Food for Thought

Just a few quotes today.....

With guns, we are citizens.....without guns, we are subjects


"Saddam Hussein was reduced to the Unabomber — Ted Kaczynski — a nutcase hiding in the sticks. Sure, the terrorism by his supporters is frightening. Hence, its name, 'terrorism.' Killing innocent people by surprise is not called 'a thousand points of light.' But, as frightening as terrorism is, it's the weapon of losers. The minute somebody sets off a suicide bomb, you can be sure that person doesn't have 'career prospects.' And no matter how horrendous a terrorist attack is, it's still conducted by losers. Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an Air Force." - PJ O'Rourke

Chicago Style Politics Live On

Boss Obama is back to strongarming states to get what he wants. In a letter written to Gov. Jan Brewer of AZ (in response to a tv appearance by Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona), Sec. of Transportation Ray LaHood threatened to withhold stimulus funds from the state of Arizona. The reason, you ask? Sen. Kyl stated on "On This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that the stimulus was not working and that all contracts not already started should never be. Bottom line is that the Obama administration didn't like what Kyl had to say so now they are threatening to withold funds from the state as a penalty. I'm sad to say that, myself being a product of Chicago, I am surprised we haven't heard about more of these kinds of events (its how 'work' gets done in Chi-town.... just look at the Daley Empire)

Link to article ---> http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/15/nice-state-you-got-there-kyl/

How is this kind of behavior acceptable? A voice of dissent and disagreement results in threats? I thought the whole idea behind our democratic government was that of open dissent in order to have an enlightened conversation that would produce the best result for all parties involved. Apparently I have the whole concept ass-backwards.

This Bush-esque tactic is coming from the administration that marketed themselves as being everything that Bush wasn't (can I sue for false advertising?). This is a classic bait-and-switch tactic (Dr. Myers taught me that one, thanks T$). I believe this is a sign of things to come. States will be threatened and cajoled into giving the national government what they want until one day we will wake up and realize states don't exist anymore (we're already close to this already with a national drinking age, federal road funding, and national speed limits).

Let's not get too sidetracked though. The issue is that Arizona is being threatened for having a different opinion than the President. A healthy skepticism is exactly what we need when it comes to the federal government, it was us NOT being skeptical that got our national debt to the unholy level that its at now and got us into Iraq too (don't give me that 'Support the Troops' lecture, that's not even remotely the issue). Imagine everyone having the exact same opinion as the O! administration (Picture a scene from A Brave New World), we would be a socialist nation full of drones turning bolts 8 hours a day (why do you think Russians drink so much?).

Naturally, this story has taken a back seat to the Sotomayor confirmation hearing going on now as well as the "MJ was murdered" stories (and don't forget the media loves O! and refuses to report objectively about anything he does. They have given more air time to the Obama dog than this issue). So don't expect anything to come of this issue but let's see what happens next. Will this kind of thing continue to happen? (My guess: absolutely) Will AZ actually get their stimulus money? Will it come out that Kyl is having an affair with a former staffer? (Woops, wrong Republican)

And I leave you with 2 parting quotes:

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty"

"People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people"

These are from Thomas Jefferson, smart guy, huh?

I hope this isn't the beginning of the end......

Classroom Application of Obama's Policies

Here's a story I stumbled upon. I don't know where its from but I find it enlightening none-the-less:

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan."

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D!

No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

The UBS Issue

As many of you are well aware, Swiss based UBS has been a haven for wealthy Americans seeking to get away from the oppressive taxes levied on them. This may not be the case for much longer (read the details here: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910389,00.html)

I have many, many issues with the IRS but the issue here is that of a broader political problem. The US government in the form of the IRS is saying that a company based on Swiss soil must turn over records about their clients to the US government. Let's turn this around for a second..... imagine Citibank being told by the Chinese government they had to turn over records of dealings with Chinese citizens or their assets would be seized and they would no longer be allowed to do business there. Seeing the problem a bit more clearly now?

What it boils down to is that the IRS is pissed that they are missing out on taxing all the $15 billion that US citizens allegedly stashed with UBS. Well you know what IRS? These people are clearly smarter than your agents are, don't be a sore loser!

But this brings to light a bigger issue than just the IRS and their pettiness. In modern day America, people who earn more are increasingly taxed as a sort of jealousy penalty (can you tell I'm a proponent of a flat tax?). It is almost like saying "oh, you make more money than I do? Let's take some more!" This kind of tax policy is the definition of unfair. It is discrimination based on income alone. See the graph below to see a quick and dirty of what I mean:

So what our unfair tax policy leads to is exactly what the IRS is fighting today, it drives our high earners overseas to tax havens like Switzerland. The desire to save money is basic human nature (I would do the same if I had any significant amount of money). Instead of giving an insane percentage of their earning to the federal government, they take it out of the country entirely which makes the US government worse off than if they had just asked for a reasonable amount from these people in the first place. So the government pays the IRS to investigate and then the whole shitstorm gets tied up in litigation as it is now which also costs the taxpayers money. So the logical conclusion (who am I kidding, logic isn't in the government's vocabulary) would be to go to a flat tax system where everyone would agree to pay and you wouldn't have these enforcement problems (good luck getting a flat tax program passed, there are waaaayyyy too many people who would be out of a job, like every single accountant).

The entire US tax system is a disgrace and this just goes to prove my point.

Now a little more light-hearted:

Check This Out

If the O! Administration is really about transparency, then this should pass with flying colors:

http://www.readthebill.org/

Cliff Notes: We the people get 72 hours to read and express opinion on any non-emergency bill put in front of Congress.

AMAZING IDEA, maybe someday we can just vote on the bills ourselves and get rid of the middlemen.

Whoring of The Public Sector

So it just came out this morning that Steven Rattner is stepping down as Advisor to the US Treasury (aka Car Czar) (link here: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/economy/Rattner-leaving-auto-task-force_07_14-50679542.html). He took this job on February 23rd of this year after coming from Quadrangle Group (where he was one of 4 founders. The group apparently has about $2.5B invested). So, more or less, he left a position in the private financial industry where I'm sure he was making a healthy salary (and don't forget about his investments in Cerberus Capital Management) for a government posting which I'm sure resulted in a significant step down salarywise.

Apparently no one saw a problem with hiring a guy from the private financial sector to drag GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy. Generalization warning: the private financial sector (while may not being the cause of) made this economic downturn much worse than it should have been so why would we (the taxpayers) hire someone in the private financial sector for this job? I have no idea. But that is neither here nor there (that decision was made without consulting me back in February).


The issue at hand is why is Rattner stepping down days after bringing GM out of bankruptcy? There could be many reasons (and I'm speculating here). Maybe he just wanted to gain some notoriety by being 'the car czar' for a few months and leverage that in the private sector afterwards. Maybe he realized there is NO money in working for the federal government, especially with Obama's policies (except if you are a senator apparently). Maybe he rushed GM through the bankruptcy process and doesn't want to stick around to be responsible for GM going down in flames (again, which it most likely will). According to Rattner, he is leaving in order to return to private life and his family in New York City. This probably means that he will be returning to Quadrangle Group in the near future but that is just my own speculation. I'm guessing the answer to this question will come out in the near future and I will be watching the news closely for it.




So this going-on raises a few bones that I have to pick. The first being, if the Obama administration wants (more like they NEED) executive level talent like Rattner, they need to pay accordingly. You can NOT cap pay at $150,000 per year. Someone who is making 3 or 4 times that amount will not leave their cushy private sector job for a federal posting with heavy public scrutiny for less pay (someone who does make that decision should be required to undergo extensive psychological testing). If you want the best people in the country working for you, pay accordingly.





Another issue is that of private industry goons using the government as a tool of publicity. I have a feeling that not many people, apart from financial insiders, knew who Rattner was before he started working for the Treasury (I know I didn't). After working for the government for 5 months, he now enjoys top of the mind awareness and is a household name (even the best PR firms can't bring that kind of notoriety). So this guy is more or less going to make more money in the coming months because he working for the government (going along with the Obama theme, shouldn't he be taxed on the difference between his pay before working for the Treasury and after citing that his brief foray into government work is responsible for this increase in pay? Doesn't Democrat logic suck when turned on those who constantly spew it?)

That's all I've got for this morning, I may have an afternoon rant in me later on. Enjoy some satire below for the time being:

A great quote

"I would rather swallow my blood than swallow my pride"

I have no idea who said it but I wish I could claim it as my own.

A little social commentary....

VS

Like most red-blooded Americans, I watched movies and some tv this past weekend. What I noticed about what I was watching was how widespread infidelity has become in pop culture. I watched "He's Just Not That Into You" as well as a few episodes of "Californication" yesterday as part of my girlfriend's and my lazy Sunday tradition. In both plots, spouses are depicted cheating on their significant others on various occasions which begs the question, since when did it become socially acceptable to sleep with someone other than your spouse?

I really do believe that marriage has become the dating of yesteryear. It seems that many people rush into marriage seeing it more as a status symbol instead of a statement of commitment. These kinds of willy-nilly marriages show a disturbing lack of foresight by people (mostly my age) and then, eventually, lead to infidelity, divorce, or both.

So, back to the question, when did it become socially acceptable to cheat? I don't recall seeing Jason Seaver (Growing Pains) cheating on his wife or Fred Flintstone divorcing Wilma. I don't have an answer to the question but I do know that it will have an impact on my generation as well as future generations. Instead of having role models that observe the commitments they have made we have people like Paris Hilton and Gabrielle (Desperate Housewives). With this kind of trend, what kind of values do we expect our children to have?

Are you comfortable with your children growing up with shows like Desperate Housewives, Gossip Girl, and The Secret Life of the American Teenager? I'm certainly not.

PS - Reading what I wrote above, I sound like a total prude. For those of you who know me, that is the last thing I am. I just believe that marriage is a binding agreement (between ANY 2 people, I'm not a Republican, remember?) that should not be taken lightly. The movement to treat it like a passing fad pisses me off to no end.

Good Job Pelosi? Yup, I said it

For those who know me, I normally respond to anything that comes out of Nancy Pelosi's mouth with a stream of curses. I do believe that she has done more to destroy this country than all KGB agents, terrorists, and N Koreans put together but today she actually did something to redeem herself (albeit on an issue that has no purpose being in front of Congress in the first place).

What I'm talking about is this: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jackson-pelosi10-2009jul10,0,764678.story

The cliff notes version you say? Ok here goes, Rep Jackson Lee - D Texas (I thought Texas summarily executed all Democrats?) sponsored a resolution to honor the illustrious Michael Jackson on the floor of the House (honor how, I don't know but I heard the resolution itself was more-or-less a biography of his music and the money he donated to various charities). Now Pelosi has come out saying that, because of the shitstorm that MJ's life became in the last decade (I'm paraphrasing here), the House should not even vote on a resolution to honor him.

This will probably be the only time I will ever say this but good for you Nance! This marks a departure from her policy of appeasement and means that she might actually have some values and sense of purpose of her own (shocking!). The House is not a place to talk about such a topic. You want to have a moment of silence for the death of a pop icon, that's fine and dandy but let the issue die there (pun UNintended).

Now I plan on resuming my undying hatred for this woman and everything she stands for (I am quite proud of myself for admitting that I agree with her for once even though it's a meaningless issue)

Enjoying the Change You Believed In?

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words and this case is no exception. I have a feeling this eroding of our approval of our President is just the beginning. He has only been in the office for about 6 months and, according to this study, people who strongly approve of Obama have dropped about 10% already. I would not be surprised if this is just the beginning of things to come. It seems as if every new decision he makes pisses off someone new. This should not be surprising seeing that B Obama was praised by Castro on his inauguration day (he was that guy who parked nukes 90 miles off our coast, remember?)

Here's a perfect example of why his 'strongly approve' numbers are falling and will continue to do just that. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/High-speed-rail-is-about-pork_-not-transit-7941879-50228082.html. High speed rail? Really? This is the United States of America, where the car is king. Does he expect people to drop the freedom and convenience of car travel to pay more to use trains? (By the way it takes longer to get from Richmond to DC on a train than if you drove and it costs significantly more to take the train too). What this kind of decision does is effectively polarize those who generally don't give a damn about politics. If you are an average Joe who sees Obama and the government trying to get you to stop driving and take public transit everywhere, you probably won't like it. You don't want to be limited to where the public system goes (I can tell you that Amtrak doesn't get me to my parents house in Central Indiana).

I really do believe that many people voted for Obama as a concept of change and now, when he attempts to implement his policies, those same people realize the impact that this 'change' is going to have on their daily lives. Change is always easy to support when you think someone else will be doing the changing.