all those proven reserves today, we could subsist entirely on our own oil for almost 4 years without any imported oil.

However, the facts are that we'll never have to do that. Canada has just had revealed that they have - get this - about 180 BILLION barrels of proven reserves. They're nice to us and we trade well with them, so there's no reason we wouldn't be able to trade for some of that lovely oil. When you add in their consumption of about 3 million/day and their reserves of 180 billion, then we can now last TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. That's right - a quarter a century. This obviously doesn't take into account any increases in usage, but if we're smart we would actually LOWER consumption while we INCREASE production.

Now, if that were to happen, we'd obviously not want to sit idly and let the 25 years run out without doing something, so we'd need to use that time wisely to rapidly develop alternative fuels and power sources, as well as utilize our UNproven reserves. Cuba has supposedly found lots of oil off their shores, which by the way, is off OUR shores. I believe the facts of that find are still waiting to be verified, but remember that Brazil also found a TON of oil off their shores recently. It's more than likely there off our shore too, just waiting to be drilled and refined.Who knows, if we were able to reduce our own consumption and have a big find ourselves, WE could export oil to others...what a concept. In fact, our increased production could probably bring the price of oil so far down that there'd be little profit or money in it for anyone and entrepreneurs would look to other fuels as their next big buck.

Now, truthfully, we can't start refining all that oil we have and Canada has overnight, but we've got to start somewhere, and we should. It's not about politics, it's about common sense. Why should we rely on someone else for something when we can produce it (or purchase from friendly countries) now? You can't simply turn the country from oil to alternative fuels overnight either, but obviously advancement needs to be made in those areas as well. If we could kick all the damn lobbyists out of DC then we could probably get some things accomplished. Environmentalists lobby against any sort of oil expansion whatsoever and oil companies lobby against alternative fuels. It's got to stop!!

Sorry - got slightly off topic. My point was that statement by Dems just gets under my skin every time I hear it and NOBODY ever says anything. So consider something said.

A missed opportunity last night...

Overall I thought both candidates did pretty well on the debate. Sarah definitely did MUCH better than McCain - hopefully McCain will actually prepare this time and be ready next Tuesday...but I don't want to get off topic.

I don't want to write a long review of the debate - each side will say their side won and such is the nature of politics. However, in a brief recap - she spoke direct, glossed over in a very political way when she didn't have all the information she needed, and overall she handled herself pretty admirably. Biden was very factual and threw out a lot of numbers and figures, and assuming they're all true, won on that front. He was cordial and respectful and at one point choked up a bit on a personal hardship issue. I thought he did just fine.

Despite his fact throwing, I think at one point Palin actually called his bluff. He essentially railed against McCain's claim that the surge worked in Iraq and it can work in Afghanistan. He claimed the general in charge of Afghanistan said that the surge used in Iraq simply won't work. Apparently he had said that yesterday morning. Palin fired back that in fact he said a surge could work, but it would need to be customized to Afghanistan's terrain and opposing forces. When it passed back to Biden, he changed topic, with a "Ok, you got me" look because he didn't have a comeback.

I did see one big missed opportunity with Palin last night, and it stemmed from a critism I had with her that she exhibited twice (maybe 3 times...). I don't know who was prepping her with Obama's record, but I can't rationalize why anyone would send her in there with facts about Obama's voting record about seemingly NEGATIVE votes cast, when McCain supposedly (according to Biden) made the exact same votes! You can't critize someone for voting one way, implying your running mate is 'better than that', when in fact he voted the same way. It's just not even believable.

HOWEVER, in the case of the last issue that I can remember, she missed her big opportunity. I'm paraphrasing here, but she said that Obama voted against funding the troops for some vote. Bad Obama. Biden countered with the fact that McCain also voted against because there was a timeline attached to withdrawal. This would seem to be a moot point - she failed to make her case that McCain was "above that". She just let it go. Wasted opportunity. Here's what I would have said:

"You know something, Joe? You're right. John McCain did vote against that bill, and it's for exactly the same reason you just outlined. It had a timeline attached to it. You see, folks, this is what is wrong with the current political state of Washington. You can't vote for something you truly believe in and want without compromising some part of it by voting for something you vehemently disagree with. When something is desired for a good cause, our representatives in Washington jump on it and start throwing in everything under the sun because it might go through. The problem is that it happens on nearly EVERY bill. Not even bills that are assumed to be critically important are left unscathed. Look at the most recent bailout bill that just passed the Senate. It was designed to sweeten the deal for taxpayers, which is good, but under that same umbrella various special interest groups were granted millions of dollars. Now what in the world do those have to do with bailing out the economy? Absolutely nothing. We have a major crisis here, and you can rest assured that when John McCain and I get into that White House, this kind of behavior will be reigned in. As Americans we should not stand for our representatives loading up billis with unnecessary pork just to satisfy a few people. There are people's financial futures at stake here and Washington wants to just slide these things in. It's ridiculous and we won't stand for it."

Now, of course, she would have never said the last few parts because McCain actually voted for the dang bill. I don't know whether he actually agrees with it or not, but he really had no choice. It was going to win anyway, so he had to vote with the majority. If it works, then he was as good as Obama; if it fails then he was as bad as him. It basically accomplished the nullifying of Obama's vote. But still, she could have still made the point I outlined and essentially nullified Biden's claim that McCain voted against troop funding when in fact there was a good reason, and then also that current Washington politics are frustratingly and unnecessarily complicated and pushed her issue of reform.

All in all though, good debate. Palin held her own and did very well. She didn't topple Biden, but she definitely wasn't expected to. I think she did, however, get over her rash of bad publicity lately.

Finally, you can bet that if the House votes today, which I believe they are, it will pass there too. Pelosi surely wouldn't make that mistake again...