Al Gore's Problem

Apparently, Al Gore and Obama share some common delusions. Now that climate change has been completely disproven, Obama has decided to get in on the action and decry the "evil" United States for destroying the world's environment. Kinda funny coming from a guy that has decided to devote the remainder of his life to killing people merely for disagreeing with him on the type or existence of higher power.

Well Al, congratulations on your latest and hopefully last convert.

James O'Keefe responds

"I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill. When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.” I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken. In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.

  

On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building. The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator. We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media."

Not a bad response tot he allegations against him.  I am looking foward to seeing the taped evidence when it is available (likely not until after the election cycle).

 

Democrats Lash out at Supreme Court

In a speech on the Senate floor Thursday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) singled out Alito, saying he had testified that the court has a “limited role” and should not be overstepping its bounds and “invading the authority of Congress.”

Am I the only one that knows about the separation of powers?  Didn't this guy actually put his hand on a Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution?

Shame on you Mr. Philips

Due to the high cost of tickets ($550) and the hefty speaking fee they are paying, many tea party goers are boycotting the rally in Nashville, TN.  Not only the party are the attendees bowing out, but also some of the speakers.  Both Sen. Bachmann and Blackburn are canceling their planned speaking appointments.  They have both cited both the high cost of tickets and Mr. Philips' open desire to make a profit from the rally. 

It is my understanding that the tea party is made up of a group of individuals that want to see real change in American politics.  As for you Mr. Philips; profits have a time and place and this is neither.

Government should not be seen as a profitable occupation, nor as an opportunity for anything other than humble service.  If our elected officials would conduct themselves more like Mr. Belvedere we would all be the better for it.

Obama's State of the Union Last night

I wish I could say that it was entertaining.  I wish that I could say that he had put aside partisan rhetoric.  I wish I could say that it was enlightening.  I wish that I could tell you that he has put aside his dreams of a socialist utopia.  I wish that I had any good news at all.

As I stated yesterday, Obama has hit the campaign trail with year-old news of stimulus projects that will not show any meaningful job creation for years to come.  It is obvious that a significant portion of the stimulus money was being held-back so that it could be released during the election cycle in an attempt to buy votes.  Unfortunately, the for the administration (pretty sure I can get away without capitalizing that), American voters have woken up and realized that the money we are being bribed with is coming right out of our very own pockets. 

I really was saddened by the partisan rhetoric that I heard in the speech last night, but nothing could have prepared me for the scandalous statements that followed.  The passes that have been handed down to the leftists concerning their hate-speech have been nothing more than rediculous.  Reid's statement made during the campaign as well as the comment last night by Chris Matthews are two of the most recent.  Can you imagine the reaction to a Republican making either of these comments? 

Great news, you don't have to!  Just take a look at the fall-out from Trent Lott's statement a few years ago.

Senate passes 1.9T in additional debt

Nine days after a historic defeat in Massachusetts, Senate Democrats have pushed through a bill allowing the national deficit to rise another 1.9 trillion dollars.  They needed each and every single one of the 60 votes they got to make this happen.  Would Scott Brown have been able to change the outcome?  I can tell you this, they would have had to find one more yea vote had he been there instead of the Democrat puppet that is there now.  His swearing in is expected not to happen until Feb. 3rd and it absolutely cannot happen fast enough.  The days of the Democrats stuffing bloated non-partisan bills down the throats of Americans is almost over.

High Speed Rail to be announced tomorrow

President Obama and VP Biden will be in Tampa to announce grants (already announced a year ago in the Stimulus package) for high-speed rail. There is virtual certainty that a line connecting Tampa and Orlando will be approved as well as a line from Sacramento to San Diego.

The Stimulus plan set aside 8 billion in funds for 13 high speed rail projects. The plan is to create or save "tens of thousands" of jobs. The is a warning included that these jobs will not come about quickly especially when you factor in the fact that there are currently nearly no firms in the US that are involved in high-speed rail planning, production, or building. Given this, many foreign firms are more excited about this news than we should be domestically.

I would like to give a shout-out to the administration for taking the time to come on down to Tampa to announce something that was part of a bill from a year ago as if it is current news.

Things are so bad there is a betting pool on which DEMOCRAT screams ‘You Lie!’ tonight.

Click here it is GREAT.

Government to FREEZE the budget.

The administration has announced a plan to freeze the budget for 3 years.  This will not affect military or security budgets.  It is expected to save 250 billion over the next 10 years. 

Only our government will project the cost/savings of a program designed to run for 3 years over a 10 year period.  I am not saying I agree or disagree with the move.  I am just asking why the government would buy a piece of chewing gum and project its cost over a 10-year period.

Is it too much to ask for a little balance here?  Eric Holder is going after lenders that used "predatory practices" to lure people into mortgages that were not advantageous to them.  What is the difference between what those guys did and what the government does to the general public every day? 

Using accounting tricks to try to pass Demacare, lying about the stimulus, and now the budget freeze.  Just man-up and give us some straight facts.

How has the Stimulus really helped?

I know there are stories in the hundreds and even thousands of how the Stimulus has helped individual people.  I am very glad that those people, who desperately need help, are receiving it.  However, what I cannot get my head around is how the government is presenting the data in a format that shows that each job saved is costing us much as five hundred thousand dollars. 

Now this is just me being a pessimist and taking free shots at our nation's progressive welfare agenda, but I don't see how giving someone a temporary job that pays 30-50k (although I rather inflated this number to sound a little less condescending) and that only stays in place for as long as government intervention in the market continues at a cost of the times more than the job is "worth" really helps.  The number of jobs saved when compared with unemployment overall is barely significant.  I am not saying that a program that creates or saves permanent jobs is not a good program, but I have yet to see anyone talk about permanent job creation.  Why is this?

The types of jobs created by artificially stimulating the economy can never be permanent.  When the funding that created (or saved) the job goes away, then so does the job.  This does not even take into account the fact that many of these alleged "saved" jobs that have been falsely claimed. 

The moneys given to many organizations are actually used to buy computers or give raises to current employees.  Couple this with the reported reluctance and refusal of many companies to share information with the media about where the stimulus money actually goes, and you are led to the conclusion that the Stimulus program is likely suffering from more fraud and abuse than Medicare/Medicaid.  Along those same lines, do you know where your cash-for-clunkers money ended up?  A good portion of it went to purchase fuel efficient cars that were traded-in within a week for cars that were less eco-friendly than the cars they replaced.  I am not joking; there was one car lot in Florida that actually advertised this program!

Simply that we are spending ten dollars for each dollar that goes to someone's salary is insane.  Would it not be more efficient to give that person two dollars for each dollar they are receiving right now?  Even that would save the tax-paying populace of this nation 80%.  Is it any wonder that our government is facing huge deficits?

When will our government learn that their welfare (socialist) programs will always be abused?

As stimulus fades, economies will face an up-hill battle

From AP:

SHANGHAI - The global economy will suffer the fallout from the financial crisis for years to come, the World Bank said Thursday in a report warning that growth may wilt later this year as stimulus spending fades.

There is optimism that we will se some economic growth this year, but no guarantees.  As the credit crisis gathers steam and home forclosure continuing, there is plenty of concrete bad news to go along with any uplifting forecasts we get.  Banks are not loosening the purse strings on lending and are following a government mandated forclosure policy, and neither of these are good portents of things to come.

Census to kick off in Alaska

Anyone else wonder why the Census would start during the dead of winter in Alaska?  Boy is government great or what?  Where do they get volunteers for that assignment?

Georgia is facing a monetary shortfall due to stimulus

Well, Atlanta is about to pay the piper for the stimulus monies it collected from the Federal government last year.  With the stimulus money all dried up the state is short over $500 million for Medicaid alone.  The result of the influx in cash last year was that the state had to agree to expand their programs.  The catch was that although the Feds would supply the money for the first year, the Federal sopply would end in 2010.  After that, the state would have to keep the expanded programs and find other ways to make up the budget shortfall.

I can't figure who is dumber, the guys that created the terms or the guys that accepted the terms.

Evil Bankers 4

There is quiet talk of an agreement by which bank will only pursue a certain number of foreclosures a month. While this may seem to be a wonderful idea on its face, here is the dark underbelly that waits. When a bank has 100 options that they can pursue for forclosure and only 10 forclosures that they can pursue and still stay under their cap, what do you think happens? I can tell you for sure. I have noted that the property on which foreclosure happens the most readily is the property that is similar in value to the remaining outstanding mortgage value. Sometimes this means that the property was purchased at a good value, but all too often it means that the property has had a significant portion of its mortgage paid off, or a significant amount of money was put down on the property from the start.


Those that found a good value have lost little, but those that put their whole savings into their new home or have lived in their home for 10 years and find that their mortgage has been foreclosed after only the minimum amount of time; this situation is devastating. In many cases, these individuals have never missed a payment before losing their job and/or have absolutely nothing to fall back on. My heart goes out to these victims. However, the banks are literally forced into this behavior by a secret policy that gives them no alternative. They cannot practice foreclosures fairly and this method certainly suits their best interests.

I have seen for myself, these unbalanced practices and could not figure out why this was occurring until a friend (that works for a bank) told me of this policy.  I can certainly see how this is supposed to help, and I know that for some, it is.  But before there were so many foreclosures to pursue that they were all given a cushion period to come current on their debts.  Now only the homes that are in the worst distress
and will eventually be subject to foreclosure once their current occupants figure out how under-water they are, are being given any leniency at all.
For this reason alone, this policy is pure garbage.  I can appreciate the intent, but the outcome is worse then the initial problem.

Can we please get the out of our businesses?  Just sit back and steal your taxes.  Do what you can with those, but leave things that you cannot possibly understand alone!  The banking industry is not broken, but the government's attempts to make it altruistic certainly are.

Obama to set limits for Wall Street

Yesterday:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Embracing Depression-era policy and populist politics, a combative President Barack Obama chastised big Wall Street banks Thursday and urgently called for limits on their size and investments to stave off a new economic meltdown.

Investors responded by dumping bank stock.

Even after the losses this week, the stock market is still seriously over-valued.  Many economists and financial experts see fair value between 7.5k and 8.5k.  Perhaps Obama has decided it is his job to get it there.

New limits and rules are not at all what will solve the Wall St. problems.  The solution is simple (maybe that is why it is being overlooked).  This idea of "too big to fail" has to die.  Do not think for even the slightest instant that should one of these gargantuan banks fail, there would not be 50 other banks there ready and willing to buy their assets, client lists, and productive employees.  In this scenario, the people that would take the "hit" would be the investors.  If you invest in an institution and then let the board run it any way they want to, you kind of deserve to lose your money.  I am sorry that some of you don't want to hear that, but the government should never be in the business of protecting your investments.  If you can't do that for yourself, then you don't need to be investing.

Why do the American people think that personal responsibility is an idea that is too old to be relevant?

Obama "stumps" in Ohio today

Am I the only one that noticed the 20 point drop in the stock market as Obama spoke?  I guess I shouldn't have watched it on CNBC if I didn't want the humor aspect added.

I think he does a better job than any progressive before him in hiding the similarities between the progressive agenda and socialism.  I guess is is too much to ask to get even a slight bit of honesty from a politician. 

Obama did say something that I agree with completely.  He said that he wanted to make sure that when bankers take risks in the hopes of gains, that the taxpayer does not have to "foot the bill".  Let me be perfectly clear about the ONLY solution for that.  DON'T BAIL THEM OUT!!!

If you set the expectation of a bailout, then big business will continue to find ways to take big risks.  Just let businesses operate with the only two acceptable scenarios being stand on their own two feet or fail.

California Trifecta

Just about every day something stupendously insane that one state or another has done will come to my attention, but those jokers in California managed a trifecta.  They double-dipped into healthcare and still managed to bungle some inmate legislation.

First let's look at the more ridiculous of the two health care fiascos.  They have decided that since the single-payer plan will not pass for the entire country it will still suffice for the good people of California.  Were they not paying attention to the failures that similar plans have become in Tn and Ma?  Even better yet, they seem to have lost sight of their current budget crisis and are looking to spend even more money that they do not have.  Perhaps they figure that their deficit is just not big enough yet to deserve a bailout.  Well, I guarantee that they have found the vehicle to permanent financial destruction.  This legislation would triple the size of their current budget. Couple this with item number two and the repercussions are staggering.

Second on the list of WTF items for California is patient wait time.  California has already passed legislation that will reduce the time someone will wait to see a doctor.  That is correct; apparently the whole issue here was that a rule needed to be established.  The doctors have plenty of openings to see you, but since there was not rule in place limiting the wait time, they just hung out in their offices doing sudoku puzzles and playing solitaire.  Of course, since they were wasting all that time instead of seeing patients it likely saved them money in payments to administrative staff to file the insurance claims over and over again.  The new law, which goes into effect in 2011, is a huge step towards... what?  If I practiced medicine in California, I would be asking all my friends to save boxes.  I would need them for the move.

Last but not least, it looks like California is going to make good on its promise to release inmates early as a means to reduce their budget deficit.  This idea is perfect.  If you take some vocational classes while in prison you can get out early.  But the deal does not end there, there is also a reduction in parole that goes along with your early release.  By reduction I mean that many prisoners will not be monitored at all after release.  Minor infractors will no longer be monitored for two reasons.  First, if they are not monitored, then they will not violate parole and therefore, not be subject to a return to prison (logical, if you don't think of the other implications here).  Second, it will allow the more dangerous prisoners to be monitored more closely.  California is really rolling the dice on this one.  I sure am glad I live on the other side of the country.  This is just one more reason to pack your bags and move (as if you needed it).

No more campaign-finance limits

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. " - President Barack Obama

WOW, can you say "time to pander to those big corporations"?  I hope you enjoyed the election in Mass this week.  It is the last time you will see anything remotely fair for quite some time.

Tough Economic Times

How come when my income shrinks I have to cut back on the things I want?  When the government's income shrinks, they cut back on the things that supposedly help to make me safe, education for my children, and other services.  How about you scale back some entitlement programs instead of finding new ways to take money from those that can least afford it? 

During the last boom, entitlement program's benefits exploded.  Not only are new programs being introduced, but the programs already in place have their enrollment soaring.  Should health care be added to the tally, we will bankrupt this country in only a very few years instead of merely decades.

My lamenting of those current and proposed systems will have to wait for another time.  I am talking today about the changes that are coming to many states near you.  Gambling is on the rise.

States have toyed with gambling in many different forms for decades.  Here in Georgia, we have a lottery system.  The lottery was imposed to help fund our schools.  Now who would vote to discourage the funding of education?  Now that we have had the lottery for roughly 20 years, are any of the schools better for it? 

NOPE!!

Here is how the system works.  When the schools get additional funding from the lottery, they then need less from the government.  Therefore, the gov't has more money to spend on entitlements etc.  So the real question becomes: When the government finds a way to add funding to a program, why does the net funding for that program stay the same?

Anyway, this all came up due to the good legislative body in Delaware.  These geniuses have decided that the best way to make up for their budget shortfall is to legalize something that has previously been illegal in an attempt to protect their citizenry.  Apparently they feel that the ends justify the means.  Newsflash!!!  This is not always true.  Who will end up paying for this?

Here in Georgia, we call the lottery the poor-man's tax.  How about the supporters of gambling take a quick look at these casinos' customers?  People that depend on government assistance have already made a few bad choices in their lives.  What's a few more options? 

To be completely fair about all this, it is not really table games that are the main draw for the ultra-low income patrons.  They do tend more to the slots.  However, I have known more than a few people that have lost their rent or entire paychecks at the tables.  This is not good policy.

DOVER, Del. (AP) -- Two bills that would pave the way for Delaware to add table games such as poker, blackjack and craps to the state's gambling options passed their initial legislative hurdles Wednesday.  A state Senate committee, meanwhile released a separate bill aimed at preventing cheating on table games. That bill was approved by the full Senate later Wednesday.  In exchange for the privilege of offering table games, the casinos would pay an annual collective licensing fee nominally set at $13.5 million.  The casinos would receive 66 percent of the gross table game revenue, with 29 percent going to the state and 4.5 percent to horse racing purses.

Senate won't let TARP die

A Republican bill to shut down the Troubled Asset Relief Program was killed in the Senate yesterday.  If passed, the bill would have ensured that no additional funds would be issued.  While the fund would stay open to receive repayment, taxpayer exposure would have been capped.

Although the bill would have stripped the Democrats of the ability to use these fund for purposes for which they were never intended, it still garnered some Democrat support.  With 320 billion up for grabs, it fell short of the 60 votes required by only 7.  That makes the total number of Democrats that still have a lingering conscience and do not want to play the shell game with the public trust.

Some of the farces that have been propped-up by TARP are banks with unrealistic debt/equity ratios, the auto industry, and impossibly infrastructure projects (roads and bridges).  Chris Dodd couldn't keep his foot out of his mouth when he mentioned that Obama has promised to use some of the remaining money to help with the foreclosure crisis.

It is noteworthy that Wednesday, the day before this bill was defeated, a bill was entered into the Senate requesting an increase in the debt ceiling by 1.9 TRILLION.  That is more than a 15% increase!!!  This is money that you and I (taxpayers) owe.  How much more can you afford?  Because I am damn near out of money.
Here are some of the numbers as they sit now.

Total public debt subject to limit Jan. 20 12,270,763,000,000

Statutory debt limit 12,394,000,000,000 

Total public debt outstanding Jan. 20 12,327,381,000,000

Deficit fiscal year 2009 1,417,121,000,000

Deficit fiscal year 2008 454,798,000,000

Receipts fiscal year 2009 2,104,613,000,000

Receipts fiscal year 2008 2,523,642,000,000

Outlays fiscal year 2009 3,521,734,000,000

Outlays fiscal year 2008 2,978,440,000,000

Notice that while receipts went down, outlays when up.  That is the reason the deficit is 1 TRILLION more this year than last year.

Here is the scariest number of all.

Gold assets in September 11,041,000,000

Glacier Hoax

From USA Today:

GENEVA (AP) — A U.N. warning that Himalayan glaciers were melting faster than any other place in the world and may be gone by 2035 was not backed up by science, U.N. climate experts said Wednesday — an admission that could energize climate change critics.


In a 2007 report, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the Himalayan glaciers are very likely to disappear within three decades if the present melting rate continues. But a statement from the panel now says there is not enough scientific evidence to back up those claim.

Seriously, how dumb would we look right now if we had actually accomplished something at Copenhagen?

FHA Standards

The Federal Housing Administration is currently considering more stringent lending requirements and higher borrowing fees.  The new FHA standard will require borrowers with less than a 580 credit score to put down a minimum of 10 percent of the cost of the home.  Most banks that lend through the FHA require at least a 620 credit score.  Concerns that continued losses in the mortgage values could necessitate futher government bailouts have feuled this move.  Although any credit tightening is welcome, the agency will not propose an increase in the minimum downpayment for high credit scoring borrowers, currently 3.5 percent.

Although builders and realtors see this as punative, the previous regulation loosening that occurred in the late 1990s and caused the current recession, had to be reigned back in.  Many homebuyers are still spending over half of their pretax income on housing.  One could argue that continuing to allow that would be deemed "predatory lending."

10 Reasons Coakley Lost

Thank you to the AJC for this list.  It is priceless.

The Jubilee Act "Evil Bankers 3"

The Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation (HR 4405) cancels impoverished country debt, prohibits harmful economic and policy conditions on debt cancellation, mandates transparency and responsibility in lending from governments and international financial institutions, and calls for a U.S. audit of debts resulting from odious and illegitimate lending.

Beginning in the 1960s it was decided that everyone in the world should have a good standard of living.  To that end, government-backed low-interest loans to third world countries came into vogue.  These loans were given and taken based on advice from international consultants.

The consultants came in and advised countries that they could make a good return for infrastructure developments.  A dam would supply power that could then be sold to the populace.  Roads would bring the countryside into the metropolitan commerce arena.  Airports can increase both commerce and tourism.  Add these benefits to low-interest loans and you have an opportunity that almost any governing body would recieve well.

The down-side was the cost over-runs and compounding interest costs.  Many of the governing bodies of these developing countries did not see the brick wall coming, until it hit them in the face.  Once the debt began to spiral out of control, for many nations there was no escape.

Some of the countries were run by dictators that used the money for their own personal benefit.  Many of the citizens of these countries never had a shot at a better life as a result of their government's greed.  However, many of the other country's governors were doing their best to give a better life to their countrymen.

The capitalist in me thinks that anyone lending money for the express purpose of the return, deserves their return.  However, when you send in used-car salesmen (no disrespect meant to those few in the profession that maintain their honor and dignity) in fancy suits to overstate the expected value of an investment, maybe you should get a haircut on your return. 

After a defeat by neglect in the Senate in 2008, the bill was re-introduced on December 17th, 2009 with actual bi-partisan support.  Just like so many Americans that owe more than their asset is worth due to the current mortgage crisis, I feel that some of these scammed countries should just walk-away from their debts.  This solution is good enough for the citizens of America, so why not for the third world countries?

I guess I just don't understand why the government feels the need to pass a law forgiving debts that some countries should just walk away from.  Perhaps they are creating a moral platform that they can use when we have to walk away from our own soon-to-be unserviceable debt.  Or just as likely, it is an attempt to be viewed as generous in the face of a situation that otherwise has no upside at all.  Either way someone decided to make the loan with the knowledge that their investment could be "at risk."

If we take the risk out of the market, will the rewards also be taken away?

If Dems lose on Tue. does health care bill die?

On Tuesday Jan. 19th 2010, the impossible could happen and a Republican could win a senate election in Massachusetts.  This could derail the current plans from the administration that will foist some pretty unpopular legislation on us.  Should the Dems lose their super majority, the health-care bill can only pass should:

1. they start over with a new "friendlier" bill and pass it using budget reconciliation.
2. ANOTHER Republican jump-the-fence and join the Democrats (Olympia Snowe).
3. they act before Brown can be sworn-in.

Should any of these 3 occur, this bill would become the most unpopular law of my time. 

Lets not forget that the Dems are only in this spot because Sen. Kennedy had the Mass. legislature change an election law back to its original version, allowing the governor of Massachusetts to appoint an interim senator.  Sen. Kennedy had originally had this low reversed due to the presence of a Republican governor.  Since there is a Democrat governor now, he wanted the govenor to be able to appoint an interim senator without an immediate special election.  This kind of crazy political manipulation of law has, unfortunately, become the norm instead of the exception.

Illegal Haitians can stay

My thoughts and prayers go out to those affected by the horrible tradgedy in Haiti.

In a slightly lighter vein:

Citing AP:

 The federal government estimates there are about 100,000 to 200,000 Haitians living in the U.S. illegally, Napolitano said.

About 30,000 Haitians have orders to leave the U.S., according to Department of Homeland Security statistics. Many others are appealing their cases.

The Obama administration said Friday it will allow Haitians who were already in the U.S. illegally to remain for the time being because of their country's catastrophic earthquake.

Since when did "have orders to leave the U.S." actually mean that you had to leave?  Is Obama's aunt still here?  Obama, just grow a pair and pardon her already!

The Air We Breathe

I recently learned that the debate on climate change is over.  Good.  Personally, I am sick to death of trying to explain the effects of earth's natural rotation.  I feel that there have been a number of victims to this debate, not the least of whom is Al Gore.  That poor guy was given erroneous information and then left hanging in the wind when the premises of his position were brought to light as complete fabrications.  I would likely travel from one fortress of solitude to another on my personal jet while refusing to engage in debate as well, should I find myself in a similar position.  I am sure he would use a different form of transportation could he find one that left a bigger carbon footprint.  It is almost like the Nobel Prize Committee is "punking" us.  Wait where has Ashton Kutcher been recently?  I think we would find a few stamps for Sweden on his passport.

All joking aside, there truly is danger in the continued use of our current fuels.  The very air we breathe is polluted.  The effects are not seen too clearly in adults who live in the country and then move into the cities.  To see clearly the results of over 100 years of heavy pollution, you have to look at the children.

When I was a freshman and sophomore in high school, I played soccer.  In my junior year I switched schools and took the year off from sports.  I used the time to get a job and begin producing.  Missing soccer, I decided to coach a youth-league team.  Of the 15 kids on my team, only one had any respiratory issues.  The following year as a freshman in college, I decided to coach again.  Of the 14 kids on my team, 5 showed up with inhalers. 

What was the difference?  My high school was located in a smallish town (back then) with little interstate use and no traffic congestion at all.  The college I attended was dead center of a large city.  Tons of traffic there!  I worked in the 18th floor of one of the skyscrapers that overlooks the interstate.  On any given morning you can look out over the interstate and see the clear line of smog that hangs over it.  I don't need any scientist to verify what the source of these kid's respiratory issues is.

It upsets me that so many people have gone to such great lengths to completely fabricate and then spread the lies of global warming when it does not really address the issue.  The issue is not that the world is in danger of spontaneous combustion.  The problem is that we are diluting our gene pool. 

Let me be clear about this, I am not saying that we face extinction; but our current choice of fuel is causing more health issues than drugs and guns combined.

Evil Bankers 2

The bankers are being scolded by the government almost every day it seems. They knew the loans that they were making were garbage and asked if someone else would be willing to take the risk that they may not be repaid.  In return for not taking the over-all risk, the banks were willing to give up the majority of their interest payments.  The bankers then took the loans and packaged them for resale.  These packages were then sliced-up, repackaged along with pieces from other packages and sold to investors.  When this system blew up, who got the blame?

The government says that it is the bankers who are evil and need to be punished. And I am sure that the government is correct.  Aren't they always?  These evil men supplied a service that the people wanted so badly, that the government felt forced to strong-armed the bankers into providing.  Let me be clear about this.  The bankers did NOT want to give loans to people that, very likely, would not be able to repay the loans.  They were intimidated by the government to give loans to people that did not have good enough credit to warrant the loan.  When straight coercion did not supply lax enough standards for the Barney Franks of the world to be happy with, the government agreed to back the loans through their puppets Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Under pressure from the gov't and with guarantees from Fannie and Freddy; the bankers knew that they had to act.  They still knew that the loans were garbage and did not want them on their own books, but they had to give the loans out.  Even though the government was backing the loans, the bankers knew that they could be left "holding the bag" when the bubble burst.  They devised a method, described above in paragraph one, to absolve themselves of the insane risks that the government had foisted on them back in the '90s.  Its only flaw was that it worked too well.

I would like to take a moment here to talk about investors in general.  When you go to work for someone, you get paid for your work.  However, when you decide to let your money work for you through investments, you take a risk.  That risk is that you could lose your invested money. You may be fooled by a stock broker, or you may just make a bet on a losing horse.  Either way, you take a risk while hoping for a return.  You just better be sure you due a lot of research because without risk, there is no reward.


The investors, be they institutional (insurance companies, hedge funds, etc.) or private, they bet that should the repackaged loans that they were buying would either not default, be worth more than the loan amount should they default, or be paid off by the government (Fannie/Freddie).  These investors felt that they had found a way to “beat the market” and it turns out that they did.  Unfortunately, in this instance the market was the government.  Even worse, the government gets its money (in one way or the other) from the people.  Yep, me and you paid off the investors.

You can try to blame this on the bankers all you like, just be sure that you navigate carefully around the facts.

1. the government forced the bankers to make risky loans
2. the government guaranteed the loans (because the bankers would not make the loans even after #1)
3. the banks sold the loans: I wouldn’t want to have that junk on my books either
4. the investors bought the loans without researching what it was that they were buying
5. when the loans went into default, the government paid the investors off

There are a couple of failures here.  The investors did not do their due diligence.  The government had no right to put taxpayer money on the line to give loans to people that could not afford the loan payments.

Saying that the bankers caused this mess is like saying that someone facing a firing squad should not be standing front of all those guns.  This mess was completely avoidable.  Just make sure that the demented old folks running this country keep us safe. It is not the government’s job to make your life better; it is their job to make sure you have the freedom to do so for yourself.

Poor Sen. Ben Nelson

I think that it is deplorable that the people of Nebraska are so upset with Sen. Nelson.  This guy sold his own soul to bring a huge boon to his native state.  No other state senator was able to secure such an overwhelming and far-reaching boon for their state. 

Under the “Cornhusker Kickback,” the federal government will pay all of Nebraska’s new Medicaid costs forever.  The short-term (10-year) benefit of the Nebraska exemption is expected to be only 100 million dollars.  That does not really even begin to tell the real story here though.  How could Sen. Nelson get so much less than Sen. Landrieu's 300 million for Louisiana?  There are really two reasons that this is deal is insanely better.

First, the agreement is forever.  That is a long time, it is not 10 years.  Give the time-value of money, due to expected inflation this number does not even hold true for the 10 years the estimate covers.  When was the last time the government UNDER-estimated any budgetary number?

Second, given the hold on benefits for the first 4 years that were necessary to put in place so the the bill would come-in at a figure that politicians think is reasonable, you can inflate the projection by 60% for the second 10 years right off the bat.  10 million over 6 years = 1.66mil/yr * 10yrs = 17million (roughly) and this does not include inflation or any incorrect estimation.

Hold onto your hat, it gets even better.  Sen Nelson has now asked for the Nebraska exemption to be removed.  In his letter to the Senate, Sen. Nelson wrote:

I believe I have been clear that my intentions during all stages of negotiations were not that the State of Nebraska be given a special deal, but rather that all states be given the same tools to address an unfunded federal mandate. To remove any attempts at continued distortion or miscommunication on this point, however, I ask that the Nebraska Medicaid exemption be removed and that all states receive equal treatment under the Medicaid expansion.

This poor man did his best to get a huge break for his constituency, then found that his constituency was against it, asked that it be repealed and they are likely to oust him no matter how you work the polls: Heineman 61%, Nelson 30%, and 4% "other." Less than 20% of Nebraskans polled approve of the deal. Even since Nelson has turned his back on the deal he worked so hard for, the poll shows: Heineman 47%, Nelson 37%, plus 10% "other." On the positive side for Sen. Nelson, he won't be on the ballot again until 2012. At that point, most insiders believe that the voters will have forgotten this issue altogether.

I find it very amusing that the political hierarchy can be so very out-of-step with its constituency.  Trust me, this Nelson guy is not alone.

Evil Bankers 1

Are bankers inherently evil?  Shakespeare says, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be."  Does following or not following this advice make someone evil?  That is an answer I am not capable of giving.

I have met some remarkable people in my life and many have left indellible marks on my choice of lifestyle.  When I was 13 years old, I was given a peice of advice that has stayed with me in the many years that have follow.  He said that if someone asked you for money, you should not look at it as a loan that has a time limit, but rather a gift.  If you are willing to part with the money, you should not count on getting it back.  Should the money return to you, consider it a gift.  If you cannot part with money on these terms, then you should not part with your money at all. 

Bankers certainly cannot part with money on anything nearing the terms outlined above.  The reason is that they are building a business on the difference between the have and the have-nots.  In thier model, the have-nots need the bank's service to make housing, transportation (cars), and other high-cost items more affordable.  In the banker's minds, they are merely providing a service in giving the have-nots the means to live life more comfortably in the here-and-now.  They provide financing (lending) to people so that they can buy things immediately that they would otherwise have to wait to buy.  This process does not make items more affordable, in fact, it makes them less affordable.  By charging interest "borrowing fee" on the loans made to these items, the banks can generate an income from the lent monies.

This process has been in place for hundreds of years.  And I personally do not see the harm in it.  bankers give out mony and expect both the money lent as well as a nominal fee back in return.  This fee is adjusted given the likelyhood that the borrower will pay back the money according to the schedule agreed upon.  Pretty evil with someone actually holds you to the promises you make.

Inmates can vote!!!

If you had asked me just one month ago if inmates could vote, I would likely have been able to articulate a HECK NO through my riotous laughter.  Boy would the joke have been on me.  Any logic at all would dictate that someone whom has made an error in judgment significant enough to have their right to liberty removed would likewise not be allowed to effect something as significant as an election.  As I have come to understand, logic seldom plays a part in the affairs of our government.


For reasons beyond my own feeble understanding, only those inmates convicted of a felony are barred from the voting booth and even then, only in 48 of our 50 states.  You read that last sentence correctly, both Vermont and Maine allow convicted felons to vote.  Do not think that I denigrate these two states too harshly, I have a special fondness for both.  I feel that to be fair to these two, I should also point out that the majority of the remaining states only deprive certain felons of the vote.  Should you commit a crime that is not deemed heinous enough, you can still vote.  Thank God that each state has a legislative branch that is willing to take the time to designate which felonies are despicable enough to warrant the removal of the right to vote.  Where do these guys find the time to vote on this junk?  I used to harbor the illusion that serving in public office was an important and time-consuming job.  That bubble has been good and surely burst.

For illustration purposes, lets suppose that a republican were to move to Vermont (an easily identifiable bastion of liberals) and kill 10 democrats.  This felon would have the right to vote and their vote would count 10 times more than it did before.  I don't believe the death penalty applies there, so for the rest of their life their vote will count multiple times, not limited to 10 given that the persons they killed would likely have had offspring and raised them with an inherent bent to their own views.

The above example is extreme in the utmost, but so is the example given in the 2006 article Why Can't Felons Vote? by Reynolds Holding.  He uses the case of a woman that "floated" (post-dated) several checks and then lost her job.  "By the time she got a new job several years later, the checks had bounced."  This crime is a felony and as such she was prevented from voting as a result of her sentencing.  Mr. Holding is upset that she cannot vote.  And I would be 100% for allowing her to vote... had she NOT COMMITTED A FELONY! 

I could rant for an hour about personal responsibility, but I have learned that either you understand the concept already, or you just don't care.

This whole issue is only now on my radar due to the ruling by a federal appeals court on Tue. 01/05/10 that concluded that Washington state's justice system is "infected" with racial discrimination and therefore the ban violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  I am in perfect agreement with Secretary of State Sam Reed in his statement that "If they need to deal with the law and justice system, deal with that,".  Allowing felons to vote is not a cure for a corrupt judicial system.

Granted, the elections have long since been affected by criminals that number too many to count (organized crime), including but in no way limited to the actual elected officials themselves.  But I would like to think that those persons who have been convicted of being a menace to society should not be included in setting its direction.