A House Divided Cannot Stand

I read a good amount of science fiction. One of the saddest books was one called "Childhood's End" by Arthur Clarke. Written in 1953, it was a statement built on the changing society from the early to middle 20th century. It discussed a generation gap in brutal terms. In the story mysterious Overlords begin to systematically destroy human civilization by removing or negating all vestiges of culture. Indeed, some parts of culture become toxic in order to dissuade subsequent generations from honoring. 

The saddest part of this story is the end, where the youngest generation begin to manifest powers. In the case of what was then Cold War Europe these were written as what we would called supernatural behaviors with the youngest children being the most profoundly impacted. Eventually the children become dissociated with older generations and drift away to the unknown, disappearing one by one. 

Perhaps you see where I am going. During Clarke's time the biggest fear was nuclear war as promoted by the Soviet Union. Today it is a cultural tug of war that resembles a WWE tag team death match more than a civil discourse as envisioned by the Founders. But who are the Overlords? Right now it appears that Academia has been a secure nest for radicalism to hatch it's adherents. They in turn lure, intimidate and attack all opposition without facts and with the blessings of the same Academic Overlords.

As people who have worked our entire lives seeing families survive through intimidation brought about by lack of oil, too many taxes, mindless regulations, corrupt manipulations of the market, we more than anyone else should have some sort of say in what the future holds. But we are being denied that opportunity. The epithet "Okay Boomer" is every bit as dismissive and offensive as any racial, gender or religious slur. Unlike the folks out on the streets embracing anarchy, we've seen this before, but never here.

Our children are being turned against us. When you take out those that vote for socialism because they've always supported it, the majority of supporters for socialism are young. They have had it much easier than earlier generations. Many of them do not remember a time before cell phones and computers. These same groups, cossetted and protected by a trophy for everyone mentality, seem to think their words are golden. In fact so much do they believe this that even when discussing facts, they refuse because it's not on their own carefully curated sources of information.

Beyond Academia, this is an issue of limited media sources. When I worked in a newsroom 30 years ago there were reporters writing local stories or writing stories on state and national issues with a view toward how it impacts their city or town. Now those writers are gone. There are columnists-who are more often the official spox for whatever views the editorial board holds. But the straight news meant for local consumption doesn't exist outside of the Sports Pages. Instead we have glorified copy boys and girls who take a wire story from AP or Reuters or CNN or McLatchy and relabel it as their own. When you narrow the sources of news, you can more easily control it. And when you see the prevailing narrative presented, it lets you know who is controlling it.

Between Academia with a mission and Journalism with a grudge, we have seen launched an idea that freedom of speech is only okay when you agree and intimidation using violence is honorable. When you watch Republicans being threatened and assaulted outside an event, harassed at dinner, doxxed, followed home and harassed and realize the glee with which the media is showing this, it should tell you all you know about the confluence of the MSM and the Left. When you consider these things never seem to occur to Democrats, it's a tell and a wink from the media that they know who's paying them behind the scenes. 

The end of the book "Childhood's End" goes like this:

"The Overlords are eager to escape from their own evolutionary dead end by studying the Overmind, so Rodricks's information is potentially of great value to them. By radio, Rodricks describes a vast burning column ascending from the planet. As the column disappears, Rodricks experiences a profound sense of emptiness when the children have gone. Then material objects and the Earth itself begin to dissolve into transparency. Rodricks reports no fear, but a powerful sense of fulfillment. The Earth evaporates in a flash of light. Karellen looks back at the receding Solar System and gives a final salute to the human species."

I'm not suggesting this election is the end of the world. But it may be the end of our world as we know it. Some of the propositions from the Sanders' platform, blindly accepted by the DNC (although nearly a third of the DNC convention delegates opposed it.) is so economically catastrophic that our nation would be transformed and not in a good way. Add to that demands of Antifa and BLM to seize the assets of others to appease their own politics of envy and you have the basis for what could be the destruction of the union and the conversion of the USA into Venezuela. This election matters. Vote like you have a brain.

I Can't Do This Anymore

When I became a teacher, I went into the job hoping to help students learn. I envisioned a class where I would share ideas, where I would help students build their skills and develop their own dreams. I was young. I was naive, but inside any good teacher is that kernel of altruism that resonates in ways I can't explain.

I can't do this anymore. For every student I have who really wants to learn, ten others (and their parents) are using intimidation and bogus special needs demands to game the system. I'm not talking about students who legitimately need assistance-that a whole different ball game. I'm talking about parents who make claims in order to get their kid more time on tests, more help on work, fewer questions, less homework. It would be one thing if they were in regular classes, but now we are encountering them in AP courses.

I teach an AP course. It is not easy because the test itself is one of the most difficult non-math tests AP offers. As such I have to teach 25,000 of art, teach students how to categorize and define artworks in terms of other artworks. We delve into every culture from Assyria to modern Africa and beyond. I spend around two hours a night making presentations. I post these presentations online for students to review. I spent three solid weeks eliminating unnecessary reading in the very intimidating AP Art History text. I spend evenings and weekends grading or writing assessments. I try to throw in things that are fun like Kahoot reviews and activities that can help students to internalize their learning.

But what do you do when a student lets a parent schedule appointments during a part of the exam and then refuses to show up during Block the next day to make it up? I waited all during lunch. I waited after school on the half day which is the end of the semester. The student didn't show up. The student tried to show up while I was conducting portfolio reviews with my studio class. I told the student to return after school was out but never showed up. What is galling is that another student-who is texting buddies with this one-is now claiming I didn't give additional time although he turned in his work well before the end of class and was given a chance the next day to do a different prompt-but left after ten minutes. I knew I should never look at my emails on the weekend.

I am so sick of this and what is more I HAVE NO OPTIONS. Thanks to the dreadful Obama induced economy and the additional burden of a husband who despite countless resumes and interviews cannot find a job I am really at the end of my rope. I hate this election. I hate this economy. It wasn't supposed to be like this. I'm working myself to death and then get snippy emails from young AP's who seem to do nothing to help teachers and always take the students and parents side. I can't do this anymore.

I just can't.

The Obama Shutdown

 Unemployment among young people in Greece hit 55 percent last week. We're on a similar track — bloated federal bureaucracy, unsustainable social programs, unprecedented millions of Americans on the public dole and more debt to come — it might be time for the young to stop listening to the music of the pipes on their electronic devices.-John Kass, Chicago Tribune


No shutdown is good for the economy. In Kass' column he cast a justified pox on both their houses. That being said rampant and unchecked government spending doubleplusungood for the economy. Right now we have a stalemate. It seems that leadership in both parties were taken aback by the lucid and accurate statements of Senator Ted Cruz. He is making the case that many of us have wanted to hear for years now. It's upsetting applecarts in Washington and that's a good thing. That's good because we have a government made up of people who have been there for decades and who merely visit their districts. These people no more represent their constituents than Miss American represents all American women. The Founders never envisioned that anyone would want to spend a lifetime in Washington, so they didn't write in term limits. I think that the sluggish and thuggish quality of what passes for leadership in Washington begs for term limits.

"A NYT researcher managed to register at 6 a.m. on 10/1. But despite more than 40 attempts over the next 11 days was never able to log in.Her last several attempts were a blank screen."
-----on Affordable Care Act in the New York Times

As for the shutdown, like the sequester, this is an Obama construct. He has chosen why and where pain will be inflicted. And he's doing this so that average Americans develop both a fear and gratitude for what Government gives them. This is not what the Founders envisioned. The Founders saw representatives as the voices of the People. The People were the boss. Now we have elitists in both parties who want to tell us what we're going to think, say and do. And they are doing this in direct conflict with constitutional rights and provisions.  

Do you trust your healthcare to the same folks who shutdown the EBT cards this weekend?

We have had 17 shutdowns in government, the most recent being only a few days. That this has lasted so long so far demonstrates a few things. First, it demonstrates that Obama WANTS a shutdown in much the same way he wanted sequester. Jack Lew of the recent claim not to know how many had enrolled in Obamacare the first week (it was 51,000) was the speaker in this column: from Forbes. The shutdown, milked by the White House for political affect, gives ample cover for the disastrous and laughable failure of his much ballyhooed healthcare website. Given the various public examples of the unworkable nature of this program along with the reasons why it is failing which is documented in The New York Times of all places there is plenty of cause for delay. But Obama seems to be delaying on the shutdown not because of the defunding attempt, but because to inflict more problems onto the system would shut it down through natural attrition.

 “The extent of the problems is pretty enormous. At the end of our calls, people say, ‘It’s awful, just awful.’--on the Affordable Care Act, New York Times

I don't believe that Ted Cruz minds being the lightening rod for this debate. Washington insiders underestimate him. I've talked with him, he's a nice guy, but makes no mistakes in his political stance. In a way, after hired hecklers showed up at a conservative meeting, I think he's somewhat amused at the antics of the Left. Given the vitriol being spewed by the likes of the Washington Post and New York Times I have to wonder how close to a nerve he's hitting. But as Senator Cruz himself said, " 

“The nice thing is, the left will always tell you who they fear, 

and they fear you, the American people.” -@SenTedCruz

The Real War on Women

My daughter was married just last month. She’s young, educated, beautiful and in love with a wonderful guy. She’s a teacher in charge of an entire staff of dance instructors and he’s a psychologist working with autistic kids. They married because they love each other and because they want kids.

Enter Obamacare. If you want a look at the Real War on Women on Women is not the bogus media hyped limitations on abortion, but the very real economic realities that allow some women-notably the poor and ignorant who rely on public largesse-to make whatever choice they want. If they want birth control, it’s free. If they want and abortion, it’s subsidized.  If they want a baby, they can have as many as they want. And this is because they are the demographic base that the Democrat party relies on for votes.

As two young healthy working adults, you would think that health insurance wasn’t a problem, especially under the auspices of Obamacare.  But not so quick. My daughter had her own insurance through Blue Cross Blue Shield. No underwriter in the nation is covering pregnancy on private insurance policies. She can have birth control. She can have an abortion. But under the private insurance, my daughter and her husband cannot have a baby without finding about $14K to come up with to cover labor, delivery and hospital costs. So while the indigent woman from across the border gets free pregnancy, prenatal and healthcare covered, my daughter cannot.

So they sought out the insurance from both their places of work. With a $5000 deductible-meaning they pay up to that amount out of pocket. For two young people starting their careers and paying off college loans, rent, car payments,  that’s a hard row to hoe. They looked at policies from both places. Both places costs two to three hundred dollars per month. And they covered things that they do not need, but which are MANDATED by Obamacare such as mental healthcare and drug treatment. As my daughter joked “maybe if I become a crack addict they will pay for me to have a baby.” It wasn’t a happy joke, but one that told she was giving up.

And what is she giving up? She’s giving up the dream of having kids. She’s giving up the dream of having her own house of being able to find other better jobs.  While the Obama Team likes to think that as a young  women she is supporting them, she is not. And many of her friends are in similar states of despair. They know the score. They know that they are paying for those who are too irresponsible to pay their own bills. And these young people, they ones with jobs who pay their bills and who live circumspect lives are growing in their resentment of a leisure class composed of Obama voters shouting “more free stuff” at every turn.

I ran into my own clarification of how Obamacare has created a Real War on Women. Today my doctor tried to make an appointment for me for a mammogram.  As the only one working due to the economy, I can’t simply peel off and pay a couple of hundred bucks for an appointment. I was told that if I ran it through insurance my bill would be $311 and it would go against my $5000 deductible (the deductible that I never reach because we can’t afford that kind of outlay) OR if I didn’t run it through insurance my bill would be “only” $150. First of all, this sounds like a scam to me. Why would you pay more when insured and less when it’s out of pocket? Second, why is it that doctors keep ordering tests and exams without knowing how much they cost? Three years ago a mammogram was $75. The only reason for rising costs is the rising cost of liability insurance and the failure BY THE PRESIDENT to have tort reform.

Many young people are still celebrating the dubious triumph of Obama. I think they are in for a harsh reality  come January. Layoffs are on the horizon and last hired is first fired. Contract workers are replacing full time employees with the self-employment taxes that entails. By the way, when you lose a contract position, as a contractor you are small business person and sometimes can’t get that nice unemployment check. Add to that the rising cost of healthcare insurance, shorter hours and the same braindead college kids who voted based on the preferences of Brad Pitt, George Clooney and  Steven Colbert are in for a very basic lesson in how our economy works.

How it works is like this: Every penalty, every fee, every tax placed on a business is passed along and paid for by the consumer. So when you make energy more costly, you drive up the cost of groceries which is a tax on everyone. And when goods and services become too costly to afford, businesses close, people become unemployed and tax revenue drops. At that point, government services have to be cut meaning  that all those feel good services suddenly cease. Then the rioting begins. As it has happened in Greece. As it has happened in France. And sadly, as I fear it will happen here. I wish I had some happy note of optimism to lay out here, but the mindless drones on the Left allowed their souls to be bought for cheap. We will all suffer for years as a result. God help us all.

Is Dean Koontz Trying to Tell Us Something?

I read quite a bit. I like polished writers that have a nice turn of phrase, that create characters with depth and humor and which demonstrate a deeper knowledge behind their writing. Rick Riordan, Tony Hillerman, Faye Kellerman, J.A. Jance, Stephen Saylor, Grisham, Neil Gaiman and more list among writers I enjoy for their writing styles. I also read a great deal of non-fiction. Since I have spent my Spring Break nursing the Grandfather of all Sinus Infections as well as reading consistently about the shenanigans going on in Washington, this particular passage struck me as almost prescient. It's from Dean Koontz ' 1994 book " Dark Rivers of the Heart." While you read this, keep in mind who was in power then and who is in power now. Oh, and before I forget, if you want another interesting political view of the world read a book titled "Gideon" by Russell Andrews. It's ten years old, so you will have to seek it out, but it was a bestseller and some libraries may still have it.

"....May I give you something to think about?" he asked again and then continued without waiting for a response."What's happened to you couldn't happen to a United States Representative or Senator."...
"...Most people are unaware of it,:" said the stranger," but for decades, politicians have exempted current and future members of the U.S. Congress from most of the laws they pass. Asset forfeiture, for one. If cops nail a senator peddling cocaine out of his Cadillac by a schoolyard, his car can't be seized the way your house was."..."
"...You might be able to prosecute him for drug dealing and get a conviction---unless his fellow politicians just censor him or expel him from Congress and, at the same time, arrange his immunity from prosecution. But you couldn't seize his assets for drug dealing of any of the other two hundred offenses for which they seize yours."...
"...Harris said, "who are you?"
Ignoring the question , the stranger went on in that soft voice: "Politicians pay no Social Security taxes. They have their own retirement fund. And they don't rob it to finance other programs, the way they drain Social Security. Their programs are safe..."
"...The stranger said, "They exempt themselves from healthcare plans they intend to force on you, so someday you'll have to wait months for things like gallbladder surgery, but they'll get the care they need on demand. Somehow we've allowed ourselves to be ruled by the greediest and most envious among us...."

Keep in mind, Koontz wrote this TEN YEARS AGO. This was after the last debacle with foisting nationalized healthcare in terms of an attempted redistribution of wealth was put to rest as the Clintons vandalized their way out of office. It is time to put this bill to rest. IT IS A BAD BILL. It is not about health care even a tiny bit. Sure, they will appease certain demographic groups with small tokens that are seized from the bulk of one sixth of our economy, but in the end this simply dissolves the middle class leaving only the ruling elite and the rest of us. And that, my friends, is what totalitarian regimes are all about. You should fear far more the velvet glove approach than you do violence because at least forced change let's you know what you are in for.

Who or What Caused the Recession?

It's an interesting question because our president is APOLOGIZING to the rest of the world, virtually claiming it was all our fault. But wait a minute, we weren't in recession until the last quarter of 2008, while the countries that were in deepest recession had been seeing the signs since late in 2007. So what gives? Furthermore, the nations in deep recession get relatively little in trade from the United States and hold very few securities that are nationally based. While Washington is donning sackcloth and ashes, bowing to heads of twelfth century nations for appeasement, it might be a little more prudent to consider this following factoid:

"...In 1983, economist James Hamilton of the University of California at San Diego showed that "all but one of the US recessions since World War Two have been preceded, typically with a lag of around three-fourths of a year, by a dramatic increase in the price of crude petroleum." The years 1946 to 2007 saw 10 dramatic spikes in the price of oil -- each of which was soon followed by recession..."

So by that reasoning, it's not the corporations that caused the economy to fail, it was the high price of crude oil. We can't drill much domestically, thanks to the green idiots who don't know a damned thing about modern drilling technology. So it has to be the brunt of the failure should be placed at the doors of those who drilled for and leveraged up the price per barrel on crude oil That, incidentally would include the Saudi Royal Family, the same ones that President Obama bowed in deference to despite over 200 years of protocol that says WE DON'T BOW TO KINGS. I have to wonder if there are wheels within wheels here. I have long suspected that the market's failure was a manipulation. I also know that one of the world's leading market manipulators is George Soros, a man who wants America to be Socialist and who funded Moveon.org. You just have to wonder who knew what when. And if they did this deliberately to destroy America and tranform it into some utopian ideal on our dime.

Lower Or Higher?

Here's an explanation of taxes and revenue.

TAXES by definition are the sums taken from individuals, businesses and corporation based on a little thing we like to call INCOME.

INCOME is what is earned through the production of products, sales of products or services.

PROFIT is what is left over after payroll and production and tax costs have been met.

You must understand those terms to understand anything else.

IF you LOWER the INCOME made by corporations, businesses and individuals through higher TAXES, you risk the shrinkage of REVENUE as the businesses lose the funding needed to expand or just maintain productivity. That in turn means that the businesses, corporations and individuals must do more work to get the same INCOME. And if they are working a close margin of INCOME to outgo, that may mean closure of factories, businesses and outright bankruptcy by entities large and small. That's not just a bad thing for the businesses, it's a bad thing for government, because less entities to tax means that the government must either LOWER their expectations or make taxes HIGHER.

A case in point would be plastic bags. The "greenness" of plastic bags is at question so some communities think it's a good idea to ban them. But let's suppose that one of the businesses that pays taxes is a plastic bag manufacturer. And in addition, let's suppose the factory employs 1000 people. When you ban the bags, you can feel all moral and superior, but that isn't going to help the 1000 people who are out of work. It's also going to make it where remaining businesses will have to take up the slack in terms of paying taxes if governments don't want to back down on the big ticket programs. This pushes more businesses into dangerous waters, leaving more people jobless and further pushing the need for taxes HIGHER. Are you getting the idea yet? In order for things to change, our GOVERNMENTS AT ALL LEVELS MUST STOP SPENDING ON UNNECESSARY PROGRAMS. There are lots of programs which are "feel-good" programs. They look nice on paper and make people happy. One example would be PBS. Don't get me wrong, I like PBS. I have even paid some although it was mostly to stop those annoying pledge drives. But if any program, service or even artwork is truly successful, then an appreciative market will pay them for what they do. But if the programming or service doesn't appeal to anyone, people won't pay and it will go away. That's what makes businesses.

The government has no business getting into business. Frankly speaking, GM would have been in much better shape had it been allowed to restructure under the bankruptcy laws and renegotiate the ridiculous union contracts. And while we are speaking of it, I wonder if pro sports are paying any attention to the economy. The default by the Hicks Sports Group is just the tip of a very nasty iceberg. How many pro athletes are making more in a month than a cop or a teacher will in a lifetime? This is pretty indicative of the screwed up priorities our culture has produced. It's the type of Entertainment Tonight Presidency that looks good on the TV, but does very little down the road.

Lower or Higher, which way do you want to go?

Neglectful Blog Owner-Looking In the Mirror

I post quite frequently at MyFoxDFW, but since the election I haven't really had the time or the heart to blog. Personally, we were going through what most of the nation has had to endure. My husband was laid off for the first time in his life. But the good news is that his good reputation and contacts in the industry made it possible for him to get a job as a sales rep. It's a tough gig-straight commission and exploring new territory, but it's doable. And I suppose that's the message I would like to send to folks who are currently dealing with this economic crisis. You may not come out of this as rich in "things" as you were before, but as the Great Depression shaped the Greatest Generation, this has the possiblity of changing the most egocentric generation and their children into Real Adults. And isn't that really what we need in this nation?

What Are You Paying In Taxes????

And remember, Team Obama wants you to pay more!

"Spendulous"-Spending the Stimulus

Spendulous-adj.-Any bill that offers more in spending than in tax relief.

"Wow, Zoe, you went all spendulous with our credit cards buying new furniture at Ikea and now we can't pay for our Yaris"

I coined it, I claim it. Spendulous. As in, isn't this new Democrat bill spendulous. There's little stimulating about it, so it really is a misnomer to call it a "stimulus" package. I think it's named that because they didn't have a more accurate adjective. So I have supplied one. Spendulous. Rhymes with pendulous as in the Sword of Damocles style debt that will be hanging over the heads of our grandkids. Use it often. Use it wisely. But most of all, use it to accurately describe the debacle which will for now and always be known as "The Obama Spendulous Bill".

Tainted Gov:Everybody Sing

Sometimes I feel I've got to
Tax away I've got to
Spend away
From the pain that you drive into the heart of me
The land we share
Seems to go nowhere
And I've lost my light
For I toss and turn I can't sleep at night

Once I ran to you (I ran)
Now I'll run from you
This tainted gov you've given
I give you all my check could give you
Take my tears and that's not nearly all
Oh...tainted gov
Tainted gov

Now I know I've got to
Run away I've got to
Get away
You don't want more high taxes from me
To make things right
You need to hold the budget tight
And you think gov is to pray
But I'm sorry I don't pray that way

Once I ran to you (I ran)
Now I'll run from you
This tainted gov you've given
I give you all my check could give you
Take my tears and that's not nearly all
Oh...tainted gov
Tainted gov

Don't touch me please
This bill has brought me to my knees
I love you though you hurt me so
Now I'm going to pack my things and go
Tainted gov, tainted gov
Tainted gov, tainted gov
Tax me baby, tainted gov
Spend it baby, tainted gov
Tainted gov
Tainted gov
Tainted gov

A Look at this Meltdown from Ground Zero

My husband was laid off.

For the first time in thirty years, he was involuntarily let go. Part of it is the bad economy, but the problems that drove this situation are many and varied. What they share at the core is greed with a capital G. First of all, he worked in a telecommunications company through that meltdown. As credit became cheap after 9/11, upper level managers and stockholders pushed for more and higher compensation. During a bullish market, you can do those things like providing country club memberships or golden parachutes. But when the economy of a company or nation is crumbling, sometimes the stockholders and managers have to take a hit. In the company where my husband worked for 22 years, the managers were busy lining their own nests and the stockholders just cashed their checks and didn't ask questions. What was happening to sales, distribution and manufacturing was quite a different story. Staffing was cut, but the same sales, manufacturing and distribution goals were in play. So less people did more work. Then they cut overtime. Then they laid off more people.

At this point, my husband changed to a manufacturer based in Obama's former backyard. It was sales working for a manufacturer that made key products for the communications industry. The dollar was undervalued in comparison to world currencies, so when the offer came to the owner and founder, he took the money and left the company in the hands of an international corporation.

The goal of the corporations was NOT to make a good product, or to offer good customer service, or to sell more. Its goal was simply to make money. And to make money at any cost is what they did. First of all, the British corporation that owned bought out all competing manufacturers. That gave them a virtual corner on their product's portion of the market. Then came the job cuts. They closed factories in Utah and Colorado. Sales forces were narrowed, but target goals remained high. Then, as manufacturing was brought into an already overburdened factory, supplies became short. Salesmen would get contracts that could not be fulfilled for weeks, sometimes months. Customers started looking for other suppliers-mostly overseas.

At this point, my husband left this job to work for a smaller sales company. But even in this situation, the men running it were far more interested in getting money out of the company than in putting time into building up a clientele and following. My husband was laid off from that job. It's been two months now. I hear all this talk about public works programs a la WPA, but seriously, where are the middle class jobs that have gone away? I hear the media and politicians complaining that Americans won't work, but I know several middle aged, middle class males who are more than willing to take ANY job. But no jobs are to be had for middle class workers. We have become extraneous. The needs of the poor and those here illegally carry far more weight with the incoming administration.

And what is worse, the left has been very vocal about bringing home the troops. Sure, I don't want any American in harms way, but if they bring home the troops and muster them out, where are these guys and gals going to work? Where are they going to live? I truly don't think this administration has all the answers. What scares me more is that they think they do.

What Would a Statesman Do?

There have been countless queries of what would Jesus, Ghandi, and other do in various ethical situations. I think in this day and age what we need more in Washington is a true "statesman" And by that I mean that we need someone who is willing to rise above the party biases and make moves towards truly creating changes in the economic environment that will benefit everyone. And that is not to say a socialist view will make the cut. In regards to the Big Three automakers, this problem is especially vexing. By allowing them to go bankrupt, the nation risks allowing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of smaller suppliers and their companies to go belly up. Most large corporations have enough hard cash and materials that they can sell their way out of bankruptcy. Not so with small manufacturers, specialty suppliers or mom and pop companies that do contract work. So it's not so easy to simply let the Big Three slide. On the other hand, it is foolish to reward bad business practices to be rewarded. The idea that CEO's, higher administration and corporate boards should still make out like bandits in spite of their failure to achieve is the antithesis of what free enterprise is about. That's the one thing that liberals don't seem to grasp-freedom allows you permission to succeed or fail on your own recognizance. It is also problematic that the domestic auto industry has been plagued by the two pronged attack of expensive union contracts and burdensome legal demands and intervention created by the government. This has almost nationalized the auto industry without papers.

So what do we do?
First, let them go bankrupt. A wise executive would be on the phone to the heads of Nissan, Honda and Toyota talking about the opportunity to buy into the American market with a set American profile. Like it or not, there are still folks who are born into Chevy or Ford families. Create the situation where Congress butts out and allows the market to work. As the value of GM, Ford and Chrysler stock dips, help these other manufacturers to see this as a chance to broaden their market with already recognizable brands. Hopefully both President Bush and PE Obama are currently doing this behind the scenes.
By allowing this bankruptcy to proceed, this would negate overpriced American union contracts that have made American cars too costly for their reliability. When Honda can get higher quality for $42 per hour per employee cost while GM stumbles with $71 per hour per employee cost then there is something wrong with the system. Let this streamline and make American auto manufacturers return to their primary status as car makers. This would also cause some overpaid top brass to move onto other lines of business. A bankrupt company can't provide golden parachutes before they pay bills, so that would solve the bloodletting that some CEO's seem to do before they leave.

There is no good way to do this. Frankly, you shouldn't prop up support for products that aren't in demand. That is what we have been doing with corn via ethanol and with cars via bailouts. While there is not a good solution, someone has to be willing to make the hard decision to allow the markets to work. There's a reason why we don't have many farriers and wheelwrights anymore-their services aren't in demand. So why should taxpayers support companies who are too bloated and overcontrolled to make the moves they need to make in order to be profitable? This won't be popular with unions. It won't be popular on Wall Street, but if this truly is a "global economy" as the pundits claim, then it's time to really let it work. and believe me, I say this as someone who has a husband who is job hunting. This isn't a good situation. But I don't see throwing more money at it as being a win-win either.

The VP Debates: The Media Chooses, You Lose

So once again our mainstream media has weighed in with what they think is best for all of us. See, we, the American public, are too stupid and ignorant and attached to our religion and guns to really know what's what. Frankly, it's a wonder we can feed ourselves. You may think I am over the top on this, but there are countless blogs, wikis and other media out there who not only think we are wrong to support conservative ideals, but that it is the result of a mental deficiency. So the Media, in their gracious benevolence, has once again chosen for us. They have decided that Joe "I'm An Average Guy" Biden won. Frankly, I don't think either candidate did a bang-up job, but the constant self-congratulatory tone of the Obama campaign has worn thin.

But more than that attitude thing, I am truly wondering if the mainstream media has given up all pretenses of impartiality. The choosing of Ifill for the moderator was questionable considering her worshipful attitude towards all things Obama. But the way the media has chosen to ignore some very worrisome and possibly disastrous economic attitudes on the part of Joe Biden, is frightening.
To quote "Average Guy at the Home Depot" Joe, "

"we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe. That would keep people in their homes, actually help banks by keeping it from going under"

Excuse me? Banks are businesses. They run on the money they make from LENDING MONEY. That's known as INTEREST. The interest is set by the government not to exceed certain rates, but there is a great deal of leeway and consumers are more than welcome to shop around for better rates. Herein lies the problems. Congress literally forced lenders to make loans available to what is termed "underserved populations." The reason Congress did this was , according to them, to get rid of the vestiges of redlining and racism in the system. Instead, what really happened is that borrowers who could not prove income, had horrible credit history or who didn't have the financial stability to afford the lower interest rates of a conventional 30 year fixed loan, were leveraged into loans that had balloons that would rise after a certain amount of time or loans that were interest only. The stated reason for these types of loans to even exist was to help subprime borrowers improve their credit and possible refinance at better rates. Instead many of these borrowers went for the maximum amount they could acquire and when the balloons went up, they couldn't pay the mortgage. Now while this is sad, it's not like this was foisted on them by jackbooted thugs in dark alleys. These were free American adults signing contracts where all of the details are laid out in copious minutae. Every payment, every escalation, every interest rate is spelled out in writing. Why is it that only the people that PAY THEIR LOANS ARE GETTING SCREWED?

In the end, it's popular now to picture CEO's with golden parachutes getting the largest portion of the bailout. And maybe to a certain extent that's true. But what's really happening is that this is keeping the lights on at the bank on the corner and making payroll for the tellers and loan officers who don't have those cushy jobs. It's easy to blame some guy who gets away with a cushy retirement, but why is it that the media doesn't want to place the blame where it really belongs, on borrowers that didn't pay for their loans.

And this is why Joe Biden and Barak Obama should scare you silly. They have no intention of shoring up the banks for longevity. They simply want them shored up for now. They intend to allow judicial fiat to rip profits from banks. That means that people who actually put money into banks could see their interest and deposits dwindle as more people discover that paying out a loan is foolish when the government will bail you out. And what about retirees who have stock in bank corporations? They will also see their stocks value erode. This isn't the first time this has happened. My parents lost $200K when the savings and loans went belly up thirty years ago. There are still a few people around who should remember that. Unfortunately, none of them are running for president this year. Watch your pockets-these guys are NOT your friends.

McCain, Not Obama, Right This Time

Courtesy of the Chicago Sun Times

August 12, 2008

STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley.cst@gmail.com

Mention Georgia a few days ago, and most of us would have thought of the state evoked so sweetly in "Georgia on My Mind," the classic tune sung by Ray Charles. Very few of us had heard of the South Ossetia province of Georgia, the nation with the misfortune to have Russia as its neighbor, until war broke out last week.

Like Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait and other unfamiliar places before, Ossetia reminds us that a small, remote corner of the globe can explode into an international crisis. One who was up to speed on Georgia and the menace it faced from Russia was veteran Sen. John McCain. He had visited the Caucasian nation three times in a dozen years. When fighting erupted, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate got on the phone to gather details and issued a statement Friday summarizing the situation, tagging Russia as the aggressor and demanding it withdraw its forces from the sovereign territory of Georgia.

It took first-term Sen. Barack Obama three tries to get it right. Headed for a vacation in Hawaii, the presumed Democratic candidate for commander in chief issued an even-handed statement, urging restraint by both sides. Later Friday, he again called for mutual restraint but blamed Russia for the fighting. The next day his language finally caught up with toughness of McCain's.

Making matters worse, Obama's staff focused on a McCain aide who had served as a lobbyist for Georgia, charging it showed McCain was "ensconced in a lobbyist culture." Obama's campaign came off as injecting petty partisan politics into an international crisis. This was not a serious response on behalf a man who aspires to be the leader of the Free World. After all, what's so bad about representing a small former Soviet republic struggling to remake itself as a Western-style democracy?

The comparison between the two candidates served to emphasize the strength McCain's experience would bring to the White House in a dangerous world.

Obama's favored approach to international issues, diplomatic talks, failed to stop Russia's invasion. Vladimir Putin, a KGB bull in the former Soviet Union, wants to restore Russia as the supreme power of Eurasia and, to that end, bully former vassal states like Georgia out of their democratic ways. The fear is that Ukraine will come in his cross hairs next.

However the world's newest war ends, America's leadership must recognize and respond to the underlying dynamic of Russia's resurgent aggressive instincts -- the power bestowed on Moscow by its oil and gas riches.

While we don't get fossil fuels from Russia, Western Europe does, and the Kremlin's energy might is fueled by the worldwide demand for oil. Developing U.S. domestic energy sources and alternatives to oil will only enhance our national security and, by reducing the world's petroleum demand, undermine the economic, political and military advantage vast oil and gas reserves give to unfriendly powers like Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

Obama calls for transforming America's economy in a decade. He's got the right idea -- long term. But short term, this nation must push for energy security on all fronts -- now. That includes new offshore drilling for oil, which Obama loathes, and new nuclear plants, which he views with aversion. We can't just wait for breakthrough technologies for wind, solar and biomass energy.

McCain has got it right in advocating new offshore drilling and a federal push to add 45 nuclear generators over the next two decades. Given the evidence of Russia's energy-fueled aggression, he should abandon his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and to extending subsidies he favors for nuclear energy to include renewables.

As Georgia burns, we need to light a fire under all the talk about energy security and start doing what it takes to make it happen.

Your Democrat Congress @ Work

Last time elections rolled around, there was the overall feeling by the voters that they needed to cast off the Republican party. They didn't do it because things were bad, but instead because the media and the DNC told the American public they were bad. In the two years since the Democrats have taken the reins of Congress, precious little has been done in the way of creating progress. Pelosi is bottling up legislation that could make domestic drilling possible which in turn would eventually lower some of the cost of living. Instead, they are promoting only alternative sources for power. Never mind that the social elite, like the Kennedys, don't want their scenic horizons marred by wind generators. Instead they want them invisible, which of course means, out west. I am not sure how they are going to reconcile PETA's designation of wind turbines as detrimental to bird life. Likewise, we cannot use nuclear because of a move twenty years ago. We can't use hydroelectric power generation because of environmental PAC's that don't like it. Instead we are supposed to use the fluctuation nuances of wind power-which dies in the afternoon during peak usage, and solar, which isn't potent enough to generate power for more than an incremental amount of what we use. As for those electric cars, still limited by battery capacity and the hybrids still use gasoline. Here's what the Democrats have done for you. They have forced corn based ethanol, using bad science from Brazil's sugarcane based ethanol. They have bought votes from key farm states via subsidies. The results are that animal feed is higher, meaning all animal products from meat to dairy are also higher. Don't kid yourself, this isn't accidental. Part of the world wide green intiative is to cut meat consumption. I have even heard lectures on the news about how we are supposed to consider how much water it takes to produce food before we buy it.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT I AM PRETTY SICK OF RICH, SELF-CENTERED IDEOLOGUES

TRYING TO RUN MY LIFE!!!!!

"...The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008....:

Full Article Here

It's Not Easy, or Cheap, Being Green

An interesting break down of what Texas would have to pay in terms of higher costs for energy if certain measures make their way through Congress is Here.
The entire study is HERE
Just keep these number in mind when you vote.

Our Demanding Society

The basic laws of economics centers around the
concept known as "supply and demand".

For example, let's say you really like Chocolate donuts, and in fact everyone you know likes Chocolate donuts. If there is only one donut shop in town (which in fact would be a local monopoly) they could charge five bucks a donut if they wanted, because there was no other way to get scrumptious, delicious, warm chocolate donuts. Now let's imagine if in this same town, a SECOND donut shop opened up. They could set their price at four dollars, which would still be high, but lower than the existing shop. The other shop would lose business and be forced to LOWER their prices in order to stay competitive.

Later on down the road, a corporate bakery makes donuts by the dozen, lowering prices because now chocolate donuts were plentiful and even though the local donuts were more expensive and probably tasted better, people were willing to take a lower quality product to save a few bucks, just so long as they had the appearance of being people who could afford chocolate donuts. The local stores would downsize or close due to the overabundance of donuts, allowing the corporate bakery to make ALL the donuts for the area. But with rising costs of retirement, insurance and disability, the corporation found itself top-heavy with overpaid management and overpaid line employees. So to save the brand at all costs, the company would fire domestic employees and move the entire factory overseas-where the managers would still get hefty incomes, but the line works were paid in dollars per week instead of dollars per day. The citizens still wanted to have those desirable chocolate donuts, but now in order to keep a profit for stockholders, the company has eliminated jobs that allow money to return to the economy.

On top of that, let's assume that Congress, concerned about the increasing girth of its citizens, decides to limit the number of yummy chocolate donuts that can be made in this country. Now imagine that a factory in Indonesia makes really cheap chocolate donuts. They could sell them for a dollar a DOZEN. That would drive out the local shops and corner the business with lower grade, cheaper quality chocolate donuts. Add that the dollars would only flow OUT of the country, creating an economic vacuum. They would outsell the American corporation, buy them out and before you know it, the only thing Americans have to show for their trouble is way too much of a belly from gorging on chocolate donuts. The only solution to save the economy is to permit chocolate donut shops to open and produce the SUPPLY that the public DEMANDS.

Now let's talk about gasoline. It comes from oil. A barrel of oil yields just about 17 gallons of gas. And that's before the spa style additives demanded by certain states. Believe it or not, we have oil resources in our national territory, but we can't access it. We can't even think about accessing it. And furthermore, if you read the web, we should feel virtuous for not allowing American countries to access American resources for the benefit of the American public. Who is running this show anyway and who is in their back pocket?

While I do think that corporate honchos are getting far too much compensation for what they actually do, and while there are probably layers of management that could disappear tomorrow without ill effects, the key issue to gas prices is SUPPLY AND DEMAND. Corporate profits have remained steady. You hear the astronomical numbers of gross income, but not the facts regarding the increased cost of everything from exploration to transport. Our economy demands oil and gas. And whether you like it or not, that's not going to change very soon. For all of the pie in the sky promises, there are few meaningful alternatives right now. You can talk electric hybrids, but there are still questions about the environmental impact of the batteries, and you can talk electric cars, but if you charge a car using conventional power sources, you are using coal or natural gas-both questionable sources in terms of the environment. We can't build nuclear, we can't harness enough wind or water power, we simply don't have a viable delivery system for biodiesel or other sources. In short, we are left stranded by the same Congressional do-gooders who claim to have our best interests at heart. Our Congress has patted themselves on the back for limiting exploration off of Florida, off of the West Coast, the East Coast and Alaska. Never mind that Castro and his friends are there pumping away to have oil that will be refined in Venezuela. There comes a point in time where you have to put aside your petty bickering to look at the greater good. What good comes of $4.00 per gallon gasoline? What good does it do other than make those who struggle even less able to survive. If you answer that it makes people use mass transit, then you are a self-centered boob. While it may allow some to consider those options, how many more will it limit in terms of their ability to hold a job, go to school or get medical services? It's time to be big boys and girls and allow limited drilling in ANWR, and on the coasts. And it's time to remind those folks in Washington, who's boss.

Who Is Making Money On High Fuel Costs?

It would seem that Hillary Clinton let the cat out of the bag by trying to get Congress to pass a fuel tax holiday. While the margin of profit that oil companies make has been pretty consistent at around 8%. Granted that's better than some companies, but much less than say, Google, which had a 25% profit. To quote from CNN-which is not usually an apologist for big oil companies-

"...Even though many oil companies are reporting record profits, many people forget just how expensive it is for energy companies to engage in the oil business.

The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount.

Google, for example, reported a net profit margin of 25% in its most recent quarter. Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?..."

CNN Money April 29, 2008

So exactly which entities have the most to lose if gas taxes are cut? Not the oil companies, their taxes are paid before it hits the pump. But local taxing umbrellas such as counties, states and even the federal government have a great deal to lose if such a tax holiday were passed. The Obama camp is trying to rally union opposition by citing the possibility of losing construction jobs. But then again, is this real shrinkage of the domestic job market, or will it give construction companies the incentive to stop hiring people who are not here legally? And when it comes to tax dollars going into Washington D.C. , Texans are only getting about seventy five cents or so for every dollar we send. So where's the rest of the money? We could go into the scenario from "It's a Wonderful Life" where the function of the savings and loan is explained, but the simply matter is that the money Texans don't get back in the form of projects is political payola for things like ethanol support subsidies, pet projects and celebrity endorsed programs which due to their cost only help the already wealthy. In short, while there's a noticeable reluctance to address the issue, the federal government, state governments and local towns and cities are reaping a bountiful harvest of sales taxes that become exponentially higher when they are based on per dollar sales. Everyone wins, except the consumer. Maybe someone should read them the story about the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg before all of our gooses are cooked.

Economic Fear And Loathing

There’s been a great deal of economic angst in the Asian markets today, which leads many investors to face tomorrow’s open of the market with fear and loathing. But rather than rail against what may happen, it would behoove us to consider WHY this has happened.

First, like it or not, the United States is largely the world’s greatest consumer. We have the extra cash lying around to purchase a multitude of products that used to be made domestically, but are now made much more cheaply overseas. This is problematic because while our desire for luxury items appears insatiable, there is a limit to all good things. Many corporations deliberately chose to move off-shore to take advantage of cheap labor. Levi’s clothing is just one example; there are more. Other nations actively seek via embargo, trade agreements and treaties to limit imports from the United States. The U.S. in turn does very little to limit the inflow of cheap merchandise. Manufacturers who are greedy or lackadaisical can and have ended up importing shoddy and even dangerous product to the American marketplace. There are those who say the implementation of embargoes would further isolate and limit the American economy. On the other hand, such measures would discourage off-shoring of manufacturing, keeping those jobs here and while growth would occur more slowly, it would become more stable.

Secondly, with the dollar being cheap, there are many many investors from Asia and Europe who have taken on the economic risk of buying American companies. I know this for a fact because I know someone in my family works for one of these companies. The parent corporation is in the U.K. And because the dollar is so cheap, they have also bought many of the competing companies in this same industry. If the domestic economy slows down, those loans to purchase these companies will come due in overseas banks causing a ripple effect to the recession. On a global scale, it is exactly what happened with sub-prime lending. You have borrowers who aren’t quite up to snuff in credit, so the lending institutions or banks charge a premium interest, but defer that for five to seven years based on the assumption or blind hope that the economy will boom and the borrower will make enough money to cover the interest and principle from profit. When the economy slows down, these borrowers are forced to either consolidate companies, take assets and sell them while shutting companies or borrow more money at higher interest,further limiting their capital to grow the company.

Finally, if you look back at the first examples, remember how many times the United Nations would slap the U.S. with one hand but hold out the other for payment of the majority of programs. How many times has the U.S. offered aid for hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, famines and such without any sort of expectation of repayment? Think how some of those nations misused donated goods by filtering them through the black markets. Or note how others asked that our military personnel enter to deliver aid under the cover of darkness so that nobody would know the source of needed assistance. Our money is so welcome, so long as we don't show our faces.

We in the United States are being blamed for a failing global economy, while the rest of the world stands around wringing their hands waiting for someone to do something.They continuously raise prices on goods that are imported to us, restrict exports from us then worry that maybe we won't buy another flat screen TV for junior. They hold this odd expectation that even under the burden of too much regulation and what amounts to a plundering of our assets as an economic anchor, that we can simply pick up the pace and keep going. Everything has a limit. And an economy can only run hot so long before correction must occur. In addition, an economy is not a thing of concrete, it is fluid and runs on money as well as emotions. The stampede to recession has been orchestrated by the media just as it has been feared by overseas investors.

The entire scene can be explained by the story of the goose who laid the golden egg. The short version is that there was a farmer who had a goose who once a day laid a perfect golden egg. The farmer used the eggs to barter for things to improve his life. But that wasn’t enough. So he demanded that the goose lay more eggs. The goose tried to comply, laying as many golden eggs as it could. But even those numbers didn’t satisfy the greedy farmer. The farmer in fact believed the goose was holding out. So the farmer killed the goose, hoping to find golden eggs inside, but all he had left was a dead goose, end of story.

The U.S. is the goose. We have produced in spite of artificial limitations placed upon us by well-meaning but misguided ideologues who would rather see this nation fall into ruin than admit that we could use our own resources rather than extending our wealth to nations that otherwise would destroy us. But when the goose is no more, what happens? Where will those tribal chieftains sell their oil if the United States simply stops buying? Who will buy those expensive electronics from Asia, if nobody can afford the power to run them? Who will buy the glitzy sports shoes, the pricey toys, the bells, buzzers and gizmos, if America’s economy crumbles? We are constantly told how we are in a “global economy” yet when we go to such silly summits as the one held for eco-celebrities in the such South Pacific, it isn’t the other nations that must limit growth, but the United States. It isn’t the other citizens of the world who have to pay the freight, it’s Americans. And let me remind you, that for all the griping about American workers, we are still the most productive in the world-bar none. So when I hear that investors around the world are concerned about our economy, I rejoice, because maybe, just maybe they will get a clue that by cutting us off, they are slitting their own throats.