MD Conservative

Odds & Ends

2010-04-15T18:38:00.001-04:00

Has anyone heard of the talk about a Value Added Tax (VAT) being used to help eliminate our exploding deficit? The latest comes from Paul Volcker, who once advised President Reagan and helped lead to a booming economy by cutting taxes across the board. The VAT, however, is one of those insidious taxes that we won’t even see, but it will be added to the cost of every consumed product at every stage of production. In Europe, it’s as high as 20%, and even a VAT of 10% here in the U.S. would add at least $1,000,000,000,000 in new revenue to be spent carelessly by Congress. Instead of coming up with more ways to tax us, how about getting rid of every member of Congress who doesn’t know how to read the Constitution and follow their constitutionally-defined role, and then reducing the outrageous spending of our taxes?

I would estimate that at least 90% of what Congress does is unconstitutional. As the great Professor Walter E. Williams states in his recent article, “Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is authority for Congress to tax and spend for: prescription drugs, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for congressional mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. The list of congressional violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanction to do anything upon which they can muster a majority vote.” Amen!

Speaking of taxes, have you heard the news that just under 50% of Americans don’t even pay federal taxes?? As I have written before, the top 10% of taxpayers pay almost 70% of our total taxes. Sure, they pay other taxes, but as far as I’m concerned, if you don’t pay federal taxes, you should not be allowed to vote for any national office. I don’t think you have a right to decide how to spend taxes to which you contributed nothing. This whole topsy-turvy model leads to more and more government control of our lives (i.e., more dependence on Uncle Sam), and less freedom. Here’s a thought: tax everyone at the same rate. After all, if you have a 10% rate for everyone, someone who makes $10,000 pays $1,000 in taxes, and someone who makes $1,000,000 pays $100,000. How is that not fair?? That way, if you make 10 times the money, you pay 10 times the tax. Why should you pay 25 times the tax if you pass some arbitrary amount of income? As Jay Nordlinger of National Review states, our unfair tax code “pits homeowners against renters, married people against unmarried people, people with children against people without children, people with children going to college against people with children going into trades — and on and on. The tax code is packed with social policy, and bias.”

Last, when did having health care become a right? Sure, it’s nice to take care of everyone, but it was already illegal for any hospital to turn away any patient who couldn’t pay for treatment. A right is something that if exercised, it does not reduce those rights held by another. Put another way, my right to speak freely requires nothing from any other person except to not interfere. How can any logical person extend that same thought to health care? After all, for every person to receive free health care as a right requires money to be confiscated by Congress through their power of taxation in order to give that money to someone else. Not exactly a right in my book, and the mess that was signed into law by Obama should be repealed and replaced as soon as possible.

He is Incompetent

2010-02-01T19:35:00.001-05:00

I’m not one to pin all the blame OR all the credit on any president, particularly since presidents do not create law, but only sign them into effect.

However, the latest budget submitted by Obama and his team is proof positive that he and his Illinois cronies are absolutely incompetent. It doesn’t take an expert in economics to understand that spending by the government cannot end a recession, no matter how much we might want that to be the case. If it were that simple, we would never have economic recessions or depressions, since the government can always confiscate more taxes and print more money to pump into the economy. Why is this so hard for politicians and the general public to understand this simple fact? We are spending record amounts of money (most of which we are borrowing) with little or no effect. And don’t try to justify it by stating that the recession would be worse if we weren’t spending trillions of dollars (again, that we are mostly borrowing). Having the government take money from one part of the economy to give to another that they deem worthy, accomplishes nothing of long-term value.

And speaking of borrowing, who now holds much of our huge debt? China! Who thinks that is a good idea??

I know, let’s tax the wealthy and big business! We all hate them, right? Well, I have yet to receive a paycheck from a poor person, and any taxes that go on businesses are ultimately ALWAYS passed on to the consumers. Again, it doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out. If you charge me more to run my business, I will pass on those costs to my customers, or I will reduce staff or salaries, every time. Businesses don’t exist to be charitable organizations! And let’s keep in mind that the top 1% of all earners pay about 37% of the taxes; the top 10% of earners pay almost 70%; and the bottom 50% pay just 3% of the taxes, even though they account for 13% of the income. This wonderful system means that the top 50% account for 97% of taxes paid…what an incentive to go out and make more money, maybe own a business, etc.

Real Heroes

2009-09-20T10:44:00.001-04:00

In today’s upside-down world of pop culture and how the mainstream media elevates questionable people to “hero” status (e.g., Michael Jackson, Ted Kennedy), I offer up my version of real heroes.

When I was very young, I remember clearly thinking that Errol Flynn and John Wayne were real heroes, based on my narrow childhood viewpoint of the world as seen through movies with heroic characters. After all, what little boy in the 1950s and 1960s didn’t think that Robin Hood and Sgt. Stryker (“Sands of Iwo Jima”) were heroes?

Then when the space program really took off, my heroes quickly shifted to the astronauts. I clearly remember avidly watching every single rocket launch, ordering the information pamphlets for each mission from NASA, and thinking that there weren’t any greater heroes possible than people like Gus Grissom, John Glenn, and Neil Armstrong. At least I was looking up to real people at this point, and not Hollywood creations.

Naturally, there was always the handful of professional athletes to whom I looked up, like Brooks Robinson and Johnny Unitas, but that, too, has faded over the years. After attending high school with two future professional athletes (Irv Pankey – Los Angeles Rams, and Cal Ripken - Orioles), I realized that they are just talented individuals playing a game at an elevated level from the rest of us. Admirable, maybe, but heroic? Not really.

Looking back on my childhood as I pass my 50th birthday, I still admire the astronauts, still enjoy watching movies about heroic characters, and even enjoy the occasional football game on TV, but I certainly don’t hold pop stars, movie stars, politicians, or sports stars on a pedestal as someone to be admired as a hero.

Who are my real heroes? My mom and dad. Somehow with everything that happened in the past 50 years, they managed to raise 4 boys who have all had a lot of happiness and success as adults, which is surely a testament to how they raised us. As the father of two daughters, I can’t imagine trying to raise 4 boys, particularly when one parent was away on frequent deployments in the Navy (also a testament to my wife, Laura, for taking care of our daughters while I was away in the Navy).

How did they do it? Well, Dad had a job that could support us in what I always considered a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, even though the pay wasn’t necessarily the greatest (after all, he was an enlisted sailor in the Navy). I never recall missing out on anything for a lack of money, ever going hungry, ever not having nice clothes to wear, or ever feeling like I had any less than any of my friends growing up. I think if you looked up “frugal” in the dictionary, you would have seen a picture of Dad, which turned out to be an okay way to grow up.

I think Dad, closing in on 79 in another month, might look back and wish he had done some things differently, but I wouldn’t change a thing. I still rely on his advice, still call home every weekend, and still think he is one of the smartest people I have ever met. What do I remember of Dad growing up? The two of us going to movies, which is something I have always enjoyed with my daughters; laughing at “All in the Family” or “Laugh-in” (even though I didn’t get half of the jokes); his “get-up;” his numerous pairs of hush puppy shoes; the annual CPO picnic at Bainbridge; learning to shoot a .22 rifle with the NRA; building Heathkits; displaying one of my “works of art” on his desk for years and years; Junior Orioles games; working for him at H&R Block putting together tax form packets; eating snacks on Friday and Saturday nights while watching TV; and plenty of bad puns. He has always offered good advice, and he has always been there for me, particularly as I navigated my way in my own career in the Navy. I certainly don’t have any regrets on how he raised us, and neither should he!

And then there’s Mom, the real power behind the throne. Somehow while Dad was the breadwinner and was deploying on submarines, Mom managed to keep the house running while keeping 4 precocious (or worse) boys in line. If Dad is my rock, then Mom is my Gibraltar. She still keeps the family glued together as our anchor, runs the best “Camp Grandma” in the world, and puts up with all of us (and all of our own issues) with plenty of love to go around to me and my brothers, our wives, our kids, and even their kids! Dad may be one of the smartest people I have ever known, but Mom is one of the wisest. I am amazed at how she has managed to take care of things over the past few months. My memories of Mom? Lots of sayings (go outside to blow some stink off, funny as a crutch, go out back and eat worms, gobbledy-goo and shmigledy-mig); lots of card games; Mom “whistling” for us to come in from playing ball (and us magically hearing that “whistle”); taking me to riding lessons; breaking a plate over my head for some smart comment I shouldn’t have made; trying to teach me how to type on a real typewriter; doing crossword puzzles every Sunday; listening to the opera from the MET on Sundays; going to the opera together when I got older; and wonderful sarcasm.

I wouldn’t be where I am without the two of them, and they are the real heroes, not the false idols in pop culture or politics. I know I have occasionally disappointed them, but that hasn’t ever diminished their love or support. Family is ultimately the only thing that matters, and I am blessed with a great one thanks to Mom and Dad.

Tone Deaf

2009-09-02T14:34:00.001-04:00

The people in the White House and leaders in Congress really don’t get it regarding the current backlash against the attempted government take-over of the healthcare industry. To state that they are “tone deaf” is to really downplay how dense (and self-serving) they are.

For some reason, while liberal groups and liberal Democrats in Congress were vehemently protesting against almost everything President Bush did in his eight years in office, it was portrayed as the highest form of patriotism, both in Congress and in the mainstream media. There was seemingly no limit to the lengths they would go in their protests, comparing President Bush to Hitler, labeling him a war criminal, burning him in effigy, etc.

Now that the public is pushing back strongly to all that has been done by Congress since Obama took office, there are screams of mobs, right-wing conspiracies, orchestrated protests, etc., etc., etc. Give me a break. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Instead of claiming that the current protesters are not real, or that they are all puppets of the Republican establishment, perhaps the members of Congress and Obama should wake up to the fact that people don’t want bigger and bigger government, more intrusion in their lives, and ballooning deficits. Every reputable poll (is that an oxymoron?) shows that public sentiment is overwhelmingly against all of the current plans being proposed by Obama and the Democrats.

And Obama really needs to stop his perpetual campaign mode and get to actually coming up with real, constructive ideas of how to solve problems instead of abdicating that responsibility completely to the idiots in the Democrat party. Yes, Congress is the group that writes legislation, not the president, but a little leadership would be a breath of fresh air from the supposed chosen one.

Time to wake up and smell the roses!

Their Lips Are Moving…

2009-08-05T19:20:00.005-04:00

…therefore they are lying. All of them. Mr. Obama, Secretary Sebelius, Rahm Emanual, and most of the fools in power in Congress. They continue to publicly claim that they are not trying to take over healthcare and mandate a government-run, single-payer system. But then, people keep popping up with videos that prove they intend the opposite.

Need proof? How about candidate Obama stating very clearly (yes, he is on tape on YouTube) that his planned overhaul of the healthcare system will eliminate private insurance over time. He states, “I don’t think we are going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years or 20 years out.”

Representative Barney Frank (D – NY) has publicly stated, “If we get a good public option, it could lead to a single payer system, and that’s the best way to reach a single payer system” otherwise known as government-run healthcare. Note that means no private or employer insurance and coverage.

Representative Schakowsky (D - IL) states very clearly in tape, “a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single payer.” You sure can’t state it much clearer, can you?

What amazes me most is not that Obama is a narcissistic, self-serving liar, but that I know relatively intelligent people who continue to follow him like the Pied Piper. I challenge any of them to point to one efficiently-run government program. Or one that is within budget. I sure can’t think of any. Anyone??

Why not let people really take charge of their healthcare options by empowering them with deductible health accounts that are transportable across state lines and between jobs. And how about eliminating waste in the current government-run programs, Medicare and Medicaid? Yes, my parents have Medicare, but that doesn’t mean it is a well-run program. In fact, because the government is running it, it is out of money, costs are completely out of balance, there is rampant fraud, and more and more doctors are refusing to participate. Again, why would you point to that model of inefficiency as something we want to foist upon the entire population?

Check out my previous post for some common-sense ideas that actually reform our system without having the government increase their current role.

Health Care Ideas

2009-07-21T20:19:00.000-04:00

I was told a few days ago by a wise lady that I should make some suggestions about how to fix health care instead of just complaining about the ridiculous, ineffective, and expensive government-run health care plan proposed by Congress and Mr. Obama.

Here are a few thoughts on what would help in improving the current system.

First, tort reform is necessary. The current system for doctors requires them to play defense against law suits, which drives up costs dramatically. How? Doctors order numerous unnecessary tests just to avoid a potential law suit if anything goes wrong for the patient. Since there is little or no incentive NOT to run the tests, costs go up dramatically. There is also the obvious outrageous cost of carrying expensive malpractice insurance that drives some doctors from the profession.

Second, allow small businesses to pool their resources in order to purchase health care for employees. Allow these costs to be deducted from individual and corporate taxes.

Third, actual costs of every program must be made available to companies and individuals in order to have full transparency of the true costs. This will help make for fully-informed decisions by all purchasers of health care. Most employees have absolutely no idea what their employers pay for their health plan.

Fourth, allow individuals and companies to purchase health care across state lines and take their health care with them regardless of the job. The current plan proposed by Congress will force individuals into the government plan if they lose an employer-provided program and can’t take their plan with them.

Fifth, reform public options, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Foremost in this effort should be going after the fraud that exists in today’s system, where estimates go into the billions and billions of dollars wasted.

Sixth, allow individuals to choose the level of care they feel they need, without a government mandate for a minimum amount of coverage. There is no reason to force individuals to have care they don’t need or want, whether that is coverage for birth control pills, Viagra, chiropractors, or hormone replacement therapy. If a younger, healthy person only wants minimal (catastrophic) coverage, or no coverage, so be it.

Seventh, while reforming/improving the current government programs, work to get the estimated 10 million eligible individuals insured who are currently eligible for programs such as Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. This will help prevent those same individuals from continuing to use hospital emergency rooms as their primary means of getting health care.

Last, do NOT expand the existing government-run options beyond their current limits. The government has proven itself to be inefficient to date and there is absolutely no reason to believe this will change. Dr. Jeffrey Anderson recently wrote in Investor's Business Daily, "Since 1970 -- even without the prescription drug benefit – Medicare's costs have risen 34 percent more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid…."

And as reported by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), a doctor, believes that fully one-third of all health spending is wasted on defensive medicine, red tape and outright fraud. In a system that will spend $2.5 trillion this year, that equates to more than $800 billion going to unnecessary, unproductive, and fully preventable spending.

Healthcare Nonsense

2009-07-16T20:54:00.001-04:00

I have just heard the latest news that both houses of Congress are trying to rapidly approve a healthcare reform bill that they claim will not only slow the rise of healthcare costs, but will make healthcare available to every American, allow the same or greater choice of doctors and coverage that most Americans have today, will streamline the system, will save money through reduction in fraud, and will also result in every American becoming a millionaire by the end of this year. Okay, I threw in the last one, but it has as much basis in reality as the rest of the promises.

I just read from the Associated Press that the head of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, has stated that it won’t meet any of Mr. Obama’s goals. In fact, he states, "In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs." You’ll have to forgive me if I’m not at all surprised that the dolts in Congress got it wrong.

If you take a look at what has been written so far (if you can stomach over 1,000 pages of silliness), on page 16 of the bill it states that if an American doesn’t have private health insurance before the first day of the year the bill is signed, they will be forced into the government plan. Wow, sure sounds like a government plan to me!

A couple of editorial comments about this whole issue. First, there is no inalienable right to healthcare, any more than there is a right to a home, a car, a job, a jet ski, a television, a phone, etc. Sure, we shouldn’t let indigent people in the United States die because of their lack of ability to pay for a doctor’s care, but that doesn’t happen very often, regardless of the anecdotes the Obama administration is telling. In fact, emergency rooms take care of these people at hospitals around the country. Sure, it makes people feel good to think we are taking care of each other and even better to liberals that we get to stick it the rich people by making them all pay an additional tax. For those who are naïve to think the tax on rich Americans will be the only tax, I actually feel sorry for them for being so gullible.

More importantly, why would ANY intelligent person want to trust the government to run the healthcare system? What possible evidence is there in ANY government program to make a sane person want to trust healthcare to them? Is it the Post Office? The Motor Vehicle Administration? The Social Security Administration? Medicare? Medicaid? The Transportation Security Administration (travelled through an airport lately?)? Health and Human Services? Congress? Our intelligence agencies (apologies to my son-in-law, but how about the intelligence failure about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?)? Defense Department (heard about all of the cost overruns on every major program?)? State Department (how’s it working out with Iran and North Korea?)? I truly believe that anyone who wants to trust Obama and Congress to this important issue is an absolute fool.

This entire effort is misguided, ill-conceived, put together by people in Congress who have screwed up most of what they have touched for several decades, and there is certainly no urgency that Mr. Obama claims. The healthcare crisis has had little or nothing to do with our current economic problems. To think otherwise shows an ignorance of economics and current events, contrary to the "great oracle" who now occupies the White House.

Cap & Trade and Global Warming Nonsense

2009-07-13T20:10:00.000-04:00

It has been a while since I posted anything due to vacation, competing family issues, etc., but I just had to get back into this whole cap and trade silliness that Congress passed a couple of weeks ago. And, of course, the related non-issue of global warming.

First of all, there is absolutely no credible evidence that taking the steps passed by Congress will make ANY difference in worldwide temperatures. In fact, the only sure effect will be onerous conditions imposed on every person in America who uses energy in any way. This ranges from heating and cooling a home, to buying any product that used energy to produce that same product (in other words, every product).

Second of all, the whole cap and trade supposition is absolute nonsense. While one user of energy is penalized if exceeding an emission target, another user might have credits if that user pollutes less. It is almost comical to believe that this will result in any net positive to either consumers, companies, or the environment.

For a change, the latest news from Mr. Obama’s own staff is right on target. EPA Administrator Jackson recently confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. "I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels," Administrator Jackson said. I firmly believe that even if the entire world went along with the draconian cap and trade measures, it would have negligible effect on the climate.

Moreover, the entire cap and trade idea, as passed by Congress, is just a way to raise taxes across the board, so that same Congress can then spend more and more of our money on ridiculous projects. In fact, Senator Cardin (D – MD) called cap and trade the largest revenue generator ever passed. For those who don’t speak the same language as our representatives, a revenue is a friendlier way of saying “tax.” And trust me on this one, whenever any business gets taxed, it passes on the cost to consumers. Congress is just hoping the public will get mad at utility companies, retailers, etc., thinking that it is evil corporations that are responsible for higher costs, and not blame Congress for creating the higher taxes in the first place.

Closely related to the whole cap and trade idea, is that the planet is warming and that man is to blame. While I rarely ever believe anyone in our own Congress is smart, honest, or serving the public and not themselves, Senator Stephen Fielding, from Australia, got it exactly right, as reported in The Telegraph. He asked the following three questions about the whole silly notion of global warming and the idea that it is a result of man:

How, since temperatures have been dropping, can CO2 be blamed for them rising?

What, if CO2 was the cause of recent warming, was the cause of temperatures rising higher in the past?

Why, since the official computer models have been proved wrong, should we rely on them for future projections? (As I have stated in the past, there aren’t ANY computer models that adequately address the effect of clouds!!)

Finally, there are scientists who are getting press coverage who actually think the idea of man-made warming (a.k.a. anthropogenic warming) is a load of fertilizer. The latest thinking from a group of scientists is that the link to solar activity and ocean currents is more likely to be the cause for global temperature changes. By the way, the worldwide temperature (if there even is such a thing) has gone down for the past several years.

Keep in mind when you hear all of the discussion about global warming/climate change, that none of the politicians have a clue regarding the climate. They all have agendas, and folks like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi just need to sit down and shut up.

Never Trust an Ensign

2009-06-17T17:39:00.000-04:00

Based on my 20 years in the Navy, I have always believed that an ensign is to be seen, not heard, and never trusted.

Today’s headline regarding Senator Ensign (R – Nev) and his extramarital affair just confirms my beliefs…

Who keeps voting for these self-important fools?

Now I’ve Heard It All

2009-06-11T19:34:00.000-04:00

Well, Congress is at it again, and I’m sure the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, is rolling over in his grave at how out of control Congress is. Thomas Jefferson is probably right there with him.

Rep. Anna Eshoo, D- Calif., introduced a bill to require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reduce the volume of televisions advertisements to the average decibel levels of the TV show during which they appear. But wait, it just gets better.

Representative Eshoo is a member of the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, which will consider the (are you ready??) Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, a.k.a. “CALM.” It has 63 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and two in the Senate. I am not sure who the other idiots are that are co-sponsors, but I sure hope I didn’t vote for any of them!!

Keep in mind when ill-informed people claim that Congress is just using the “general welfare” clause of the constitution for all of the ridiculous laws they now pass, this is what James Madison said regarding that very clause:

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” He further stated, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Who Writes for Him?

2009-06-04T17:42:00.000-04:00

Contrary to the ridiculously-biased media, I can actually listen to Mr. Obama read his teleprompter and not walk away thinking it is the greatest speech of all time.

Yesterday, his speech writer had him telling the world that we are a Muslim nation…who knew??

How about his speech today in Egypt? He gave credit to Muslims for inventing the magnetic compass. A little research from his writers would have found that the first compass was invented in China, likely in the Qin dynasty (221-206 B.C.). Gee, I’m fairly confident that there were no Muslims in the world at that point.

He also credited Islam with “developing the order of algebra.” The latest thinking by scholars is that algebra was created somewhere around 1700 B.C. or earlier. Again, this is before Islam was even a belief. The first work which approaches a treatise on algebra is by Diophantus, an Alexandrian mathematician, who lived around A.D. 350.

Other outrageous claims? Islam gave us our “mastery of pens and printing.” Reed pens date back to ancient Egypt and the fourth century B.C. Quill pens showed up somewhere around the sixth century A.D. Again, no connection to an invention of Islam. And I am sure that Gutenberg would take exception to the notion that Islam had anything to do with the first real printing press (around 1440 A.D.).

How about Islam giving us “majestic arches and soaring spires?” I am confident that arches existed in ancient architecture long before Islam existed.

And what’s with his reference to the holocaust? Here is part of what he said:

“Six million Jews were killed, more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless. It is ignorant, and it is hateful.

Threatening Israel with destruction or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews is deeply wrong and only serves to evoke in the minds of the Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people, Muslims and Christians, have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years, they've endured the pain of dislocation.”

He uses the idiom of “on the other hand,” which implies two options. Is he stating that you have the holocaust on one side and the 60-year plight of the Palestinian people on the other? He stated that “Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations, large and small, that come with occupation.”

I think the extermination of over 6 million Jews has no comparison to what has happened in the past 60 years to the Palestinians. I’m not taking anything away from what the Palestinian people have endured, but I know that 6 million of them have not been methodically killed in an attempt to exterminate an entire group of people.

When will the press actually ask the tough questions of Mr. Obama and what his writers have written for him to say?

Government Motors

2009-06-03T16:22:00.000-04:00

So who is still gullible enough to believe Mr. Obama doesn’t want to run GM (and even Chrysler)?

Back when it first looked as if both GM and Chrysler were headed toward bankruptcy when President bush was still in office, the Democrats in Congress stated that we couldn’t let either business go under. After $20 billion in government funds to GM, and more on the way, they still declared bankruptcy, despite the promises from Obama to the contrary. Or, to be more accurate, they were forced into bankruptcy by Mr. Obama himself. And this is how the New York Times reported it, not some right-wing newspaper. So, he forced the resignation of the GM CEO, Rick Wagoner, back in March. He actually had the audacity (one of his favorite words) to tell the affected thousands of workers that they had to make sacrifices for future generations!! Where does he even get the nerve to do this, and why has the press not done a better job of reporting how outrageous it is for a president to be involved in a private business??

For those conspiracy theorists out there, you could easily see that this is an easy way for Mr. Obama to pay back the unions, who backed him for election last year. Most creditors of both GM and Chrysler are going to lose most of their investments, yet the unions manage to get a huge percentage of both companies. And, just as disturbing, is that Obama will try to now force GM to make more cars that nobody wants to buy, while cutting back on their profitable vehicles (SUVs and light trucks that people really want to buy) in order to meet more-stringent mileage standards.

And, by the way, those Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that every president since Ford has pushed for have done little if anything to save gas. In fact, when most people get better mileage, they drive more, thus offsetting any savings. It also means lighter vehicles for the high-mileage cars, which means cars that are not as safe, as seen by the increase in highway deaths due to smaller cars not faring as well in crashes as larger (less fuel-efficient) cars. Don’t get me wrong, I have a small car that gets about 40 miles per gallon, but it has allowed me to live over 30 miles from where I work since I don’t spend as much to fill up each time.

Time to get Obama and the rest of the government out of private industry. He, and Congress, have no experience running private businesses, and haven’t got a clue in what they are doing. Of course, this can safely be said about most of what Obama has done since taking office…

Obama’s Words Betray Him

2009-06-01T18:30:00.000-04:00

This is what Mr. Obama stated when he announced the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court:

“And while there are many qualities that I admire in judges across the spectrum of judicial philosophy, and that I seek in my own nominee, there are a few that stand out that I just want to mention.

First and foremost is a rigorous intellect, a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.

Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge's job is to interpret, not make law, to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.” (emphasis is mine)

Naturally, people are questioning Sotomayor on her statements that courts are “where policy is made.” She also expressed her “hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” when each is acting as a judge “in deciding cases.”

Unless you don’t know how to read, this seems to be in complete contradiction to what Mr. Obama stated in the nomination speech. It is definitely in direct opposition to what he stated when he opposed Chief Justice Roberts’ nomination (one in the minority, I should add), this is what he stated at the time:

“That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled — in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.”

So, now that conservatives are raising valid issues, why is Mr. Obama getting so defensive? Either he believes what he states, or he doesn’t. Either a judge’s beliefs should come into play, or they shouldn’t. As usual, the press is glossing over all of these contradictions because it is their guy who keeps getting it wrong, and who keeps making bad decisions.

He Gets It Wrong…Again

2009-05-26T17:37:00.000-04:00

Mr. Obama has not exactly been making good choices his first few months in office, regardless of the continuously-fawning press (aren’t they supposed to be unbiased and just report the facts??).

Some of his bad or questionable decisions?

- Many of his cabinet nominees have broken tax laws
- He promised to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay without any plan (this idea is so ridiculous that even the Democrats in Congress wouldn’t fund the closure)
- Signing the so-called stimulus bill, that has done little to nothing to improve the economy, and that will grow the deficit at a record pace over the next 10 years
- Signing the Omnibus Spending Bill that contained in the neighborhood of 8,000 earmarks, after campaigning to end all earmarks (he promised he would do it next time)
- He hired former lobbyists to key positions in his administration even though he campaigned against doing that, and even promised the same after he took office
- He has the government essentially running two formerly-private car companies
- He has pushed for the idiotic notion of “Cap and trade” to supposedly help the planet and the economy (and, I suppose, all of the rest of us)

You get the idea. Contrary to how he is portrayed by the press as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln or FDR, he just makes one bad decision after another.

His latest? Nominating Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. I imagine there are a number of decisions she has made in her career that I would agree were actual judgments based on the law and not how she feels, but I’m not positive. After all, she expressed her “hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” when each is acting as a judge “in deciding cases.” (Sotomayor, “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” 13 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 87 (2002).) Gee, from where I sit (sorry, but I happen to be a middle-age white guy, so I might be prejudiced), this sure sounds racist and sexist.

What’s her track record for cases of hers that have been reviewed by the Supreme Court? Of 6 cases, 5 were overturned. Not exactly a stellar performance from someone now nominated to sit on that very court!

Her take on the duties of a judge? She has publicly stated that courts are “where policy is made.” Forgive my ignorance, but I always thought a judge was to listen to arguments from both sides of a case, then compare that to the law to determine who is correct. I don’t believe there is supposed to be any policy creation, since that belongs to legislatures, not the bench. I’m fairly confident that is why our founding fathers created three branches of government in order to create balances and checks. It is the same reason the executive branch of government should not be creating laws or side-stepping the law (e.g., declaring war when this is reserved exclusively to Congress).

Maybe we’ll all be surprised by Sotomayor, but since you can only judge a nominee for the Supreme Court based on his/her legal track record, I see this as just another bad decision by a president who is in way over his head.

Get the Unions Out of Education!

2009-05-18T21:41:00.000-04:00

So, it’s bad enough the federal government is into education (again violating the duties of Congress as written by the original framers of the Constitution), but even worse is the fact that the National Education Association (NEA) and its Political Action Committee (PAC) is heavily involved in politics. To compound this, this PAC gives vast amounts of money almost exclusively to the Democrat party. (No, I didn’t call it the Democratic Party because I don’t believe they are democratic at all, but very narrow-minded,indeed and not inclusive of multiple viewpoints. In fact, they make the Republican Party look downright welcoming!).

Need some examples? In 1972, the NEA formed their PAC and one of its most significant steps was to endorse a presidential candidate—Jimmy Carter—for the first time in the history of the organization. I can’t imagine where a union gets the idea that it can spend their members’ dues on political activities without first asking the same members if they agree with this. In many areas, teachers are required to join the union, regardless of the fact that they may totally disagree with the political leanings and actions of the union and its PAC. So much for democracy!

More examples? The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Malanga reported that “Organized labor has become by far the most powerful political force in government.” He reports that “by the mid-1960s, dozens of cities across America were wracked by teachers' strikes that closed school systems. Groups like New York City's transit workers walked off the job in 1966, bringing business in Gotham to a near halt. The United Federation of Teachers led an illegal strike which closed down New York City schools in 1968.

In Pennsylvania, a local think tank, the Commonwealth Foundation, counted the resources of the state's teachers union a few years ago. It had 11 regional offices, 275 employees and $66 million in annual dues. In Connecticut, representatives of the teachers union camped outside the legislators' doors in 2005 to keep tabs on school reformers who were calling on these officials to expand school choice.

In California, unions spent more than $50 million in 2005 to defeat a series of ballot proposals that would have capped growth in the state's budget. Now the state's teachers union is putting its clout behind a ballot initiative, to be voted on next week, that would restore more than $9 billion in educational spending cut from the state's budget.”

In an article from 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported that the NEA gave $65 million in its members' dues to liberal groups. I’m fairly confident that they didn’t ask any of its members if that was okay!

While I am a strong supporter of free market determination of salaries and prices, I have to choke on some of the salaries of the NEA’s top members. In 2006, Reg Weaver, the union's president, made $439,000 a year!! Back then, the NEA had a $58 million payroll for just over 600 employees, more than half of whom were drawing six-figure salaries. By comparison, in 2005, the average teacher made only $48,000. Yes, I know that is an apples-to-oranges comparison, but it sure seems a little ridiculous that a union that is supposedly representing teachers and students is paying out that kind of money to its executives.

Want to know some of the causes to which the NEA donates its money? How about giving $15,000 to the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights.” Or the National Women's Law Center, whose website currently features a “pocket guide” to opposing Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito, received $5,000. Or how about the Fund to Protect Social Security getting $400,000, presumably to defeat personal investment accounts?

Here is how their contributions break out:

2008: out of $2,504,806, they gave $2,262,056 to Democrats
2006: out of $2,392,127, they gave $2,093,404 to Democrats
2004: out of $2,123,247, they gave $1,921,347 to Democrats
2002: out of $3,551,158, they gave $3,218,158 to Democrats
2000: out of $3,175,488, they gave $2,879,100 to Democrats
1998: out of $3,369,387, they gave $3,183,287 to Democrats
1996: out of $3,367,524, they gave $3,235,839 to Democrats
1994: out of $3,371,765, they gave $3,319,965 to Democrats
1992: out of $3,166,809, they gave $3,021,804 to Democrats
1990: out of $2,602,565, they gave $2,429,605 to Democrats
TOTAL: out of $29,624,876, they gave $27,564,565 to Democrats

And what have they done for their constituency in some of the worst schools in the country, located in Washington, D.C.? The Democrats in Congress recently voted to kill the D.C. School-Choice Program. As reported by the Washington Post, this federally-funded program enables poor students to attend private schools with scholarships of up to $7,500.

Keep in mind that this means that Deborah Parker, mother of two children who attend Sidwell Friends School because of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, will no longer be able to have her children attend the same school as Mr. and Mrs. Obama’s daughters. Who knew that this was the change Mr. Obama was promising??

As the Post states, “the debate unfolding on Capitol Hill isn't about facts. It's about politics and the stranglehold the teachers unions have on the Democratic Party. Why else has so much time and effort gone into trying to kill off what, in the grand scheme of government spending, is a tiny program? Why wouldn't Congress want to get the results of a carefully calibrated scientific study before pulling the plug on a program that has proved to be enormously popular? Could the real fear be that school vouchers might actually be shown to be effective in leveling the academic playing field?”

Humorous History Lesson

2009-05-08T15:14:00.000-04:00

I got the following from a good friend, who is also a conservative...

For those of you who missed World History 101, here is a condensed version. Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer, and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were:
1. The invention of beer, and
2. The invention of the wheel.

The wheel was invented to get man to the beer, and the beer to the man.

These facts formed the foundation of modern civilization, and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals
2. Conservatives

Once beer was discovered, it required grain, and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to barbecue at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly barbecues and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, the evolution of the Hollywood actor, and the concept of democratic voting to decide how to divide all the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years, Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: most liberal women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals.

Conservatives drink domestic beer, eat red meat, and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, firemen, lumberjacks, paramedics, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed, and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

All You Really Need to Know

2009-04-28T19:23:00.001-04:00

You wouldn’t know it from the fawning from the majority of media reports, but Mr. Obama’s approval numbers, according to a Gallup survey, for his first 100 days in office rank one step from the bottom when compared with all presidents in the past 40 years. Yes, this even includes President George W. Bush.

Here is how they stack up:

Reagan - 67 percent
Carter - 63 percent
George W. Bush - 62 percent
Nixon - 61 percent
George H.W. Bush - 58 percent
Obama – 56 percent
Clinton – 55 percent

As the editors of the Washington Times explain it, “Mr. Obama's popularity after 100 days is the second-lowest for a simple reason: He is more partisan and divisive than his predecessors - including Richard Nixon.”

Bloviating Fools

2009-04-27T07:56:00.000-04:00

If agoraphobia is "an abnormal fear of being in crowds, public places, or open areas, sometimes accompanied by anxiety attacks," then what is "a rational fear of bloviating, unqualified politicians trying to scare children and ruin our economy by falsely preaching about man-made global warming?"

Algore-aphobia

Earth Day & Global Warming

2009-04-26T08:56:00.000-04:00

As I sit here on a very warm April morning, I have to laugh at the recent testimony from the great airbag, Al Gore, warning us that we are heading toward disaster if we don’t completely change our ways (us, not him, of course), cripple our economy, and tax every form of energy. Worse yet, this is what Representative Ed Markey (D, Mass.) had to say before Big Al testified:

“Vice President Gore was a leader of the debate in the 1980s. And now the whole world knows that he has long been a visionary. It is sometimes said that a prophet is someone who is right, but too soon. Al Gore is an example of someone who, not only was right early, very early, in fact, but who dedicated his life to educating our country so that they, too, saw the threats he foresaw decades ago.”

Wow, I feel so lucky to have such a wise, washed-up Vice President speak so eloquently about things of which he knows absolutely nothing! And, of course, Big Al does nothing in his own life to show that he really cares about his carbon footprint. I’m fairly confident that he doesn’t fly coach as he goes around the world bloviating about man-made global warming.

What is worse (if that’s possible) is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is going to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions (including carbon dioxide) on the grounds that these “pollutants” pose a danger to the public's health and welfare!

In response to this change, I was happy to see an editorial in the Las Vegas Journal-Review, entitled “Garbage In, Garbage Out.” In part, the author states the following:

"Business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have warned that if the federal government regulates carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act it will end up imposing an enormous regulatory burden.

The greenhouse effect is, in fact, beneficial to all life on Earth. Without it, the planet would freeze at night. We should be wary of tampering with it, even if we could, which (fortunately) we can't.

If there is currently some modest global warming going on (there's considerable evidence the recent minor warming phase has slowed), it's beneficial in that it allows mankind of grow more food. It's certainly of less concern than global cooling, which will eventually lead to another Ice Age.

The main greenhouse gas is water vapor, which comes mainly from natural sources. Carbon dioxide has only one quarter the thermal absorption of water vapor; there's only about 3 percent as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is water vapor; and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is also overwhelmingly from natural sources.

In short, eliminating man-made carbon dioxide entirely — which can't be done, in part because the EPA has no authority over fast-industrializing India and China — would impact any ongoing 'climate change' by less than 1 percent."

As I have stated before, the real evidence shows a slight cooling over the past decade, which is completely in opposition to what is reported by the press. Moreover, even if the planet was warming, there is no possible way to assign the cause to man-made effects, regardless of what you hear. The wonderful computer models that are used to justify this falsehood are not accurate, do not take into effect clouds (might be an important thing to consider), and are not complex enough to handle the worldwide climate. They can’t even forecast the weather a month from now, let alone what will happen in decades!!

Ignorant and Wrong

2009-04-21T21:05:00.002-04:00

I just have a quick note about Mr. Obama and his silliness otherwise known as his apology tours…parts 1 (Europe) and 2 (Latin America). He needs to stop apologizing for America (there is nothing to apologize for), blaming his predecessor (is he really going to keep doing this for the next 4 years?), and not acting as the leader of America. He needs to realize that many leaders of Europe actually had solid relationships with President Bush and his administration (e.g., Blair, Sarkozy). Mr. Obama just doesn’t get how weak he makes himself and America appear. He needs to stop groveling at the feet of dictators who brutalize their own people (e.g., Chavez, Castro) until they actually change their ways, not before.

Moreover, he is dead wrong for releasing four highly-classified Justice Department legal opinions about interrogation. And to further compound his bad decision, he is leaving open the idea of prosecuting anyone who decided our interrogation techniques under President Bush were legal. They were, and they helped foil numerous plots that saved countless lives. Just one more of many promises broken by Obama (made as recently as last Friday and repeated by his chief of staff on the Sunday talk-show circuit). As the editors of the National Review point out, “The memos confirm that these techniques came out of the U.S. Military’s own “Survival Evasion Resistance Escape” (SERE) training programs. This is important for two reasons. First, it shows that Congress was fully aware that these types of techniques had been used thousands of times in the past — on U.S. service members. Second, and more important, the SERE training program produced years’ worth of data about how individuals react, physically and mentally, to various interrogation methods. From 1992 to 2001, more than 26,000 were SERE-trained. Of these, only 0.14 percent were removed from the program for psychological reasons.” Moreover, Congress was briefed on what was going on, and they did not object at the time.

The editors further state, “The message to agents asked to do dangerous things to keep our country safe is: ‘Even if you have a presidential assurance, legal license from the Department of Justice, and encouragement from the congressional intelligence committees, you may not be safe a month from now, a year from now, or whenever the climate of threat changes or power changes hands.”’It’s probably what those agents suspected all along, even as they acted, regardless, out of a sense of duty. Now they know.”

Fighting Privacy…

2009-04-13T19:48:00.001-04:00

Well, here he goes again. The great orator said today in his press conference that he vowed to “halt the rise of privacy” (who knew privacy was a problem??). Yep, you got it, Mr. Obama goofed up even with his ever-present teleprompter leading the way.

I have no problem with someone misspeaking, but where is the ridicule from the press? After all, they made fun of every single gaffe by President Bush while he was in office. Seems only fair. Amazingly, the Associated Press reported “President Barack Obama vowed Monday ‘to halt the rise of piracy,’ while shipmates of the rescued American freighter captain called for tough action against Somali bandits who are preying on one of the world's busiest sea routes.” Pretty bad when a news organization can’t even get the quotation correct!

Who Voted for This Idiot?

2009-04-13T08:16:00.000-04:00

So now Mr. Obama’s silliness has reached an all-time high. As reported by the Associated Press, his “new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.” Can it get any dumber??

As someone who has 20 years of experience forecasting the weather, I can unequivocally state that John Holdren, the science advisor, is a complete and utter fool. And Mr. Obama should get all of the blame for hiring him. Just keep in mind as we listen to all of these so-called experts, that similar “experts” warned us of an impending ice age back in the early 1970s. Their hare-brained ideas at the time included covering the Greenland ice cap with ash in order to increase solar absorption (thus, warming the planet). I have never been more embarrassed for the scientific community than I am now.

Let’s also keep in mind that the same computer models that can’t accurately predict weather more than 72 hours into the future are being used to predict weather decades or more ahead. To compound this problem, none of the computer models effectively know how to deal with cloud cover and its effects on temperature. Gee, do you think that might be a key part of the equation in trying to model the complex atmosphere?

Also, while many alarmists, and politicians who have no clue, keep complaining about rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). First of all, there is NO correlation between rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels, if you actually look at the data and avoid the bloviating fools who profess expertise. More importantly, however, is that water vapor has a far greater impact on temperatures, yet there is no discussion about that factor at all.

I have just as many scientific articles from experts to counter all of the hysteria about the warming. In fact, there has been a cooling of worldwide temperatures for almost a decade, which is amazingly underreported (or completely unreported) by most media sources. But even that misses the point.

The real point of my post is to point out the arrogance of these fools who actually believe we: know enough about the atmosphere to accurately make long-term predictions (we don’t); have computers that are sophisticated enough to deal with all of the complexities of a global atmosphere (we don't); have a clue about what will happen when we try to cool the atmosphere by putting pollution into the upper atmosphere (we don’t). Has anyone thought about the law of unintended consequences? Every time we try to manipulate the environment, we end up having to then make another series of changes to counter the unintended consequences from the first changes, and it just cascades from there. What would have happened had those clowns (a.k.a. scientists) in the 1970s been able to cover the Greenland icecap with soot to warm us up??? Just stop the madness before we really screw things up!

More Silliness

2009-04-03T15:52:00.000-04:00

Okay, so Bill Clinton used to be the gold standard for narcissism, but Mr. Obama has surpassed him on his recently-completed G-20 summit. Have you heard what he said in his press conference with England’s Prime Minister Brown? Here’s a quote for you: “I would like to think that with my election and the early decisions that we've made, that you're starting to see some restoration of America's standing in the world. And although, as you know, I always mistrust polls, international polls seem to indicate that you're seeing people more hopeful about America's leadership." What’s next, an Obama-version of the Sally Field “You Like Me” Oscar speech?

How about his outright lying about his goals for micro-managing the economy? Here is what he said at the same press conference: “It doesn't mean the state micromanaging — (sneezes) — excuse me — I've been fighting this all week — it doesn't mean that we want the state dictating salaries; we don't. We — I strongly believe in a free-market system, and as I — as I think people understand in America, at least, people don't resent the rich; they want to be rich. And that's good. But we want to make sure that there's mechanisms in place that holds people accountable and produces results. OK?” And, of course, that stands in complete opposition to his administration forcing the CEO of Chrysler to quit.

And how about the latest efforts of Congress to dictate what private companies should pay executives? The Hill newspaper reported two days ago that Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) stated, “the pay of defense company CEOs should also be examined. ‘I’d like to take a look at that [defense executive pay] as part of the overall executive compensation question rather than separate it out,’ Levin told reporters on Tuesday. ‘The executive pay in this country is so totally out of whack.’ Gee, if I want the government to control salaries in a private company, I’ll go to a communist country, thanks anyway. And as I have asked before, why would you want anyone in Congress deciding anything about the free-market economy? What have they managed well, to date? The IRS? HHS? DHS? Our banking system? The mortgage industry? Department of Education? Social Security? I work in a private company that supports the defense industry through numerous government contracts, and it’s none of Mr. Obama’s or Congress’s business how much money executives make in my company. What’s to stop them at executive salaries? Why not just make all jobs government jobs?

And speaking of government jobs, where is the outrage in the fact that so many government employees get annual bonuses? The Washington Post has reported that 60 percent of government employees receive bonuses each year! Or how about the fact that in 2008 28 top FDA officials together received more than $1 million in retention and merit cash bonuses, some for more than $50,000, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. Seventeen of the top paid officials made more than $200,000!! Where is the outrage? Or in 2007, when budget officials at the VA received bonuses ranging up to $33,000 while they had a $1,000,000 budget shortfall?

Want more outrage over bonuses? According to a report in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, bonus payments on Capitol Hill in 2008 were among the highest in years, according to LegiStorm, an organization that tracks payroll data. The average House aide earned 17 percent more in the fourth quarter of the year, when the bonuses were paid, than in previous quarters, according to the data. That was the highest jump in the eight years LegiStorm has compiled payroll information. You have to love the hypocrisy.

Last, but not least, let’s not forget to mention another misstep by his inept vetting process. Have you heard about the latest tax cheat for Mr. Obama’s administration? Here’s a great item from the Associated Press: Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama’s nominee to become Health and Human Services secretary, said in a letter obtained by the Associated Press that she made “unintentional errors” on her taxes and has corrected her returns from three different years. In the letter, which was sent to senators and dated today, Sebelius wrote that she had made changes related to charitable contributions, business expenses and the sale of a home, according to the AP. She and her husband paid just over $7,000 in back taxes, along with $878 in interest, for the years 2005-2007. Do you think as the annual tax deadline approaches that the IRS would forgive me for unintentional errors??? No wonder Mr. Obama thinks the rich don’t pay enough taxes; all of the rich people he knows don’t pay taxes unless they get nominated for his Cabinet!

You Can’t Make This Stuff Up

2009-03-27T16:39:00.000-04:00

Here we are a couple of months into Mr. Obama’s first (and hopefully only) administration, and the list of bad moves, broken promises, gaffes, dumb ideas, and outright lies just keeps piling up.

Here are just a few of his more notable missteps.

His Chief of Staff, Rahm (a.k.k. Rahmbo) Emanuel, said, “Don’t let a crisis go to waste.” With guys like him running the show, this should be a good warning to everyone.

His first nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary, Tom Daschle, failed to pay about $100,000 in taxes and over $83,000 in consulting income. He ultimately withdrew his nomination.

His first nominee for Chief Performances Officer, Nancy Killefer, failed to pay taxes and ultimately withdrew her nomination.

His first nominee for Secretary of Commerce, Bill Richardson, withdrew his nomination during a grand jury investigation into a state contract awarded to his political donors.

William J. Lynn III, the Senior Vice President of Raytheon Corporation, and Mr. Obama’s nominee for Deputy Secretary of Defense, was granted a special waiver to circumvent his own administration’s new ethics rule prohibiting former lobbyists from overseeing industries they represented within the previous two years.

Timothy Geithner, current Treasury Secretary, failed to pay self-employment taxes for four years, to the tune of over $40,000. He is now in charge of the Internal Revenue Service, the agency that oversees tax collection. And this same law-breaking official now wants unprecedented powers to seize non-bank financial institutions (e.g., hedge funds, investment firms, insurers) if they look like they're going to fail. Apparently he will do this based on how he is feeling on any particular day (great Wall Street Journal editorial can be found here). Keep in mind that Geithner was the same guy who helped put into place the rescue package for AIG (including the bonuses) while Geithner was working as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. And, unbelievably, he testified to Congress that he doesn’t consider his plan to have the government take over private companies as a radical idea!

Mr. Obama made fun of people who participate in Special Olympics in his recent ill-advised appearance with Jay Leno.

He giggled like a school girl in the recent Sixty Minutes interview when discussing the economic mess we are in.

When he’s accused over and over again for his over-reliance on teleprompters (including during press conferences), he simply changes it to a large-screen television and puts it at the rear of the press room for his latest press conference so that it doesn’t show to the public. And have you heard him speak without the teleprompter? I’ll grant you that he knows how to deliver a canned speech as well as any politician, but when he is ad-libbing, he makes George W. Bush look like an eloquent speaker; not an easy task.

Want some really silly ideas to help fix the banking and mortgage problem, which has led us to our current financial problem? Let’s try to change our school system (by involving the federal government even more than they are today), or mandating more renewable energy types such as solar (still extremely inefficient and overly expensive), or by having the government take its first bold step into government-controlled health care! What intelligent person thinks those issues have anything to do with the banking and housing problems? They may be problems to a lot of people, but fixing them and spending more taxes to get us further into debt will do nothing about the current issues with the financial markets.

If you want to know how bad that last idea is, look at England or Canada to see how rationing of health care doesn’t work. Not convinced? Take a look at the disastrous attempt by Massachusetts to implement universal health care. There’s a great review of how poorly that is going at this Wall Street Journal site. Bottom line? Universal coverage means runaway costs followed by price controls and bureaucratic rationing.

Cap and trade? What an utterly idiotic notion to try and control a problem (man-made global warming) that most likely doesn’t exist in the first place (yes, as a meteorologist who has studied this for years, there is NO settled science, and listening to any politician who claims to know otherwise (e.g., Al Gore) should be done with great skepticism). And anyone who thinks that taxing energy producers will do anything other than causing all of our costs to go up through higher process and taxes is living in a fantasy world. Any time a business is taxed, the price is always passed on to the consumer.

And, of course, we have the “stimulus” bill that Mr. Obama signed, though he had little or nothing to do with drafting any of the provisions. As Daniel Hannan, MEP (http://www.hannan.co.uk/), recently stated so well at the European Union Parliament, you don’t spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt. If that were the case, every time an individual taxpayer owed more than he makes, the advice would be to borrow more to go further into debt, to somehow magically not be in debt. Anyone else seeing the illogical argument here?

How about Mr. Obama’s campaign pledge to go through every bill, line by line, to eliminate waste and earmarks? Well, that only applies if he feels like it. In the recently-signed Omnibus Spending Bill, there were over 8,000 earmarks. What did Mr. Obama have to say about that? Well, that was last year’s business (which, of course includes his voting for the spending as a Senator), and it doesn’t count. After all, you can’t hold him responsible, can you?? Gee, that wouldn’t be fair!

Gifts for the Prime Minster of England to honor our “special relationship” between our two countries? Well, someone forgot to check to see if the 25 classic movies Mr. Obama (a.k.a., the Blockbuster President) gave to Gordon Brown even played in a British DVD player (they don’t). Oops. And how is that a special gift? What, he couldn’t find 25 classic board games?? Or 25 of our top snacks??? Meanwhile, Mr. Brown gave Mr. Barack Obama an ornamental pen holder made from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet (oak from the Gannet’s sister ship, HMS Resolute, was carved to make a desk that has sat in the Oval Office in the White House since 1880).

The recent $500,000 book-signing deal for Mr. Obama? He conveniently got that deal done before he took office so that he wouldn’t get into trouble with ethics violations. And wasn’t a book deal what got Speaker Gingrich in trouble may years ago? Didn’t the Democrats get in a tizzy when this happened? As The New York Times reported in 1994, the House Speaker announced that he would forgo a $4.5 million book advance to avoid the appearance of cashing in on his party's victory in the November 1993 elections. Maybe it’s just the dollar amount? Or, maybe, it’s just another case of double standards from Mr. Obama and the Democrats. Isn’t Mr. Obama now cashing in on his victory??

As you can see, this is not exactly a stellar start for Mr. Obama’s administration, and he is looking like a man who is in way over his head. An effective campaigner, but so far, an ineffective leader.

Liberty or Tyranny

2009-03-25T20:00:00.001-04:00

So, back to my recurring theme of the government continuing to commit unconstitutional acts when they tax us, spend our hard-earned money on ridiculous items (see my examples in my “What Do We Do About Congress” post), break the laws that we can’t break, etc., etc. Well, now Mr. Geithner (who doesn’t believe tax rules apply to him, just to you and me), and Mr. Obama (who received a lot of political donations from AIG) want to get unprecedented powers to seize non-bank financial institutions (e.g., hedge funds, investment firms, insurers) if they look like they're going to fail (based on only their opinions, of course).

Anyone bothered by this tyranny? Well, here is what Abraham Lincoln had to say about the difference between liberty and tyranny:

"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."

Seems to me that the current leaders in Congress and the White House are definitely on the side of tyranny by Lincoln’s definition. As Thomas Jefferson stated many years ago, “A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

Seems to me that our “leaders” need to go back to school about their constitutional duties. They certainly aren’t performing good government, are they??

He Doth Protest Too Much

2009-03-23T19:41:00.000-04:00

So here we have two very outspoken members of Congress, Senator Chris Dodd and Representative Barney Frank, and the President himself railing against the bonuses paid to AIG, although Mr. Obama in his most-recent interview has conveniently backed off on some of his harshest criticism. If you listened to these characters, you would think that their own behavior would be above reproach since they are trying to act as if they are speaking from a higher authority.

Well, it turns out that maybe these pillars of virtue might not be so perfect and virtuous after all. What a shock.

For starters, in 2008, AIG contributed $443,000 to Democrats and another $144,000 to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsible Politics (an oxymoron, if I have ever heard one).

Who topped the list of the recipients of AIG contributions? Mr. Obama, naturally, receiving $104,000.

In the case of Chris Dodd, who oversees the Senate’s Banking Committee (which has oversight on companies such as AIG), he received $103,000 in 2008. He has received over $280,000 in campaign cash from AIG’s political committee and employees in the last 20 years.

And good old Barney Frank? As Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, he receives most of his money from the securities and investment sector, with a total of $224,000; which was the most that industry donated to the congressman since he was elected. Real estate came in second, donating $219,851 to the King of Outrage. Anyone else see possible conflicts of interest with this buffoon?

Not to leave Republicans out, Senator John McCain received $59,500, which might explain why he has only been carping about the bonuses half as loud as the Democrats.

Who keeps voting these bozos into office, and why do we listen to anything they say??

Supposed Outrage Over Bonuses

2009-03-17T19:47:00.000-04:00

Okay, I, like most reasonable people, do not like to hear that numerous AIG employees have received bonuses (to the tune of $165 million), some as high as $1 million for a group of executives. However, let’s keep it in context.

First, the amount of the bonuses in relation to the ridiculous “bail-out” is less than 1 percent of the $170 billion AIG has received from the government. While that doesn’t make it any better (and doesn’t justify the tone-deaf AIG executives who went through with the bonus pay-outs), it does give it a little context.

Second, the bonus agreements were actually known by Congress and the current White House administration for over a year! For them to feign shock at this point is a bit disingenuous at best, and simply not a credible reaction.

Third, Chris Dodd (the same Senator who sat idly by while the housing market collapsed while receiving sweetheart mortgage deals of his own) added an amendment to the recently-signed stimulus bill that exempts “contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before February 11, 2009” from the cap on executive compensation. Now, in his mock indignation, he has introduced the notion that the recent bonuses should be taxed at 90 percent! Who keeps voting these fools into Congress and empowering them to control so much of our lives?

Again, I think it is extremely poor judgment for the executives at AIG to pay out any bonuses after gladly taking hard-earned taxpayer money, regardless of contracts. However, let’s also keep the focus on the idiots in Congress and in the White House (both parties) for bailing out all of these poorly-managed companies in the first place, and for expanding government more and more every time they are in session.

Moreover, let’s put the amount of the bonuses in context a bit more. If I have computed it correctly, based on salaries for Congress, the Senators we have cost around $17.5 million a year. Add to that another $75.8 million for the Representatives in Congress for each year of “service.” This doesn’t even begin to touch the additional cost of staffs (who can receive as much as $156 thousand per year), the cost of travel we pay for, cost of benefits, etc. So, while the idiots at AIG doled out $165 million, Congressional costs per year aren’t far behind. Where is the outrage for the terrible job they do every year???

What do We Do About Congress?

2009-03-16T18:46:00.000-04:00

With all of the recent developments with the economy, it seems to me that most people are completely missing the point about the supposed bail-out/stimuls bill, the Troubles Asset Relief Program (TARP), the recent Omnibus spending bill, and the constant barrage of “experts” who keep telling the American public what should be done to get us out of our current financial mess. I’ll leave the causes to another posting, but I have real problems with what is going on with Congress, specifically, and what they have been doing, not just the past few months, but over the past several decades.

As the brilliant professor of economics at George Mason University, Walter Williams (website here), correctly points out, the real issue before us is whether or not Congress should even be involved in the economy, or whether they have violated their constitutional duties. His recent editorial (here) lampoons the whole notion that Congress should be doing anything

If you take a look at the wording of the constitution, here is what it actually states, in part, about the duties of Congress (Article 1, Section 8):

“Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”

A great deal of the other enumerated duties revolve around what I would characterize as “outward-facing” duties (e.g., regulating commerce with foreign nations, defining and punishing piracies and felonies, making rules for land and sea forces, declaring war). There are also internal duties, such as establishing the Post Office and postal roads, coining money, establishing a militia, exercising legislation over the District of Columbia, etc., but thiose don’t seem to be the cause of today’s problems.

The clause that seems to be what Congress loves to use as justification for their unconstitutional grab of power, however, is the “general welfare of the United States” clause, as mentioned above. What is amazing, though, is that Congress ignores the intent of that clause, as clearly stated by James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” in a letter to James Robertson:

“With respect to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” He further stated in 1788, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

In 1817, Thomas Jefferson weighed in on the “General Welfare” clause and clearly stated, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

So, what has happened to allow Congress to violate the Constitution and usurp powers clearly meant for states? Unfortunately, over the past several decades, Congress has gradually added more and more to its agenda of what its members think qualify as general welfare, which, unfortunately, seems to have no limit. Is there any reasonable person that believes that the following items (courtesy of Monica Crowley’s website) from the recently passed Omnibus Bill qualifies as general welfare?

- Almost $2 million to study pig smells in the "Swine Odor and Manure Management Research"
- $475,000 to "improve and expand" the Italian American Museum in Little Italy in New York
- $162,000 to control rodents in Hawaii
- $1 million to control Mormon crickets in Utah
- $150,000 for Maine to conduct "lobster research"
- $100,000 for a second lobster earmark for boat rides with lobstermen

Or that the following items from the so-called stimulus bill qualify?

- $2 million to study astronomy in Hawaii
- $200,000 for gang tattoo removal
- $250,000 for security cameras in the business districts in Pittsburgh;
- $215,000 for Stony Brook University to teach scientists how to talk to the media
- $400,000 to combat bullying

So, even if you are gullible enough to believe what Congress has been doing is legal, or that it is what the framers of the Constitution intended, you can’t possibly believe that any of these examples justify any type of general welfare for 99.99 percent of Americans. Moreover, why would any logical person want the government to manage any program of any size?? What are their successes to point to? Social Security? Education? Medicare? Medicaid? The EPA? Amtrak? Food stamps? Oversight of the mortgage industry? The IRS?

Back to my title…what do we do about Congress? I suppose people can protest, write editorials for local and national papers, vote against every sitting member, get a groundswell movement through Facebook and other social networking sites, etc. Putting our future in the hands of the current people in Congress or the White House will only lead to fewer and fewer individual rights, more oppressive regulations, less freedom, more taxes, and less and less of what the authors of the Constitution intended.