The View from the Right Side

Some analysis of the "Health Care" Bill in the House

2009-08-13T11:25:00.004-04:00

This came to my attention yesterday:

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about alleviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives.... It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen ... should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

[1] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/president-obama-addresses-sarah-palin-death-panels-wild-representations.html.
[2] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[3] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); Sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
[4] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
[5] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[6] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html].
[7] Id.
[8] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html].
[9] See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200.
[10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
[11] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions.

This was from SarahPac on Facebook.

"You are sucking at the hind teat of a dead cow..."

2009-07-07T18:30:00.002-04:00

With few exceptions (specifically the abolishment of the Electoral College (4:18) and Universal Service (4:26)), this guy makes sense...

Thoughts on the Mark Sanford Scandal

2009-06-25T13:31:00.003-04:00

I have to say I do not agree with much of what has been said of Governor Sanford of South Carolina by many in the Conservative movement. Glenn Beck this morning said:

We got plenty of dirtbags. We got plenty of people we can't trust. May I just beg the audience to please tell me that character does matter, please?

Yes, Glenn, character does matter...but what you and many others seem to be forgetting is that we are all dirtbags!

Remember...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one..." (Romans 3: 9-10)

To suggest that we as conservatives must demand righteousness misses the most important part of our human nature, that we are convicted in the Law and cannot by our own means ever be righteous and right with God. It is for this reason Jesus came to be the sin offering for us. This does not mean that we no longer sin...we are human and sin always--it is our nature!

Paul said the following when describing the human condition: "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do....I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing." (Romans 7: 15, 18-19)

Yes, if one lives in the Spirit, one dies to his flesh...and it is only through the Spirit and by God's grace that we can live in righteousness...but I do not believe that this precludes us from falling again into sin--we are at war with one who will sorely tempt us and if we have not submitted fully to God, if we struggle to hold our own faith with our own will, we fall yet again because our will is human--weak, frail, unreliable, and sinful.

Does character count? ABSOLUTELY! Do we need people in office that have unquestionable character? NO! All of us have character flaws through our sinful state--every man's character is questionable. It is the admission of this and the steps one takes to deal with these flaws that should count for the most.

Finally, I was extremely moved by Jenny Sanford's statement. In it I found a quiet and contemplative faith and the seeds to Governor Sanford's redemption:

I would like to start by saying I love my husband and I believe I have put forth every effort possible to be the best wife I can be during our almost twenty years of marriage. As well, for the last fifteen years my husband has been fully engaged in public service to the citizens and taxpayers of this state and I have faithfully supported him in those efforts to the best of my ability. I have been and remain proud of his accomplishments and his service to this state.
I personally believe that the greatest legacy I will leave behind in this world is not the job I held on Wall Street, or the campaigns I managed for Mark, or the work I have done as First Lady or even the philanthropic activities in which I have been routinely engaged. Instead, the greatest legacy I will leave in this world is the character of the children I, or we, leave behind. It is for that reason that I deeply regret the recent actions of my husband Mark, and their potential damage to our children.
I believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity, dignity and importance of the institution of marriage. I believe that has been consistently reflected in my actions. When I found out about my husband's infidelity I worked immediately to first seek reconciliation through forgiveness, and then to work diligently to repair our marriage. We reached a point where I felt it was important to look my sons in the eyes and maintain my dignity, self-respect, and my basic sense of right and wrong. I therefore asked my husband to leave two weeks ago.
This trial separation was agreed to with the goal of ultimately strengthening our marriage. During this short separation it was agreed that Mark would not contact us. I kept this separation quiet out of respect of his public office and reputation, and in hopes of keeping our children from just this type of public exposure. Because of this separation, I did not know where he was in the past week.
I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will, and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be reciprocal. I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage.
Psalm 127 states that sons are a gift from the Lord and children a reward from Him. I will continue to pour my energy into raising our sons to be honorable young men. I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance.
This is a very painful time for us and I would humbly request now that members of the media respect the privacy of my boys and me as we struggle together to continue on with our lives and as I seek the wisdom of Solomon, the strength and patience of Job and the grace of God in helping to heal my family.

For my part, I am praying for the Sanfords.

We should have adopted this after 9/11

2009-06-08T15:05:00.002-04:00

I am sure all of you witnessed the collective shift to patriotic pride after the devastating attacks on September 11. I always thought that "God Bless America" was overdone (my apologies to Irving Berlin). Don't get me wrong...I love the song...but it is a little ditty written by a brilliant musical theater composer.

I thought it would have been better if we had just adopted singing the fourth verse of Key's Star Spangled Banner...after all, it is our national anthem:

O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their lov'd homes and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Thoughts?

California Supreme Court Decides Correctly (for the most part)

2009-05-26T14:12:00.002-04:00

As reported by Brietbart.com:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.

The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution. "In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

Who would have guessed that a court in California would actually be limited to its "proper function?" There may be hope after all

$1,840,000,000,000.00

2009-05-15T09:17:00.002-04:00

From Blomberg: "Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’"

Ummm...really, Mr. President??

Interesting you are saying this now after presiding over the '09 budget with a deficit of $1.84 TRILLION. That is the ONE-YEAR DEFICIT is projected to by $1.84 trillion in '09.

This is more than the ENTIRE US DEBT in 1985 ($1.82 trillion according to Treasury)

This is more than the ENTIRE AMOUNT OF US BUDGET SPENDING in 2003--ONLY 6 YEARS AGO ($1.80 trillion according to OMB--Table 1.1, page 22)

This is more than the ENTIRE US GOVERNMENT SPENDING (on- and off-budget) in 2000--ONLY 9 YEARS AGO ($1.79 trillion according to OMB on same table above)

This is more than the ENTIRE GDP OF THE UNITED STATES (the value of all goods and services produced in the US) in 1976 ($1.83 trillion according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis)

This is more than the ENTIRE AMOUNT OF PERSONAL SPENDING IN THE US BY EVERY MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD in 1980 ($1.76 trillion according to the BEA on same table above)

This is more than the ENTIRE GDP OF EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY except the US, Japan, China, Germany, France, UK, and Italy in 2008 (according to the CIA World Factbook)

President Obama would like you to believe that this in not his budget...however, as my friend DJ points out in his blog (emphasis added):

Usually, the budget of the first fiscal year of an administration is set by the previous president and Congress (fiscal years run from October to September, thus FY09 began in October of 2008).
Note that I said “usually,” because this time, Congress refused to pass a budget during and after the election campaign. The government survived on continuing resolutions (Washington-speak for month-to-month spending) because Pelosi, Reid, et al wanted to let Obama write the FY09 budget, which he did. Of course, one of the bigger impacts on this year’s deficit (but far from the biggest) is the TARP fiasco, which Obama did not implement. However, he did support it wholeheartedly – in the campaign and on the Senate floor – so he can’t escape responsibility for that one either (had he, the Democratic nominee for President, refused to support it, odds are the Democratic majorities in Congress would have shot it down).
So unlike previous presidents, Obama must accept responsibility for this budget imbalance. This deficit is on him.

Mr. Obama, you are largely responsible for this budget, this deficit, and this out-of-control spending. You are responsible for the overwhelming burden of this debt on my children and theirs. DO NOT think that we cannot see that the EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!!!

Are We Seeing the Beginning of the End??

2009-05-07T08:44:00.005-04:00

Dateline: April 9, 2009, Austin, Texas

Gov. Rick Perry today joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

Jump to the "Teaparties" of April 15 (from a FoxNews report):

An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall -- one of three tea parties he was attending across the state -- that officials in Washington have abandoned the country's founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt.
Perry repeated his running theme that Texas' economy is in relatively good shape compared with other states and with the "federal budget mess." Many in the crowd held signs deriding President Barack Obama and the $786 billion federal economic stimulus package.
Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.
"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

DATELINE: March 5, 2009, Pierre, South Dakota

South Dakota Resolution Passes

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fourth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring
therein, that the State of South Dakota hereby reasserts sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution
of the United States; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this concurrent resolution serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

DATELINE: April 27, 2009, Bismark, North Dakota

North Dakota Sovereignty Declaration Final As Passed

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OF NORTH DAKOTA, THE SENATE CONCURRING THEREIN:

That the Sixty-first Legislative Assembly affirms this state's sovereignty under the
10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States and demands the federal government halt its practice of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated in the Constitution of the United States; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of constitutionally delegated powers; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed

DATELINE: May 4, 2009, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (from the Oklahoman):

House bypasses governor’s veto to claim Oklahoma’s sovereignty

Although Gov. Brad Henry vetoed similar legislation 10 days earlier, House members Monday again approved a resolution claiming Oklahoma’s sovereignty.

Unlike House Joint Resolution 1003, House Concurrent Resolution 1028 does not need the governor’s approval.

The House passed the measure 73-22. It now goes to the Senate.

Key said he expects HCR 1028 will pass in the Senate. HJR 1003 earlier passed the House 83-18 and won approval in the Senate 29-18.

Henry vetoed HJR 1003 because he said it suggested, among other things, that Oklahoma should return federal tax dollars.

Key said HCR 1028, which, if passed, would be sent to Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress, would not jeopardize federal funds but would tell Congress to "get back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal government should "cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers.

Key said many federal laws violate the 10th Amendment, which says powers not delegated to the U.S. government "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution lists about 20 duties required of the U.S. government, he said.

Other States with active 10th Amendment Resolutions in their respective legislatures (see this link):

Louisiana--2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 (as of 5/6 has been reported out of the Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee favorably)
Wisconsin--2009 Senate Resolution 6 (as of 4/9 has been referred to the Committee on Ethics, Reform, and Government Operations)
Illinois--2009 Senate Resolution 0181 (as of 3/31 referred to Assignments Committee)
West Virginia--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 49 (as of 3/27 referred to House Rules Committee)
North Carolina--2009 House Resolution 849 (as of 3/30 referred to Committee On Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House)
Ohio--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 11 (introduced)
Oregon--2009 House Joint Memorial 17
Alabama--2009 House Joint Resolution 403 (introduced 3/24)
Mississippi--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 69 (passed committee on 5/6--scheduled for vote); 2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 630 (introduced 3/10--referred to Rules Committee)
Kentucky--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 169 (introduced 2/24--posted to Committee on Elections, Constitutional Amendments & Intergovernmental Affairs on 2/26)
Alaska--2009 House Joint Resolution 27 (passed House 4/6, passed Senate 4/19, awaiting transmittal to Governor Palin)
Indiana--2009 Senate Resolution 0042 (passed Senate 4/9, awaiting transmittal to House)
Tennessee--2009 Senate Joint Resolution 0311 (passed Senate 5/4, awaiting transmittal to House)
Minnestota--2009 HF 997 (sent to Committee on State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections 2/19)
South Carolina--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 3509 (passed House 2/26, in the Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/3)
Georgia--2009 Senate Resolution 632 (passed 4/1); 2009 House Resolution 280 (in House Committee on Judiciary)
Kansas--2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1609 (referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on 2/12)
Texas--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 50 (reported favorably out of Committee--awaiting scheduling of vote 4/27)
Missouri--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 13 (passed House 3/23, referred to Committee on Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions and Ethics 3/24...public hearings held 4/7)
Iowa--2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 (intoduced 1/27)
Michigan--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 0004 (introduced 1/22--Committee on Government Operations); 2009 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 (intoduced 3/3--Committee on Judiciary)
Arizona--2009 House Concurrent Resolution 2024 (reported out of committee favorably 4/14)
Washington--2009 House Joint Memorial 4009 (introduced 1/30--referred to Committee on State Government & Tribal Affairs)

REMEMBER--THE FIRST STEP OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WAS THE ATTEMPT TO REDRESS THE ISSUES THE COLONIES HAD WITH THE CROWN (SEVERAL TIMES). THE DECLARATION WAS THE OUTCOME OF THE REFUSAL OF THE CROWN TO REDRESS THE ISSUES OF TYRANNY...

How the Obama Administration Plans to Raise Everyone's Taxes

2009-03-05T12:37:00.003-05:00

"Cap-and-Trade"

You have heard of this, I am sure. What you may not know is it is a HUGE tax hike on every single American (so much for "95% of all Americans get a tax break").

This will increase the cost of gasoline, diesel, food, electricity, etc., etc. The Detroit News has a great editorial on this today--from a Michigan-centric view, but it can be applied to each and every one of us...

Some points below from the editorial:

The president's budget projects receipts totaling $646 billion through 2019 from the sale of these greenhouse gas permits.

Doing so will drive up the cost of nearly everything and will amount to a major tax increase for American consumers.

Such a tax will hit the Midwest particularly hard, which is why House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, told the New York Times, "let's just be honest and call it a carbon tax that will increase taxes on all Americans who drive a car, who have a job, who turn on a light switch, pure and simple."

The carbon tax will be paid by energy companies, manufacturers and public utilities, who will pass the cost on to their consumers.
The proposed tax would take effect in 2012 and has the very real potential to throw the nation back into recession, if indeed the expected recovery has arrived by then. It's impossible to raise costs for such basics as manufacturing and energy production by more than half a trillion dollars over a decade and not have the effects felt across the economy.

This would be a tax on each household in the US of nearly $6500 over the first seven years of the plan...

Look, people, we CANNOT afford to raise taxes right now...FDR did it in '36 and caused the recession of '37 (in the middle of the Depression) which had unemployment shoot back up to over 19% and the GDP suffer a stronger contraction.

This Congress and Administration are engaged in "GENERATIONAL THEFT" mortgaging my sons' futures. IT IS TIME TO STOP GOVERNMENT'S SPENDING---this "Stimulus" bill is LARGER THAN THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT BUDGET OF 1982!!!

STOP THIS RIDE---I WANT TO GET OFF!!!

DC Voting Rights are UNCONSTITUTIONAL

2009-02-25T13:54:00.002-05:00

This is quite simple, the Constitution of the United States (aka the Supreme Law of the Land) states:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

The District of Columbia is not a State, nor is it a part of a State. James Madison expounded the need for a federal district on January 23, 1788, in his "Federalist No. 43", section #2, arguing that the national capital needed to be distinct from the states in order to provide for its own maintenance and safety.

The problem of the "disenfranchisement" of District residents is not new (although, I would argue that no one there has been disenfranchised--those born there have never had representation in Congress and those who move there do so on their own accord), ever since the "Organic Act of 1801" which officially ceded the land to the federal government and disenfranchising the residents of the District, there have been efforts to remedy this. Most efforts revolve around "retrocession".

The City of Alexandria used to be the southern county of the District, but was retroceded to Virginia after the people of the city began to request that Virginia ask for the territory back in the 1840s. In February 1846, the Virginia General Assembly officially agreed to accept retrocession if approved by Congress and in July, the Congress retroceded the land south of the Potomac back to Virginia.

In my opinion, it makes sense to retrocede the majority of the District back to Maryland with the exception of the Federal Triangle, the Mall, and the Navy Yard. These areas have no residences (with the exception of the White House--and the President and his family retain their citizenship in their home State). The problem is that Maryland does not want to do this. Without Maryland's cooperation, this will not happen.

So that leaves three options (at least if one believes that the Constitution matters).

The first, make Washington a State (New Columbia?)...this is not an easy or clear process. There are several portential problems...
Statehood usually comes from territories or colonies petitioning to become a State; however, DC is not a territory, nor is it a colony, nor is it an area which could be annexed. Second, the land was ceded by Maryland for a particular purpose, so there may be legal ramifications in this pertaining to the territory if it is no longer to be used for this purpose. Regardless, there would need to remain a portion of the area as a Federal District as mentioned above.

The second, amend the Constitution.
Unlikely to be ratified though. You need the support of 2/3 of both houses of Congress to propose the amendment (or 2/3 of the States to call a Constitutional Convention). This is unlikely since New Columbia would be extremely supportive of the Democrat Party...you will never get 290 votes in the house nor 67 votes in the Senate for the amendment. Neither would 34 States call to convene a Constitutional Convention for this purpose (can you imagine the likes of Senators Clinton, Kennedy, and Byrd attempting to write a new Constitution--we have no Madison, no Franklin, no Washington, et al in our midst). Even on the off chance that such an amendment could be proposed, there is no way 38 States would ratify it as it weakens their power.

The third and most likely option is the restoration of voting rights by Congressional act. In 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA] proposed the "District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act" (H.R. 3709). This act would have treated the residents of the District as residents of Maryland for the purposes of Congressional representation. Maryland's congressional delegation would then be apportioned accordingly to include the population of the District. At first blush, this seems un-Constitutional as well; however, from the foundation of the District in 1790 until the passage of the Organic Act of 1801, citizens living in D.C. continued to vote for members of Congress in Maryland or Virginia; legal scholars therefore propose that the Congress has the power to restore those voting rights while maintaining the integrity of the federal district.

This seems simple enough, doesn't it?

In Response to the Unending Mantra of "The Worst Since"

2009-02-24T17:54:00.003-05:00

I have a friend who sent me a note saying:

"...if my numbers are correct we are close to passing the Great Depression.

1930 US population 123,202,620
2008 US population 303,824,650
1930 Unemployed 25% or 30,800,655
2008 Unemployed 7.6% or 23,090,673
Differenece 7,709,982 in todays standard thats not a lot of people.

Thanks George Bush"

I had to respond...and as a tutorial of statistical analysis, I hope you enjoy:

All data below are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

First of all, the unemployment rate is not the percentage of all people, but employable non-farm workers...currently there are 13.0 million people unemployed out of a civilian workforce of 153.4 million or 8.5% in January (not seasonally adjusted--real numbers).

In 1982 and 1983, the annual unemployment rate was higher at 9.7% and 9.6%, respectively.

Remember, you have to use the rate of unemployment because there are so many more people employed...I could easily say that there are 132.3 million people employed right now much higher (by almost 4 times) than the approximately 34.3 million that were employed during the worst of the Depression.

January had the lowest employment level in 48 months, since FEBRUARY 2005; however, more people are working in the US now than at any time from 1776 to 2004.

Now, of course, if you are one of the 13 million unemployed, you are hurting right now, but there are jobs out there--according to the BLS, over 3 million jobs are unfilled right now, according to their surveys, and the survey DOES NOT count all available jobs.

Heading Down the Road of American Destruction

2009-02-11T09:01:00.004-05:00

The Senate, on a party-line vote (let's face it, Collins, Snowe, and Specter are hardly Republicans), passed the "stimulus" bill (which, ironically, has very little stimulative power) on Tuesday, joining the House Democrats in the wrong-headed idea that government spending is the answer to all of our problems.

If that were true, wouldn't the Bush Administration have overseen the most impressive growth of our economy in the history of the US?

Matt Kibbe at Freedom Works wrote an excellent commentary about how President Obama should study the history of the deep recession early in the 20th Century (no, not that one...the other one...from 1919 to 1923). In his commentary, "Obama Should Channel Harding, Not FDR" posits that the current direction we are taking is the wrong one...worth the read!

The one take away from the piece is that all you know about the Great Depression and FDR as the savior of the US is wrong...

A recent study by UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian show that FDR lengthened the Great Depression by seven years with his anti-market “stimulus” policies. They write that prior to FDR’s interventions, “The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.”

Time for a reassessment, people! I am hopeful that the idiots on Capitol Hill will push too hard in conference and derail this horrendous pork spending bill (most of which will not come on line for more than two years) and cause the three RINOs of the Apocolypse to reconsider. Time to turn the screws to these idiots! Call them early and often over the next several days:

Olympia Snowe
Maine
(202) 224-5344

Susan Collins
Maine
(202) 224-2523

Arlen Specter
Pennsylvania
(202) 224-4254

I Have No Words...

2009-02-06T09:57:00.000-05:00

May God have mercy on us...

Fla. doctor investigated in badly botched abortion

The Republicans Grow a Spine--FOUR MONTHS TOO LATE

2009-01-30T15:14:00.002-05:00

As House Republicans stand against the pork-laden "stimulus" bill with NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTING FOR THIS MONSTROSITY, attention now moves to the Senate. It now seems that the American people are weighing in against the Obama/Pelosi "stimulus".

Polling is now showing that support for this bill is falling precipitously as more and more information is leaking out about the pork in it! Only 42% now support the passage of this bill...down from over 50% a few days ago.

Now there are some Democrats in the Senate who are beginning to express doubt about its passage. Call your Senators and express your disdain for this ideologically authored monstrosity which has more rewards for Democrat supporters than true stimulus for the economy.

Oh How I Wish This Were a Do-Nothing Congress!!!

2009-01-28T10:07:00.002-05:00

STOP THE "STIMULUS" PACKAGE NOW!!!!!

A terrific read--"The Case for Doing Nothing" from Politico.

According to Heritage...

After Congress appropriates the FY’09 omnibus bill, they may have spent over $1.4 Trillion in less than one month!The current “stimulus bill” will be the LARGEST SPENDING BILL EVER enacted by Congress, making the New Deal look small, accounting for inflation.

The “Stimulus” Bills Your Family – $825 Billion is equivalent to borrowing $10,520 from EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA. This money has to be paid back.

If all families were asked to equally shoulder the burden of $825 Billon, this debt would be equivalent to what they roughly spend on food, clothing, and health care in an entire year.

If Government Spending solved recessions, we would never have recessions.

PLEASE TELL ME HOW THE FOLLOWING ARE "STIMULUS?"

Over $142 Billion in Federal education funds
Expanded Medicaid coverage and SCHIP
Digital TV Coupons ($650 Million)
Gov’t Cars ($600 Million)
Nat’l Endowment for the Arts ($50 Million)
Repairs to National Mall ($200 Million, including $21m for sod)

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 52% of the spending in the ‘stimulus bill’ can even be spent by the end of FY’10. Well short of the 75% benchmark set by President Obama.

One Week Down and Approval Down 15 Points...

2009-01-28T09:50:00.003-05:00

7 Days Down, 1454 to Go...

President Obama has finished his first week and has succeeded in having his approval rating fall 15 points.

Why?
1) Abortion--by lifting the ban on federal funding of groups that push abortions as one of his first acts, and on the same day as the Right to Life march in Washington, reminded people about his commitment to the destruction of life.

2) Along the same lines--embryonic stem cell research--by lifting the ban federal funding on this questionable line of research, he solidified his position of anti-life. (BTW, the ban was only on federal funding...privately funded research has been allowed over the last several years)

3) Suspending the military tribunals at GITMO--BAD POLICY, BAD IDEA!!!

4) Executive order to close GITMO--by moving on his long-held position on closing the detention center at Guantanamo without a clear plan on how to deal with the 250 people there who remain a threat to the United States showed he is more interested in ideology than in security. This happened on the same day that a former prisoner was identified as the leader of Al-Qadea in Yemen. What will happen when we allow more of these people out?

5) Allowing the States to set new clean air standards independent of the EPA--HEY, YOU!! YES, YOU IN OHIO AND YOU IN MICHIGAN!!! Do you hear the bells tolling...they toll for thee. Say goodbye to Chrystler and maybe to GM if this stands...

6) PORK--well, if nothing else, this proves he is not a Muslim! The pork-laden "stimulus" bill being debated on Capitol Hill...OMG!!!

At this rate, President Obama will be under 50% approval by the end of February! Keep it up, Barry!!!

Do You Know the Names of Santa's Reindeer?

2008-12-19T09:45:00.002-05:00

I doubt you do, and IT DRIVES ME NUTS!!!

We have all heard Gene Autry's song abour Rudolph recorded in 1949 (from a poem by Robert May for Montgomery Ward Department Stores in 1939):

"You know Dasher and Dancer and Prancer and Vixen;
Comet and Cupid and Donner and Blitzen;
But do you recall the most famous reindeer of all?"

The problem is that May GOT THE NAMES OF TWO OF THE REINDEER WRONG!!!

According to the original source ("A Visit from Saint Nicholas"--commonly known as "'Twas the Night Before Christmas") published in 1823 the names of the last two reindeer are DUNDER and BLIXEM!!! These are Dutch words meaning Thunder and Lightning.

In a 1837 print, a publisher changed Bilxem to Blixen (likely to more closely rhyme with Vixen) and Dunder to Donder (likely to more closely resemble English pronunciation). When Clement Clarke Moore (often credited with the poem) published a book of verse in 1844 (which, by the way, is the one considered the "standard") changed the last reindeer to its currently accepted name of Blitzen and retained the 1837 change of Donder.

"Donner" showed up sometime in the early part of the 20th Century. As early as 1906 the New York Times published Moore's poem with the offending "Donner". And in a 1926 article, the Times stated, "two of the original reindeer were originally given Dutch names, 'Donder' and 'Blixen' (Blicksem), meaning thunder and lightning....it is only modern publishers who have rechristened them with the German 'Donner and Blitzen.'"

So, let's get the names right...they are Dutch reindeer! Dunder and Bliksem--lightning and thunder! Poetic...AND IT STILL RHYMES!!!

(By the way Donner and Blitzen are German for thunder and the plural form of lightning).

Good sources:
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/donner.asp
http://www.donder.com/

Merry Christmas!

OK--so I was wrong

2008-12-17T11:59:00.002-05:00

The season is just too busy...so posting will be spotty until the New Year.

Subjects I wanted to post about:

Auto Bailout--horrible idea (just like all of the bailouts so far)...let the market take care of itself...bankruptcy offers the opportunity to reorganize without worrying about union contracts or the even more problematic state franchise laws (when it comes to unloading dealerships).

The Advent Season and Christmas--Tis the season to prepare Him room both in retrospect of His birth and in preparation of His coming in glory to judge both the living and the dead. Advent is not just the preparation for Christmas celebrations of Jesus' birth, it is to remind us that we do not know when He will come again and that we must be prepared for His coming in heart, mind, and soul.

The Republican Party--Reformation or Revolution? Probably will tackle that next year...

The Status of the Union, the Constitution, Free Markets, etc.--will tackle also next year

Until next year, may you and yours have a blessed Christmas and New Year! May God bless you and keep you as the Yuletide comes and we move toward 2009.

Today is My 9th Anniversary!

2008-12-11T10:55:00.002-05:00

Nine years ago this evening, I married a wonderful, beautiful woman, Kimberly Dawn Skeen. We met online (when that sort of thing was brand new) via a site called Digital City (Washington). I had posted a "personals" ad which she responded to one evening in February 1998 (I always kid her that the one answering a personal ad is definitely more desparate than the one who posted). I asked her to marry me in September and we were married on December 11, 1999 in McLean, Virginia.

Kim has been a true blessing in my life. She has made me a father three times over, and the joy she has brought to my journey in this mortal coil has vastly outweighed any difficulty. I wish I could say that I have been as much a blessing to her as she has to me, but that would be untrue. She has had to endure selfishness, shortsightedness, cancer, pain, and sadness because of me, and yet has remained by my side--for that I am truly grateful.

Through our time together, I have come to love Kim more deeply than I have ever loved any other person (except Christ). I continue to work toward being a better husband to her, struggling with my self-centeredness and other issues so that I can more effectively show my love for her.

I'm Baaaaaaack!

2008-12-10T11:47:00.002-05:00

I will be posting between now and New Years only once or twice per week as the holidays and family take precedent. I will post on Mondays (12/15, 12/22, 1/5)...and maybe on Thursdays (12/11, 12/18).

I hope you will continue to read until I begin daily blogging again on January 5.

SAD SAD SAD (55 Days to I-Day, 1515 to GOD)

2008-11-24T11:36:00.006-05:00

According to AFP the average US elected official scored only 44% on a basic test on civics, economics, and American history...the average American scored a 49%. The test was composed by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

How would you do? Click here to take the test before you read the article...

BTW, I missed one question and scored a 97%. Of course, I am a former civics teacher and currently employed as an economic analyst. The one question I missed, I think, was poorly worded...but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Let me know how you do...

US officials flunk test of American history, economics, civics

Thu Nov 20, 2:24 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US elected officials scored abysmally on a test measuring their civic knowledge, with an average grade of just 44 percent, the group that organized the exam said Thursday.

Ordinary citizens did not fare much better, scoring just 49 percent correct on the 33 exam questions compiled by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI).

"It is disturbing enough that the general public failed ISI's civic literacy test, but when you consider the even more dismal scores of elected officials, you have to be concerned," said Josiah Bunting, chairman of the National Civic Literacy Board at ISI.

Indeed...so much for the vaunted "intellectual class" who are indoctrinated instead of educated...

"How can political leaders make informed decisions if they don't understand the American experience?" he added.

The short answer? They cannot...no wonder we are in the mess we are in...

The exam questions covered American history, the workings of the US government and economics.

Click here for the full article...

A Short Hiatus--

2008-11-18T16:40:00.002-05:00

Should be back to posting after Thanksgiving...just too busy right now...

69 Days to I-Day, 1529 Days to GOD (Goodbye Obama Day)--The Problem with Judicial Fiat

2008-11-12T16:19:00.002-05:00

Connecticut joins a sad set of States which has had the issue of gay "marriage" settled by unelected and unaccountable jurists. The imposition of public policy via judicial fiat instead of through the legislative process (AKA: legislating from the bench) is a bad idea all around. It is not the purpose of the judiciary to legislate nor to impose public policy.

The major problem with this can be seen in the case of California and Proposition 8.

Since the high court in California stated that marriage law (defined in public policy, common law, and tradition as between a man and a woman) was discriminatory and removed the "limitation" of this traditional definition, homosexual couples have been allowed to persue marriage licenses and to get "married". The problem is that the legislative process was usurped by this over-reaching of the court.

Now that the legislative process has been able to move forward, the people have reasserted the traditional definition and public policy in Prop 8. Now we have a problem--the other side now states that "rights are being taken away"...BUT IT IS THEIR OWN DOING BY PERSUING A JUDICIAL ANSWER TO WHAT MUST NECESSARILY BE A LEGISLATIVE ONE. I do not know what will happen with the "marriages" which took place between the activist court's decision and the passage of Prop 8...I believe they should rightly be declared invalid (since it was not the place of the court to legislate this to begin with).

The definition of marriage ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.") is now part of the Constitution of California (after all, Prop 8 was an amendment), so how can it be unconstitutional? It will now take an amendment to overturn it--not a decision by one judge or a group of judges, or even the legislature of the State acting without the people voting. In fact, since any change to this would be a constitutional revision it would require a 2/3 majority in the CA legislature and then a majority of the electorate.

We are seeing the inherent problem of judicial fiat. If one wants to change something, the proper channel is to seek legislative relief. In this case (and in all cases surrounding this issue), judicial decisions which attempt to redefine marriage are overreaching. Marriage is what it is...one does not change a societal definition because it offends one's sensibilities.

Marriage law IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY! Any man who is 18+ can marry any woman who is 18+ (as long as she will have him) as long as they are not blood relations, already married to another, or otherwise limited by law. THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION IN THIS just as there is no discrimination in the fact that I, as a man, cannot get maternity leave, have OB/GYN medical expenses covered by my insurance, have an abortion, etc. IT IS DEFINITIONAL NOT DISCRIMINATION!

70 Days to I-Day, 1530 Days to GOD (Goodbye Obama Day)--Nanny State Realities

2008-11-11T10:50:00.006-05:00

Leslie Carbone, a wonderful conservative blogger from my neck of the woods, had a great blog asking "How Will the Nanny State Collapse?" I think the entire blog is well worth the read. Some exerpts follow (emphasis added):

Anybody who's ever spent any time with toddlers knows that we are born selfish, ruled by immediate desires, and unable to delay gratification. We take it as a matter of course that others exist to attend to our needs and wants, and consider it a crisis when there's any delay in satisfying them. If our own impulses lure us into discomfort, we wail until somebody else gets us out of it. With apologies to Hobbes, we enter the world nasty, brutish, and short.

Since the so-called Progressive Era, and with escalating intensity, the federal government reinforced this toddler-level sense of entitlement.

Yes, as the perpetrators of the New Deal, the Great Society, and so many other outrages, Democrats bear tremendous responsibility for fostering this sense of entitlement. But they don't know any better.

As they pad behind the Democrats on the road to serfdom, Republicans know better; at least, that's the conclusion that flows from all the lip service they give individual freedom and responsibility. And so Republican shame for expanding the nanny state is tremendous.

Okay, but here we are. People just assume a nanny state. It doesn't matter how we got here, or who's to blame. It is what it is. Shouldn't Republicans just keep on giving people what they expect?

No, for two reasons.

First, it's morally wrong. It is wrong to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Second, it can't work indefinitely. At some point, Atlas will shrug.

The nanny state will collapse. The question is How? Will it collapse because conservatives step up and provide the moral leadership to correct its underlying assumptions? Or will it collapse because it becomes so big that the few providers are ultimately crushed by the many blood-suckers?

We face a kind of Pascal's wager. We don't know whether moral chemotherapy will work, or whether the cancer that afflicts our character is terminal. But we do know what will happen if we don't try it.

My response to Leslie borrowed heavily from Alexis de Tocqueville, one of my most favorite political philosophers who had a great deal of insight into the American condition:

As Alexis de Tocqueville said, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

We are rapidly approaching the day that more are supported by government than are taxed by government. No country in the histroy of the world has survived such an arrangement, and, I believe, neither will ours. Add to that another wonderful quote from de Tocqueville: “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

Have we turned away from the Almighty enough that we can be seen as no longer being good? I am not sure, but we are on the way...

We must rebuild the party to provide a real alternative to the maternalistic trends we have persued over the last several decades. The nanny-state must end. Toqueville also provides hope: “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”

Great Thoughts from an Anonymous Poster

2008-11-10T13:50:00.003-05:00

In response to my blog on Friday titled "Post-Mortem Madness", an anonymous poster, going by the name Publius (those of us that know our history know the name well), posted a rather lengthy response.

I thought it worth front-page focus, so--here it is (with my emphasis added):

In 1787, whilst he exited the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman, "What have we got--a republic or monarchy?" His reply, well known, was "a republic…if you can keep it."

The United States Constitution instituted a republic not only for the general government of the several (distinct) States, but it guaranteed this form of government to every State in Article 4, Section 4. This nation was, thus, a republic of republics.

In fact, prior to the passage of the 17th amendment in 1913, when Senators were selected by State legislatures, the Senate represented the interests of the States, as independent entities, and the House of Representatives, those of the people.

If only we still had a House of the States...federalism would not be dying its tragic death now...

Although the Philadelphia Convention eschewed monarchy, the document it produced has not completely survived over the years the force of personality in the presidency.

Andrew Jackson sought the abolition of the Electoral College, which would place the selection of the chief executive in the hands of the people instead of the States. Abraham Lincoln signed into law the first income tax, eventually leading to the passage of the 16th amendment that allows Congress to levy an income tax without regard to the States.

Erosion of the rights of individual States, by constitutional alterations and military force (1861-1865), combined with the populists movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s, has transformed the American republic increasingly towards the peril of democracy, rule by omnipotent majority.

New Deal and Great Society programs should not be unexpected when the Constitution of 1787 is relegated from fundamental law to historical artifact. Can we fathom what "Change" we are in for from an administration led by someone who describes it as a "charter of negative liberties."

Republics safeguard the rights of individuals and minorities. Democracies facilitate mob rule, allowing those who are experts at winning elections, and but potentially nothing else, to dominate politics. The distinctions between these systems have been noted for over two millennia, from Plato's Republic to Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

Toqueville should be required reading...the most critical warning which speaks to our time: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."

James Madison describes the dangers of democracies in Federalist #10, writing "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government... enables it to sacrifice its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." He then argues that the Constitution contains a republican remedy (or it once did).

We can debate ad nauseam about what platform/issues might save the GOP or whether forming a new Conservative party is merited with the Republican brand being tarnished as it is, but unlike the Whig party of the 1850s, whose good name was sullied by debate over slavery, those who claim to carry the banner of Reagan have failed in part because they omit his principle of New Federalism.

INDEED...but such a concept is now so foreign to much of the populace after nearly a century of populism...

I have often marveled that a self professed "conservative" Republican president, who instituted a massive federal insertion into public education and spearheaded an initiative to increase entitlement spending via medicare prescription drug benefits for seniors, could be so vilified by the Democratic Party. This hatred transcends post 9/11 security policies and the Iraq war.

You and me both...to call George W. Bush a conservative in the Regan/New Federalism mold is to be woefully ignorant of what conservatism in this vein is...

But a shift back from democratic populism to a constitutional, federalist republic will not alone save our country. What is also needed is, described in the Constitution of Virginia, Section 16, "the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forebearance, love, and charity towards each other."

The 10th commandment states, "You shall not covet." Following this, the politician, who offers to take the wealth of another, by force, and distribute it to others, should hold no power over "We the People."

Let us be clear on the application of this principle. A presidential candidate who offers money to those who do not pay taxes is not reducing tax liability (a tax cut) because no tax is owed. To even call this welfare would be charitable, when it has all the appearance of an outright bribe.

Tocqueville predicted, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." An honest reflection of our current state of affairs leads to the indictment of both Republicans and Democrats in this regard, but the citizens have culpability as well. Is not the recipient of a bribe, paid for at the expense of another’s labor, a willing participant in the treachery?

I will divert from Publius in this matter...when the public is ignorant of such treachery, I do not believe they are culpable...

John Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

"We can pretend that Republican Party, or the Democratic Party for that matter, or even the "republic" itself can long survive morale relativism or pluralism, but the study of history is not our friend in this regard. We must face the reality that the Great Commission of Matthew 28 holds more power to transform society than the election of any executive, the actions of any legislature, or the rulings of any judiciary.

Ronald Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." Fight the good fight.

Publius

Governor Palin Dragged Down the Republican Ticket? Um...Really?

2008-11-07T13:11:00.003-05:00

Rasmussen Reports released the results of a suvey about Governor Sarah Palin. Among the findings:

69% of Republican voters say Palin helped the ticket

91% of Republican voters have a favorable opinion of Palin

65% of Republican voters have a very favorable opinion of Palin.

From the report:

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republican voters say Alaska Governor Sarah Palin helped John McCain’s bid for the presidency, even as news reports surface that some McCain staffers think she was a liability.

Only 20% of GOP voters say Palin hurt the party’s ticket, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Six percent (6%) say she had no impact, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Only eight percent (8%) have an unfavorable view of her, including three percent (3%) Very Unfavorable.

When asked to choose among some of the GOP’s top names for their choice for the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin. The next closest contenders are two former governors and unsuccessful challengers for the presidential nomination this year -- Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 12% support and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts with 11%.

Three other sitting governors – Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Charlie Crist of Florida and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota – all pull low single-digit support.
These findings echo a survey earlier this week which found that Republicans were happier with their vice presidential candidate than with their presidential nominee. Seventy-one percent (71%) said McCain made the right choice by picking Palin as his running mate, while only 65% said the party picked the right nominee for president.

Makes one wonder what might have happened if the old man had picked a liberal like Lieberman or Rendell...maybe then President-elect Obama would truly have a mandate.

One more thought...if Governor Palin would be such a horrible pick for the GOP in 2012, why are the Dems seemingly suffering from the newest strain of BDS, Palin Derangement Syndrome? I think they fear having to run against her!

Post-Mortem Madness

2008-11-07T10:17:00.010-05:00

There is no lack of navel-gazing going on now after the election. I have read one that I think is extremely interesting from my friend DJ McGuire. In his post he states the following (worth reading the whole thing, BTW):

Still, we will hear a lot about how young voters in particular are so enthralled by Obama that any opposition to his big-government domestic plans will lose the GOP a generation of voters. Not so fast.
See, those of us who remember when the Republicans were the party of limited government consider those days either halcyon or so far in the past as to be useless. What we tend to forget is this: it was so long ago that young voters don’t remember it.
The last time the Republican Party stuck its neck out and went “to the mattresses” on limited government was the “government shutdown” of 1995. Say what you will about it, the party establishment has been spooked ever since. Thus Gingrich et al rolled over to Clinton’s spendthrift demands in 1998 and hoped Monica Lewinsky would rescue them (she didn’t). George W. Bush ran on “compassionate conservatism” and caught a break when Al Gore’s voters concentrated themselves too heavily in the northeast; then he (Bush) ran for re-election on national security issues, and won. We all remember 2006 and last Tuesday.
So, the last time the Republican Party actually tried to reduce the size of government, the oldest young voter in America today was sixteen. Now, I followed politics at that age, but I was a geek. Most American teenagers aren’t. In other words, no young American voter has ever seen the Republicans try to reduce the size and scope of government.
So, for them, this election was a contest between a big-government party with the charismatic mixed-race nominee with his better-than-any-comedian-on-earth running mate and a big-government party with a cantankerous old guy with the folksy Alaskan.
Are we really surprised who won?

It is time to start over and return to FIRST PRINCIPLES!!! Reagan started this fight before in the 70s telling us in 1975 (empahsis added):

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.
Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.
Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.
And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.
Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.
Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.
Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.
And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”
We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

Finally, another post-mortem that I found which is worth the read. From Leslie Carbone (she has many interesting articles in the last few days) who wrote in her blog on Wednesday Time for Rebuilding:

Voters didn't reject Republicans because they reject conservatism; voters rejected Republicans because they no longer trust Republicans to uphold conservatism. And there's no reason why they should.

Time for a revolution in the ranks--time to retake the Republican party and reinstate conservative first principles.

My Prediction for Who Would Be President This Morning Was Correct!

2008-11-05T09:19:00.003-05:00

After all of the hoopla...I was right! George Bush is President today...just like I thought! ;-) (My thanks to my boss, Ron, for this quip...it gave me a needed smile!)

President-Elect Obama

2008-11-05T08:47:00.003-05:00

My congratulations to Senator Obama in his historic victory last night. He will be my president and yours on January 20 for at least the next four years.

I do not know what will happen over the next four years, and I pray that President Obama will be successful in keeping America well. I believe that all authority on Earth is from God, so it is God's will that Senator Obama won this election. What God's plan is in this I do not know.

As for my post-mortem...I will leave that to later. Today is a day for quiet reflection and prayer for both the victors and the defeated as we contemplate the future and God's will.

May God continue to bless America.

Be Careful as You Hear the Exit Poll Results and Predictions!

2008-11-04T14:32:00.002-05:00

From the McCain campaign (emphasis added):

McCAIN CAMPAIGN MEMO: READING THE EXIT POLLS
BILL McINTURFF, INTERNAL POLLSTER
Mon Nov 03 2008 16:53:14 ET

As we have seen in previous election cycles, the exit poll results do leak early and that ends up influencing the coverage of the race before even the first state polls close at 6:00 PM Eastern.

However, we want to remind the campaign that the media’s own post-election study of the exit polls in 2004 showed that the exit polls overstate the Democratic candidate’s support. Therefore, we would discourage a rush to judgment based on the exit polls and wait until there has been a representative sampling of actual tabulated results from a variety of counties and precincts in a state.

Here are the key points to keep in mind when the exit poll data starts being leaked:
1. Historically, exit polls have tended to overstate the Democratic vote.
2. The exit polls are likely to overstate the Obama vote because Obama voters are more likely to participate in the exit poll.
3. The exit polls have tended to skew most Democratic in years where there is high turnout and high vote interest like in 1992 and 2004.
4. It is not just the national exit poll that skews Democratic, but each of the state exit polls also suffers from the same Democratic leanings.
5. The results of the exit polls are also influenced by the demographics of the voters who conduct the exit polls.

After the 2004 election, the National Election Pool completed a study investigating why the exit polls that year showed John Kerry over performing 5.5 net points better than the actual results showed him to have done. Their conclusion was that the primary reason the exit polls was that Kerry voters and Democrats were more likely to participate in the exit polls.

“Our investigation of the differences between the exit poll estimates and the actual vote count point to one primary reason: in a number of precincts a higher than average Within Precinct Error most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters. There has been partisan overstatements in previous elections, more often overstating the Democrat, but occasionally overstating the Republican.

We believe that this will hold true this year. The recent Fox News survey showed that 46% of Obama voters said they were very likely to participate in the exit polls, while just 35% of McCain supporters are.

In fact, even the 2004 exit poll report noted that higher turnout nationally and higher levels of voter interest in both 1992 and 2004 correlated with greater Within Precinct Error.

The overstating of the Democratic vote did not only occur in the national exit polls, but also occurred in the state exit polls. The 2004 exit poll report cited that the Kerry vote was overstated by more than one standard error in 26 states, while the Bush vote was overstated in just four states. So we should also expect the individual state exit polls on Tuesday to be more Democratic as well.

So given that turnout is expected to be even higher than 2004 and that Democrats are more likely to participate in the exit polls, this means we should expect greater fluctuation and variation in the exit polls from the actual election results.

The 2004 exit poll report also showed that the greatest error in the exit poll came in precincts where the interviewer was younger. The completion rates were lower and the refusal rates and Within Precinct Error was higher when the interviewers were under the age of 35. Complicating this is that nearly half the interviewers were under the age of 35, including 35% who were 18-24 and another 15% were 25-34.

Conclusions

Based on the previous exit poll results, we should expect once again that Tuesday’s exit poll data could overstate the Obama vote and under represent the McCain vote.

It is important that the campaign make sure the media realizes this, so that when the exit polls do leak, people do not overreact to the early exit poll data. Rather than looking at the exit polls, we should wait until we start seeing actual election results from key precincts and counties to gauge who won the election.

Election Day--FINALLY

2008-11-04T14:27:00.002-05:00

I voted early this morning and also worked a local polling place...it was amazing to see the frowns on my Democrat counterparts...meanwhile I cheerfully greeted one and all (including the ones who were obviously supporting The One).

As for the ones obviously supporting The One...here is an example of what they believe...

Wow!

If only I had known that my gas and house would be free if I were to vote for The One...

DAMN!!! Too late now!

Tomorrow is the Election--My Final Prediction

2008-11-03T12:14:00.005-05:00

First--we will not know until late...probably Wednesday morning...as many States remain to close to call well into Tuesday night, specifically: FL, OH, PA, VA and probably MO, NH, and NV.

Eastern time zone (mostly around 7pm)

Early calls :

Most of New England (save NH) will be called early for The One: CT, MA, ME, NJ, NY, RI, and VT for a total of 69 EVs as will several of the Mid-Atlantic States: DC, DE, and MD for an additional 16 EVs

Most of the Southeast (save FL) will be called early for McCain: GA, SC, and NC for a total of 38 EVs

FL, OH, NH, PA, and VA will be too close to call early...

Central time zone (most close at 8 pm EST)

Most of the Upper Midwest will be surprisingly close and not immediately called at first: MI, MN, WI, IA, and MO will not be called for a little while...about an hour after their polls close...

Early calls

The One: IL for 21

McCain: AL, AR, KS, KY, MS, ND, NE, OK, SD, TN, and TX for 96 EVs

By the end of the hour I think IA, MN and WI will be called for The One for an additional 27 EVs and IN (11 EVs) will be called for McCain

Right before the Mountain Time Zone close (most around 9pm EST), all but FL, MI, MO, OH, PA, and VA will be called...I think by then NH will be called for The One...

Totals:

The One 144 EVs

McCain 161 EVs

Mountain time zone (most close at 9 pm EST)

Most of these States (save CO, NM, and NV) will be called early and all for McCain: AZ, ID, MT, UT and WY add 25 EVs to McCain

Some time during this hour, I expect MI to be called for The One (17 EVs) and FL and MO to be called for McCain (38 EVs)...

Right before 10pm...

The One 161 EVs
McCain 224 EVs

Pacific Time Zone (most close at 10pm)

Early calls:

CA, OR, and WA to The One 73EVs

By the end of the hour (11 pm)...

NM is called for The One (5 EVs)

while OH and VA are called for McCain (33 EVs)

By midnight, I expect the map to have 3 remaining toss-ups (CO, NV, and PA) and AK and HI pending for a total of :

The One 234 EVs

McCain 262 EVs

Alaska and Hawaii are not in contention, so one could figure +3 for McCain and +4 for The One...making it effectively 238 to 265

At this point, McCain would only need one of the remaining states to win...

My final prediction: McCain wins, picking up both NV and PA...286 to 252

Four Days to Go--Bad News for The One

2008-10-31T22:57:00.002-04:00

ZOGBY SATURDAY: Republican John McCain has pulled back within the margin of error... McCain outpolled Obama 48% to 47% in Friday, one day, polling. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue
collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is
walloping Obama among NASCAR voters.

Reasons I believe McCain can still win:

1. The One consistently polled higher in several primaries than he actually recieved votes

2. Anyone who is still undecided is likely so because they cannot bring themselves to vote for The One...if they have not gotten there yet, they are unlikely to do so

3. Several polls are oversampling Democrats based on "enthusiasm" for the party based on the additional registrations this year for the party--this doesn't take into account how many registered as Dems to vote in the primaries against Hillary (Reps and independents registering in order to promote chaos in the primaries in later states)

4. Joe the Plumber and the "redistributing the wealth" comment...and the horrific way Joe has been treated after being approached by The One out of the blue and simply asking a question...

5. The One suddenly is in Iowa...I thought he had that state wrapped up...why spend time and money there now?

BUT WAIT...THERE'S MORE!!!

2008-10-30T14:58:00.002-04:00

If you order now, we will add a set of tax increases on the wealthy and corporations...

BUT THAT'S NOT ALL...

We will also throw in some protectionism!

How much would you pay for this package?

Obama-brand Socialism, with the extra Hoover-style tax hikes and protectionism--ACT NOW AND THERE YOURS FOR THE LOW, LOW PRICE OF

ONE TRILLION DOLLARS OF NEW SPENDING!!!

You cannot afford to buy what this guy was selling on the TV last night!!!

Six Days to Election Day--An Interesting Column by Dick Morris

2008-10-29T12:53:00.007-04:00

Former adviser to the Clinton administration and former Republican strategist, Dick Morris had an interesting column in The Hill today. It is worth the read (emphasis added):

UNDECIDEDS SHOULD BREAK FOR MCCAIN
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on October 28, 2008

If current survey trends continue, Obama will finish with less than 50 percent in the polls. Even discounting the Nader vote (some people never learn), the undecided voters could tip the race either way. How will they break?
Since there is no incumbent, they cannot automatically be assigned to the challenger; and since turnout is likely to be huge, the current undecided voters will probably make their way to the polls and cast their ballots.
But for whom?
At the beginning of this contest, Obama effectively made the case that the election was a referendum on Bush’s performance in office. Painting a vote for McCain as a desire for “four more years of the same failed policies,” he made the most of Bush’s dismal approval rating. Had he been able to keep the focus on Bush, he would likely have inherited most of the undecided vote.
But as Obama surged into a more or less permanent lead in October, animated by the financial crisis, he has assumed many of the characteristics of an incumbent. Every voter asks himself one question before he or she casts a ballot: Do I want to vote for Obama? His uniqueness, charisma and assertive program have so dominated the dialogue that the election is now a referendum on Obama.
As Obama has oscillated, moving somewhat above or somewhat below 50 percent in all the October polls, his election likely hangs in the balance. If he falls short of 50 percent in these circumstances, a majority of the voters can be said to have rejected him. Likely a disproportionate number of the undecideds will vote for McCain.
But don’t write Obama off. His candidacy strikes such enthusiasm among young and minority voters that there is still a chance that a massive turnout will deliver the race to the Democrats. None of the polling organizations has any experience with — or model for — so massive a turnout, especially among voters notorious for staying at home. But the primaries proved that these young and minority voters will not stay home this time, but will vote for Obama. The effect of this increased vote is hard to calculate, but it may be enough to offset the undecideds who will vote for McCain.
But the basic point, one week before Election Day, is that even if Obama clings to a four- or five-point lead over McCain in the polling, the election is not over. The question is not so much how large his lead is over the Republican, but whether or not he is topping 50 percent. As long as the polling leaves him below that mark, he is vulnerable and could well lose.
Clearly, in recent weeks, McCain has been able to cast Obama as a leftist. He has made the issue of income redistribution central to the campaign. With the aid of Joe the Plumber and the discovery of Obama’s Chicago PBS interview, in which he lamented the absence of redistribution of wealth, McCain has made the proposition seem central to Obama’s ideology. The unprecedented power the bailout has given government over the banking industry raises the real specter of socialism in America. The banks have, effectively, been nationalized. How will government use its power over them? This new reality, coupled with Obama’s professed pursuit of “social and political justice” through “redistribution of the wealth,” is enough to send a shiver down the spine of those who embrace the free market as the key to economic growth.
The audacity of Obama’s injection of a social democratic concept borrowed from Western Europe into American politics is stunning. And almost half the voters seem to be buying it.

I remain very hopeful that the outcome of this election will not be evident until very late--probably early Wednesday morning...if this is the case, it is likely that "The Inevitable" (or "The One", if you prefer) is neither.

The unfortunate thing is, we will have McCain--someone for whom I have less enthusiasm than I had for George W Bush (and when it comes to domestic policies, he has been a--to borrow a term--miserable failure).

Oh how I wish we had leaders again instead of populists...

Well, there is always 2012 and the rise of Palin and the return to Reaganism!

Palin/Jindal 2012!

Seven Days to Go--The Race Continues to be Close

2008-10-28T14:11:00.003-04:00

Latest data has the national polls closing:

Gallup (10/28): The One +2 (49 - 47)
--change McCain +3 from 10/26, McCain +5 from 10/20

Zogby (10/28): The One +4 (49 - 45)
--change McCain +1 from 10/26, McCain +8 from 10/22

GWU Battleground (10/28): The One +3 (49 - 46)
--change McCain +1 from 10/22, McCain +10 from 10/13

IBD (10/27): The One +2.8 (47 - 44.2)
--change McCain +1.1 from 10/25, McCain +3.2 from 10/21

Rasmussen (10/28): The One +5 (51-46)
--change McCain +3 from 10/26

As for the swing states (I count nine)...I suspect we will see these begin to really tighten this week as the pollsters change their primary focus from getting headlines (OBAMA UP 12 POINTS!!!!) to getting the models to be the closest to the actual results (after all, that will make them more marketable next cycle...)

FL (27 EV) Tied (Zogby 10/23-26)

PA (21 EV) The One +9 (Temple University 10/20-26)

OH (20 EV) The One +4 (Rasmussen 10/26)

VA (13 EV) The One +4 (Rasmussen 10/26)

MO (11 EV) Tied (Survey USA 10/25-26)

CO (9 EV) The One +4 (Rasmussen 10/26)

NV (5 EV) The One +4 (Zogby 10/27)

NM (5 EV) (no major polls in two weeks)

NH (4 EV) The One +5 (Marist College 10/22-23)

8 Days To Go--The Richmond Times Dispatch Endorsement

2008-10-27T14:44:00.003-04:00

My thanks to my friend DJ McGuire who posted yesterday about the Richmond Times Dispatch endorsement...

To quote from his blog...

"It’s not the endorsement per se that earned such praise, it was the rationale - one that desperately needs repeating over, and over, and over again (from their editorial, emphasis added):

We believe that Obama is qualified by temperament to serve as president, though
his limited experience does give pause. We believe he possesses the depth and the eloquence to inspire his fellow citizens and to spread America’s message of liberty and freedom abroad.

But we are troubled by many of his policy positions. His devotion to higher taxes on work, capital, innovation, and risk-taking seem particularly dangerous during a year in which the U.S. economy is struggling. His tepid, on-again-off-again support for free trade is equally frightening. He seems not to understand the forces that created the Great Depression nearly eight decades ago — at a moment when that understanding is absolutely essential.

I’ve been saying for weeks now that McCain is better on economic issues than Obama. I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who understands this.

The question is, will enough Americans see it to make the right choice next Tuesday? "

Indeed, DJ...we must continue to pray that we do not get the leadership we deserve. God punished people of Israel in Biblical times for their lack of faith and their determination not to serve Him. I pray we do not get the leadership we deserve in America...

In The Inevitable's Own Words--How He Wants to Steal from the Producers in America!

2008-10-27T13:56:00.002-04:00

Despite my brother's protestations that I just regurgitate Republican talking points (like I am incapable of coming up with my own logic that just happens to be similar to others)...I will again reiterate my warning to all...HOLD ON TO YOUR WALLETS!!

He will come after you too!

Take a listen to The Inevitable--from a radio talk show in Chicago when he was a state senator...

HOLD ON TO YOUR WALLETS!!!

2008-10-24T12:19:00.003-04:00

They have plans to end 401k retirement accounts!!!

I refer you to my friend DJ McGruire has a post that is a must read!!!

Goodbye to my ability to take care of myself when I retire...EGADS!!

Wall Street Weighs In on The One's "Inevitable" Election

2008-10-24T11:40:00.003-04:00

Since The One has become "The Inevitable" (Monday, October 6)

Dow has fallen from around 9400 to around 8400...a decline of 10.6 percent.

Do you think the investor class is beginning to worry about The Inevitable's socialist agenda?

Read all about The Obama Panic from the New York Post.

11 Days to Go--An Endorsement for McCain from Where???

2008-10-24T09:51:00.004-04:00

The Detroit News on Thursday endorsed John McCain. Some excerpts are below (emphasis added):

Thursday, October 23, 2008

DECISION 2008: Endorsement

McCain best choice for uncertain times

During these perilous times, the nation needs an experienced, proven leader in the White House. Sen. John McCain is best equipped for the job.
The Republican presidential candidate has the character, pragmatism and independence necessary to lead a united America past our poisonous partisan divisions and into a more civil and productive future.
And he has been right on the most pressing issues of the day, from climate change to immigration.
Had Congress listened to McCain's warning in 2005 about the dangers of the exploding sub-prime mortgage market, the financial crisis choking the nation today might be less severe. Had the Bush administration heeded McCain's plea for a troop surge earlier in the Iraq War, more of America's soldiers might now be home.
In choosing McCain, we do not ignore the profound significance of Sen. Obama's candidacy....But if he wins this election, he will enter the White House as the most inexperienced president since Herbert Hoover in 1928. His proposals reflect the Democratic Party's big-spending orthodoxy. Conservative estimates place the price tag for his new programs at nearly $350 billion a year, and yet he vows even more middle class tax cuts.
Obama would raise taxes on investors and costs for job creators at a time when America needs more investment and jobs.
By contrast, McCain vows to freeze spending while he scours the budget for areas where it can be cut. Though his opponents deride a spending freeze as a simplistic response, we must take a breather from the Bush-era spending spree that has increased the size of government by 50 percent during the past eight years.
Though economic concerns are understandably dominating the nation's attention, it can't be forgotten that the world remains a very dangerous place. Within the next year, the new president will have to make difficult decisions about how to answer Iran's push toward nuclear capability. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez continues to agitate in South America, Vladimir Putin appears determined to remove Russia from the league of democratic nations and North Korea is ever volatile.
The next president will be charged with stabilizing Iraq so American troops can leave that country in good conscience. He will also have to find an answer for Afghanistan that doesn't bog down America in another long conflict or provoke Pakistan, a tenuous and nuclear armed ally.
McCain may lack the inspirational qualities of his opponent, but if this were a blind audition judged solely on the resumes of the two candidates, he would win decisively.
John McCain has what it takes to lead America in these very uncertain times.

A Reply to Another's Post--Oil Exports

2008-10-23T13:19:00.002-04:00

I posted this in response to Craig at "Going Green" and his typical liberal conspiracy theories on Big Oil...

He posted on a friend's blog about gasoline prices where I also posted a response...

Do a little research, will you? please???

According to the Energy Information Administration
In 2007, 27 thousand barrels per day of crude oil were exported (out of nearly 5.1 million barrels per day of domestic production). This makes up 0.53% of domestic production.

In 2006 0.49%
2005 0.62%
2004 0.50%

So far in 2008 (January - July, latest info available) we are averaging 0.4%

96.4 percent of the crude exports in the last four years (and 100% since 2006) go to...are you ready?

Canada! Why Canada? Well, let's say you pull oil out of the ground in a state that borders our friends in Canada and the nearest domestic refinery is four times as far as a nearby refinery in Canada...it makes sense to send it to Canada to be refined, doesn't it?___________________________________

Now, perhaps you were talking about petroleum products (such as gasoline, diesel, etc.)...
In 2007, our refineries produced 18.0 million barrels per day of refined products (we used nearly 20.7 million bpd).We exported over 1.2 million barrels per day or 6.9% of our total refinery production.

2006 6.4%2
005 5.7%
2004 5.1%
2003 5.1%

Why do we export? Several reasons...

1) certain products are overproduced in the US (distillate fuel oil, petroleum coke, residual fuel oil). We cannot just make gasoline, other products are made in the process.

2)NAFTA...most of our product exports are to Mexico (19.9% in 2007) and Canada (11.5% in 2007)...Again, logistics make this inevitable...Why would Tijuana get its fuel from a refinery on the Mexican Gulf Coast when there are California refineries better suited to supply them?

3)Other trading partners...18.1% in 2007 to Central American and Carribean countries12.3% in 2007 to South American countries19.4% in 2007 to Europe (including the Netherlands--our third largest export market at 5.8%)5.1% to Singapore in 2007 (our fourth largest export market)and 3.8% to Japan in 2007 (our fifth largest)

We have about 25% of the world's refining capacity, so it makes sense for us to export some of our refined product.

So far in 2008, we have averaged 9.2 percent. Seeing as domestic demand has fallen dramatically, it makes sense that our exports would rise...doesn't it?__________________________________

In 2007, of the 1.25 million barrels per day total petroleum product exports, we exported the following:
366,000 bpd of petroleum coke (29.4% of total)
330,000 bpd of residual fuel oil (26.5% of total)
268,000 bpd of distillate fuel oil (heating oil and diesel) (21.5% of total)--2/3 of this was diesel which does not meet our new EPA standards for sulfur content for trucksand 127,000 bpd of gasoline (10.2% of total).

Where did it go?

In 2007, of the 1.25 million barrels per day total petroleum product exports, we exported the following:

279,000 bpd to Mexico (22.4% of total)
162,000 bpd to Canada (13.0% of total)
81,000 bpd to The Netherlands (6.5% of total)
71,000 bpd to Singapore (5.7% of total)
54,000 bpd to Japan (4.3% of total)
53,000 bpd to Chile (4.3% of total)
51,000 bpd to Panama (4.1% of total)
48,000 bpd to Spain (3.8% of total)
46,000 bpd to Brazil (3.7% of total)
34,000 bpd to Italy (2.7% of total)
33,000 bpd to The Bahamas (2.6% of total)
and 30,000 bpd to Jamaica (2.4% of total).

All other recipients recieved less than 30,000 bpd.

13 to go--Part II THE RACE IS TIGHTENING--McCain Gets Joe-mentum!

2008-10-22T15:02:00.004-04:00

New polls out:

AP...The One +1 (44 - 43)
IBD...The One +3.7 (45.7 - 42) was +6 yesterday
GWU Battleground Poll...The One +2 (49 - 47)

Perhaps Joe the Plumber has resonated with the Joe SixPack--socialism has never been an American ideal...

13 Days to Go--An Excellent Article from a Democrat

2008-10-22T13:28:00.002-04:00

Today there was an excellent commentary from Orson Scott Card, an author, commentator, and a self-described Democrat (see Wiki quote below).

"Card identifies himself as a Democrat because he is pro-gun control/anti-National Rifle Association, highly critical of free-market capitalism, and because he believes that the Republican party in the South continues to tolerate racism. Card encapsulated his views thus:

'Maybe the Democrats will even accept the idea that sometimes the people don't want to create your utopian vision (especially when your track record is disastrous and your "utopias" keep looking like hell)... The Democratic Party ought to be standing as the bulwark of the little guy against big money and rapacious free-market capitalism, here and abroad. After all, the Republicans seem to be dominated by their own group of insane utopians—when they're not making huggy-huggy with all those leftover racists from the segregationist past.'

He has described himself as a Moynihan Democrat, and later as a 'Tony Blair' Democrat, saying he has to look outside the U.S. for someone representative for his views now that Moynihan has died and the Democrats oppose Bush. He has written columns condemning extremist liberals as being part of what's wrong with America, and praises Zell Miller for trying to save the Democratic Party."

Mr. Card wrote this, dated 10/5, found in the Rhinocerous Times (Greensboro, NC):

By Orson Scott Card
October 5, 2008
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America: I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political
party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled Do Facts Matter? "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth -- even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the
stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with
Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe --and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans -- then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

14 Days to Go--I Think It Is Closer Than You Think

2008-10-21T19:52:00.002-04:00

Let's go back to 2004:

"Fourteen days before the presidential election, Senator John Kerry and President Bush are back in a dead-heat race for the White House at 45% apiece, according to a new Reuters/Zogby daily tracking poll. The telephone poll of 1211 likely voters was conducted from Friday through Sunday (October 15-17, 2004). The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points.

[According to] Pollster John Zogby....'Kerry had a good day on Sunday. If I were to factor in the leaners in the 3-day track, it would be Kerry 47.2% to Bush 46.6%.' "

Also, two weeks before the election in 2000:

Reuters, 10/25/00: "GORE TAKES 3 POINT LEAD IN ZOGBY."

According to the daily Zogby poll today (2 weeks to go), The One is up 6 points (with a margin of error of about 3).

Current polls:
Battleground (Obama +4)
Diageo (Obama +5)
Gallup expanded (Obama +9)
IBD (Obama +6)
Opinion Rsearch (Obama +5)
Rasmussen (Obama +4)
Research 2000 (Obama +8)
Washington Post/ABC (Obama +9)
YouGov (Obama +6)
Zogby (Obama +6)

It is not over!

Reflections on "Rebuilding Together" Experience in Waveland, Mississippi

2008-10-17T20:24:00.003-04:00

Since last Wednesday, I have not posted...first, because I was preparing to be away from work, then from Sunday to Wednesday, I joined seven colleagues from API in our "Rebuilding Together" effort for 2008.

We arrived in Gulfport, MS on Sunday morning then drove to Bay St. Louis (about 45 miles northeast of New Orleans). Driving from the airport to the hotel (about 60 miles or so) we passed through some of the areas most devastated from Hurricane Katrina in September 2005, including Gulfport, Pass Christian, Bay St. Louis, and Waveland. Although New Orleans gets most of the attention from the sheer volume of damage, Waveland and Bay St. Louis also took a direct hit from Katrina.

After making a brief initial landfall in Louisiana, Katrina had made its final landfall near the MS state line, and the eyewall passed over the cities of Bay St. Louis and Waveland as a Category 3 hurricane with sustained winds of 120 mph. Katrina's powerful right-front quadrant passed over the west and central Mississippi coast, causing a powerful 27-foot storm surge, which penetrated 6 miles inland in many areas and up to 12 miles inland along bays and rivers. Hearing about the devastation is much different than seeing it...even three years later.

We met several other volunteers Sunday evening at a church/workcamp to get the marching orders for the week. The volunteers were going to be working on seven projects in Waveland, MS.

Our first project was to help Mrs. Westbrook, a wonderful woman who has helped many of her neighbors and others in the area. She lost her home in Katrina. She had a friend who owned several rental properties, when she returned to the area, her friend sold her properties...one to her. It is a cute 2 bedroom cottage over a mile inland which had over 4 feet of water inside. The cottage missed a lot of the devastation as it was on 4 foot pilings, unlike most of the neighborhood...

Our job (the 8 of us from API) was to scrape, sand, paint, and detail the exterior of the house. I have just one thing to say...Thank God for vinyl siding! We had most of the house sanded and painted by the end of Monday, leaving only a litle bit of detailing on Tuesday. We then moved on to a complete rebuild project for someone who lost everything. This house had already been framed, roofed, and sided...our job was to hang the sheetrock.

This experience was tremendously rewarding. I plan on suggesting our church send a delegation, and I will also suggest to my Bible school class (seniors and college students) come together as well. There is so much left to be done there...

I will have pictures soon...

SNL Video Returns...Slightly Edited

2008-10-08T09:57:00.002-04:00

NBC returned the SNL skit on the Bailout today, slightly edited.

The edits were:
1) Taking out the heading "People Who Should Be Shot" under Herbert and Marion Sandler's name when they talk
2) Taking out one line from Herbert Sandler and the response from Congressman Frank:

Herbert Sandler: And thank you, Congressman Frank, as well as many
Republicans for helping block Congressional oversight of our corrupt
activities.
Frank: Not at all.

You can watch the edited version here:

27 Days to Election Day--Presidential Debate #2

2008-10-08T08:42:00.002-04:00

Good grief!

I have to say that this was a tie (or possibly, just possibly, slightly McCain overall). BUT THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!

A TIE IN DEBATE #2 EFFECTIVELY MEANS THE ONE WON THE DEBATE.

For the love of Pete, this was supposed to be McCain's debate--the format was supposed to be his forte. He was supposed to take the gloves off! WHAT THE $%&*!!!

He is now trailing in too many of the swing states to play the "elder statesman" role. FOR GOD'S SAKE...DIDN'T ANYONE PAY ATTENTION TO THE DOLE CAMPAIGN???

I'd be like the whiny liberals who said that if Bush was elected (2000) or reelected (2004) that they would pack and leave the country (and I am still waiting, by the way), but where the hell is someone that believes in free markets and small government supposed to go??? At least the liberals had France (and Canada, and the UK, and Germany, and Italy, etc., etc.). The best I can do is maybe Ireland?? Austrailia??

This is a train wreck...I hope something happens soon or we will have The One in office for four years--and who knows who he will appoint as the new Financial Dictator (assuming King Henry (Paulson) abdicates on January 20).

28 Days to Go--Blind Squirrels Sometimes Get Nuts--The Missing SNL Skit from 10/4

2008-10-07T13:39:00.021-04:00

Did you see SNL on Saturday? I loved the VP debate skit! However, there was a good little skit later in the show...however, can anyone find it???

NBC is furiously erasing its tracks. Any attempts to upload the forbidden SNL bailout skit skewering George Soros and his left-wing subprime schemer friends Herbert and Marion Sandler will likely be squashed. Michelle Malkin transcribed the whole comedy sketch and provided screenshots for the 7-minute video that has disappeared from NBC and Hulu.

The hits on the Sandlers ( “People who should be shot”) and Soros ( “Owner, Democratic Party”) occur near the end of the skit.

***Announcer: Next on C-SPAN, President Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Congressman Barney Frank appeared earlier today at a joint press conference to comment on the financial bailout measure just passed by Congress.

Bush: Good afternoon. On Friday, this Congress was able to put aside its differences and come together in the bipartisan spirit to pass legislation that was absolutely vital to ensure world confidence in our financial markets and prevent a collapse of credit which would have had a catastrophic effect on our economy. Approving this bill was the right thing to do and I commend our legislators for their actions. Speaker Pelosi.

Pelosi: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, applaud Congress for this vote and add that without your vote, this bill might well have failed. Even though this crisis was 100 percent the fault of your administration and it’s insane economic policies. And though I’m sure you’ll agree, you will go down in history as our worst president ever. This one time, you did manage to not screw things up and I wanna acknowledge that.

Bush: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I was glad to do it.

Frank: Let me add, Mr. President, I was also pleased to see that for the first time during your eight years in office and possibly your entire life, you were able to demonstrate leadership, not to mention simple human decency.

Bush: You bet, you bet.

Pelosi: Let’s not forget, Mr. President, that it was the Democrats that first sounded the alarm about the risky mortgage loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were encouraging and that your party resisted all our efforts to rein them in.

Bush: W-w-w-w-ait. Wasn’t it my administration that warned about the problem six years ago? And it was the Democrats that refused to listen?!

Pelosi: What? Who told you that? That’s crazy. It was completely the other way around.

Frank: Actually. This time, he’s sort of right.

Pelosi: Shhh! Don’t say anything. He doesn’t know. Now, there was another point we wanted to make here and you are welcome to stay.

Bush: Thank you. I’d like that.

Pelosi: Back there would be better.

Bush: No problem.

Pelosi: In the past few weeks, this debate has focused on the wisdom of government intervention in the housing markets. What hasn’t been talked about is that behind every home foreclosure, there is a story of real suffering by real Americans. People who, but for the grace of God, could be you or your neighbors. And today, we’d like to introduce you to some of them.

Pelosi: Michael McCune and Jerome Gant, two ordinary Americans whose only crime was to play by the rules and who now find themselves facing eviction from their homes. Please tell us your story.
Michael: Uh, well, to start. I still don’t understand how this happened to me. I mean, I fit all the requirements for a subprime mortgage. Uh, no credit history.

Jerome: Same here.

Michael: No job.

Jerome: Me neither.

Michael: Minor criminal record.

Jerome: Ditto.

Michael: Dishonorable discharge from the Army.

Jerome: Yeah, I got mine right here.

Michael: Uh, drug problems.

Jerome: Me, too.

Michael: Uh, alcohol problems.

Jerome: Guilty as charged.

Michael: Gambling addiction.

Jerome: Yeah.

Michael: Pregnant girlfriend — actually, two pregnant girlfriends.

Jerome: Just the one.

Michael: Well, I was talked into a balloon mortgage. Where you move into the house. And then you get to live in it. And you don’t have to, like, pay money or anything to the bank. But then later, you do.

Jerome: Yeah, what up with dat?

Michael: I mean, you could say I’m a double victim, since I never had a job and now I don’t have a home!

Jerome: Well, I’m a triple victim, because now I’ve been charged with arson for allegedly setting fire to the house they evicted me from.

Pelosi: You are both in our thoughts. (Hugs Michael. Won’t hug Jerome.)

Pelosi: This is Greg Phillips and his wife, Judy. How did the housing collapse affect you?

Greg: My wife and I bought two dozen time-share condos which we heavily mortgaged in order to flip them 6 months later for triple the purchase price and then the real estate market tanked.

Pelosi: And you were doing this through…

Judy: Misrepresentation.

Pelosi: No, I meant, did you do this out of your home…

Judy: Out of greed.

Greg: Yes, out of greed.

Pelosi: And now, with the real estate market down, you’re stuck with two dozen time-share condos that you can’t sell…

Judy: Unless we can sell them for, like, 10 percent more than we paid.

Pelosi: So, you can’t make your mortgage payments.

Greg: Not without selling the boat. Or putting off essential cosmetic surgery.

Pelosi: And who is this? This is Crystal, our surrogate mother.

Crystal: Waaaazup?

Judy: You see, I can’t have children…without getting bad stretch marks.

Pelosi: You are also in our thoughts and prayers.

Pelosi: This is Herbert and Marion Sandler. Tell us your story.

Herbert Sandler: My wife and I had a company which aggressively marketed subprime mortgages, and then bundled them into securities to sell to banks such as Wachovia. Today, our portfolio is worth almost nothing — though at one point, it was worth close to $19 billion.

Pelosi: My God. I am so sorry. Were you able to sell it for anything.

Herbert Sandler: Yes, for $24 billion.

Pelosi: I see. So in that sense, you’re not so to speak, actual victims.

Herbert Sandler (chuckling): Oh, no. That would be Wachovia Bank.

Marion Sandler: Actually, we’ve done quite well. We’re very happy.

Herbert Sandler: We were sort of wondering why you asked us to come today.

Marion Sandler: Anyway, it’s delightful to see you, Nancy. (Kisses Pelosi.)

Herbert Sandler: And thank you, Congressman Frank, as well as many Republicans for helping block Congressional oversight of our corrupt activities.

Frank: Not at all. Let me say something else here. You know, many of you are probably wondering, “Where will that $700 billion missing from our economy go?” To help answer that, let me introduce our good friend, billionaire hedge fund manager, George Soros.

Soros: So what became of zat $700 beellion dollars? Well, basically it belongs to me, now. Actually, it’s not even dollars anymore, but Swiss franks, since I have taken a short position against the dollar.

Bush: Oh, really. That’s not good.

Soros: You’re not to speak. I don’t like you.

Soros: Yes, uh, zee U.S. dollar will have to be devalued sometime next week. Either Tuesday or Wednesday. I haven’t decided wheech yet. It will depend on how I feel.

Frank: Thank you very much, Mr. Soros. You’re a great man.

Soros: Could I just add that even though you know what’s coming, you won’t be able to do anything about it.

Pelosi: You’re a wise man, Mr. Soros. And a powerful one.

Frank: You are better than us.

Soros (pointing to Anne Hathaway character): Your wife is physically attractive. Sell her to me, please.

Greg and Judy: Sure. Ok.

Announcer: We’ll now leave this press conference and join a discussion of Sen. McCain’s foreign policy positions already in progress. Gov. Palin is about to say something embarrassing.
##End##

Anybody still think we need the bailout? Then read this.

2008-10-03T11:00:00.002-04:00

From my friend, DJ McGuire:

One of the big political drivers for the bailout was the supposed weakness of the banking sector, in particular Wachovia, which needed a government-backed merger with Citigroup to avoid failing.

Except that Wachovia didn’t need the government or Citigroup after all (Washington Post, emphasis added):

Wachovia will snub Citigroup and jump into the arms of Wells Fargo instead,
upending a government-arranged rescue of the troubled bank in favor of a more
traditional merger, the companies announced this morning.

The new deal pays Charlotte-based Wachovia shareholders $15.1 billion instead of the $2.2 billion offered by Citigroup. Wells Fargo also said it will not need a government backstop, something Citigroup had demanded.

In other words, the supposed poster-child for a banking sector desperately in need of government help managed to make a better deal for its stockholder without government help.

So why do we need the bailout again?

32 Days to Election Day--Time for an Update!

2008-10-03T07:50:00.002-04:00

We have definitely seen a move toward The One over the last week with the financial mess as the focus of everyone. This is expected since this happened on President Bush's watch, even though the Democrats were more than complicit in the mortgage market meltdown (as seen in my posts here, here, and here) .

I think that it may indeed be temporary as I believe that the "Crap Sandwich" will finally be off the table after today (hopefully with another failure led by the strange bedfellows of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats--who would have thought that I could agree with the likes of Dennis Kucinich!) .

I also think there will be a McCain bounce from the VP debate last night. Governor Palin did what she needed to do. Like I said about the first presidential debate, I think one party won on substance, but the other won on greatly exceeding expectations. In this case, I think that Senator Biden's mastery of the subjects and his delivery (for the most part) give him a slight edge; however, Governor Palin greatly exceeded the expectations and I think that the way she was talking directly to the American people in the folksy manner she has will connect with the Midwestern voters (although, even I tired of it by the end...but that might be the influence of a dozen years of elite East Coast influence).

So, where are we today? Electoral-Vote.com has The One ahead 338 to 185 and 15 (NC) tied. Real Clear Politics has The One ahead 353 to 185. I think both of these are overstated somewhat and feel it is more likely 278 to 260.
Electoral-Vote.com shows The One ahead slightly in VA, OH, CO, NV, NH, and FL and Senator McCain slightly ahead in IN and MO. Now, I do not for a minute think that The One has a chance in the Hoosier State, and most polls in the Show-Me State have had McCain consistently ahead. At the same time, I do not for a minute think that The One can possibly win the Tar Heel State.

Over the past four days:

Two polls have The One ahead in CO by only 1 point
Four polls in OH with The One ahead in two (+8 and +2) and McCain ahead in two (+1 in both)
Two polls in MN with The One ahead in one (+11--likely an outlier) and McCain ahead in one (+1)
Two polls in NC with The One ahead in one (+3) and McCain ahead in one (+3)
Five polls in VA with The One ahead in four (+3, +9, +6, +3) and McCain ahead in one (+6)
Six polls in FL with The One ahead in four (+4, +3, +7, +4), McCain ahead in one (+1) and one tied

33 Days to Go--Are We Seeing Dole II?

2008-10-02T10:42:00.003-04:00

I am so angry!

I have never been an avid supporter of Senator McCain (see this former blog). But this bailout bill which passed the Senate last night really angers me...talk about lipstick on a pig!

In reference to his vote, Senator McCain said something like: in a crisis like this, you have to put your country first.

WRONG SENATOR!!

We call them "first principles" for a reason! This bill was basically the same as the House bill which was defeated with a bunch of "sweeteners" added. Among the more interesting:

provides $18 billion in tax breaks for clean energy by continuing production tax credits for wind and refined coal and allowing facilities that generate electricity from waves and tides to qualify. Also extends tax breaks for solar energy

help for film and TV producers

help for motorsports

help for the wool trust fund

a tax break for makers of wooden practice arrows for children

includes a provision that would require insurance plans that offer mental health benefits to offer those benefits at the same level as medical-surgical benefits

provides new tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration demonstration projects for advanced coal electricity generation

creates a new category of tax credit bonds to finance state and local government initiatives to cut greenhouse gas emissions

creates new tax credit of up to $7,500 for plug-in electric drive vehicles

tax break for Puerto Rican and Virgin Island rum producers

Good grief! For someone who stands against earmarks, HOW IN THE HELL DID SENATOR MCCAIN VOTE FOR THIS TURKEY???

I hope the 228 Representatives that voted against the original bill on September 29, hold firm to their opposition to the bill (and for good measure, several of the 205 should change their vote)....call your Congressman to urge a no vote!

Another Voice Added against Bailout

2008-09-30T13:45:00.003-04:00

166 economists sent a letter to Congress opposing the bailout plan. The following commentary is from Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University on CNN.com (emphasis added).

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan,
the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions
in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.

This bailout was a terrible idea.

Here's why.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.
Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.
The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.
The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.
Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.
In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.
Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.
Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.
Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.
The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration's claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.
If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth.
The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients.
Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take.
The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets.
So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.
The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

What Could $700 Billion Do?

2008-09-30T12:38:00.003-04:00

Pay off half of all of the first mortgages currently on the books throughout the US.

I could go for that!

The Donald isn't in a Panic

2008-09-30T10:58:00.002-04:00

My thanks to DJ MCGuire for this.

So you think the bailout failure is the end of all things? Are you subsumed by the fever of the panic? Are you seeing the Second Great Depression on the horizon?
Well then, Donald Trump would like to talk to you (Fox News via Mountain Sage):

Oil is going to drop down to nothing . . . and there’s nothing OPEC can do about it . . .
Every time they talk bailout, and every time it looks like it’s going to happen, oil goes up! Way up! It takes the juice out of whatever they’re doing!
. . .
Oil is going to drop and ultimately that’s going to lead to a very strong economy.

When Neil Cavuto then asked “the Donald” what else will happen if the status quo (no bailout) is maintained (emphasis added) . . .

I think it’s going to be a very interesting period of time and people with cash are going to make good deals and lots of interesting things are going to happen.
. . .
I would say this: people with cash will make very good deals and they won’t need the government. I think we’ll survive very nicely without it.

He then finishes by giving bailout opponents hope that, indeed, will we be spared this monstrosity: . . .

it seems hard to believe that it will be approved, knowing that oil is going to tank if it’s not.

It seems he agrees with Warren Buffet...time to buy!!!

A Little Historical Primer on Falling Skies

2008-09-30T10:18:00.004-04:00

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

The headlines today are SCREAMING about the failure of the bailout and the 777.68 drop in the Dow!

OMG!!! This was the LARGEST ONE-DAY DROP IN THE MARKET EVER!!!!

A little perspective, please! This was a fall of 6.98%. Where does this rank in truth?

Number 17...the largest since 10/27/1997--eleven years ago. Let's look at that date, the stock market was at 7,161.15. What happened if you invested that day? Your investment would have grown 44.7% over the last 11 years if you took it all out yesterday. Over the 11 years, you would be richer in real terms (adjusted for inflatioin) by nearly 6%.

Lesson? TIME TO BUY, BUY, BUY!!!

ALERT--The Bailout Bill Seems to be FAILING!!UPDATEIT HAS FAILED!!!

2008-09-29T13:52:00.005-04:00

It is 1:54 pm--IT LOOKS LIKE IT HAS FAILED!!!!!

Thank the Lord!

I called my Congressman and told him he MUST NOT VOTE FOR IT--he barely became my representative in the Convention that we had to replace Jo Ann Davis when she died. I told his office that he would lose next time 2010 if he voted for it even if it meant I ran against him.

Looking good at this point!
***UPDATE

The bailout package failed 228 - 205. AP release on the failure.

FREE MARKETS STILL EXIST IN THE US!! Just say no to socialism!!!

Ten Reasons to Oppose the Bailout

2008-09-29T13:07:00.001-04:00

From FreedomWorks today:

Ten Reasons to Oppose the Wall Street Bailout

1. NO REFORM: The plan attempts to mask, rather than reform, imbalances in credit markets and in U.S. economic public policy. The plan props up reckless and failed banks by buying "troubled assets" instead of focusing on real reforms that go after government sponsored culprits Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and sustainable policies that will increase the availability of private capital and expanded economic growth.

2. TREASURY POWER GRAB: The plan raises Constitutional concerns by dramatically expanding the power of the current and future Treasury Secretaries, giving the government agency power to directly purchase assets from for-profit financial and non-financial firms.

3. STUNNING PRICE TAG: The $700 billion bailout figure is as much money as the combined annual budgets of the Departments of Defense, Education and Health and Human Services. It amounts to $2,300 for every man, woman, and child in America.

4. INCREASES NATIONAL DEBT: Instead of cutting spending elsewhere, Congress will borrow all $700 billion on global capital markets, and the bill raises the national debt ceiling to a staggering $11.3 trillion.

5. GLOBAL BAILOUT: The plan includes taxpayer purchases of distressed assets from foreign banks.

6. HURTS RESPONSIBLE AMERICAN BANKS: The plan punishes responsible U.S. banks by keeping reckless, insolvent investment banks in business. As BB&T CEO John Allison wrote in a letter to Congress on Sept. 23rd, "....this is primarily a bailout of poorly run financial institutions.... Corrections are not all bad. The market correction process eliminates irrational competitors."

7. FLAWED PROCESS: Members of Congress and the public will have less than 24 hours and no hearings to discuss and understand the impact of this sweeping plan. This rush to pass a wildly unpopular plan without benefit of significant public debate and input will also undermine its legitimacy and effectiveness.

8. BY WALL STREET, FOR WALL STREET: Treasury Secretary Paulson, the architect of the plan, was formerly the head of Goldman Sachs, one of the firms responsible for the mess and a direct beneficiary of the bailout. Further, the advisers managing the bailout auctions and assets will be Wall Street firms and will likely receive billions of tax dollars in fees.

9. OTHER OPTIONS NOT EXHAUSTED: The idea that taxpayers will make money on the bailout is not credible. There are ready buyers for these "troubled assets" -- Merrill Lynch sold its entire portfolio of mortgage backed securities in July-- provided the price is low enough. If a profit was possible, private speculators would readily buy these troubled assets.

10. MORALLY OFFENSIVE: The plan violates basic principles of American capitalism and honest governance by creating a system of "private profits, socialized losses" that transfers money from taxpayers directly to Wall Street investment banks. Free market capitalism only functions if individuals and firms are held accountable and are allowed to both succeed and profit, and also to sustain losses and even fail.

36 days to Election Day--The Crap Sandwich

2008-09-29T10:13:00.006-04:00

Minority Leader John Boehner calls it a “crap sandwich”.

I agree! But now it looks like enough people are on board to take a bite of it here in DC that this will be the main entree on this Congress's menu. What a horrible legacy for Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid. Then, of course, the Bush Administration will also add this to its menu--after all, it is their recipe for the most part--adding a big pile of steaming crap to his domestic policy legacy (will anyone notice, I wonder).

From Congressman Mike Pence (Human Events--emphasis added):

Dear Colleagues:
Our nation has been confronted by a serious crisis in our financial markets. The President and this Congress were right to act with all deliberate speed in addressing this crisis.
We now have a deal that promises to bring near-term stability to our financial turmoil, but at what price?

Economic freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail.
The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts this basic truth of our free market economy.
Republicans improved this bill but it remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector, and passes the cost along to the American people. I cannot support it.
Before you vote, ask yourself why you came here and vote with courage and integrity to those principles.
If you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, vote in accordance with those convictions.
Duty is ours, outcomes belong to God.
We have fought the good fight. Now we need to finish the race and make sure that posterity and the American people know there were conservatives who opposed the leviathan state in this dark hour.
And if you do this I promise you, I will stand with you and, I believe with all my heart, the American people will stand with you as well.
MIKE PENCE

As my friend, DJ McGuire, says...this is principle. I call it character. Whatever you call it, unfortunately it is in short supply in Washington.

My thanks to DJ for also bringing my attention to Doug Mataconis over at Below the Beltway.

As DJ says, he has the line of the day (so far) on the bailout, and the blank check it will (almost literally) give Henry Paulson:

It’s the kind of unchecked authority that would have made even Alexander Hamilton blush . . .

Indeed!

38 Days to Election Day--The First Debate

2008-09-27T08:55:00.002-04:00

Who won the debate? I assume everyone and anyone is trying to answer this question...

I think McCain won the debate...barely.

The One's most repeated phrase? "John (or Senator McCain) is right..." said about a dozen times. OOPS! My suggestion to The One...saying this (although correct) is counter to your interests!

Senator McCain's most repeated phrase? "Senator Obama does not understand..." said several times and a much better strategy (I think all would agree, wouldn't we?).

But "who won the debate" misses the point, which is...were the objectives of each campaign met and to what extent?

In this...I believe The One surpassed expectations (which for me, of course, were low).

Objectives:
To show mastery of foreign policy: McCain 95% (as expected), The One 65% (higher than expected)
To show understanding of the financial crisis and policy solutions for it: McCain 75% (expected), The One 75% (higher)
To seem presidential in handling questions and communication: McCain 90% (expected), The One 85% (much higher than expected)
Explaining policy differences from opponent: McCain 95% (higher), The One 70% (lower than expected)
Putting opponent "off his game": McCain 35% (much lower than expected), The One 35% (much lower than expected)

The One did well and held his ground...much higher than my expectations from such a neophyte! Now we wait to see the changes in the polls...

By the way, current Gallup daily tracking poll...46 to 46 tied again! The Electoral standing...The One has made some gains in VA, MO, and PA and McCain has made gains in MI and CO. Current score The One 273, McCain 265.

More Evidence

2008-09-25T20:42:00.004-04:00

My brother John seems to think that I am being partisan in my analysis of the current debacle.

Unfortunately for him, the facts keep getting in the way. Take a look at this article by Steven Holmes from the venerable liberal bastion of the New York Times on September 30, 1999 (emphasis added):

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Well now, isn't that interesting.

By the way, about Franklin Raines--the CEO of Fannie at the time--
On July 16, 2008, The Washington Post reported that Franklin Raines had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."
Also, in an editorial in August 27, 2008 titled "Tough Decision Coming", the Washington Post editorial staff wrote that "Two members of Mr. Obama's political circle, James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines, are former chief executives of Fannie Mae."

More support can also be found in another liberal bastion--the Los Angeles Times. In an article by Ronald Brownstein on May 31, 1999, several interesting nuggets can be found:

Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.
Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more.
In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.
The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable.

So, John, are the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times being partisan as well?

Another source worth reading...

2008-09-25T14:53:00.002-04:00

Investor's Business Daily has an excellent three-part series that walks you through the history of the housing/financial/credit crisis. It is hard to argue with the facts when they are laid out so clearly!

The House Republican Steering Committee (HRSC) has it right!

2008-09-25T13:25:00.002-04:00

House Republican Steering Committee comments on the bailout
Their list of concerns with the bailout is a must read (via Leslie Carbone with my thanks to DJ McGuire):

1) Fundamentally alters the nation’s free-market system in that it broadly socializes firm’s money-losing mortgage assets and places the U.S. on a slippery slope whereby profits will also be nationalized. Even if one accepts the idea that such a proposal could work, valid questions about whether such a cost is an acceptable trade-off for the market turmoil we are hoping to avoid must be raised.

2) Fails to penalize the debtholders and shareholders (including many of the executives themselves), who should bear the risk of any losses, and indirectly infuses capital onto the books of financial institutions with no recourse.

3) Cedes massive authority to Treasury, with virtually no accountability. The Presidential election is a mere six weeks away and a new Secretary will take office in January 2009. Lawmakers and taxpayers have no idea what individual will ultimately be exercising this vast new authority over the long-term.

4) What if it fails? The plan does not give any consideration to what would occur if this authority failed to solve the current crisis. Those reasons could potentially include risk from other private sector failures outside of mortgage-backed assets, international financial services failures, lack of willing sellers, lack of willing buyers, an understatement of the depth of the problem or the financial commitment needed to abate it, or even the fact that the program might work according to planned but produce no beneficial impact.

5) Forces Treasury to pay inflated prices for assets. Since there is nothing in the proposal that forces financial institutions to sell their assets at a discount rate, or even at all, many of these owners may simply wait out the government to increase their bid, leading to more inflated prices than the market would currently bear.

6) Increases the federal deficit and national debt. The new mandatory spending will cause a massive increase in the national debt and the federal deficit. These annual deficits are funded by selling government bonds purchased by a host of large investors, including foreign countries. There is a limit to the amount of bonds that a government can float without adverse financial effects.

7) Contains no taxpayer protections, such as requiring the cost of purchasing these assets to flow through the annual appropriations process or requiring a participation fee or premium so that firms have to “pay to play.”

8 Insulates financial institutions that do not even pose a systemic risk. Some companies may truly pose a systemic risk to the entire market. However, there is no requirement under the proposal that a company truly be “too big to fail.” Instead, any financial institution with mortgage-related assets would be eligible.

9) Contains no safeguards against favoritism. Treasury officials will have no criteria for which to prioritize which mortgage-related assets to purchase first, from who, and when.

10) Bails out foreign-owned banks. The latest incarnation of the proposal allows foreign-owned banks and their U.S. subsidiaries to participate. This change runs the risk of forcing taxpayers to subsidize the poor decisions of foreign companies at a time when their local governments are refusing to supply their own capital to make such a subsidy themselves.

The mess continues...

2008-09-25T12:58:00.002-04:00

My sister, Jodi, had a blog post dealing with the situation. She posted a video from Rachel Maddow talking about the mess...the following is my answer to her blog...

Who gave the six-year-olds all of the candy to begin with? Congress--by manipulating the credit market and encouraging sub-prime loans. There is plenty of blame to go around as my analysis of the mess shows.

Even Bill Clinton agrees with me...as he said on GMA this morning responding to a question about the changes to Fannie and Freddie in 1999, "Well...I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress...to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

The answer to the problem, however, is NOT to put taxpayers on the line with this bailout. As Rachel's piece mentions (very briefly, but...you know...consider the source)...very conservative members of Congress are balking at this. THIS PLAN IS NOT THE ANSWER...LET THE MARKET WORK IT OUT AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY WILL!!!

Remember (even with Ms. Maddow's snarky comment)...THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM...THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM!!!

Oh, how I wish we had a leader in charge instead of a bunch of POPULISTS like Obama and McCain.

We should reform Sarbanes-Oxley, cut the capital gains tax to ZERO, (The natural influx of capital from that will take care of much of the fallout of this mess), and cut corporate taxes (currently the 2nd highest in the industrialized world). This would increase capital flow and alleviate the crisis in the credit market.

The Status of the Bailout Debate

2008-09-23T18:00:00.001-04:00

My friend, DJ, has a great post on the bailout debate. If you are interested, it is a short read!

42 Days to Election Day--Finally, my analysis of the financial "crisis"

2008-09-23T14:23:00.003-04:00

Well here we are at the end of September facing a proposed $700 Billion nationalization of the financial sector of our economy and likely with a gaggle of potential companies, industries, and individuals lining up with their hands out for the next big government giveaway...

How did we get here?

This is not an easy question...there are many policies, programs, and institutions with all sorts of culpability in this mess. One thing I can say, however, with certainty--THIS WAS NOT A FAILURE OF THE FREE MARKET!!! My friend, DJ McGuire, the free market was never tried! His post is worth reading (including several other of his posts related to this mess).

I believe the root of this problem goes back several decades, but can be diluted to a short phrase...AFFORDABLE HOUSING and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the culprits along with several policies affecting their operations over the last 40 years. As Kevin Hasset posted on Bloomberg.com on 9/22, "Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened."

So, what are the policies which made Fannie and Freddie the liabilities they would become?

The creation of Fannie
As part of FDR's New Deal, Fannie was created as a government agency in 1938 to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. As my friend, DJ McGuire, said in a well-researched post, Fannie was "set up to provide loans to banks that they themselves could loan out to homeowners. Since these were government loans created from a policy deliberately designed to make homes 'affordable,' the banks treated it like the free money it really was, and loaned it out like they were supposed to do. Thus did the government begin artificially inflating property demand."

The quasi-privatization of Fannie and the creation of Freddie
In 1968, to remove the activity of Fannie Mae from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget, the Johnson Administration converted into a private corporation. To provide competition in the secondary mortgage market, and to end Fannie Mae's monopoly, Freddie Mac was created by the Democratic Congress as a private corporation in the Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970 created. The goal was to create a secondary market for conventional mortgages, as indicated in the Fannie Mae charter.
Again, from DJ's post, "So now, there were two companies, both ostensibly private but with obvious government favors, government ties, and the implied government backing that came with them..." (emphasis added). It was this implied government backing that propped these entities up, with investors knowing that the government would never let them fail!

The Community Reinvestment Act
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed during the Carter Administration. It was passed in order to make sure that each banking institution was meeting the "credit needs of its entire community." It sounds harmless enough, but it was used to force lenders to begin to extend credit to less-than-creditworthy people in the name of "fairness" and "diversity."
According to a commentary by Yaron Brook in Forbes, "The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?"

The Community Reinvestment Act Revised and Extended
In 1995, the Clinton Administration further liberalized the CRA and the Reno Justice Department warned lenders against "redlining" and stated that the Adminstration would take strong action against any suspected instances of the practice. Again, seems harmless enough--even noble--but it was used to force more sub-prime mortgages onto the books. These revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995, were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans (sub-prime). These changes were very controversial.
According to Yaron Brook's article, "In a free market, lending large amounts of money to low-income, low-credit borrowers with no down payment would quickly prove disastrous. But the Federal Reserve Board's inflationary policy of artificially low interest rates made investing in subprime loans extraordinarily profitable. Subprime borrowers who would normally not be able to pay off their expensive houses could do so, thanks to payments that plummeted along with Fed rates. And the inflationary housing boom meant homeowners rarely defaulted; so long as housing prices went up, even the worst-credit borrowers could always sell or refinance." (emphasis added)
Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX)
In an overreaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals from 2000 to 2002, President George W. Bush signed SOX into law, on July 30, 2002, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt." Indeed--complete with the unintended consequences of these types of market-interfering legislation.
SOX has crippled entrepreneurial start ups, driven public companies private, driven smart business people off public boards, and driven offerings from New York to London. Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has been a vocal critic of SOX, specifically Section 404, citing, among other things, that "Financial analysts have identified Section 404 as the major reason why American corporations are hoarding cash instead of investing it in new ventures."(emphasis added).
Taking such a large amount of capital out of the market has added to this current "crisis".

Refusal to heed warning signs
In a commentary on Bloomberg.com, Kevin Hasset points out when the "turning point" happened in this mess.
"Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were....enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004...the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even 'on the page' of allowable interpretations.
"Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a 'world-class regulator' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
"The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward.
"What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
"But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."

Now, I realize that the preponderance of this focuses on the Democrats and what they did over the last four decades. However, I also blame the Bush Administration for not taking a much stronger position in this mess much earlier. Bush's SOX policy and the lack of pushing for the 2005 reform of Fannie and Freddy were also inexcusable! As mentioned in a Politico.com article by Jeanne Cummings, "One of the Bush administration’s signature goals has been promoting an 'ownership society.' To achieve that end, the administration promoted a series of programs designed to encourage consumers to buy homes, stocks and other goods that would convert them into free market advocates."

The Bush Administration has also been quick to bail out the actors in this mess...as I have quipped, we are nationalizing faster than Chavez and Venezuela! Unfortunately, we have a lack of true leadership in this country--and what passes for it often is a poorly disguised populism (as we can see from The One and McCain). The Administration should have said in no uncertain terms that Fannie and Freddie are private entities and not secured by the US government. If that meant the two of them had to go bankrupt, so be it and let their investors take the hit! That is what happens in the free market--entities must be free to FAIL!!!

There is a great article that captures much of my sentiment on all of this in the Washington Post, of all places. Here is a short excerpt (emphasis added):

"I've been financially responsible with my own money. Why should I now be responsible for the fact that you were not?" he said.
This may be a Main Street bailout backlash in the making. The details of the financial crisis are still hard for most people to follow -- what with talk of exotic "derivatives" known as "credit-default swaps" and so on -- but the central fact of the matter hasn't been lost on anyone in this Northern Virginia community: The taxpayers are on the hook for the bad judgment of others.
And they say they don't like it. They didn't break it, but now they've bought it. Political leaders and financial titans say the bailout is necessary to save the economy, but on the ground, in such places as Manassas Park, people think that the bailout will reward the wrong people. There's a sense that too many folks bought houses they couldn't really afford, banks urged them on, common sense went on vacation, and now the grown-ups have to clean up the mess.
"If I spent more money than I have, I don't deserve to have somebody bail me out," said John Owens, 45, a developer who lives on Eagle Court, where three houses have gone through foreclosure.
The anti-bailout sentiment appears to cut across class lines. You hear it from one end of Manassas Drive, the main drag through town, to the other -- from the small, Cape Cod-style homes built with G.I. Bill money after World War II to the muscle-bound houses newly risen along the golf course.
"I'm not overextended," Merkle said. "I didn't buy a large home that I can't afford. I'm not behind on any of my payments. I'm not sure I want the government to take my tax dollars and buy someone else's house for them."

Thank you for your patience and your attention...will get back to the election tomorrow!

Election update--43 days until Election Day!

2008-09-22T10:50:00.002-04:00

My analysis of the financial mess is coming...I promise!

Here is the status of the race as of today (and over the weekend):

Electoral-vote.com has a good overview of several new polls over the weekend (a total of 34 state polls--15 released on Saturday, 11 on Sunday, and 8 today).

Iowa seems to no longer be in play...in several polls, The One has shown significant leads (+11, +7, +14). However, might we have some more states becoming swingers? Maine is within the margin of error (The One +4) and Washington has tightened (The One +6); however, The One has been consistently ahead in both, so unless the wheels are coming off (wishful thinking on my part), I do not see these really being in play. Indiana continues to surprise with McCain showing only a 2-3 point lead. Indiana has been a solidly red state, though, and McCain has been consistently ahead there, so again, I do not think it is really in play either. Missouri continues to track toward McCain, with the latest poll showing a McCain +4. Missouri, which has been a swing state over the last several cycles, has been fairly consistently in McCain's column as well--I no longer think it is in play either.

The polls in FL, MI, MN, OH, PA, and VA over the weekend continue to show that these are indeed the ones to watch this year (along with NM, CO, NV, and NH). I believe that like IN and MO, Florida and Virginia are not really in play this year. McCain has shown a consistent lead in both (although only by 1-2 points currently in FL and 2 points in VA--the smallest amount in a while) and the strength of the military in both states make me think that the margin will not be that close in November. Meanwhile in MN, while only showing a 1 point lead for The One in today's poll, is unlikely to switch to red this year (although I will keep hoping!).

That leaves the Lake Erie states--OH, PA and MI. In the polls released this weekend, The One shows a lead in each of the states with Ohio continuing to be the closest (and the one with the most electoral votes). Ohio polled for The One +2 in one polll and for McCain +6 in antoher. Pennsylvania increasingly seems to be tilting back to The One, with a +5 advantage in the latest poll, while Michigan showed The One ahead in three polls by +1, +2, and +9.

Current electoral prediction (270 needed to win):
Saturday--McCain 265, Obama 273
Sunday--McCain 265, Obama 273
Today--McCain 265, Obama 273

Watch an animated map of the electoral vote since June...

46 days to go--The Financial Meltdown...my thoughts

2008-09-19T16:17:00.003-04:00

Sorry, folks...I am trying to write about this mess...but because of the difficulties involved, it is taking more time than I thought. I will try to have a synopsis this weekend!

As for the presidential race...Electoral-vote.com has a good overview of several new polls out yesterday and today (a total of 68 state polls--either The One was closer to the real number of States in the Union than any of us realized, or there are several States being polled more than once!). It seems that the State polls continue to become closer in several swing states--CO, NH, IA in particular. Can it be that OR could come into play?

Current electoral prediction:
Wednesday--McCain 257, Obama 247, 34 tied (PA and VA)
Yesterday--McCain 274, Obama 243 (270 needed to win), 21 tied (PA)
Today--McCain 265, Obama 252, 21 tied (PA)

New Mexico switched back and forth on Wednesday to Thursday,
Colorado switched back and forth yesterday and today.

Watch an animated map of the electoral vote since June...

48 Days Until Election--Barak Obama

2008-09-17T20:29:00.004-04:00

It will come as no surprise to any that know me that I have serious problems with the junior Senator from Illinois. My main problem has everything to do with his liberal worldview and his seeming naivete.

First let me say that I doubt that any person elected to the office of President can damage our country beyond repair in four years, so I do not share the near despair about a possible election of The One that some of my conservative brethren seem to have. An Obama presidency will significantly damage our military, our ability to respond to real threats, push our economy over the brink, damage industry, increase unemployment, and move us too close to socialism; however, these things can be overcome with time. I also have the view that it took a Carter to get a Reagan, so Carter II (which The One's administration is likely to be) may have the unintended consequence of giving the conservative movement a needed boost and finally strengthen the Regan Revolution to ascend to power for a much longer period.

I worry about the lack of experience that The One has. He has not had any executive experience and he has held high elected office (US Senate) for only two years before he decided to begin a run for president. During his tenure he has not written any major legislation--not that I am complaining, his politics would make just about anything he would write dreadful. His record in the Illinois State House is spotty, as he would often not vote at all. But my main concern is his belief system--his liberal worldview is very much in line with the socialism of Europe.

He will raise taxes on businesses (by the way, businesses do NOT pay taxes, they pass them on as a cost of doing business--who do you think ends up paying these taxes?) putting strain on them in an economy that is barely hanging on...this will cause less employment and likely increase unemployment. He calls it taxing the "rich"-remember, many small businessmen report their taxes on their personal tax returns...the "rich" are the ones that employ people.

He will continue to oppose offshore drilling, drilling in ANWR, clean coal technology, and nuclear energy. All this will do is increase our dependence on foreign sources of oil. Let's be clear here, there are no viable alternatives to oil for our transportation infrastructure in the near future. There are areas where we can improve and should, but to ignore the reality that we MUST develop our own sources of crude production outside of the Gulf of Mexico--having 25% of our production concentrated in one area is a national security issue.

He wants to sieze the "excessive" profits of the oil companies. Does anyone believe that this will do anything but INCREASE the cost of this product to the consumer? Besides, making 9 to 10 cents of profit on every dollar of revenue is hardly "excessive". Coke, Pepsi, Anhieser Busch, Google, GE, etc., etc. all make MUCH MUCH more. How about siezing the "excessive" profits of trial lawyers, entertainers, movie studios, media outlets?

Abortion...he is wrong on this issue and I will leave it at that. His appointments to the Supreme Court would also be absolutely wrong, but since the most likely appointements will be to replace the liberals on the bench...it would be status quo. I would prefer more conservatives, but at least we will not lose there.

And finally, health care for all...can we trust the government, who cannot handle its duties that are already at its feet, to handle something as important as this??? Your new health care plan--brought to you by the same government who has bankrupted social security and could not handle Katrina.

There are so many other areas, but this is enough for now.

OK--Here We Go! 49 Days to Election Day

2008-09-16T16:42:00.012-04:00

I am going to attempt daily blogging (except maybe the weekends) until the election. This election (like the three prior) is VERY IMPORTANT for so many reasons, and I feel I must get my thoughts down on virtual paper!

My friend, DJ McGuire in his latest post about the election has broken it into three main points. His blog is worth the read. I suggest that he is correct that the election is much closer than the conventional wisdom has been willing to mention (at least until lately) and that the election now seems to be trending toward McCain ever since the excellent selection of Governor Palin to be the VP candidate.

I have made no secret that I have not been a fan of the Republican presidential candidate. My longstanding view is that when conservatives do not have someone to vote for, the Republicans lose elections. Governor Palin gives us someone to vote for--perhaps McCain has snatched victory from the jaws of defeat! Over the next few days I will give my opinion on the candidates, the issues, and the current events swirling around the campaigns.

For this post, I will give my estimation of where we are currently...

I am a fan of Electoral-Vote.com and use this site to follow the election. The person who maintains this site is left-leaning, but he tends to give relatively good analysis. It has been this site that has helped me predict the last election.

As you should know, it is the Electoral College vote that counts, not the popular vote. There is a good chance that Senator Obama (who I will refer to as "The One") wins the popular vote by a greater margin than Mr. Gore in 2000, but loses the electoral vote.

I have the following 16 states solidly in The One's column: CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, IA, IL, MA, MD, ME, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, and WI. This is a total of 207 electoral votes.

I have the following 25 states solidly in Senator McCain's column: AL, AK, AR, AZ, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, and WY. This is a total of 227 electoral votes.

The nine swing states (at least as I see them now) are CO, MI, MN, NH, NM, NV, OH, PA, and VA. Right now, CO, MI, MN, NH, and PA are leaning toward The One (total of 61 EVs), and OH, NM, NV, and VA are leaning toward McCain (total of 43 EV's) . With leaning states in the respective columns, McCain leads 270 to 268. My opinion of the swing states is that CO, OH, PA, and NM are the most volitile and will be the ones to watch...

Interesting thought...if McCain takes PA and The One takes OH and all others stay in their respective columns, we get a 269-269 tie (there are several ways this could happen) and it is off to the House of Representatives where each state gets one vote for President (so the congressional delegations for each state vote...this could make for some interesting deal making) and to the Senate, where each Senator gets a vote for VP. Electoral-Vote.com had an analysis of this scenario on September 11 this year.

A little late--but here is an excellent Candidade Compass

2008-02-13T08:14:00.004-05:00

Well the Potomac Primary was last night. McCain swept the three jurisdictions--taking all delegates. Obama swept as well, but delegates in the Democrat primaries are proportional. Obama has taken the lead in the delegate count, but Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are strong Clinton areas--she could still pull it out...plus there are the "SuperDelegates". My favorite site to watch the elections is Electoral-Vote.com--he is a little left-leaning, but his analysis is pretty good.

As for me, I voted for Romney to send a message to McCain that he must work hard for the support of the conservative vote.

Meanwhile, a friend of my sister Jodi (Charissa) has found a great Electoral Compass. I think it is well worth the time (35 questions). It gives you your position in all the issues and in each of twelve major issue areas.

No surprise here for me...to the right of all major candidates economically and as conservative as any on the social.

Mitt's Out

2008-02-07T13:09:00.000-05:00

Well, so much for posting why I supported him for the Chesapeake primary. I still intend to cast a protest vote against McCain and will mark my ballot for a real conservative. Now that Romney is out, my vote may go to Hunter or Thompson. It will not go to the old man--I hope he gets the message so that I can support him heartily in November.

Yeah--and pigs might fly too...

Now more than ever I fear that the Dems may just win (we will never win by being Democrat-lite. ARE YOU LISTENING, JOHN???)

So I await the old man's speech at CPAC--we shall see...

Not McCain Either

2008-02-07T09:26:00.000-05:00

I wrote this in response to a dear friend's post (The Right-Wing Liberal). DJ is an intelligent and reasoned individual whom I respect immensely--however, I do not share his view on supporting McCain in the run up to the Chesapeake Primary. I have several problems with McCain which I address in this post. I will post my reasons for supporting Romney next. Meanwhile--here we go:

I have kept quiet and watched. Now I must say something. You do realize that it is not the conservative base which is choosing McCain, don’t you?McCain has only won 3 of his 12 states by more than 50%(CT, NY, and NJ–all blue state BY FAR), as compared to Romney who has won 6 of his 11 states (WY, NV, ME, CO, MA, and UT–4 reds).

McCain has won only 6 of his 12 by 10 or more points (AZ, CT, DE, IL, NJ, and NY–again VERY blue except AZ, his home state), while Romney has won 10 out of his 11 states by 10 or more points (WY, NV, ME, AK, CO, MA, MN, MT, ND, UT–VERY red except MA (home state), ME, and MN).

Both have 23 1st or 2nd place finishes, but Romney was within 10 points in 7 of his 12 second-place states (IA, GA, WV, NH, FL, CA, and MO) and within 5 points in four (GA, WV, FL, MO). McCain was within 10 points in only 5 of his 11 second-place states (MI, MA, AL, GA, TN) and within five in three (Al, GA, TN).

At this point I am hoping to keep this RINO out of nomination–perhaps in a brokered convention, we can get a real conservative for our nominee. McCain certainly is not it. He is wrong on Guantanamo, wrong on “torture”, wrong on immigration (the largest threat to the US equal to our efforts overseas–I am NOT willing to concede this just because he is right on the WBK war), wrong on the border fence, wrong on amnesty, wrong on English as our official language, wrong on taxes, wrong on stem cell research, wrong on free speech, wrong on ANWR, wrong on energy policy, wrong on global warming, wrong on SC Justices (voted to confirm Ginsburg yet was a member of the Gang of 14), wrong on class warfare (”I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans”–the wealthy in this case are TAXPAYERS! Sound familiar–directly out of the Dem playbook), and wrong on supporting business (McCain has attacked pharmaceutical companies as “bad guys” who are using corrupt political influence to profit at the expense of the little guy–sound familiar? It’s Edwards-Clinton-Obama-speak).

DJ–won’t you join me in voting against this RINO in hopes that in a brokered convention we can support a real conservative (It probably wouldn’t take 103 ballots (1924 Dem convention)…but a currently unnamed candidate or even a former candidate (ie Hunter, Thompson) could be put into nomination from the floor in a brokered convention. It is time for the Reagan conservatives to rise up and take back the party).

2008-01-04T10:15:00.000-05:00

There are many, many reasons I cannot support Huckabee in a primary situation, regardless of his being an “Evangelical Christian” (remember, so was Jimmy Carter). I have included several links as well at the bottom of this note.

1) Governor Huckabee is NOT well versed in foreign policy

“I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.”

This is NOT the time for a neophyte in foreign policy

· Huckabee stated in a major foreign policy speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies:

o “American foreign policy needs a change in tone or attitude”

o “This administration’s bunker mentality has been counterproductive”

o “[The administration has] done a poor job of communicating and consulting with other countries”

o He compared the US to a bully

o “Our strategic interest as the world’s most powerful country coincide with our moral obligations as the world’s richest country” (tax here and spend abroad)

o He accuses the administration of “proceeding down only one track with Iran: armed confrontation.” This is the kind of rhetoric you’d expect from DailyKos bloggers, not a
Republican presidential candidate

· Huckabee supports shutting down Guantanamo Bay to placate international critics of it

· From an editorial in National Review: (emphasis added)

“This is the kernel of Huckabee’s foreign policy. He wants to anthropomorphize
international relations and bring a Christian commitment to the Golden Rule to our affairs with other nations. As he told the Des Moines Register
the other day, ‘You treat others the way you’d like to be treated. That’s to me the fundamental issue that has to be re-established in our dealings with other countries.’

“This is deeply naïve. Countries aren’t people, and the world is more dangerous than a Sunday church social. Threats, deception, and — as a last resort — violence must play a role in international relations. Differences cannot always be worked out through sweet persuasion. A U.S.
president who doesn’t realize this will repeat the experience of President
Jimmy Carter at his most ineffectual.”

2) Governor Huckabee is NOT a fiscal conservative

“[Huckabee] says he’s pro-family. If you’re raising taxes on the families of Arkansas, causing wives to go out and get jobs to make ends meet, that’s not pro-family.” - Former Arkansas State Representative Randy Minton (R)

Can we say tax and spend conservative?

· The Cato Institute gave Huckabee an “F” for his final term as governor on its Fiscal Policy Report Card—lower than 15 of the 21 Democrat Governors: “Huckabee’s leadership has left taxpayers in Arkansas much worse off.” His overall grade as governor was a D.

· In 2003, Huckabee called a special session of the legislature to push for a tax increase to make up for spending shortfalls.

· Huckabee refused to consider a Republican proposal to cut spending and use general improvement funds (i.e., legislative pork) to make up for the budget shortfall.

· Huckabee called a 2^nd special legislative session in 2003 to pass a nearly one-cent state sales tax increase—also expanding the sales tax to include previously exempted services

· During Huckabee’s term, Arkansas showed a net tax increase of $505 million

· During Huckabee’s term, the average Arkansan’s tax burden grew over 47%

· Governor Huckabee raised more taxes in 10 years in office than Governor Bill Clinton did in his 12 years

· During Huckabee’s term, state spending more than doubled (from $6.6 billion to $16.1 billion)

· During Huckabee’s term, the state added about 8,000 full-time workers, a 19% increase

3) Governor Huckabee is NOT strong on immigration laws

"I would say that Huckabee comes from the same perspective on the issue that George W. Bush came from — that out of a strong sense of compassion, he tries to identify with someone who comes to the United States, even if they came illegally," said Steven A. Camarota, research
director for the Center for Immigration Studies.

Compassion is a wonderful Christian principle; however, it should not be an excuse for ignoring our laws

· Huckabee’s human services liaison Robert Trevino pushed for legislation to provide driver’s licenses for illegals—it was understood by legislators that he acted with the governor’s blessing

· Huckabee opposed a measure to require proof of citizenship to vote

· Huckabee supported a bill that offered illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates and made them eligible for the same merit-based scholarships to Arkansas state colleges and universities as legal citizens

· Huckabee opposed a bill that denied some state benefits to illegals and required proof of citizenship to vote—he called the measure “un-American….inflammatory….race-baiting and demagoguery.” He added that the bill “inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there’s a real problem. But there’s not.”

· Huckabee criticized federal agents for a recent crackdown on illegals, saying that it wasn’t fair to the
innocent family members of those targeted in the operation.

· Huckabee promoted an “open door” policy on immigration as he addressed the League of United Latin American Citizens

4) Governor Huckabee is NOT tough on crime

"I would not deny that my sense of the reality of redemption is a factor," the former Baptist pastor said in a radio interview with KUAR in Little Rock. "And I don't know that I can apologize for that because I would hate to think of the kind of human I would be if I thought people were beyond forgiveness and beyond reformation and beyond some sense of improvement."

Redemption is also a wonderful Christian principle, but it should not override the proper punishment given out by a jury and a court

· Huckabee granted over 1,000 clemencies and commutations of criminals as governor

· Huckabee released more criminals than the combined total of every border state to Arkansas

· Huckabee issued more than double the clemencies of his three predecessors combined

· Huckabee ignored the requirement to notify victims’ families and explain the reasons for those clemencies. He said to fully explain his reasoning would cost millions of dollars and “take money away from education and Medicaid and other things.”

· Prosecutors say Huckabee was more inclined to release or reduce the sentences of prisoners if he had direct contact with them or was lobbied by those close to him

5) Governor Huckabee is NOT a strong supporter of public school reform

The New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association (NEA) has endorsed Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee for the upcoming Primary elections. This is the first time in memory that they have recommended a Republican (in 2004 they endorsed Howard Dean)

This is worrisome as well

· Huckabee has consistently opposed virtually all proposals for education reform, including school choice vouchers

· When the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that Arkansas’ public school funding was “inequitable,” Huckabee took the ruling as a mandate to raise taxes in order to once again increase school funding…which he did

6) Governor Huckabee may have questionable ethics

Judicial Watch, a non-partisan group dedicted to fighting government
corruption, listed Huckabee among their Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians of 2007. Huckabee was one of only three Republican politicians to make the list.

Another potential problem

· During his term, Huckabee accepted 314 gifts valued overall at more than $150,000

· The Huckabees set up “wedding registries” at local department stores as he was leaving office—State ethics laws prohibited Huckabee from receiving gifts of more than $100 with an exception for “wedding gifts”

7) Governor Huckabee is seen as very beatable by the DNC

Democrat National Committee officials have already been quoted as saying that they see Huckabee as “easy kill” and refer to him as “the glass jaw — and they’re just waiting to break it.”

Can you still support him?

· The DNC has issued over 200 attack press releases on Republican candidates—only 4 on Huckabee, the last one coming 10 months ago

· From the Drudge Report 12/11/2007:

o Democrat party officials are avoiding any and all criticism of Mike Huckabee

o The DNC has told staffers to hold all fire, until he secures the party's nomination

o In the last three weeks since Huckabee's surge kicked in, the DNC hasn't released a single press release criticizing his rising candidacy

o The last DNC press release critical of Huckabee appeared back on March 2^nd

o DNC Press Release Attack Summary:

§ Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) – 37% (99 press releases)
Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) – 28% (74)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) – 24% (64)
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) – 8% (20)
Governor Mike Huckabee – 2% (4)

o "He'll easily be their McGovern, an easy kill," mocked one senior Democrat operative. "His letting out murderers because they shout 'Jesus', his wanting to put 300,000 AIDS patients and Magic Johnson into isolation, ain't even scratching the surface of what we've got on him."

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12430

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071130/NATION/111300094/1002

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/06/30/News/323746.html

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8838

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjM3Zjg5NWYxOGRkNzdmOWY3ZTU4ODQ2OGEyMzRkZmU

http://defeathuckabeeinva.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/from-a-conservative-evangelical-politically-active-father-of-four-in-arkansas/

Is anyone reading?

2007-11-05T08:03:00.000-05:00

Except, of course, my brother, two sisters, mom, and maybe Charissa?

I don't think this is right for me right now...too much going on. I will likely bid adieu for now...

SCHIP Expansion ala Pelosi, Reid, et al

2007-10-31T10:00:00.000-04:00

Let me simply say that I agree with President Bush's veto of this expansion...The program itself is a positive program and is achieving its purpose, expanding it in the way that the Democrat party hopes to is a backdoor way toward socialized medicine. I do not trust the government to run 1/7 of our economy...they do a poor enough job with the extra-Constitutional "duties" they have already usurped from the States and from the people.

Are the Republicans Really Doomed?

2007-10-30T15:24:00.000-04:00

Conventional Wisdom--Democrats will win the White House in 2008 in a landslide, increasing their majority in the House and picking up the seats needed to end the filibusters in the Senate.

Just makes you want to hide under a rock--I would say leave the country, but that is a Liberal reaction...after all, where would a true conservative go? Anywhere else in the capitalist world is much more Socialist than the US...we really have no choice but to stay (even with Hillary riding a Socialist wave into the White House)! I just wish the whackos that suffer from BDS (see last post--Bush Derangement Syndrome) would have been true to their word and left... we would be so much better off without them...

So, is the CW correct?

There are many reasons why I believe that it may not be a fait accompli--thank the Good Lord--however, I will look at just one now. My homestate of Ohio, in all of its purple splendor!

The magic number is 17...

Seventeen electoral votes switch, we have a tie in 2004, more than 17, Dems win.

So, let's look at the map. Which states are likely in play? Well, let's start with the ones which are most unlikely to move:

DEMS
The following 9 states had at least a 10 percentage point Democrat lead in 2004 (in declining order): DC, MA, RI, VT, NY, MD, CA, IL, and CT
Total: 146 EVs

The following 6 states had between a 4 and 10 percentage point Democrat lead in 2004 (in declining order): HI, ME, WA, DE, NJ,and OR
Total: 44 EVs

REPS
The following 22 states had at least a 10 percentage point Republican lead in 2004 (in declining order): UT, WY, ID, NE, OK, AK, ND, AL, KS, TX, SD, IN, KY, MS, MT, GA, SC, LA, TN, WV, NC, and AZ
Total: 183 EVs

The following 5 states had between a 4 and 10 percentage point Republican lead in 2004 (in declining order): VA, AR, MO, FL, and CO
Total: 66 EVs

THESE WILL NOT BE IN PLAY!!! (there are two possible, but unlikely, exceptions, both of which are not good for Dems--if Guliani is the nominee NJ and CT could be in play )

That leaves 9 states that were within 3 percentage points of switching
MN +3D, 10 EV
PA +2D, 21 EV
MI +2D, 17 EV
WI +1D, 10 EV
NH +1D, 4 EV
NM +1R, 5 EV
IA +1R, 7 EV
OH +2R, 20 EV
NV +3R, 5 EV

Republican states on the brink carry 37 electoral votes--but OHIO is the only one that matters. Even if the Dems keep all the states they carried in 04 and pick up NM, IA, and NV...they can only get an electoral tie (a whole new analysis needed here...).

Now, a Guliani nomination puts PA into play big time, and a Romney nomination puts NH into play as well...so, the chance for an electoral tie is minimized.

It comes down to Ohio--the Buckeye State. On the surface, this seems to be great news for the Democrat party. The Republican brand name there has been badly harmed--and is compounded by the State party's self-inflicted wounds. The combination led to a near-Democratic sweep in 2006 (the Republican candidate for State Auditor was the lone GOP winner statewide, and he took less than 51% of the vote).

So, why am I so optimistic at this point in time (and it is way to early to say that this is difinitive)? Well, I recently read about some polling in Ohio. According to the National Review Online Campaign Spot (emphasis added):

"Rasmussen's latest numbers in Ohio have some bright spots for Thompson, and generally a better outlook for the GOP than one might expect:
Forty-eight percent (48%) of Ohio voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton while 50% have a negative view. On the Republican side, McCain is viewed favorably by 54%. Favorables for both Giuliani and Thompson total 53% while Romney earns positive reviews from 43%. Just 38% have an unfavorable view of Thompson while negative ratings for the other GOP candidates are in the low-to-mid forties . . . Rudy Giuliani and John McCain both “lead” Clinton in Ohio by a statistically insignificant two percentage point margin. Fred Thompson is tied with the Democratic frontrunner while Clinton leads Mitt Romney by eight points. If the Republicans have managed to keep Ohio as competitive today as it was in 2004 (when Bush won by just over 2%), the party is in much better shape than anyone - even the most wild-eyed optimists - have imagined.

Hmmm...

I'll let you ponder this...of course, this is so early as to not really matter much at this point. However, I do believe that the Democrats do not have a lock...Hillary's negatives are just too high. I cannot see how someone with such high negatives can gain enough support to change the electoral map.

Bush Derangement Syndrome

2007-10-24T08:59:00.000-04:00

In a recent post ("On Genocide and Subterfuge of Democrats" ), my dear brother weighed in with his opinion. John and I will rarely agree on anything (as anyone that knows us will testify); however, I believe that he has contracted a severe case of "Bush Derangement Syndrome" (the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush--see Wikipedia Bush Derangement Syndrome) .

I really have a hard time understanding BDS...

Yes, I admit, I was very critical of the Clinton administration from 1993-2001; however I was able to see President Clinton as a human being (seriously flawed)--not some Incarnation of Evil. I disagreed with many of his policies and viewpoints, but they were just that, disagreements--not some devious plan to undermine the Constitution. Heck, I ameven able to give him props on some things (of course, I believe that most of these that would make a list would be ones that he was dragged kicking and screaming to after the "Republican Revolution of 1994").

My brother's latest incantation--"C'mon...this president wants nothing more than to keep this war going so that he can line the pockets of his friends and family. He is a coward and should be brought up on war crimes." Hmmmm....

Evidence? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Line the pockets of his friends and family. How does the war do this?
Oh, wait...I forgot...
The magic word--HALIBURTON!

Brought up on war crimes...hmmm which war crimes are these? Be careful when answering--most laws of war pertain to REGULAR military (ie uniformed members of a state militia).

Two recent submissions to the list of BDS show me it is alive and well:

During a debate on SCHIP expansion Thursday, Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) showed symptoms of BDS when he said the following on the House floor: "You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS (of course he apologized yesterday).

And my new favorite: The reaction of the federal government to the wildfires in California compared to the reaction to Katrina shows that the administration is racist!

Really, seek some treatment...

Post-Season Blues

2007-10-22T10:05:00.001-04:00

On Wednesday the Indians were up three games to one with one more at home...

--The Tribe had not lost three in a row since mid-August
--In the 65 times that there has been a 3-1 lead in a LCS, only 10 times had there been a comeback
--Momentum was on our side, we just needed to win one--ONE LOUSY GAME

Thirty BoSox runs later...

Good Grief!!

Now on top of The Drive (Browns--1987), The Fumble (Browns--1988), The Shot (Cavs--1989), and The Move (Browns--1996), The Bouncer (Indians--1997), comes a new entry: The Collapse.

It has been 10 years since our last trip to the big dance in 1997, and 59 years since we won the Fall Classic--only the Cubbies have waited longer.

On the positive side, we are a young team in ascendency--we should dominate the Central for the next few years. Maybe 60 years of waiting will be it...

For now, I am just left with the four immortal words (sour tasting as they are)...

What?

You think I am talking about

"There's always next year"

No...the four words echoing through Public Square, the Terminal Tower, across E. 9th Street, through the Jake, across the Cuyahoga and above the wide expanse of Lake Erie--

LET KENNY RUN HOME!!!

Dammit!

On Genocide and the Subterfuge of the Democrats

2007-10-16T09:41:00.000-04:00

On October 10, the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee voted 27-21 passing House Resolution 106 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.res.106:), recognizing the Armenian Genocide of 1915 (more information can be found at http://www.genocide1915.info/).

On the surface, this seems to be the right thing to do. After all, man's inhumanity to man should be subject to the light of truth and it is through our full understanding of history that we may avoid the doom of repetition.

However...

Did you know that there is a long history of our recognition of the Armenian Genocide, including resolutions from Congress, statements of presidents (including the current President), and diplomatic actions in the UN (see findings in the resolution, especially #2, 3, 9-13, 17, 20-25, 27-29).

So...

Why is the House once again bringing this to the floor over 80 years later?

Answer, they are using the suffering of the Armenian people in the past as a strategy to undermine the war in Iraq. What an inhumane use of such a terrible part of history--to forward their subterfuge and deceitful actions. They are unwilling to address their grievances directly (see last post on Hate Crimes) because they fear the electorate, so they find some backdoor way to do what they want...be damned who or what they use and the moral depravity they show in the use of these people.

The current Turkish government does not recognize the Armenian Genocide--BIG DEAL!!! It is generally accepted and recognized throughout the world, and also by former regimes of the Turkish government. The post-World War I Turkish Government indicted the top leaders involved in the `organization and execution' of the Armenian Genocide and in the `massacre and destruction of the Armenians' and in a series of courts-martial, officials of the Young Turk Regime were tried and convicted, as charged, for organizing and executing massacres against the Armenian people.

The US government does not recognize its part in genocide either--in fact, we only signed the international treaty on genocide--the CPPCG (Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide)--with the proviso that no claim of genocide could be brought against the US at the International Court of Justice without its consent. Under the definitions of the CPPCG, the US Government is guilty of the Genocide of Native Americans. I see no resolution in the House to recognize this...

So, the current regime does not recognize the genocide--why bring it up now and put pressure on Turkey?

Answer: The Dems don't like the war in Iraq, but are unwilling to cut funding (the only option available to Congress after a declaration of war that does not take a 2/3rds majority. The other options--peace treaty (2/3 of Senate) and impeachment (1/2 of House, but 2/3 of Senate needed for removal) take super majorities that ARE NOT POLITICALLY VIABLE AT THIS TIME), so we will act with subterfuge and damage the war effort another way.

This is a dishonorable way to undermine the war effort. It is morally reprehensible to use the victims of such a crime in order to get their way. If this passes the House and causes Turkey to rescind its cooperation in the logistical support for the war, the blood of countless soldiers will be on the hands of the Democrats.

Indians in Six

2007-10-15T14:10:00.000-04:00

First, some housecleaning:
It seems that my posts are averaging twice a week instead of my hoped-for three times a week. I will endeavor to stick to the Monday-Wednesday schedule and add Fridays when possible.

What a wonderful two game series so far. The Cleveland Indians and the Boston Red Sox share the distinction of having the "Best Record in Baseball", finishing the season at 96 wins and 66 losses (.593). Cleveland and Boston split the first two games of the ALCS, just as I thought they would. I believe that Cleveland will take two of the next three games at home (I would love three, but I am a realist) and return to Boston up 3-2. I think we win game 6 and go on to take on the Rockies.

It is high time for the Indians to win the World Series...Our last shot in 1997 against the Marlins was lost by about 1 inch in Game 7 when Marilin shortstop Edgar Renteria hit a bouncer over the pitcher's head. The ball skipped off Charlie Nagy's glove, up the middle and into center field for a hit. One inch lower, Nagy fields it and gets the out at first (or at home), third out, Indians and Marlins go into the 12th inning (of course, no guarantee we win, but...).

In 1997, I was blessed to be able to attend not only the All-Star game (where Sandy Alomar scored the game-winning home run--wow! what a rush!!!), but I also got tickets to the World Series (Game 5, where I got to witness Sandy hitting a three-run home run in the 3rd but just missed another homer in the 9th when he hit to deep right...this would have won the game driving in the go-ahead run.

This is the fourth ALCS the Indians have been in since 1969 when the LCS began (1995, 1997, 1998, and 2007)--winning twice. The Indians have been in five World Series (winning in 1920 and 1948 and losing in 1954, 1995 and 1997). It has been ten years since the Marlin's debacle. It has been 59 years since we have won the Fall Classic, only the Cubbies have waited longer (1908). It is our turn!!

On Hate Crimes Legislation and the Matthew Shepard Act

2007-10-11T08:49:00.000-04:00

Casper, WY - September 27, 2007 - The Matthew Shepard Foundation applauds today’s passage of the historic Matthew Shepard Act -- inclusive federal hate crimes legislation.

“Today’s Senate vote sends a bold and unmistakable message that violent crimes committed in the name of hate must end,” said Judy and Dennis Shepard, Matthew Shepard’s parents. “The Matthew Shepard Act is an essential step to erasing hate in America and we are humbled that it bears our son’s name. It has been almost nine years since Matthew was taken from us. This bill is a fitting tribute to his memory and to all of those who have lost their lives to hate.”

You have got to be kidding me!

There was nothing bold about the message that the Senate sent on 9/27, but the message was indeed unmistakable...The message was "this legislation cannot stand on its own so we will add it to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill." ???Huh??? What does this piece of legislation have to do with defense authorization?? Of course, the Dems that support this attached this as an amendment in the hopes that the President would not veto a defense authorization bill. Really? I think he will when such unrelated pap is added to legislation. This is why I think there needs to be HUGE reform in Congress as to how legislation is passed. It is also why I support (and always have) a Presidential Line Item Veto (which I believe is inherent--another subject for another time).

As for the MSA--it is not "an essential step to erasing hate in America". No piece of legislation will ever be able to do that. All it does (and any other hate-crimes legislation as well) is gives special consideration to a population. THIS SHOULD NOT BE TOLERABLE IN A SOCIETY WHICH PURPORTS TO SUPPORT EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW!! How is it equitable that if I were to assult and kill a gay man and have "hate" (a very interesting, subjective concept--how is it proven legally?) toward homosexuals that my crime is worth more punishment than if I assulted and killed a straight man? Is the straight man's life worth less than the gay man's? No? Isn't that what the difference in sentencing is implying? Why use a different criteria for one group and not another? This is discriminatory on its surface.

What will qualify as hate? Would my strident stand for protecting the traditional definition of marriage be used as 'evidence' of hate? Would my religious views which classify homosexual acts as sinful be used as 'evidence' of hate? It seems very arbitrary to me.

I hope that this Senate amendment falls off during the conference. If not, I will fully support a Presidential veto of the measure. Enough playing around...if you want this legislation, introduce it on its own merits and pass it as free-standing legislation. You will at least get my admiration for standing up for your beliefs instead of hiding and sneaking around.

Empathy Deficit

2007-10-08T09:09:00.000-04:00

Last week I told you that my first subject would be the quote from the Senator's wife, "We are living in a time where we are suffering from a deep empathy deficit."

It turns out that this was not her quote, but a repetition of one of her husband's go-to lines in his stump speech. "There's a lot of talk in this country about the federal deficit. But I think we should talk more about our empathy deficit - the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes; to see the world through those who are different from us - the child who's hungry, the laid-off steelworker, the immigrant woman cleaning your dorm room.
As you go on in life, cultivating this quality of empathy will become harder, not easier. There's no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care. You'll be free to live in neighborhoods with people who are exactly like yourself, and send your kids to the same schools, and narrow your concerns to what's going in your own little circle."

So, do we suffer from an "empathy deficit"?

The Senator maintains that this deficit is seen in the lack of government support for the programs that offer relief to those in need. Of course he would look at this instead of the facts.

Americans are the most-generous people in the world...Americans gave almost $300 billion to charity in 2006, setting a new all-time record for generosity. The showing was particularly impressive given that 2005's results benefited from a surge in donations related to Hurricane Katrina and the tsunami in Asia. (2006's results were effected by Warren Buffett's record setting pledge to the Gates Foundation).

Senator Obama (and most Dems) wants to expand the welfare state, to rely on the government for the provision of these benefits. However, there is a great deal of risk involved in this.

First--there is the risk of people reacting to the increased burden of taxation with the attitude of "I gave at the office". Remember, Ebenezer Scrooge's retort to the men seeking to collect for charity:

“...A few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned—they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”

Forced charity is not the way to go.

Second--increases to taxation will put downward pressure on the economy, and giving historically tracks the health of the overall economy.

According to the Associated Press:
Giving historically tracks the health of the overall economy, with the rise amounting to about one-third the rise in the stock market, according to Giving USA. Last year was right on target, with a 3.2 percent rise as stocks rose more than 10 percent on an inflation-adjusted basis.

Just like almost every other social problem that the government tries to solve, the results of the "War on Poverty" has been a massive disaster. After $7 billion of wasted expenditures (more than twice the cost of World War II!), the number of official poor remains fairly constant.
Human Events has an excellent article on the failure of the "War on Poverty": http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16860, and
the Heritage Foundation has an article which puts the plight of the poor into perspective: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1221.cfm

I believe that what the Senator is talking about is true at some level. Per capita charitable giving among Americans is lower today than during the Great Depression. During the height of the Great Depression, charitable giving averaged 3.3 percent of annual income. It is now at 2% (however, add to that the cost of taxes to support the federal, state, and local programs--is it possible that we are still near the Great Depression levels???). I believe that we are seeing some of the Scrooge attitude with a large proportion of our money forced from our hands to support suspect government programs. "I support those programs (through taxation), they cost enough, the poor must go there".

During the Depression, we did not have federal programs (and few state and local programs) supported by taxation to help those in need, and a funny thing happened. Individuals stepped up and helped their family, friends, neighbors, and even strangers. Even with the huge problem of unemployment and poverty, starvation was not a problem in the 30's. This is not to say that times were not hard and there was not widespread hunger, but many charities filled the gap and provided the needed assistance. The first government programs didn't come on line until nearly four years after the Depression began.

There is another telling signal that our tax burden is hindering our ability to be our brother's keeper..."Many middle class families may believe themselves "too poor" to be charitable. Yet we see those with much more meager incomes are still finding the means and the will to give. Americans who earn less than $20,000 per year have one of the highest charitable giving-to-income ratios of any group in United States. These Americans clearly disprove the notion that charitable giving is the sole purview of the wealthy. " (from Crosswalk.com)

Americans who earn less than $20K are also exempt (for the most part) from taxes. Coincidence?

So, yes, we do have a deficit of sorts. But Senator Obama and other Democrats will find themselves unable to address it since their 'cures' will only worsen the symptoms. We need to free ourselves from the shackles of over-taxation in order to allow us to become more generous. Forced giving is not the solution.

One other thought...would you give to a charity with an overhead cost of more than 60%? This is a very conservative estimate of the cost for providing benefits from the federal government--it is likely only 25 cents of each dollar going to the programs which goes to the direct assistance of those the programs were meant to help. I personally would never voluntarily donate to such a "charity"...in fact, I would hope that the charity would be investigated and shut down.

My Inauguaral Post--October 3, 2007

2007-10-03T09:45:00.000-04:00

Here we go!

Thank you for taking time to check out my blog. I have intended to begin this for several months, but have been a little trepidatious about several things, not the least of which is what should I write about and for whom will I be writing. As I am certain that you are intelligent (after all, you are here!), I will dispense with the preliminary introductions and trust that my profile provides enough background. I am sure you will get a clearer picture of me and my views as this blog begins to take shape.

So, what is to be expected from this blog? Well, there are a plethora of subjects which pique my interest, among which are politics, current events, religion, economics, and others. This has been the single largest factor interfering with the beginning of this blog. I have so many issues I would like to investigate through this process through sharing my opinions and beliefs, as well as inviting discussion to help in the development of new understanding, that I have been procrastinating. It will be hard to choose the major topics of interest with which I will begin; however, I will endeavor to be reliable and predictable in my postings--planning to post initially three times a week on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.

I hope that you will bear with me as I begin this process and shake out the bugs; I will try to keep it current and interesting. If I am successful in being interesting, please let others know about the blog. Thank you again for spending your time, and I will see you on Friday. I think I have a first subject--the "empathy deficit". Michelle Obama was quoted yesterday saying, "We are living in a time where we are suffering from a deep empathy deficit."