March 2009 Archives

Byron York has posted an article at the Washington Examiner today about the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, approving a measure called the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009".  This bill would impose government salary controls on alll employees of any company receiving financial help from the government.  The government will determine what compensation is reasonable and "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards".  The government will be setting performance standards for any company they have given money to (in any industry involved).  What are the chances of the government knowing enough about every company it deals with to do this right?

According to the article:

"The legislation is expected to come before the full House for a vote this week, and, just like the AIG bill, its scope and retroactivity trouble a number of Republicans. "It's just a bad reaction to what has been going on with AIG," Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, a committee member, told me. Garrett is particularly concerned with the new powers that would be given to the Treasury Secretary, who just last week proposed giving the government extensive new regulatory authority. "This is a growing concern, that the powers of the Treasury in this area, along with what Geithner was looking for last week, are mind boggling," Garrett said."

This bill is retroactive, meaning it will override prior contracts.  This is not the way the government in a Democracy (or a representative republic) should act.  This is not healthy for our country.

Power Line has a post this morning on the posturing that is going on at the G-20 summit as the world leaders try to decide how to handle the current financial crisis.  The article points out that Europe is taking the position that America is responsible for the global meltdown and therefore American should fix it.  The European countries are not really interested in inacting expensive stimulus plans--their governments have had massive social spending for decades. 

It is interesting, however, to look at the facts surrounding the worldwide meltdown.  According to the article:

"Consider the banks. Bromund and Markheim point to a survey by the Centre for European Policy Studies which found that the average leverage ratio of Europe's twelve largest banks as of September 2008 was 35 to 1, compared to less than 20 to 1 in the U.S. The survey described Europe's ratios as "a disaster in waiting."

Or consider real estate. The IMF has noted out that, in the run-up to the crisis, "credit aggregates grew extremely fast in the United Kingdom, Spain, Iceland, and several Eastern European countries," fueling real estate booms. As Bromund and Markheim explain, "the bubbles in Europe were as unsustainable as those in the U.S.""

One of the main issues that the European countries will take up is the elimination of 'tax havens'.  Basically, Europeans have learned that if there is a country with low tax rates, the world corporations will move there--we saw that with the growth of the Irish economy when Ireland cut its corporate tax rate.  People vote with their feet, and there is a group of people in the world who are trying to prevent that from happening. 

This is a link to an article in Newsweek that was published about two weeks ago.  It's a fairly long article, and I'm not even going to try to summarize it, but I suggest that everyone read it carefully.  In the United States (and in England) we seem somehow not affected by what is happening in Afghanistan (unless you have a family member in the military), and it's easy to forget what is going on in South Asia.  This article shows what is happening in England below the surface.

The problem with this solution to being overtaxed is that most of us do not have the money or the job portability to carry it out, but with the age of computers, that may change.  As you may have read, New York State is discussing the idea of a 31 per cent tax hike on anyone making over $500,000 a year.  I realized that a lot of us don't have to be concerned about paying that tax (myself included), but that's not the only aspect of the proposal that will affect us.  Generally speaking, people who make over $500,000 a year hire people, they provide jobs.  If they have less money, they hire fewer people and spend less money.  So let's look at a specific example.

According to National Review Online, Rush Limbaugh is ready to move his New York operation (he pays state income taxes on his income for every day he works in the state and also pays income taxes on his staff that works in New York) if these tax increases go through.  He will move the operation to a state that does not have a state income tax.  New York State in that instance not only does not collect more taxes from Rush Limbaugh, it loses the revenue it is now getting.  Unfortunately, Rush will probably not be the only entrepreneur who will move to a more tax-friendly location.

It is because of decisions like this that Texas is now home to more Fortune 500 headquarters than New York.  Our state of federal governments have long enjoyed increasing spending at a rate that is far greateer than inflation.  It's time that they tightened their belts instead of expecting everyone else to pay for their spending habits. 

Again, I strongly suggest that you visit the website Taxdayteaparty.com to see what you can do to turn this excessive taxation and excessive spending around.

According to the St. Louis Business Journal, Don Davis, who resigned this week as President of Centrue Bank in St. Louis is raising capital to buy a bank.  Mr. Davis resigned because Centrue Bank couldn't find a way to honor Davis' contract under new pay restrictions imposed by Congress on banks such as Centrue that took loans under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).  Centrue accepted $32.7 million, before the pay limits were imposed, because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was encouraging banks to take TARP money to increase capital.

There are a lot of things going on here.  The bank was encouraged to take the TARP money even though they were not in trouble.  After the banks took the money, the pay limits were imposed.  Centrue Bank now has to find a new bank president when Mr. Davis was obviously doing a good job.  Mr. Davis will be fine.  He and his partners will buy a small bank not tainted with TARP money and avoid the heavy-handed regulations that come with TARP, but this whole situation is totally unnecessary.  How many people will have to fill out paperwork to make this work when the previous situation was perfectly fine?

The Washington Post headline reads "Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots", but when you read the article, that may not be the conclusion you reach.  The lawyers at Power Line have a few observations on this artcle.  The article states that no 'significant' plots were foiled.  Does this mean that 'insignificant' plots were foiled?  What is the definition of an 'insignificant' plot? 

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line notes:

"One of Thiessen's main points is that Abu Zubaida provided information that led to the arrest of Jose Padilla. The Post acknowledges this, but argues that Padilla was never charged in connection with the "dirty bomb" plot which he was accused of heading. But Thiessen explains that Padilla had agreed to undertake a different, more realistic attack -- a mission to blow up apartment buildings in the United States using natural gas. Is this the plot that the Washington Post dismisses as insignificant?

Thiessen reminds us that, when Padilla was apprehended at Chicago's O'Hare airport -- thanks to iinformation provided by Abu Zubaydah -- he was carrying $10,000 given him by his al Qaeda handlers, along with the email address for Ammar al Baluchi, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's right-hand man. According to former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, the night before his departure, Padilla had been feted at a dinner by KSM, al Baluchi, and 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al Shibh. Apparently, they did not consider Padilla's mission insignificant."

Any plot engineered by terrorists to kill American civilians is significant.  Talking down the 'War on Terror" and the threat it is to Americans will not make it go away.

Secrecy is not new to the millitary, and there are a lot on instances where it is absolutely necessary, but it doesn't need to be used to hide important information from the public.  The San Francisco Examiner reports that secrecy is the word of the day:

"Compare that to what is now transpiring within the Department of Defense (DOD). There, uniformed military officers and civilian government employees have been forced to sign a secrecy oath while they meet privately, behind closed doors, to decide the fate of nation's defense budget."

The rationale for the secrecy is that it will allow the entire budget to be presented at once, allowing better anaylsis (rather than have people react to leaked bits and pieces).  Remember the vote on the stimulus package?  It was given to the Senators less than twelve hours before the vote and was over seven hundred pages long.  Very few Senators had a chance to read it before they voted.  I have a feeling we are about to see that trick tried again.

It is interesting to me that the only serious budget cutting is going to be done in the area of defense.  There should not be a 'peace dividend' at this time.  In case President Obama has not noticed--there is no peace.

The article ends with this statement:

"But whether Gates is right or wrong is irrelevant. Defense Department budgetary decisions should not be made in secret; they should be made in public. America is not the Soviet Union or China; America is a democratic republic. Here the people rule.

What makes the secret deliberations even more unconscionable is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior military leaders will be forced to pledge allegiance to Gates' ultimate decisions. The American people, consequently, will never know whether and why senior military leaders disagreed with specific defense cuts.

But unless we understand, in all its rich detail and complexity, the reasoning and thought process that undergirded this process, we the people cannot make wise and informed decisions about our defense budget.

Congress needs to intervene and demand an end to these secret proceedings and the secret oaths. Congress also must subpoena and swear under oath all key participants in these deliberations, including but not limited to, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior three- and four-star Generals and Admirals.

We need to learn the truth about how defense budgetary decisions were reached and decided. This is America. Here the people rule."

Ed Morrissey at Hotair.com has posted the definitive comments on a New York Post article abount a certain politician's daughter photographed using cocaine.  The bottom line is, "Leave the daughter alone.  She is responsibile for her choices.  Her actions have nothing to do with her father.  His daughter is 27, please respect her privacy."   It is unfortunate that recreational drug use is not unusual in this country, but it is a fact of life.  The fact that someone would try to make serious money out of someone else's drug use is disturbing.

Ed Morrissey points out that the woman's identity on the tape is not confirmed and then sums up the situation as follows:

"If the woman's identity was confirmed and she was a public official, then that would be news.  The person alleged to be in this tape is not a public official, but the adult daughter of a public official.  Does this inform us of public policy, competence or integrity in office, or corruption or abuse of power?  Not at all.  So what's the point, except to take a cheap shot at a public official we may not like?"

I agree.

I guess this should not really come as a surprise to anyone, but according to Politico.com, the CEO and chairman of General Motors has agreed to step down after pressure from President Obama.  According to the article:

"Wagoner's resignation was one of the remarkable strings attached to the new aid package the administration is offering GM, based on recommendations from the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, headed by the Treasury Department."

Since when has the Treasury Department run anything well?

On Monday, President Obama is to unveil his plans for the auto industry, including a response to a request for additional funds by GM and Chrysler.

The article further states:

"The administration calls the task force "a cabinet-level group that includes the secretaries of Transportation, Commerce, Labor and Energy. It will also include the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the EPA administrator, and the director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change. The Task Force will be led by Treasury Secretary [Tim] Geithner and [National Economic Council] Director Larry Summers." "

Maybe I'm just cynical, but it will be interesting to see if in this very obviously pro-union administration, the auto unions are asked to make any concessions in this deal.  Stay tuned.

According to Timesonline, North Korea is getting some help with its impending missle launch.  Fifteen scientists and missle experts from Tehran has been in the country advising the North Koreans since the beginning of March.  According to the article:

"Japanese media claimed that spy satellites have photographed the nose cone of a long-range North Korean rocket on its launch pad. Envoys from South Korea, Japan and the US met in Washington during the weekend to discuss counter-measures to be taken against North Korea.

The three allies have warned that a rocket launch would be in violation of a UN Security Council resolution banning the communist state from carrying out ballistic missile activities.

Pyongyang has resisted pressure to call off the launch and warned that any attempt to shoot down the rocket would be regarded as an act of war."

Unfortunately, this is another example of what happens when America has a President who is considered 'weak' by the unsavory elements in the world.  The political left around the world did not like the image of President Bush as a swaggering cowboy quick on the trigger, but it made the bad guys think twice about getting into mischief.  Unfortunately, President Obama's idea of making nice to everyone may result in our talking sweetly to people as they reign down missles on our heads.  Keep in mind that the missle North Korea is launching is capable of reaching either Alaska or Hawaii.  It does not seem that we are making any effort to stop that launch.

According to Rick Moran at the AmericanThinker.com, Senator John McCain has stated that public campaign financing is now a dead issue.  No kidding.  It was the McCain-Feingold Act passed in 2002 that limited the amount of money a candidate who accepted public funds for his campaign could spend.  Aside from the fact that this is an abridgment of political free speech (unconstitutional), it has not been successful as law.  Because Barack Obama reneged on his promise of accepting public money for his campaign, he had almost unlimited funds to spend.  Because John McCain accepted public funds, he was limited in the amount of money he could legally spend.  I don't think the limits on John McCain actually changed the results of the election, but they highlighted the fact that if both candidates do not accept public funding and its limits, there will be financial imbalance in the campaign.

John McCain is an American hero.  He was a rotten Presidential candidate.  He has been a thorn in the side of Republicans in the Senate for a long time.  Anytime the Republicans were in danger of showing some backbone and taking a stand on some issue, McCain stepped in and went 'squishy' and started attacking his fellow Republicans.  If Arizona wants to continue to re-elect him, they are welcome to him. but please don't let the man pass legislation--he doesn't seem to understand the Constitution!

 According to Reuters.com, an Afghan suicide bomber accidentally blew himself and six other militants up on Thursday bidding them farewell to leave for his intended target.                    

There is also an article about this incident at the website Patriotroom.com.  The article at that website uses language that is a little more colorful than is used on this website, but if you would like to read the article, the link is above.  To me, this is the perfect end for a suicide bomber.

The name Mark Levin is not a household word, but it's familiar to New Yorkers and to conservatives.  Mark is the President of the Landmark Legal Foundation in Leesburg, Virginia.  He is a lawyer who has practiced law in the private sector as well as working as a advisor to several member of President Reagan's staff.  He has written a book entitled LIBERTY AND TYRANNY which is currently Number 1 on Amazon.com's bestseller list.

Last week, Dr. Levin was at a book store in Huntington, New York, to sign his book.  Six thousand people showed up.  This week, according to Power Line, there was a book signing at Tyson's Corner, Virginia, for the book.  According to the blog:

"30 minutes before the event starts at Tysons Corner, Virginia, folks standing at the back of the line were warned of 5 hour wait and the probability that they would not get a book or autograph. But the line continues to grow!"

Something is brewing.  I think this is an indication of people searching for truth in a sound-bite world that is leaving them misinformed and taken advantage of by people in Washington who do not represent them!!!

According to the Wall Street Journal today, Japan has responded to the North Korea statement that it will launch a rocket carrying a satellite between April 4 and April 8, also warning that fragments could fall into the Sea of Japan between the two countries as well as southeast of Japan in the Pacific Ocean.  In response, Japan prepared Friday to deploy missile interceptors to shoot down any debris that could fall on Japanese territory.  According to the article:

"Any action Japan takes would be restricted to shooting at material that threatens to fall on Japanese land or sea. Nevertheless, the move is a bold one for Japan, which has a pacifist constitution that strictly restricts its military to measures of national defense."

Meanwhile, back home according to the archives at Misslethreat.com, President Obama has previously stated that "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems."  See the link for a futher link to a video of President Obama making these statements.

The rocket that North Korea is 'testing' can reach either Hawaii or Alaska.  Obviously, this is the time to perfect missle defense--not cut its funding.  Let's hope President Obama has changed his mind on this.

The wesite which tells you where to get information on your city's tea party is Taxdayteaparty.com.  The April 15th tea parties are going to be covered on Fox News.  According to Power Line, Sean Hannity will be covering the tea party in Atlanta live and linking to the other ones.  This may force the regular news channels to actually cover the events or be obviously left out in the cold. 

John Hinderaker comments:

"I'm planning on participating in the April 15 event and, if all goes well, posting photos and videos. There will be another anti-tax increase demonstration here in Minnesota on May 2 as well. The movement continues to grow."

I don't know how much good sending a message to the President and Congress will do, but the entire House of Representatives is up for election every two years.  I do know that some of the Democrats are getting very nervous.  I also believe that there will be a Democrat party primary election for President if President Obama continues on the path he is on.  Watch for Senators who refuse to vote yes on his budget and spending proposals--such as Evan Bayh from Indiana.  It is also interesting that Arlen Specter came out against card check.

According to Breitbart.com, the Obama administration is examining the idea that some of the terrorists held at Guantanamo would be released into the United States and given financial assistance to help them get on their feet and back into society.  In January of this year, Reuters.com reported that Pentagon figures show that 61 of the prisoners released from Guantanamo so far have returned to terrorism.  We need to remember the training guide given to terrorists--tell any lie you need to in order to get out of prison, and say you were tortured, whether you were or not.  The prisoners at Guantanamo are there for a reason--any other country would have shot them on the battlefield.  We set up Guantanamo to lock them up until they were not longer a threat.  I'm not sure that day will ever come.  To release them into American society and give them money is to trivialize the threat of terrorism that hit home on September 11, 2001.  It is also totally unwise and makes us look like idiots in the eyes of the people who are currently planning to do us harm.

President Obama has promised that the increased development of 'green' energy will create jobs and help the economy.  That's what Spain thought too.  According to Ed Morrissey at Hotair.com,, Spain lost two jobs for every job created when it tried to convert to solar and wind energy.  The figures come from Barcepundit (English Version).  Barcepundit explains:

"For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

U.S. President Barack Obama's 2010 budget proposal contains about $20 billion in tax incentives for clean-energy programs. In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels."

This is more of change we can't afford and should be stripped from the budget.

This is the link to the You Tube video taken at a March 21, 2009, Tea Party in Ridgefield, Connecticut.  The name of the song is "Take Our Country Back".  It may well become the anthem of the Tea Party movement.

Please see the end of this article for information on tea parties in other states.  Since I live in Massachusetts, I am publishing the information on the next great Boston Tea Party.  There will be a Boston Tea Party on April 15th from 10 am to 8 pm at the Massachusetts State House (NOT City Hall Plaza).  What you read below is taken directly from the website Boston Tea Party on Facebook.  To be honest, I don't know if you have to be a member of facebook to access it, but joining facebook is free and very simple.  For this, if you are not already a member, it is worth it.  Anyway, here is the information:

According to Politico.com, the Republicans has unveiled their alternative budget plan.  Just for the record, I have not been a big fan of the Republican Party in recent years.  The only good thing I can say about them at times is that they are the second worst political party in the country.  That having been said, they are making a few good moves lately.

Yesterday they introduced an alternative plan to deal with the housing crisis.  Today they have introduced an alternative to President Obama's budget.  We desperately need an alternative--not just a 'no'.

According to the article, these are the basics of the Republican budge plan:

"The principles in the Republican budget will sound familiar: "limits the federal budget from growing faster than the family budget, ... provides universal access to health care and secures entitlements, ... lowers taxes, ... keeps energy and fuel costs low, ... ends the bailouts and reforms the financial system, ... keep the cost of living low.""

The burden of taxes that President Obama's budget will put on present and future generations is irresponsible and will also put a drag on any economic growth.  Cap and trade will kill the American economy for years to come.  An alternative budget is definitely needed and I hope the proposals made will be considered carefully.  Meanwhile, get the name of the people who are organizing the 'tea parties' for April 15!

The anger stirred up by Congress and by the press over the AIG bonuses resulted in an unconstitutional law being passed in the House of Representatives and ACORN bussing people to homes of AIG executives in Connecticut to protest the fact that these people were successful.  What did it accomplish?  Is envy better than greed?

The New York Times has the resignation letter of resignation from Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group's financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

Follow the link and read the letter for yourself.  The bottom line is--this man was asked to work for $1 a year salary to help 'fix' the company's financial problems with a promise of a large bonus at the end of that time.  The company assured him and the other people working twelve to fourteen hour days on this project (for $1 a year) that they would receive their bonuses at the end of that time.  The anger that was drummed up against them, resulting in their having to return their bonuses or face a 90 percent taxation rate is ignorant envy.  The government has not right to decide which employment contracts are valid and which are not.  If they wanted these contracts voided, AIG should have gone into Chapter 11, where a judge would have made these decisions based on bankruptcy law--not on the 'villain of the moment.'  Before we start blaming people because they make more money than we think they should, we need to think about where that leads.  The less government intrusion into what people earn, the more successful we will be as a country.

The US dollar has been the unofficial global currency since the mid 20th century.  Where are we going now in terms of global currency?  According to Ben Smith at Politico, Timothy Geithner has stated that he is 'open' to the idea of a new global currency to replace the dollar.  China has recently expressed this idea which was expressed by Russia a few months ago.  Let's take a look at where we are and how we got here.

Because of the CRA (see previous articles and video on YouTube "Burning Down The House"), American banks made loans to people who could not pay them back.  Banks who were not willing to make these loans were pressured by groups such as ACORN and accused of being raciests.  I posted a story on March 20 about a local bank that did not make these loans, is doing very well, and was given a negative rating by the federal banking regulators.  Anyway, in order to protect themselves, the banks sold bad loan paper with good loan paper.  Some paper they kept.  That is the root of the mess we are in, and because many of our investments (including the bad paper) were sold overseas, our financial reputation at the moment is horrible.  Unfortunately, we are witnessing the end of America as a world-class economic power.  The debt that we are creating in the budget proposals will bring us into the status of a third-world country. 

I am not optimistic about our future under the current leadership.  This is not totally due to the 'greed' of Wall Street.  It is due to the idea that giving everyone a mortgage and a home is a good idea whether they can pay the mortgage or not.  The greed was on the part of the people who bought bigger houses than they could afford because no one ever explained to them that markets sometimes go down.  The greed was also on the part of the people who lied about their income to get mortgages and the people who did not bother the check the numbers.  The greed was also on the part of mortgage brokers (not all of them) who knowingly gave mortgages to people who could not afford them and joyfully collected their commissions.

It will be at least a generation before America regains the respect she has lost in the mortgage melt-down.  Responsible spending and more reasonable tax policies would probably speed up the process a little bit, but at this moment, either seems highly unlikely.

I don't think there are too many people out there who would be willing to argue that the federal tax code needs to be changed--the question is how--and the other question is why is it the way it is.  According to Bloomberg.com, President Obama has asked former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to  lead a tax- code review aimed at closing loopholes, streamlining the law and generating revenue.  Sounds like a great idea, but we are walking right into the law of unintended consequences.

The current tax code is so complex that very few people can understand it.  A study was done a year or two ago where a company had supposed 'taxpayers' call the IRS helpline for assistance with identical questions.  They got numerous answers--all different.  The reason for the complexity of the tax code is lobbying.  Every special interest group in the country wants a tax break for their group, and they lobby Congress for those breaks.  As long as there are Congressmen and lobbyists, we will not have coherent tax laws.  This is not news to anyone is Washington, so what does President Obama plan to do in overhauling the tax code?

One of the first priorities of the group will be to find a way to collect uncollected taxes.  That is a valid priority, but based on recent examples, if they are looking for people not paying their taxes, they might start with politicians.  The IRS has the means of collecting taxes owed, what needs to happen is a better way to find the people who owe taxes and are not paying them.  The IRS does not need to become more of a bully, it needs to become a better detective.

We need to be very careful of any tax code reform--the temptation will be (especially with one party in control) to make a more complex mess of things that will not be conducive to economic growth.  There is a lot of class warfare going on in Washingtoon these days aimed at people who make over $250,000 a year.  Increasing the taxes on those people will not help the economy--it will eventually destroy it.  Most of the people who make over $250,000 a year are either in sales or own their own businesses.  If you tax small business more, it hires fewer people because it cannot afford to expand.  If you tax salesmen more, they sell less because they know they cannot keep as much of their commissions, and economic growth slows.

The only truly effective way to grow the economy by using the tax code is to let everyone keep more  of the money they earn.  To use the tax code as a way of redistributing wealth is immoral, unAmerican, and just plain damaging to our country. 

According to Reuters.com, Senator Benjamin Cardin introducted a bill in Washington today to allow newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.  According to the article:

"Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt, and contributions to support news coverage or operations could be tax deductible."

What are these people smoking?  Newspapers would be prohibited from making political endorsements!!!  The current media is biased toward liberalism, I understand that, but I do not want to see anyone's free speech limited.  I think churches should be able to make political endorsements!  If any organization has a set of beliefs, values, or principles, they should be able to endorse the candidate that most closely resembles those beliefs, values or principles.  This is not rocket science.

Anyway, the reason the newspapers are in trouble is that they have lost credibility.  For example, most newspapers reported the hundred or so people driven around in ACORN-funded buses to AIG executives homes last weekend.  How many of you heard about the six thousand people who gathered in Orlando, Florida, for a tea party protesting the governments current fiscal problems?  If the newspapers did their job, people would buy them!

The Wall Street Journal blog had an interesting article yesterday by Mary Lu Carnevale on the coming budget discussions.  Senator Bill Nelson (Democrat-Florida) was interviewed on Fox News Channel yesterday morning about the Obama Budget proposal.

Senator Nelson feels that in light of the latest Congressional Budget Office projections, the budget will definitely have to be reworked.  When asked for specifics on how to raise the amounts of money for the budget, Senator Nelson said:

"Well, you're going to have to redo health care so that some of its upfront costs are less, so that you bring down the cost over the 10-year period. Likewise, you're going to have to speed up the revenues coming in from such things as possibly a cigarette tax, possibly -- as the cap-and-trade -- going into climate control."

Cap and trade is a tax plan that impacts everyone.  The average family in American will see their energy costs skyrocket if cap and trade is enacted.  It is simply a plan that allows the government to profit when you heat your house, cook, or wash clothes.  The government already makes more money on a pack of cigarettes than the tobacco companies (the people who actually do the work).  Why should the government make money on energy that they are not involved in the production or distribution of?  If the government really wanted to make money on energy, they would lift the restrictions on off-shore drilling and collect the income taxes on the jobs created and the corporate taxes on the profits.  That would be the free market answer to our economic problems.

Bloomberg.com posted an article yesterday about the fact that the U.S. Senate last month passed a measure limiting "luxury" spending for corporate travel by recipients of federal bailout funds.  Two weeks later members of both parties left for political meetings at posh hotels on the Florida coast.  Leaders of the hotel industry are asking the administration to tone down its condemnation of business travel and conferences at hotels because it is hurting their business.

Even though the restrictions only apply to companies that have received bailout money, other companies are cancelling conferences to avoid any controversy.   Las Vegas has been hit especially hard, losing more than $131 million in non-gambling revenue in recent months. Companies have moved their conferences to city locations, which look less luxiurious, but can cost more.

The article states:

"Hotel executives said their business began to suffer after Obama, 47, warned Feb. 9 during a town-hall meeting in Elkhart, Indiana, that companies receiving bailout money "can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers' dime."

Soon after, Northern Trust Corp. was criticized for organizing a conference and golf tournament in Beverly Hills, California. The Chicago-based bank received $1.6 billion in federal bailout money."

I guess Congress thinks it's ok for them to spend a lot of money on a luxurious retreat, but it's not ok for the rest of us.  Meanwhile, they are negatively impacting an industry for no apparent reason!

George will has an editorial in today's Washington Post called "The Toxic Assets We Elected".   George Will points out that the latest plan to deal with toxic assets comes almost six months after Congress voted $700 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and has spent $325 billion of that money without buying any toxic assets.  The TARP funds have, however, been spent on automobile companies and their parts suppliers.

Congress is also making decisions that are clearly not in keeping with the US Constitution or basic common sense.  After telling Mexico that the secret ballot is necessary in giving workers the freedom to decide whether or not to unionize, Congress is considering 'card check' which takes the secret ballot away from American workers in union votes.

Congress has also passed laws that are in contradiction with an existing treaty--NAFTA.  In the recent omnibus spending bill, Congress has abolished a program to allow Mexican long-haul trucks on U.S. roads. The program, testing the safety of Mexican trucking, became an embarrassment because it found Mexican trucking at least as safe as U.S. trucking. Mexico has resorted to protectionism -- tariffs on many U.S. goods -- in retaliation for Democrats' protection of the Teamsters union.

Congress has also taken up the cause of giving Washington, D. C., congressional representation.  It is clearly stated in the US Constitution that Washington, D. C., should not be considered a state, but a seat of government to be managed by Congress.  Congress has done a really rotten job of managing Washington, D. C., but putting their representatives in Congress will not help solve that problem.

George Will points out in the editorial:

"Jefferson warned that "great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities." But Democrats, who trace their party's pedigree to Jefferson, are contemplating using "reconciliation" -- a legislative maneuver abused by both parties to severely truncate debate and limit the minority's right to resist -- to impose vast and controversial changes on the 17 percent of the economy that is health care. When the Congressional Budget Office announced that the president's budget underestimates by $2.3 trillion the likely deficits over the next decade, his budget director, Peter Orszag, said: All long-range budget forecasts are notoriously unreliable -- so rely on ours."

 We have given too much power to people who either do not understand or do not respect our constitution.  We need to unelect these 'toxic assets' in 2010!

Little Green Footballs has posted some information that the mainstream media seems to have somehow missed.  Chris Dodd's wife is a former director of an AIG-controlled company.  According to the post:

"From 2001-2004, Jackie Clegg Dodd served as an "outside" director of IPC Holdings, Ltd., a Bermuda-based company controlled by AIG. IPC, which provides property casualty catastrophe insurance coverage, was formed in 1993 and currently has a market cap of $1.4 billion and trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol IPCR. In 2001, in addition to a public offering of 15 million shares of stock that raised $380 million, IPC raised more than $109 million through a simultaneous private placement sale of 5.6 million shares of stock to AIG - giving AIG a 20% stake in IPC. (AIG sold its 13.397 million shares in IPC in August, 2006.)"

Chris Dodd has been one of the major recipients of campaign contributions from AIG, and now we find out that his wife also had connections to the company.  How can we expect him to make any kind of objective decisions in matters that impact the company?

Earlier this month, the Heartland Institute sponsored the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York.  This Conference is a scientific conference that does not get involved in politics or seek publicity (which is good, since the mainstream media was not too interested in covering it).  Power Line Blog has posted a lot of the information from the Conference on its website in understandable form.  All of the information from the conference can be found at The Heartland Institute's website.  The chart below is taken from Power Line and shows us how the climate has changed over the last 12,000 years.  The chart gives us some historical perspective on how climate normally fluctuates..

The Power Line website also has charts of the scientific predictions concerning global warming contrasted with the political predictions concerning global warming.  If you are interested in reading more about the manipulation of numbers in the global warming hype, there is a website called wattsupwiththat that tracks the location of monitoring stations and how the data can be adjusted to achieve the 'correct' result.

The Power Line article futher states:

"Due to the efforts of Heartland and others, the public is beginning to catch on to the cosmic scam that Al Gore, James Hansen and others--mostly not scientists--have been perpetrating. Meanwhile, the Obama administration, seemingly determined to inflict the maximum possible damage on the economy in the shortest time, is trying to ram a cap-and-trade carbon tax through Congress before opposition can be mobilized. It's easier to do that, of course, when you know that Congressmen won't read the statute before they vote on it. So our only hope is an informed citizenry."

Cap and trade would tax all Americans for every bit of energy they use, from heating and cooling, to driving, to washing clothes and dishes.  I would be a serious drag on an economy that is already struggling.  It needs to be strongly opposed. 

As the AIG bonuses do their time as the outrage of the week, there are a few things that we might want to keep in mind.  As we listen to the cries of 'Wall Street Greed' and tax the bonuses at 90 percent, let's look at what is being stirred up.  According to the reports I have read, these were retention bonuses (these people were being paid to stay on and clean up the mess--instead of looking for new jobs because this area of the company was being shut down).  The bonuses were a very small percentage of the money actually given to the company.  A very large amount of the money given to AIG went to European banks--why are we not complaining about bailing them out?  Anyway, when we accuse the AIG and Wall Street people of being greedy, are we not just being envious?  The bonus structure in the financial sector may need to be reexamined, but in the way we as a county are reacting, we look like the villagers coming after Frankenstein with the torches--it's not a very pretty picture!  Next time you are ready to get angry about AIG bonuses, ask yourself where your indignation is coming from.  Is envy being stirred up in us so that we won't notice where the money is actually going?

Michael Barone posted an article at Townhall.com yesterday about the effect 'card check' will have on our economy and on our political system.  Card check is the bill currently in the Senate which would take away the secret ballot in union elections in companies and force mandatory government arbitration if the union and the company did not reach a new contract agreement in a specified time period (I've heard it stated as ninety days, but I am not sure).

What would be the consequences of passing the bill?  It would probably stem the decline of union membership, which has gone from 30 percent in the 1950's to about 8 percent today.  Michael Barone points out that one of the reasons for the decline is the increase in legal protection for the American worker.  There are many more agencies that control worker safety, fight discrimination, and enforce minimum wages.  The government was less intrusive in 1950.  Obviously, if union membership increased, the amount of union dues collected would increase.  Since the major part of the union's political contributions go the the Democrat party, that would mean more campaign cash for Democrats.  The danger with passage of the bill is that American industry would begin to look like the American auto industry--union contracts creating legacy costs that would make goods more expensive and less competitive with foreign goods.

The passage of card check would probably be very good for the Democrat party, but there are some real questions as to whether or not it would be good for America.

Another weekend, another tea party.  This picture is from a tea party in Ridgefield, Connecticut.

Somehow, I didn't see this on the news.  They were too busy reporting on the mob anger they stirred up toward the AIG executives.  This picture comes from Instapundit.  There are a number of pictures there of rallies around the country.  There are over a hundred pictures of the rally in Orlando at Pereiraville.com.  Instapundit also has pictures of a rallies in Lexington, Kentucky, and Raleigh, North Carolina,  

There is an article in yesterday's Washington Examiner by Douglas MacKinnon asking why the media is so reluctant to actually investigate the cause of our present financial meltdown.  Mr. MacKinnon points out that all of the major media--print and television--have refused to have their reporters look into what role Democrats like Representative Barney Frank,  and former White House economics policy makers Larry Summers and  Robert Rubin, and others played in the economic meltdown.  It is true that this meltdown is a rather complex thing, but I have seen it clearly explained in one place--in a video called "Burning Down The House" on You Tube.  Is that where we will have to get our news in the future?

The job of the media in a Democracy (or Representative Republic) is to publish the truth and keep the politicians honest.  Currently, our major media is doing neither.  If that does not change, it will be the death of the major media.

According to the Financial Times, the rapidly-passed House of Representatives bill to punish the people at AIG who received bonuses will have world-wide consquences.  According to the article:

"Senior executives on both sides of the Atlantic on Friday warned of an exodus of talent from some of the biggest names in US finance, saying the "anti-American" measures smacked of "a McCarthy witch-hunt" that would send the country "back to the stone age"."...

"Bankers at Deutsche Bank said it could benefit from the proposed legislation by poaching its US rivals' most talented employees."

We live (and compete) in a global economy.  Punishing achievement or government meddling in the internal decisions of a company does not help us compete.  The bonuses at AIG are a manufactured crisis which will result in some really bad laws and decisions.  (Chapter 11 would have avoided this whole contraversy)  Don't talk about 'greed'--look at the envy that is being stirred up.  We will lose some of our most talented people in finance, media, and technology if they begin to feel that the government is limiting their income.  Where are the complaints about the income or bonuses of professional athletes or entertainers?  Are they next?

I posted an article today about a bank in Massachusetts.  I did not give the name of the bank because I wasn't sure how public the information was.  I had some of it wrong, I thought the bank was in a different city.  Anyway, Fox News has come out with the story.  So here is the missing information.

The bank is East Bridgewater Savings Bank which has no delinquent loans or foreclosures on its books.  The bank didn't even need to set aside in money in 2008 for anticipated loan losses.   From late 2003 through mid-2008, East Bridgewater Savings made an average of 28 cents in loans for every dollar in deposit -- a sharp contrast to the 90 percent average loan-to-deposit ratio among similar banks.

The FDIC recently criticized this bank for not lending enough, slapping it with a "needs to improve" rating under the Community Reinvestment Act, the Boston Business Journal reported.

According to the article:

"East Bridgewater Savings ended 2008 with $135 million in assets, deposits of $84 million, $87,000 in profit, and a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 31.6 percent -- more than three times higher than many community banks in Massachusetts, the Journal reported."

It seems to me that this sort of behavior on the part of the bank should be praised--not criticized.  It used to be good business to lend money only to people who were likely to pay it back!

 

In today's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer has a brilliant article entitled "Bonfire of the Trivialities".  I usually make up my own headlines for articles, but in this case his was so fantastic, I had to use it.  Charles Krauthammer points out:

"...$165 million is a rounding error. It amounts to less than 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion federal budget. It's less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the bailout money given to AIG alone. If Bill Gates were to pay these AIG bonuses every year for the next 100 years, he'd still be left with more than half his personal fortune."

What we need here is a little perspective--not a lynch mob.  Charles Krauthammer points out that the way to break a contract is through Chapter 11.  The bonus contracts were legal and binding and other than Chapter 11, could not be broken.  Are we willing to let Congress cancel contracts because mob anger has been stirred up.  Are you currently looking for your pitchfork and torch?  If you are, don't aim either at AIG--aim at the CRA (Community Redevelopment Act) passed under Jimmy Carter which required the banks to make risky loans.  Aim it at congressional Democrats who blocked seven attempts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Aim it at the spaghetti-spined Republicans who voted for the stimulus bill.

Mr. Krauthammer further states in the article:

"Even worse are the clever schemes being cooked up in Congress to retrieve the money by means of some retroactive confiscatory tax. The common law is pretty clear about the impermissibility of ex post facto legislation and bills of attainder. They also happen to be specifically prohibited by the Constitution. We're going to overturn that for $165 million?"

It's time for all the angry people to step back and take a breath.  I'm tired of hearing successful people being described as 'greedy'.  What about the sin of 'envy' that seems to be plaguing a fairly large percentage of our population?  I have one final question.  Is anyone going to be better off if AIG executives are forced to give up their retention bonuses or are taxed 100 per cent on them?

Please read the entire article in the Washington Post.  There are also some notes about a provision snuck into one of the spending bills that will cause a trade war with Mexico.  Please do not look where the 'magicians' want you to look--pay attention to the other hand!

I would just like to thank the fantastic children's clothing designer who came up with the idea for the shirt my two-year-old granddaughter is wearing today.  It says:

Reasons why you might confuse me with a ROCK STAR

1.  I can scream really loud.

2.  When I don't get my way, I throw a temper tantrum.

3.  I'm up all night.

4.  You can barely understand what I am saying.

5.  No one else could pull off this hairdo.

 

Thank you for creative people!

I don't have a link on this because I don't want to get people in trouble.  This is a true story, but I will leave the specific names out.  This is truly a tale of the upside down world we currently live in.

There is a small local bank in a city in Massachusetts.  It is not a rich city, and the city has the reputation of being a rather 'rough' city.  The bank is a small local bank that has probably been in business for twenty or thirty years.  The bank has had no foreclosures on property that it owns this year.  The bank had made a small profit last year.  Almost (if not) all of the mortgages the bank has given out are current.  No property is currently in foreclosure.  This rather quiet little bank is simply doing its job of being a small, local bank as best it can.

Last week the bank got a letter from the federal agency that regulates the bankling industry in this country.  The letter had done its annual review of the bank and was sending the results to the bank.  The letter was highly critical of the bank--the agency felt that the bank had not created enough sub-prime mortgages and that it had not done enough lending to people in lower income brackets with bad credit ratings.  Duh.  That's why the bank is not in need of bailout money!!

The time has come for a little common sense on the part of the government.

Little Green Footballs has video of a volcanic eruption that took place in the South Pacific near Tonga.  There was an earthquake in the area, a tsunami warning was issued, and the video shows pictures of the volcano erupting in the area.  It's amazing footage.

According to Yahoo, the House of Representatives has passed a bill allowing a tax rate of 90 per cent on the retention bonuses paid to AIG employees.  The logic behind the 90 per cent rate is that the states and local municipalities will take the other 10 per cent, leaving the recipients with nothing.  This is beyond obscene.  The fact that the House of Reprentatives would waste its time on a tax law that specifically targets a group of individuals would make the founding fathers turn over in their graves.  I don't care how much public sentiment they have stirred up, it is simply the wrong thing to do.

John Hinderaker states at Power Line that the law is unconstitutional and will probably never actually be enforced.  He makes the point that:

"Pelosi's tax will never become law; it will die quietly at some point. Its only purpose is as a cheap PR stunt to deflect public anger--mostly misplaced, in my view, to the extent that it focuses on the AIG bonuses rather than the multiple, trillion dollar disasters the Democrats have perpetrated or are planning."

In a previous Power Line post, John explains why he feels that the people who received the bonuses should be allowed to keep them.  It's a long entry, but it's worth reading.  This whole outrage thing is manufactured and harmful to our country.

According to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, the Obama administration has decided not to go forward on its proposal to save government money be making wounded war veterans seek medical coverage through private health insurance.  This was a horrible idea that was truly a slap in the face to any veteran of any war who was wounded in the service of his country.  It would have created employment problems for these veterans, financial problems for private health insurance (that may have been part of an intentional push for nationalizing health care), and financial problems for the veterans.  I'm glad to see this decision reversed.

According to Fox News.com, Nancy Pelosi told a group of legal and illegal immigrants that the enforcement of immigration laws as currently practiced is "un-American".   Is this woman aware that the Congress (where she currently sits) is responsible for making laws and that the Federal Government is responsible for enforcing them?   Congress (where Mrs. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House) has the option of changing the law--it does not have the option of not enforcing it.  At a time when unemployment in this country is approaching 9 and 10 percent (and higher in some places), we need to hire people who are in this country legally and pay them according to the law of the land (withholding, minimum wage, etc.).  I agree with the concept of changing our immigration policies to allow people who want to work and contribute to American society to come here more easily.  I do not want to see more people come here with the intention of not earning a living, but instead collecting welfare from the government and taking advantage of American health care systems without contributing anything to them.  There are many hospitals along the Mexican border who have been forced to close because of the number of illegal aliens frequenting their emergency rooms and never paying for any services.  This needs to stop.  Mrs. Pelosi needs to be aware of her responsibilty for immigration laws and her responsibility to change them if she feels that enforcing them is un-American.

Are you outraged about the AIG bonuses?  Have you thought about why?  Have you thought about what it means to be outraged at someone else's employment bonus?  Do you understand the concept of a retention bonus?  Do you think it is any of the government's business what any company pays its managers or employees?  Hopefully, you answered 'no' to at least one of these questions.  At any rate, there are a few things going on here that all of us who vote need to be aware of.

My source articles on what I am about to reveal are the New York Post and the website of Glenn Beck.  Please read the New York Post and the Glenn Beck information piece for yourself.  They are both very revealing.

The New York Post article reveals that the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve knew about these bonuses last fall.  Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was head of the same Federal Reserve Bank last fall that supposedly last week told him of the bonuses.  Treasury not only never sought to block them - but, in fact, approved them.   An unnamed AIG official told The New York Times that the company never would've paid the bonuses without Treasury and Fed approval.  This whole passion play may be the setup to make Timothy Geithner the fall guy for all the current administration's problems.   I'm not sure he will be in his current position a month from now.

Now, why is the outrage being manufactured?  Let's look at some of the other aspects of the AIG bailout and where the money went.  The following information comes from Glenn Beck's website.

"$58 billion has gone to foreign banks. Now, why isn't America outraged by that? Because America doesn't know that fact. America isn't talking about that fact. If we would have let AIG fail, then these other banks would have had to come to us and said, hey, what are you going to do on these. And we would have then had to have the discussion, do we send money over to France, do we send money over to Germany, do we send money over to England? And that we couldn't have won. The people in Washington, they would have never gotten that past you."

"So now they're making a big deal out of $165 million in contracts that they knew they were going to have to pay, they left that in there, there's no way out of that unless you allow the government just to make up rules. Contracts are no longer valid, if the congress decides they are not valid."

Do not buy into the phony anger at AIG by the people who set up the situation.  Chris Dodd is the Senate member who put a clause in the stimulus saying that all bonuses agreed upon before a specific date would have to be paid.  I guess it's pure coincidence that AIG has one of its larger divisions in Connecticut and that they are a major contributor to his election campaigns.  If you want to be angry, be angry at a Congress that has no respect for the American taxpayer or his money and does not have the courage to tell you the truth about what it is doing.  This whole AIG situation is trumped-up anger to keep you from looking at how much power and how much of your money the government is currently grabbing.

The headline on one of the articles in today's American Thinker is "You can lease Chris Dodd, but you can't buy him."  What are they talking about?  This is amazing.  You need to read the whole article to get the full force of what he did, but he is becoming another living exhibit of why we need term limits.  According to the article:

According to Yahoo.news, President Obama is considering a plan to force private insurance companies to pay for treatment of service-connected disabilities and injuries suffered by our servicemen.  Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion met with President Obama to discuss the plan.  After the meeting, he stated:

"This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

I don't have words to describe my reaction to this.  I am the wife of a veteran and the mother of a Marine currently serving.  To me, the idea of the VA not providing care for woulded and returning veterans is just wrong.  The majority of our older veterans were drafted and served willingly; the younger military now serving have served under difficult conditions (the troop reductions during the Clinton administration greatly increased the workload for the remaining troops) and have served valiantly. 

This administration has spent money as if there were no tomorrow.  To try to save money by shortchanging those who were wounded serving their country is unconscionable.

According to Macon.com, eight Democrat Senators and twenty-five Republican Senators have written a letter to the chairman and top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee asking that the 'cap and trade' proposals of the Obama Administration not be put into the 'fast-track' budget process, but instead be fully studied and given ample time for debate.  According to the article, the Senators were:

"The Democrats who signed the letter, addressed to the chairman and top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, were: Robert Byrd, W.Va.; Blanche Lincoln, Ark.; Mary Landrieu, La.; Carl Levin, Mich.; Evan Bayh, Ind.; Ben Nelson, Neb.; Bob Casey Jr., Pa.; and Mark Pryor, Ark."

Many of these Senators represent states that will be particularly hit hard by 'cap and trade.'  Louisiana, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania produce carbon-based energy and Michigan produces cars.  Cap and trade will kill the coal industry, negatively impact the American oil industry and negatively impact Detriot.  It will also indirectly levy large tax increases on all Americans (including all those promised a tax cut!).

According to the article:

"There also has been speculation that the expedited rules could be used to pass a health care overhaul bill, but senior Senate Democrats such as Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., oppose the idea, saying health reform must be enacted on a bipartisan basis.

The White House is open to the idea of using the fast-track rules for both global warming and health care.

"We would prefer not to start there, but we're not taking anything off the table at this point," White House budget chief Peter Orszag said last week."

To fast-track global warming and nationalized health care legislation would be very damaging to the American people and our economy.  Both ideas need to be thoroughly debated in the hope that a few Senators will let common sense rather than party loyalty rule. 

AIG was too big to fail, so the government bailed them out.  Now, according to the Wall Street Journal Online, President Obama has asked Secretary Timothy Geithner to "pursue every legal avenue" to block $165 million in bonuses to AIG executives who were in part responsible for the company's near collapse.  Well, hold on a minute here.  There are a lot of unanswered questions in that request...

1.  Were these contractual bonuses paid to salesmen (similar to commissions)?

2.  Were these bonuses promised to executives when they were hired?

3.  Were there any restrictions placed on the 'bailout' money?

4.  Are restrictions being added after the fact?

5.  What business is it of the government what anyone is paid or not paid?

6.  Does this administration have any respect at all for Contract Law?

If being outraged that people got bonuses makes you feel good, be my guest, but if these bonuses were part of contracts agreed on before the problems started, there is no way that they should be overturned.  Are we reaching a place where people want the government to tell us how much we can earn and how much our neighbor can earn?  I hope not!

According to Yahoo News (UK-Ireland via Reuters), OPEC has agreed to keep oil production at current levels until May (when it will re-evaluate).  They have also said that they will closely monitor the limits they have previously put on production to make sure they are followed.  This is an interesting story for a number of reasons.

First, President Obama called the Saudis last week.  The White House is unwilling to discuss the contents of the phone call.

Second, OPEC is not doing this because they love the western countries that buy their oil--they are doing this because the worldwide recession has seriously cut the demand for oil, and as the price comes down, the demand will gradually go up.  If they cut production further and prices go up, the demand will go down, and they will make even less money than they are currently making.

Third, when oil was at its peak, demand decreased, and America began to talk about offshore drilling and energy independence.  Energy independence without offshore drilling is a distant prospect, but with offshore drilling, it is probably attainable within three years (contrary to what the environmentalists have said).  The idea of an energy independent America is totally frightening to OPEC.

OPEC needs $100 a barrel oil to properly fund terrorism around the world.  It would be nice if that did not happen.

The New York Post is reporting that 62-year old Ron Silver has died after a two-year battle with cancer.  Our prayers go out to his family.  Ron was a good actor and a blunt-spoken political activist, regardless of which side he was on.  He contributed a lot to American culture and to American politics.  He spoke his mind, called things as he saw them, and always allowed his sense of humor to shine through.  He will be missed.

There is an old expression, I have no idea where it came from, that, "When America has a strong President, the world is a safer place."  Right now, America has a popular President, but a President who is not seen as a strong President by the world.   There are dangers to having a president who is considered weak by our enemies.  Russians in the 1960's perceived John Kennedy as being weak and gave us the Cuban missle crisis as a result of that belief,  Al Qaeda perceived Bill Clinton as a weak President in the 1990's and bombed embassies, the World Trade Center, and the USS Cole without fearing serious payback.  Now we are seeing some of the result of the world's evaluation of the Obama Presidency.

It was not widely reported in the American news, but according to the American Thinker:

It is somewhat alarming that President Barack Obama sent heavily armed destroyers to the scene of the naval standoff between the US and China at the weekend and very few of our news outlets covered it.  It was mentioned on Fox News and in the Washington Post, but the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times did not bother to report it.  If you are looking for details of the confrontation, I suggest the foreign press links cited in the American Thinker article.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Russia is talking about putting bomber bases in Venezuela and Cuba.  This is being reported at Breitbart.com.  I believe this is contrary to the principle of American foreign policy laid out in President James Monroe's message to Congress on December 2, 1823, (the Monroe Doctrine) calling for an end to European intervention in the Americas.  The Monroe Doctrine was cited during the Cuban Missle Crisis as one of the reasons Russia had to remove its missles from Cuba.  It will be interesting to see if President Obama is willing to uphold this doctrine. 

Just for the record, on October 28, 1962, Khrushchev agreed to Kennedy's demands to withdraw the missiles, after Kennedy promised not to invade Cuba. Kennedy also secretly undertook to dismantle US missile bases in Turkey (a US ally that bordered the USSR). However, this was not made public, so most Americans believed that the USSR was forced to back down solely because of US military pressure. On November 2, 1962, Kennedy announced that Soviet missile bases in Cuba were being dismantled.  Because Khrushchev considered Kennedy a weak President, Russia could not be forced to withdraw its missles unless we dismantled our US missle bases in Turkey.  This is what happens when the world perceives the American President as weak.  Some of Europe may not have liked George Bush, but at least his strength kept us all safe.

There are more pictures at Pajamas Media (Instapundit)

 

 

This may be the start of something big!

According to theWall Street Journal, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and  Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank are discussing how to link Wall Street pay to the long-term performance of the firms.  Wait a minute!  Why in the world would anyone in government have any control over what a private citizen receives in pay or bonuses?  This sort of discussion is the reason many of the banks that took TARP money are planning to give it back very quickly and refusing to take any more!  The government has no business setting salary or bonus rules--that's why banks and corporations have stockholders.  They are set in place to scream if they see things getting out of hand.  Just a note here, the 'greedy' people on Wall Street did not cause the financial collapse.

The economic meltdown actually began in 1977 with the Community Reinvestment Act signed by Jimmy Carter.  The intentions were honorable, but the CRA required banks to invest in poor urban areas, regardless of whether or not the investments would be paid back.  In 1995, Bill Clinton strengthened the CRA requiring banks to provide loans to poorer communities, also allowing community action groups (e.g. ACORN) to intervene at annual bank reviews.  Attorney General Janet Reno made it clear that she would file lawsuits if the 'fair lending initiative' was not followed.  This is the root of the problem.  The banks were forced into making loans they knew were no good.  The banks had to find a way to get rid of 'questionable' paper, so they mixed it in with 'good' paper and sold it.  The investments into this paper were speculative but gave good returns for a while (ask Iceland).  When this house of cards finally fell, it fell hard.  The alarms put out by the Bush administration about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were ignored because the Congressmen on the committees handling these matters were up to their necks in sweetheart mortgages and other entanglements, so nothing was done.  Meanwhile, there is a bumper sticker out that says, "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage!".  This is not a funny situation--it's serious, but propping up people who made irresponsible choices will not solve the problem.  We have forgotten the free market and we need to get back to it.  We also need to remember the concept of charity--if there is anyone around us who needs a small helping hand at this moment--not a government hand--a personal hand, we need to be there with a bag of groceries or a word of encouragement.

As we approach April 15th, all of us groan a little bit as we pay our taxes.  There is, however, some small comfort in the fact that we are all in the same boat and we all have to pay them.  Or so we thought until recently.  I'm not going to go through the list of President Obama's appointments with tax problems (other than to say that it seems as if the way to collect delinquent taxes is just to nominate everyone you know for a cabinet position--although some of us have a majority of friends who actually pay their taxes), but it does seem like paying taxes is optional to some people (or so they think).  Anyway, here comes another one.

According to the New York Post, Democratic Representative Eliot Engel, who represents the Bronx, has listed a house in Potomac, Maryland as his primary residence on Maryland property tax forms for at least 10 years, netting nearly $7,000 in credits over the past four years.  According to the rules set forth in the state of Maryland, the Engels do not qualify as residents because they both have New York driver's licenses and New York voter registration cards.  Most of us who live in high tax states would love to buy a house in East Overshoe somewhere that has no state income tax and claim residence there, but we don't have the means or the dishonesty to do it.  Obviously this Congressman had no such limitations.

According to the Washington Times, Democrats in Congress put a provision in the stimulus bill that eliminated a law requiring that workers on federal contracts prove they are citizens or legal residents of the United States.  According to the article:

"The eliminated provision includes a program called "E-verify" that allows employers to quickly access federal databases to check the legal status of workers - all but avoiding the risk that forged documents will fool an innocent employer into hiring an illegal."  

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, some 300,000 construction jobs will likely go to illegal aliens.  This may provide a cheap labor pool, but it is not healthy for the American economy in the long term--it increases unemployment and deflates wages in general. 

According to Reuters, a number of American energy companies are looking into the possibility of relocating to Switzerland to avoid the 'war on business' that the Obama administration seems to be waging.  America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, and the Obama administration has signaled that it plans to raise corporate taxes even higher.  Do they honestly believe that companies who have the resources to relocate to other countries will not do that?  Raising corporate tax rates puts a drag on the economy, it drives jobs overseas, and it increases unemployment.  These do not sound like things we want to do during a recession.  According to the article:

"Over the past six months companies including offshore drilling contractors Noble Corp and Transocean, energy-focused engineering group Foster Wheeler and oilfield services company Weatherfield International have all announced plans to shift domicile to Switzerland."

This is the true cost of increasing corporate taxes.

As the economy struggles, don't expect the federal budget to shrink at all.  According to Hot Air, the budget passed this week represents massive increases for a lot of federal agencies who were kept at moderate growth rates during the Bush administration.  For example, the WIC program (a supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children) grows to $1.2 billion, a 21 percent jump from the $5.7 billion appropriated last year.  Had the bill been filibustered, forcing changes, Nancy Pelosi pledged to kill the bill entirely, returning spending to 2008 levels.  What a great idea!  The Republicans who voted against filibuster were:

• Lamar Alexander
• Kit Bond
• Thad Cochran
• Lisa Murkowski
• Richard Shelby
• Olympia Snowe
• Arlen Specter
• Roger Wicker

It's time these people found new jobs.  Hopefully the Republican National Committee will find primary challengers for them.

According to the Wall Street Journal, President Obama issued a signing statement when he signed the $410 billion spending bill yesterday.  Democrats have recently criticized former President George W. Bush's for issuing signing statements, now President Obama is doing it.  According to the article:

"The president said the spending measure should "mark an end to the old way of doing business." His proposals, seconded by the House Democratic leadership, followed days of attacks by Republicans -- and some Democrats -- over the spending for local projects tucked into the bill."

This reminds me of the people you hear say things like, "I'll start my diet tomorrow".  Keep in mind that the way is already being prepared for the next stimulus bill.  If the money Washington has spent since President Obama took office had been put in the hands of the taxpayers rather than being taken from us, we would be out of the recession by now.  Also, if the offshore drilling (and other areas) had been opened for exploration, we would be seeing unemployment go down and government revenue go up.  What is happening now is not constructive and is creating debt that we will all have to pay off at some point.

Power Line Blog has an article today about the former Gitmo detainee, Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, who has become the head of Taliban operations in southern Afghanistan.  As the mother of a US Marine who will be headed to Afghanistan at the end of this year, I am furious at this.  We need to rethink our policy of releasing prisoners at Gitmo.  We haven't done a really good job so far.  According to the Pentagon spokesman it is estimated that more than 60 former detainees are suspected or confirmed of having rejoined the terror network after leaving Guantánamo.  Do the people making the release decisions and wanting to close Grantanamo understand that they are putting American soldiers lives at risk?

According to the Washington Times, 'card check' or the Employee Free Choice Act was introduced in both houses of Congress today.  The article states:

"Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, and Rep. George Miller, California Democrat, unveiled the legislation by tying union organizing to the recession, saying card check is necessary to ensure that an economic recovery is "fair." "

Card check takes away the secret ballot in voting to unionize a company and has another provision that also requires arbitration if a newly unionized company cannot reach a new contract with its workers within ninety days. 

The secret ballot is an integral part of elections in this country and should not be done away with.  The required arbitration will put many small companies out of business and allow the government to intervene in the business community to an extent that we have never seen.  Both these aspects of this bill will further increase unemployment and do nothing to help the current recession.

How many times have we heard Democrat legislators at all levels saying that what they are doing is 'for the children'.  Well, the children are the losers in the spending bill passed by Congress last night.  According to the Washington Times, the measure introduced by  Senator John Ensign, Nevada Republican, to continue funding the voucher program for Washington, D. C., students was voted down by the Democrats.  This is the program that allows two of the Obama children's classmates from poorer families to attend the Sidwell Friends School.  The funding for that program will now end.  Bill Bennett said it best on his radio show this morning, "Rich people have school choice--they have money."  It seems to me that in a $410 billion dollar spending bill, Congress could have found enougth money to fund the education for children to avoid what are probably the worst schools in the nation.

My little dictionary that I use to write this blog (I never could spell) defines class as "excellence, as of style or appearance".  That's part of what I am attempting to address, but two other parts are basic respect and consideration for those who see things differently than you do and manners (the things your mother taught you while you were growing up).  Class is not a political thing--neither party has a monopoly on it, but recent events in the public arena have caused me to wonder if we have lost 'class' somewhere in our civic life.

Our President is a perfect cardboard cut-out of what a President should be.  He's young, energetic, has a beautiful family...all the trappings, but somewhere along the line, all of the manners he should have learned as a child have not kicked in.  The treatment of Gordon Brown is the most recent example of a simple lack of graciousness, but there have been others.  However, this is not an article on President Obama, the examples of the lack of class that has taken over our politics are many.

After President Obama had been elected, George Bush and his family did everything possible to ease the transition between the administrations and the families.  The Bush daughters went out of their way to help prepare the Obama girls for their new life.  George Bush did everything possible to make for a swift and easy transistion of administrations.  Contrast that with the way the Clintons treated the Bush family.

President Obama spoke to the Marines at Camp Lejeune about beginning to bring the troops home from Iraq.  Nowhere in that speech did he bother to mention that the troop surge (which he opposed and George Bush supported at great political risk) was the reason we are able to bring troops home.  Credit was not given because it would not have gone to a political ally.  There have been other subtle stabs at George Bush at various times that are completely unnecessary.  These remarks are not constructive in bringing the country together, they only further divide us.

Ronald Reagan fought with Congress on a regular basis, but after work hours, he and members of Congress could socialize without being nasty.  I doubt that the current Congress could even do that among themselves.  It's time to get back to the manners we were supposed to learn growing up.  We need more gentlemanly disagreement (remember Zel Miller?), and less distracting from the main issues by name calling and other childish acts.  If this Congress and Administration refuses to act like grown-ups, let's elect one that will.

During the past few weeks, we have been subjected to outrage on the part of the media that Rush Limbaugh 'wanted President Obama to fail.'  I put that in quotes because it is a misquote and is also taken out of context.  What Rush Limbaugh said was that he hoped President Obama's economic policies would fail because Rush beleived those policies would be bad for the country.  That's a very different statement.  That is not an 'unpatriotic' statement as has been charged--it is a wish for the success of the country.

Power Line points out this morning that during the George Bush Administration, Fox News did a poll on how many people wanted the George Bush Presidency to succeed.  Remember, this was at a time when America was fighting a war, and the question essentially was 'do you want America to win the war?'.  According to the article:

"An August 2006 poll conducted by FOX News/Opinion Dynamics showed 51 percent of Democrats did not want Bush to succeed. Thirty-four percent of independents also did not want Bush to succeed.

By comparison, 90 percent of Republicans said at the time that they wanted Bush to succeed, and 40 percent of Democrats said the same."

No one at that time said anything about not supporting the President being unpatriotic--and that was during wartime!  Somewhere in the not-so distant past, the American media has lost its objectivity and has developed a very selective memory.  That is not a good thing for the country, and the information gap they have created will be filled by other sources as people begin to realize that they are not hearing the entire truth.

President Obama has reversed the ban on federal funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research.  There are a number of misconceptions about what the law was prior to this change and about what the change means.  According to an article in the Washington Times:

"Extracting embryonic stem cells for research kills the embryo, which is why many pro-life groups oppose both the research and the use of taxpayer dollars to fund it. Mr. Bush had limited federal funding only to those lines that existed when he issued his executive order in 2001, arguing those embryos already had been destroyed and thus the life-or-death decision already had happened."

Since the 2001 ban put in place by President Bush, a few things have happened.

1. Reported in  an August 22, 2005 article in the Washington Post, scientists can now take skin cells and turned them into what appear to be embryonic stem cells -- without having to use human eggs or make new human embryos in the process, as has always been required in the past, a Harvard research team announced yesterday.  This article states that:

"Since the new stem cells in this technique are essentially rejuvenated versions of a person's own skin cells, the DNA in those new stem cells matches the DNA of the person who provided the skin cells. In theory at least, that means that any tissues grown from those newly minted stem cells could be transplanted into the person to treat a disease without much risk that they would be rejected, because they would constitute an exact genetic match."

2.  There has been progress in the area of umbilical stem cell research, leading to the formation of such groups as CorCell which saves a baby's umbilical cord blood when the baby is born.

Again, the ban was never on embryonic stem cell research--it was on the federal funding of that research.  Also, as the Obama Administration has planned a government takeover of health care, why is this research necessary?  Socialized medicine is not fertile ground for medical research because every medical procedure is viewed through a prism of cost effectiveness--ask elderly people in Britain who have been denied treatments because of their age.  Also, if medical research truly felt that there were major breakthroughs to be made in embryonic stem cell research, wouldn't private corporations be funding it?  Repealing the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is simply grandstanding to please to liberal base that elected Barack Obama as President. 

Today's National Review On Line has an article today on the recently passed Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).  This law was passed as a result of the problems which resulted in the toy recalls of 2007 and 2008.  According to the article:

"This legislation grew out of the hysteria that surrounded the toy recalls of 2007-08, though the fact of the recalls themselves demonstrates that no new law was necessary. "We recalled those products because they violated the existing law," says Nancy Nord, acting chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)."

There are three main problems with the law: 

1.  The specifies a lead content for an item and regardless of whether of not that makes the product unsafe, declares the product unsafe.  For example, the article states:

"printer's ink used to contain trace amounts of lead. Librarians are faced with a choice between cost-prohibitive testing and disposal of their pre-1985 inventory of children's books. Thus, we get stories like this one in the Nebraska City News-Press: "Librarian quarantines books.""

2.  The law of retroactive--all products manufactured for children twelve and under are included, regardless of when they were manufactured.  Secondhand stores and thrift shops that can't afford to test every item that comes in are forced to throw out perfectly good items.  For example, something as simple and safe as a zipper on a child's jacket could contain more than the permitted level of lead.

3.  The law went into effect on February 10,  It did not allow enough time for stores and manufacturers to know what the rules were and how to comply with them.

I have heard stories that stores that sell dirt bikes will be put out of business because of this law because of the lead paint used on the bikes.  We could debate the safety of dirt bikes for a long time, but I suspect that we would not be debating the dangers of a child eating the paint! 

The intentions of this law were good, but it will do some serious damage to our already struggling economy and really wasn't needed.  The previous law caused to recall and solved the problem.  This law simply confuses people and needlessly hurts thrift shops and second hand shops that are very valuable in a tight economy.

There is a wonderful article in today's New York Post about the original stage play and movie of "West Side Story".   On March 19, the fourth revival of "West Side Story" opens at the Palace Theatre.  The article details some of the changes that have been made to the original play and also talks about some of the changes that were made to the original story.  Some of the original play and movie cast members remember what it was like to be part of something that was totally unique in its time.  Sometimes when you are looking at a finished product, you forget the struggles and doubts that were part of making it successful.

There is an article at Hot Air today showing the results of a poll done by Pew Research on how well informed Americans are based on the media outlets they follow.  The people polled were asked three political questions.  Only 18 per cent of the public was able to answer all three questions together.  To read the questions, please see the article, but here are some of the statistics from the article:

Here is the top ten, as an example, with their aggregate scores:

1. New Yorker/Atlantic - 48%
2. NPR - 44%
3. Hardball - 43%
4. Hannity & Colmes - 42%
5. Political magazines - 39%
6. Rush Limbaugh - 36%
7. Business magazines - 36%
8. BBC - 34%
9. Colbert Report - 34%
10. News Hour (PBS) - 33%

Hannity and Rush were the only two outlets where over 80% of the audience could correctly identify the majority party in the House.  Only a handful of others scored in the 70s.  How did we do?  Not too bad.  "Online news" ranked 14th, with an aggregate score of 29%.

Part of our problem with being informed is that the people who are supposed to be informing us are not doing their job, but we have to take responsibility for finding other sources to get reliable information.

According to Michelle Bachmann, Congresswoman from Minnesota, blogging at Townhall.com, a growing number of the banks that accepted the original TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) bailout money are now having second thoughts and planning to give it back.  The banks are realizing that the federal government is using the fact that they gave the banks the money as a rationale for further federal control of the banks.  We need to remember the role the government played in forcing banks to make unwise loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back.  There were ACORN lawsuits threatened against banks if they did not make these loans.

Congresswoman Bachmann's closing statement sums it up:

"If we continue to let the government grow in its power and influence, the end result will be the decline of our tradition of entrepreneurial spirit. We must always remember that government is not the end-all-be-all of our nation's prosperity; the people are."

A website called Topix.com put up a forum for people to comment on why they felt they should not have voted for President Obama.  I am not familiar with this website, the language is not always to my liking, nor do I agree with everything said, but it does make interesting reading.  Proceed at your own risk.

According to the American Thinker, we have just deported Khalid Al-Jawary to Sudan.  Al-Jawary is a  Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) terrorist convicted of a 1973 New York City bomb plot and implicated in multiple terrorist attacks spanning 20 years.  According to the article:

According to Power Line Blog and the Washington Times, the omnibus appropriations bill for the remainder of the fiscal year is stalled in the Senate.  According to the Washington TImes, Congress today passed a

"temporary spending measure to keep the government open through Wednesday as lawmakers struggled over an omnibus appropriations bill for the remainder of the fiscal year."

Power Line stated that the bill was pulled when Harry Reid realized that both Russ Feingold (D) and Evan Bayh (D) planned to vote against it.  According to the Washington Times:

"The Senate vote is so close that Mr. Reid said he was setting up next week's schedule to give ailing Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, "ample time" to come to the Capitol. After a long absence, Mr. Kennedy returned to Washington this week but is still receiving treatment for brain cancer."

Senators run for reelection every six years.  This spending bill is popular with government employees and unpopular with people in private business.  Some Senators are realizing that if the economy does not quickly improve, the voters may not forget who passed all of this massive spending.  Hopefully, this realization will change a few more votes to 'no'.

Today's Real Clear Politics has an article on Barack Obama's economic policies.  As usual, Mr. Krauthammer is right on the money on his analysis.  According to the article:

""Our economy did not fall into decline overnight," he averred. Indeed, it all began before the housing crisis. What did we do wrong? We are paying for past sins in three principal areas: energy, health care, and education -- importing too much oil and not finding new sources of energy (as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf?), not reforming health care, and tolerating too many bad schools.

The "day of reckoning" has now arrived. And because "it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament," Obama has come to redeem us with his far-seeing program of universal, heavily nationalized health care; a cap-and-trade tax on energy; and a major federalization of education with universal access to college as the goal.

Amazing. As an explanation of our current economic difficulties, this is total fantasy. As a cure for rapidly growing joblessness, a massive destruction of wealth, a deepening worldwide recession, this is perhaps the greatest non sequitur ever foisted upon the American people."

If you still do not understand how we got into this mess, I strongly recommend the video at You Tube called "Burning Down The House".  It is one of the most lucid explanations of the current economic crisis I have seen.

Mr. Krauthammer goes on the explain how the crisis is being used as an excuse to implement a radical increase in government spending, power, and control.  The use of the current crisis as an excuse for socializing health care in dishonest to the core.

Yesterday's The Hill featured an article on Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and his battles with Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli, and Jim Cramer.  Mr. Gibbs describes the battles as 'fun'.  The economy is melting down, and he is having 'fun' attacking individual citizens!!!!  He says in the article that these attacks on individuals actually have the purpose of further explaining President Obama's fiscal policies, but I really think the kindergartners are running the show here.  I'm really sorry that instead of using the Press Secretary to build bridges, the Obama Administration is using him to attack individuals.  This is oddly reminiscant of the kind of thing that went on during the Nixon Administration.  This neither brings people together nor solves problems.  The challenges we face are serious, we don't need people playing ego games and power trips instead of facing our economic problems.

According to The Hill, the Obama administration has ended its attempt to have the Census Bureau director report directly to the White House.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke met with the Commerce Committee Chairman and ranking member to assure them that the census would not be under White House control and that 'sampling' would be used only as an accuracy check.

The article states that:

"It appears that now that a Democrat will lead the Commerce Department, concern over the census has dissipated."

Somehow, I suspect there is a whole lot more to the story.  I would love to know what went on behind the scenes on this policy change.

This chart comes from The Heritage Foundation.

 

 

I think the chart says it all.  An 80% increase in domestic spending during a recession and in a time of war is not the way to go.

 

Employee Free Choice Act sounds really good, doesn't it?  Well, it's all about the spin--even when you name a bill.  According to HotAir.com, President Obama told top union officials at their winter meeting in Miami that he would pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Employee Free Choice Act (contrary to its name) takes the secret ballot away in union elections.  If a company is about to be unionized, the employees are handed a card and asked to vote openly in the presence of a union official--there is no secret ballot.  It opens the door for all sorts of abuses of the voting process.

The Weekly Standard Blog posted an article in October of last year, when this bill was being discussed, which included a video of George McGovern (also posted on You Tube) explaining why the Employee Free Choice Act (also known as 'card check') is a bad idea.  This is legislation that will truly kill the economy.  It will be the end of the non-union shop and of the automobile industry outside of Detroit.

Politico has an three-page article detailing the Obama administrations plan to marginalize Rush Limbaugh.  If you don't happen to like Rush Limbaugh, that's no big deal, but there are a few aspects of this that need to be investigated.  I'm posting this even though I feel Rush Limbaugh is more than capable of taking care of himself (as Benjamin Franklin once said, "Never argue with a man who buys his ink by the barrel ...").  Rush does not buy ink by the barrel (although he may--he publishes a magazine), but is well-respected by a large number of Americans who vote. 

First, Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen.  What kind of administration is in the business of silencing the voices of private citizens?  A democracy should be open to all voices.

Second, how many months will it be before some form of the fairness doctrine is put in force?

Third, why is this administration so afraid of opposing voices?   Do you remember what they did to 'Joe the Plumber'?

This is not just a clash of prominent personalities--one in government and one in the private sector--the is an administration using the power and force of government against a private citizen.

This information is taken directly from the website ChrisBanescu.com.  

Chris is an attorney, entrepreneur, writer, speaker, and university professor. He is an ethics and business management specialist with an entrepreneurial spirit and passion for excellence.

His career experience spans Fortune 500 corporations, traditional and online universities, small and medium-sized companies, and several Internet ventures. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration and Marketing from New York University and a Juris Doctor degree from Southwestern University School of Law.

Comparing US Corporate Tax Rates to the World's Largest Economies (2008)
The United States is the world's largest economy. When compared to the next 14 countries that represent the world's largest economies (number 2 through 15) by gross domestic product (GDP) as of 2008, here's how the US stacks up. (Wikipedia & CIA World Factbook)

I don't claim to understand cap and trade, but according to the American Thinker, if I want to see the results of it, I should look at the California economy over the past three years.  According to the article, California passed a measure in 2006 to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, which Washington is looking to as a model.  The consequences of that law have not been pretty.  One example from the article:

"For more than 100 years the Calportland cement company has manufactured cement from its limestone quarry in Colton, California, outside of Los Angeles.  Already under pressure from plunging prices and profits, the company is facing large new expenses from the cost of meeting California's CO2 control regulations.    

State regulators have projected that retrofitting the state's 11 cement plants would cost $220 million and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 12 percent per ton of cement. But CalPortland's executives say it would cost more than that to retrofit the Colton plant alone.  "We don't have enough limestone left to invest $200 million," said James A. Repman, the company's president.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal has an article about two classmates of President Obama's daughters who will be directly effected by a spending bill to be voted on in the Senate this week.  The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program ends after the next school year unless Congress reauthorizes it and the District of Columbia approves it.  This provision was put in the bill by Dick Durbin.  It allows opponents to kill the program simply by doing nothing.  Because you are ending the program without actually doing anything, the inner-city moms and dads don't realize that you are cutting one of their lifelines.

Sarah and James Parker currently receive $7,500 voucher from the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship.  According to the article:

"Deborah Parker says such a move would be devastating for her kids. "I once took Sarah to Roosevelt High School to see its metal detectors and security guards," she says. "I wanted to scare her into appreciation for what she has at Sidwell." It's not just safety, either. According to the latest test scores, fewer than half of Roosevelt's students are proficient in reading or math.

That's the reality that the Parkers and 1,700 other low-income students face if Sen. Durbin and his allies get their way. And it points to perhaps the most odious of double standards in American life today: the way some of our loudest champions of public education vote to keep other people's children -- mostly inner-city blacks and Latinos -- trapped in schools where they'd never let their own kids set foot."

Voters in the inner cities that have poor school systems need to realize who is preventing their children from getting a good education.  Unfortunately one of the trademarks of this administration is that they are in the pocket of big labor--the Teachers Union is included in that.  It would not surprise me to see the education of these two and many other children thrown under the bus in order to appease the Teachers Union.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Citigroup, Inc., has announced a program that will temporarily lower mortgage payments to an average of $500 a month for certain borrowers who have recently lost their jobs and are at least 60 days behind on their mortgage payments. Borrowers will be allowed to make the lower payments for three months. Citigroup will waive interest and penalties during this period. The program applies only to loans of $417,500 or lower.  To qualify for the program, borrowers have to provide proof of unemployment. They must also sign a form promising that they will look for a job and let Citigroup know if they've found one.

This makes so much more sense than letting judges rewrite mortgages.  Since Citigroup, Inc., holds the mortgages, they have a vested interest in getting things done right.  I hope other mortgage lenders will follow suit if they are able.

According to the Russian News Agency, President Obama has told Moscow that Russian help in resolving Iran's nuclear program would make its missile shield plans for Europe unnecessary.

This is beyond insane.  Russia has been supplying, supporting, and upholding Iran's nuclear program.  No agreement is going to make them stop.  The theory in dropping the missle shield is that if Iran does not have nuclear capability, the shield is not necessary.  Remember that rather odd missle strike in Syria by Israel a year or so ago that the Arab states were very quiet about--no real protesting or condemnation of Israel.  When the UN investigated they found that the site was radioactive.  Evidently Syria was working on its own bomb.  Iran has been much more open about their 'right' to nuclear 'energy'.  Russia has been fairly open about helping them--why do we think an agreement would be worth the paper it is written on?  By the time we realize that Iran has nukes (which it is probably very close to), we won't have time to get a missle shield up in Europe and we will play the game of nuclear blackmail.   A missle sheild is defensive--not offensive, so why is Russia so concerned?  This is definitely one of the dumber moves on the part of the new administration.

Dr. Mary Davenport writes an article for the American Thinker showing the dangers of nationalizing health care.  The article is a scenario of where we may be headed.  The opening paragraphs:

"The largest generational cohort in American history, the Baby Boomers, will be the first Americans to be denied available effective life-saving treatments for reasons of cost. The seeds for this mass liquidation have already been planted.

Imagine that it is 2016, and you are a 65 year old boomer. You have been admitted to your local community hospital with malaise, fatigue, vomiting and cloudy mental status. You have had blood pressure problems and diabetes for a few years, and have just been diagnosed with renal failure. As you drift in and out of consciousness, you are vaguely aware your old family practice physician, who had taken care of you for 20 years, is not around. A religious man, he quietly retired from medical practice in 2014, after the full force of the Obama administration's removal of conscience protection for physicians in February, 2009, came into effect."

This is what a dust storm looks like in Iraq.  That's not fog!

.

It's March, and Minnesota is still only represented by one Senator.  According to Michael Barone at U. S. News & World Report, that might be the situation for a while.  It's no secret that Harry Reid is not even-handed in how he deals with Democrats and Republicans, and Michael Barone feels that if Al Franken is declared the winner, Harry Reid will seat him; and if Norm Coleman is declared the winner Harry Reid will not seat him.  The problem is not the election--it's the recount.

According to Michael Barone:

"My understanding is that the legal case currently before a three-judge panel is hopelessly compromised. Previous rulings in different counties have been inconsistent, with ballots with one kind of alleged defect counted in some counties and ballots with the same kind of alleged defect not counted in others. Most of the inconsistent rulings have tended to favor Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party candidate Al Franken, which is why he has overcome the lead Coleman had when the votes were being tabulated in November. Some allegedly defective ballots have been counted and then commingled with others, so that the decision to count them cannot as a practical matter be reversed. This would seem to me to raise equal-treatment problems as described in Bush v. Gore , even if the Supreme Court tries to say that Bush v. Gore was a one-of-a-kind case and not really precedent."

The concept of one man, one vote and all votes treated equally has not prevailed in this election (actually it may have prevailed in the election, but not in the recount).  Governor Tim Pawlenty has stated that a second election is unlikely, but I'm not sure there is any other fair way to settle this.  

I can't confirm this, so please check it for yourself, but I am hearing that despite the changes in withholding in President Obama's tax proposals, there will be no changes in the tax tables.

If the above is true, that means that you will have $13 a week more to spend during the year, but there will be no change in the amount of tax you owe at the end of the year.  If the increased amount in your paycheck starts in June (I'm not sure when it is supposed to start), that means that approximately $350 of withholding won't happen, and you will owe that money in April 2010, depending on how closely you calculate your withholding.  That is not a tax cut--that is a sleight of hand designed to make you feel better.  Since the consequences will not be felt until 2010, you might not make the connection.  As I said, I can't confirm this, so I will be looking into it further as the budget is discussed.

According to Boston.com, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is asking for a $2 'carbon fee' for parking at Logan Airport.  The fee is part of his bill to overhaul transportation in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Carbon Fee?  Why not just call it the parking cost increase that it is (your basic stealth tax increase that will only effect a small percentage of people and therefore will not cause too much resistence)? 

The misplaced war on carbon will see many such stealth tax increases.  The cap and trade proposals in the new budget proposed by President Obama will have the same kind of stealth tax increases on people and businesses.  The stealth tax increases on businesses will be passed on to the consumer, and despite promises to the contrary, we will all be paying more taxes in the future.

Today's Wall Street Journal's op-ed piece deals with President Obama's proposed bailout of people in danger of losing their homes due to foreclosure.  According to the article:

"Just listen to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair. In Congressional testimony last week, Mr. Bernanke compared many troubled borrowers to people who accidentally start fires by smoking in bed. For her part, Ms. Bair told public radio that it would be "simply impractical" to review old mortgage applications and try to distinguish between honest and dishonest borrowers. All of this moved the Associated Press to report that the President's "assurance Tuesday night that only the deserving will get help rang hollow.""

One of the reasons for the increase in foreclosures is mortgage application fraud.  In December the Mortgage Asset Research Institute reported that mortgage fraud increased 45% in the second quarter of 2008, compared to a year earlier. The Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network reports a similar rise for the full year ended in June of last year. Without some sort of mechanism to separate people who lied on their mortgage applications from people who did not, the mortgage bailout makes no sense.  You are not only rewarding bad behavior, you are encouraging more of it in the future.

The plan to institute mortgage 'cramdowns' (letting a judge change the terms of the mortgage) will only make things worse--it will make investors less likely to lend money in the future.  The problem of a judge intervening in a previous contract is troubling.  President Obams's solution to the mortgage crisis definitely needs a rewrite.

According to an article in the American Thinker, the budget proposed by President Obama has hidden taxes in it for you and me.  According to the article:

"The proposed "Spectrum user license fee" on p132 of President Obama's budget would see cellular phone operators paying an annual levy for using certain bands of radio wavelength; despite operators already spending billions at FCC auctions for access to these frequencies. The fees will start at $50million for 2009, rising progressively to $550million per annum in 2013."

Obviously, the license fee will be passed on to the consumer.  Anyone with a cellular phone will be effected.

In an op-ed column in the New York Times yesterday, William Poole, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the president and chief executive of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis from 1998 to 2008, wieghs in on the subject of bailouts.  He points out that this recession is unique in that it was caused almost entirely by mortgage defaults and the consequent insolvency of major financial firms. These insolvencies, and especially fear of them, damaged normal credit mechanisms.

He points out that the amount of money being circulated has increased greatly starting in September, and that will help the country pull out of the recession by the end of this year.  He points out in the article:

"Federal policy is damaging the economy's prospects. It fails to provide the needed tax incentives for investment in factories and equipment, incentives that were central to efforts to revive the economy during the Kennedy-Johnson era and under Ronald Reagan. But government spending can't lead the way to sustained recovery, because its stimulating effect will be offset by anticipated higher taxes and the need to finance the deficit."

Bailouts are not constructive, and they add uncertainty to our financial situation because there seem to be no consistent rules on who is bailed out and who is not.  Bailouts also open the door for government intervention into corporate matters that they have no business intervening in.  The degree of uncertainty that this creates is not good for economic growth.