http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091031/ap_on_bi_ge/us_stimulus_jobs_40

So let me get this straight:

650,000 jobs were “saved or created” in the stimulus package. Even if you assume those numbers are accurate (ha… stop laughing). The stimulus bill was $787 billion.

I wasn’t a math major, but 787,000,000,000 divided by 650,000 is about $1,210,769 per job “saved or created.” So if the average wage in America is around $40,000 (45K for men, 35K for women), the annual cost for the those 650,000 people would be about $26 billion.

So why didn’t we just let them get fired, and put them all on welfare for the next 30 years (yes, that’s 787 billion divided by the annual 26 billion)? I know. I know. That doesn’t include the interest savings of paying that out over 30 years, but let’s assume we provide a COLA (cost of living adjustment) that balances that out. I know. I know. COLAs aren’t guaranteed anymore. Of course, if you don’t get a COLA, you’ll get a $250 check instead. Because, gee, we wouldn’t want you to have to go without a raise now would we?

If we were to ask those 650,000 people which they would have preferred, which do you think they would want? Their job? Or early retirement with full pay for the next 30 years?

Once again, the government does things so inefficiently.

So the question of fairness looms…

Is it fair that with respect to Iran, President Obama is willing, without preconditions, to meet…

But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadineja, without exception, won’t allow his people to Tweet.

Power to the Tweeters… May their revolution bring about “change we can believe in.”

I have read a few articles recently about the ’30s and the current economic landscape that spoke about the government using a “crisis” as a tool to shove all the government we can’t stand down our throats.  Consider us the sick children and the government in the role of grandma and it’s programs are castor oil.  And lately I have noticed a disturbing trend in our elected and appointed officials:

“Never waste a good crisis” – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking to the European Parliment in Brussels

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste” -chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, speaking to a group of WSJ reporters

“Now is the time to act boldly and wisely, to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity” -President Obama, in his State of the Union address.

Now I’m not one to argue the point with such distinguished luminaries; when your back is to the proverbial wall it tends to focus your efforts on what must be done to solve the problem.  In that regard a crisis is an opportunity to chart a new path.   But it’s the new path that I fear the most from this group.

So what does they mean when they suggest we shouldn’t let this opportunity of crisis pass us by?  Their words suggest that America has been bad and must get in line with the rest of the world.  Unfortunately most of the rest of the world is hurting as well, so I don’t know what grand example we are to follow there.  But since unregulated greed has been seen as the casuative factor to the crisis, how can their comments be taken as anything other than a reorganization of our government, economic, and social structure? This is troubling, and should be, as our government, economic, and social structure were created by our Founding Fathers with explicit intentions and warnings about allowing the government to do such things.

It sounds of paranoia and hyperbole to say that the country’s foundations are in jeopardy here and yet, what other interpretation can one have to such sentiments?  No one is calling for a “tweaking of the system” that we have in place, or better yet, riding out the inevitable waves caused by our many varied boats.  Government is being cast as the Savior here.  As Obama said in his Inaugural Speech: “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works”.  Unfortunately a “working” government IS bigger government and will be more in control of our lives because it simply knows no other way.  History teaches us no other lessons.  And to assume that we have reached a point in human history where these truths no longer hold is the inevitable folly of youthful thinking.  Globalization and free thought has only increased the pace at which we believe that we are some how different or better than our ancestors at spotting tyranny and oppression before it’s too late.

Freedom under government purview is not freedom, no matter how benevolent you think that government is.  As Jefferson said: “A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes.”

- James Madison, Father of the Constitution

We respectfully point you to an article on CNN.com to which this post is a response.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/16/begala.carolina/index.html

~~~~~~~~~~~

I fully agree that the states shouldn’t take the money. Here is the concern with doing that. You’re disadvantaging your state because the feds have inappropriately stacked the deck by entering federal funds into state business.

Let’s use the following example as a “moral objection” Mr. Begala loves to hound.

Let’s assume you have a moral objection to war. You don’t believe killing people is justified under virtually any circumstances. Other countries (and individual rouge groups for that matter) don’t have such an objection. So you go around touting your moral objection to war and then BAM! – another country attacks you and your neighbors. You have guns, ships, tanks, nuclear warheads, whatever you need to fight and defend your country just as much as the other countries. However, you don’t approve of war. You have a moral objection to violence.

So you do as Mr. Begala is daring Governor Sanford to do. You take the “high road” and don’t use your weapons. Your neighbors, have the same moral objection but use their weapons. They defend themselves and survive. You engage in unconditional talks with your enemy and seek the assistance of the UN. The UN Security Council writes 18 resolutions calling for peace that does absolutely no good and your country is taken over.

What have you accomplished? You have only gone to prove that the use of weapons is good right? That the moral objection was wrong to begin with right?

WRONG.

You’ve only shown that when the moral objection is pitted against those without the moral objection or those willing to turn a blind eye to it, you’re more likely to lose. The truth is, war would be better without weapons. But when the other side is acting outside moral boundaries, your taking of the high road may lead to your extinction.

The fact of the matter is that the moral objection was right (in this analogy, it’s not, but I digress). The weapons were destructive and the environment was destroyed in ways unimaginable. An entire generation was wiped out with the weapons and the healing process for the culture will take decades to accomplish. But, you still have your country right?

To come back to the point, these costs are not discussed by our beloved Mr. Begala. What burden are we placing on our future generations? How will the federal government pay for it? What tax will be levied on what business or individual that will pay the cost of this program? What future businesses will go out of business because we’re paying for the stimulus to prop up businesses that can’t survive a market downturn or worse, were corrupt and stole from investors, taxpayers and lenders?

If every state except South Carolina takes federal funds, SC is now disadvantaged. They have taken the high road and will suffer for it. Nevertheless, it is the high road. So out of practicality, SC must take the funds to remain competitive. What made that necessary? South Carolina? Was it their fault? No. It was Congress and President Obama that has attacked the marketplace of state competitive economies with a “necessary” interjection of funding and has made it impossible for states to take the high road.

What would happen if the states were to not get that funding? Perhaps California is a good example to turn to. We might actually cut spending. Shock of all shocks. We’re spending more than we bring in. Doesn’t it make sense to cut spending. It’s what you do at home. It’s what companies must do if they can’t get the credit. It’s what entire countries do to avert government collapse.

So I ask Mr. Begala, what are the future costs of this program? We are issuing T-Bills (everybody assumes this is how this will be financed) for the $789 billion dollars. What is the total bill you and I will be paying as taxpayers? Over 10 years, the actual cost of the bill has $744 billion in debt servicing. So what is the impact of saddling our federal budget with an additional 1.5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years? Apparently a balanced budget is no longer a moral high ground issue for the Clinton fan club (A.K.A. Obama’s appointees).

How about we have the federal government take the high road and not try to fix the marketplace. Or at a minimum, let’s hand the money to successful banks and bank executives (such as can be found in the local community banks) instead of government bureaucrats, failed banks, and the executives that created some of the mess to begin with.

Once again, government thinks they can solve the problem. They can’t control the markets – they can only change the game so that some parties win and others lose. Unfortunately, in this case, the banks and some very specific pet project participants (such as the rail from LA to Vegas that has been deemed financially unviable by private developers) will reap the benefits and the taxpayer, states’ rights, citizens’ rights, and the concept of limited government fought so valiantly by the founding fathers will pay the price.

So the final question becomes, what weapons are we as citizens willing to use against our government when they attack our economy and the free marketplace that made all of that wealth to begin with? What is the moral high ground on this one?

I am still recovering from my hanging at the Tree of Liberty this fall, but I had a couple of quick points I wanted to make this morning….

#1: http://uk.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUKTRE5125WS20090203

Barney Frank says: “As I’ve said to a couple of bankers … people really hate you and they’re starting to hate us just for hanging out with you”.

If I were in the bankers’ position I would point out to the good Congressman that, in truth, it’s just the opposite.  People are starting to hate bankers (and other businesses) for spending so much time with their hands out on Capitol Hill next to the Apex of Hate: politicians.  Birds of a feather generally flock together.  Turkeys, perhaps.

#2: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_stimulus_3

“President Barack Obama says the recession will turn into a “catastrophe” if the economic stimulus is not passed quickly.”

Forgive my naivety, but isn’t this just more of the “Politics of Fear” that Obama promised to deliver us from?  What exactly is a “catastrophe”?  15% unemployment?  30%?  $20T bailouts?  Record low approval ratings?  Loss of a little of more of that Holy Glow the People love to bask in?

Capitalism has existed since the early days of barter and trade (“I’ll give you a pretty stone for some of your mammoth meat”)….it’s not going anywhere (unless, or course, it gets systematically replaced by another form of a government enforced and regulated economic system).  Hmmm.  I think the real fear is that given a long enough time-line, the markets will correct themselves and the truth that all this government regulation is not only unnecessary, but also detrimental, would be revealed to the masses.  No more excuses for growing the Government.

There is no part of the administration of government that requires extensive information and a thorough knowledge of the principles of political economy, so much as the business of taxation. The man who understands those principles best will be least likely to resort to oppressive expedients, or sacrifice any particular class of citizens to the procurement of revenue. It might be demonstrated that the most productive system of finance will always be the least burdensome.
Alexander Hamilton

Many sighed in relief when Hillary Clinton bowed out of the Presidential 08 race. I am of the opinion though that if she won her parties nomination we would be looking at a McCain Presidency for sure, for many Conservative Dem’s and Indy’s would have jumped ship at the mere thought of this individual running the country.

Let’s be real, she time and again barbecued Obama’s ass in molasses when chasing her parties nomination, and brought all her political power to bear to push him down or out to no avail(something the McCain folks should have picked up on and learned from). Both sides held closed door meetings trying to get the other to stand down but nothing happened until things started going sour for Clinton. She finally conceded (even though she swore to fight all the way to the convention) and asked her voters to get behind and support Obama. Next thing you know she and her porn star husband are campaigning all over the country for Obama like they were on his wagon from the start.

So as we all know Obama won and has been busy preparing to take the reigns in January. He has been appointing Clinton Era folks left and right to various posts in his administration. I guess that’s the “Change” he had in mind for this nation. Then it happened, and I could not believe it at first. He nominates Hillary to be his Secretary of State.

This person tore him to pieces during his run for President and really called into questioned everything one could think of. Rush said it best as to why he might have done it but I still could not believe he would appoint somebody who was so extremely critical of him and had no faith in his ability.             

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Dec01/0,4670,TVLimbaughHillaryClinton,00.html         

While expressing my disbelief and disgust to Tom Paine he pointed out that more than likely this was already worked out and was one of the carrots wagged in front of her face if she backed out of the election race. And as I thought back to the race and recalled the actions of both him and Hillary’s camps in the time leading up to the DNC I think Tom was right. Shortly after Obama really started hitting the bricks with McCain Hillary rolled over and jumped on his wagon. Not only that he got a two-fer. Both Clinton’s for the price of one Cabinet Post.

I have taken the time to look into Hillary’s credentials, am not impressed and don’t see why he would pick such an individual to hold such a important post. Compare her background to the last 5 who have held the position and you might be concerned as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Secretaries_of_State_of_the_United_States

Lack of credentials and experience aside she has more skeletons in her closet than in the grounds of Forest Lawn. Obama should have NEVER picked or made any back room quid pro quo deals with her in regards to the top foreignaffairs position in the country. Poor judgement on his part to say the least, especially with all the unrest and anger that exhists throughout the world. A very poor call indeed, hopefully one that will not end in more spilled American blood.

I would hope the Senate can come to the conclusion that though she is a competent Jr Senator, she has no business being Secretary of State of the United States of America and remind Obama that his picks be in the bests interests of our country’s future and not his re-election strategy.

According to many, President George W. Bush has been a failed administration for several reasons. So indeed, the American people have spoken and “Change” is finally here. Some have complained that President-elect Obama is a bloviator who would say anything to get elected. I’m not sure that’s the case. Regardless, I do believe in government accountability and certainly believe that we should hold candidates that we entrust with public office accountable.

Investor’s Business Daily has recently posted a list of some of the promises that the President-to-be made during the campaign. (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=311212244872396) I encourage us, as the American electorate, to remind Mr. Obama of his promises and hold him accountable for them during his administration of the highest office of the land. The list is further pasted below.

Taxes

• Give a tax break to 95% of Americans.

• Restore Clinton-era tax rates on top income earners.

• “If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime. Not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes. Nothing.”

• Dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes.

• Give American businesses a $3,000 tax credit for every job they create in the U.S.

• Eliminate capital gains taxes for small business and startup companies.

• Eliminate income taxes for seniors making under $50,000.

• Expand the child and dependent care tax credit.

• Expand the earned income tax credit.

• Create a universal mortgage credit.

• Create a small business health tax credit.

• Provide a $500 “make work pay” tax credit to small businesses.

• Provide a $1,000 emergency energy rebate to families.

Energy

• Spend $15 billion a year on renewable sources of energy.

• Eliminate oil imports from the Middle East in 10 years.

• Increase fuel economy standards by 4% a year.

• Weatherize 1 million homes annually.

• Ensure that 10% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012.

Environment

• Create 5 million green jobs.

• Implement a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

• Get 1 million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015.

Labor

• Sign a fair pay restoration act, which would overturn the Supreme Court’s pay discrimination ruling.

• Sign into law an employee free choice act — aka card check — to make it easier for unions to organize.

• Make employers offer seven paid sick days per year.

• Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2009.

National security

• Remove troops from Iraq by the summer of 2010.

• Cut spending on unproven missile defense systems.

• No more homeless veterans.

• Stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq.

• Finish the fight against Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida terrorists.

Social Security

• Work in a “bipartisan way to preserve Social Security for future generations.”

• Impose a Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $250,000.

• Match 50% of retirement savings up to $1,000 for families earning less than $75,000.

Education

• Demand higher standards and more accountability from our teachers.

Spending

• Go through the budget, line by line, ending programs we don’t need and making the ones we do need work better and cost less.

• Slash earmarks.

Health care

• Lower health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year.

• Let the uninsured get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress get.

• Stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

• Spend $10 billion over five years on health care information technology.

My limited government leanings steered me clear of any chance I would vote for Senator Obama.  With statements like “Universal” this and “Universal” that and “spread the wealth around”, and that paying taxes is both “Patriotic” as well as a matter of “fairness”, it was a bad fit.  But the Cult of Personality has spoken and Obama is now “Our President” as he so eloquently promised during his victory speech.  So it is with the spirit of moving America forward that I offer my perspective on this Historic election.

The Election of Obama is the justification of everything our country was founded on and the repudiation of many of the principles that Obama himself has expressed during his campaign.  We founded this country with the promise that the opportunities would be ours’ to create and master, not the government’s to give out.  A country that became the Beacon of Liberty the world over with the promise that all were welcome, all were equal, and all had a chance to make their own way. The American Dream says that Social mobility is an expected result of the system.  Our immigration policy asked for “…your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”.  And yet we are a country still heavy with the wounds of racism and slavery; the latter of which was the clearest lapse of judgment by some of the very people who promised that “…all men are created equal”.  How important was slavery in this country?  We killed 620,000 Americans in the effort to end it while preserving our Union–a number that has yet to be matched by any other war we’ve fought in (WWII was closest with close to 420,000 Americans killed).

We have just elected by a respectable majority a man who is widely considered “black” (actually the label “African-American” truly applies here) and is, in truth, of mixed heritage…racism be damned.  He is the first generation son of an immigrant–a dubious label since his father eventually left the US to return to Kenya, but an immigrant nonetheless.  His upbringing was meager, making his rise to the top all the more of a compelling “rags-to-riches” story.  If the doubters and naysayers of modern America were right, this man never had a chance.  And yet here we are.  This election is proof of the American Dream and that it still exists for anyone who wants it.

Obama has stated on several occasions that he believes in the ideology that the poor in this country are somehow disadvantaged by outside forces they can’t control rather than their own choices and decisions and may even buy into the Marxist principle that the poor are exploited and oppressed by the rich (“the poor get poorer and the rich get richer”).  He has said that taking money from people who are successful and giving it to people who aren’t is a matter of “fairness”.  And yet his own story, even as he tells it, belies this very idea.  And if he could do it why can’t anyone?  And if they can’t do it, maybe no amount of “fairness” is going to change that situation for them.  Giving fish and feeing for a day versus teaching to fish and all that.  If he’s not an elitist, how could he not believe that others will be inspired by his example and follow it without government assistence/intervention?

Obama invoked the Founding of our country in his speech tonight.  Let’s see how well he actually understands the Founding principles going forward.

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

I could think of no worse example for nations abroad, who for the first time were trying to put free electoral procedures into effect, than that of the United States wrangling over the results of our presidential election, and even suggesting that the presidency itself could be stolen by thievery at the ballot box.
-Thomas Jefferson

At this point we are better than halfway through the all-important day that we exercise our Right as Free Men (and Women) to control our governance. There is no greater power in the world where Freedom reigns than the power to cast a vote and tell those who would lead how we feel and what we think. Much will be read into the results of our voting, and much possibly misconstrued or manipulated, but consider the alternative where a elite few make all decisions based on their personal whimsy or gain. Great Civil Rights battles have been rightly fought throughout the history of our country and, indeed the world, to establish this most basic of controls. I believe because of all that has been sacrificed, it is not something to be taken lightly or cynically ignored. Make time, make a choice, and vote, no matter what the outcome. It is in this spirit that I would like to propose two changes to the process of Election Day in this country:

1) Not releasing the result of any actual vote tally until after the last poll in the West closes.

2) Not publishing the result of Exit Polling until after the last poll in the West closes.

Both are really for the same reasons; if the goal of Election day is to make sure that all voices are heard then we are doing Western voters a huge disservice by implying that by the time they get a chance to vote that their vote “won’t matter”. While it could electrify a close race, the potential for disaffection on a seeming landslide can’t be dismissed for either the apparent winner or loser. I think one of the little discussed advantages of a secret ballot system is that not only does it protect the voter from persecution, but it also protects later voters from the results. They can remain enthusiastic about their vote and their candidate’s chances.

The excitement to know the results after so much discussion and wait is understandable, but it serves no democratic purpose to publish the information before everyone has a chance to be involved. And there are plenty of cases of incorrect or potentially fraudulent exit polling results that could be interpreted by the cynical as an attempt to manipulate the outcome.

We seem to pay lip-service to Election Reform after each major cycle has passed (usually championed most by the party that lost the election) but rarely does there seem to be enough steam by the newly annoited to actually get it done. Maybe this is just another good reason why we need a National Initiative system.

After all….

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.
-Thomas Jefferson

Though clever and certainly amusing, I find the following cartoon wholly misleading.

Halloween Democrat

I think it is clear that the current Republicans would take 50% while the leading Democrats would certainly settle for no less than 75% from these hard-working kids.