Our lovely administration is going to outline a new plan for keeping this recession at bay!!
The solution?
Let the government take over all the banks, and make sure that none of them collapse. After all, they're so much better at handling debt than you are!!
Everyone involved with money in Washington should be required to sit down and read Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover. Seriously. That book would help them. A lot.
Anyway- the plan would make it so that larger banks ('To big to fail' banks!!) will be required to submit stricter records to the government, and make sure they're lending to the right people.
This plan will also put stricter regulation on things like hedge funds, private equity funds, and venture capital funds. The people who manage these funds would be required to submit records about who, what, and where they're investing.
The records given to the government would be reviewed by a 'systemic risk regulator.' And who is this 'systemic risk regulator' going to be? Well, they aren't sure yet. Let's just eliminate the job before it's created, how 'bout that?
These hedge funds haven't been hurt by the recession (maybe that's why people have one?!). Apparently, that automatically makes them a bad thing. (Remember, the owners of the funds aren't 'sharing' their hard earned money! Oh no!)
From the page- I quote- " Now, a growing number of lawmakers and policy makers are worried that hedge funds have become too big a part of the financial market to operate without government monitoring."
This. Is. Not. The. Government's. Job. Period, end of story.
So why do they think it is? Why do they think that 'monitoring' the economy is their job, not ours, the people's?
I don't know. But they need to get their act together. This is not their job. It doesn't matter how much of a mess Wall Street has made of things. Wall Street will fix it- we hope- and if it doesn't, it still isn't the government's place to get involved!
That is what capitalism is. It rises, it falls, it ebbs, but it always recovers by itself.
In fact, what has caused this recession is government intervention! We would never have had this recession if they had just let the free market take it's own road. Instead, they had to get involved in every minute area of the market- monitoring jobs, finances, lending...
When will it stop? Where will it stop?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
"Rights of the Child"
I've been hearing quite a bit about this lately. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is a proposed bill, I guess I could call it, to establish the 'rights of the child'. What exactly are these 'rights'?
"It spells out the basic human rights that children everywhere have: the right to survival; to develop to the fullest; to protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; and to participate fully in family, cultural and social life. The four core principles of the Convention are non-discrimination; devotion to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of the child."
Now I want to know. If 'respect' for my views is one of the aims...and then they outlaw taking me to church (a 'harmful influence', y'know), then I decide that church is good for me...does that mean that they'll respect my views?
Probably not. I can almost guarantee they won't.
What also concerns me is this little...gem from their website:
"States parties to the Convention are obliged to develop and undertake all actions and policies in the light of the best interests of the child."
Uh-huh. And exactly who, pray tell, is going to decide what is in my 'best interests'? Uh...I'd rather not have some government employee deciding what my best interests are. Thank you, and goodbye.
You know what, here's the deal. This doesn't sound like something to establish my 'rights'. This sounds like something to take away the rights of my parents, and put them firmly in the hands of some impersonal government employee.
Let me give you a few more jewels to ponder:
"Children are neither the possessions of parents nor of the state, nor are they mere people-in-the-making; they have equal status as members of the human family."
Wow. I didn't know, y'know, that I was actually an adult. Does that mean I can drive?!
"Children's views are rarely heard and rarely considered in the political process."
Naw, really? I had no idea. You know, I think there might be a good reason...oh yeah. We don't vote. Most of us don't care.
You know, the more I contemplate this, the more it makes me mad. This is stupid. I am not an adult, hence I have no real rights. I am nothing but a child. As much as I don't like that, it's true. Childhood is about preparing for your future rights- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That is all.
"It spells out the basic human rights that children everywhere have: the right to survival; to develop to the fullest; to protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; and to participate fully in family, cultural and social life. The four core principles of the Convention are non-discrimination; devotion to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of the child."
Now I want to know. If 'respect' for my views is one of the aims...and then they outlaw taking me to church (a 'harmful influence', y'know), then I decide that church is good for me...does that mean that they'll respect my views?
Probably not. I can almost guarantee they won't.
What also concerns me is this little...gem from their website:
"States parties to the Convention are obliged to develop and undertake all actions and policies in the light of the best interests of the child."
Uh-huh. And exactly who, pray tell, is going to decide what is in my 'best interests'? Uh...I'd rather not have some government employee deciding what my best interests are. Thank you, and goodbye.
You know what, here's the deal. This doesn't sound like something to establish my 'rights'. This sounds like something to take away the rights of my parents, and put them firmly in the hands of some impersonal government employee.
Let me give you a few more jewels to ponder:
"Children are neither the possessions of parents nor of the state, nor are they mere people-in-the-making; they have equal status as members of the human family."
Wow. I didn't know, y'know, that I was actually an adult. Does that mean I can drive?!
"Children's views are rarely heard and rarely considered in the political process."
Naw, really? I had no idea. You know, I think there might be a good reason...oh yeah. We don't vote. Most of us don't care.
You know, the more I contemplate this, the more it makes me mad. This is stupid. I am not an adult, hence I have no real rights. I am nothing but a child. As much as I don't like that, it's true. Childhood is about preparing for your future rights- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That is all.
AIG, bonuses, taxes...
AIG has been giving out bonuses to their employees. With the money our so generous government gave them. Gave them. And now that same government is throwing a fit over it. Yay.
Now, they're taxing the life out of the businesses because of these bonuses. Yeah, that's smart.
Let's have an economics and business class here folks.
The government taxes the salaries AIG and like companies give to their employees. Lots of money. It doesn't, however, tax the bonuses the companies give their employees. So, AIG gives their people contractual bonuses.
Sorry, Mr. Obama, Mr. Frank, and all you other splendid budgeteers in Washington...but you gave them the money. You said- "Here, we know you're in trouble (or at least, you think you are), we know you messed up, but here ya' go. Have fun with it, and get yourselves out of trouble."
Well, now AIG is getting themselves out of trouble. Let's think about this a minute.
If AIG were not to pay the bonuses- bonuses that are contractual, and hence must be paid- then their workers would leave.
That would complicate our unemployment problem, cause AIG to lose money, and require more taxpayer funds to 'bail' them out. Again.
So...we give them money, and then don't let them do with the money what they will? What? Last I checked, a gift (even a gift from the government) came without preconditions. Maybe I'm missing something in the fine print of the technicalities of the 'stimulus' here, but it still doesn't make any sense to me.
I wish AIG all the luck in my position in their lawsuit. They're going to need it.
Now, they're taxing the life out of the businesses because of these bonuses. Yeah, that's smart.
Let's have an economics and business class here folks.
The government taxes the salaries AIG and like companies give to their employees. Lots of money. It doesn't, however, tax the bonuses the companies give their employees. So, AIG gives their people contractual bonuses.
Sorry, Mr. Obama, Mr. Frank, and all you other splendid budgeteers in Washington...but you gave them the money. You said- "Here, we know you're in trouble (or at least, you think you are), we know you messed up, but here ya' go. Have fun with it, and get yourselves out of trouble."
Well, now AIG is getting themselves out of trouble. Let's think about this a minute.
If AIG were not to pay the bonuses- bonuses that are contractual, and hence must be paid- then their workers would leave.
That would complicate our unemployment problem, cause AIG to lose money, and require more taxpayer funds to 'bail' them out. Again.
So...we give them money, and then don't let them do with the money what they will? What? Last I checked, a gift (even a gift from the government) came without preconditions. Maybe I'm missing something in the fine print of the technicalities of the 'stimulus' here, but it still doesn't make any sense to me.
I wish AIG all the luck in my position in their lawsuit. They're going to need it.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Not even the Food is Safe...
A bill is now before the house, proposing the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009. (Incidentally, the lady who proposed the bill is married to a worker for Monsanto...a huge producer of seeds and the like. Can we say 'conflict of interests' anyone?)
What the bill does is mandate the creation of a 'Food Safety Administration' (like we don't already have enough agencies!!), allow the government to control food production, and let them fine anyone who is breaking the rules...up to $1,000,000. Per offense.
The purpose of the bill- according to the people who drafted it- is "to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes."
The government would go and inspect every food production facility. Which basically, is anywhere where people grow and sell food. Which include gardens and local farmers who sell their surplus on their front lawn or in a farmer's market.
These farmers would also have to give up all records they had held, about production, taxes, and selling. Yeah. This sounds so...American. Already. I love it.
Every farm/garden must abide by "minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water."
OK first off. This bill really, really sounds like it's just trying to get rid of family farms and organic farms. Why? Well, for one thing, these farms are generally small. They don't have a lot of money, and they don't have a lot of workers. So, they won't be able to pay for the changes they'd have to do to adhere to the guidelines.
Second, they would probably still fail the guidelines on some technicality. They will then be pushed out of business by the exorbitant fines they will be hit with.
Of course, none of these fines or charges will come crashing down upon the heads of big businesses. Why? Because those same big farms have lobbyists. They have lawyers, lawyers strictly on the job of finding loopholes in the laws mandating them. They can pay to get out of trouble.
Small farms cannot.
This is such a stupid, unAmerican, anti-liberty law, it isn't even disgusting. It's gone back around the circle and borders on hilarious. It's hilariously disgusting. It's hilarious because I'm left wondering if this is really true; if the government is really trying to do this.
Then, it's disgusting because I know this really is real, that our Congress really is contemplating this.
I'm so proud of my elected officials.
What the bill does is mandate the creation of a 'Food Safety Administration' (like we don't already have enough agencies!!), allow the government to control food production, and let them fine anyone who is breaking the rules...up to $1,000,000. Per offense.
The purpose of the bill- according to the people who drafted it- is "to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes."
The government would go and inspect every food production facility. Which basically, is anywhere where people grow and sell food. Which include gardens and local farmers who sell their surplus on their front lawn or in a farmer's market.
These farmers would also have to give up all records they had held, about production, taxes, and selling. Yeah. This sounds so...American. Already. I love it.
Every farm/garden must abide by "minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water."
OK first off. This bill really, really sounds like it's just trying to get rid of family farms and organic farms. Why? Well, for one thing, these farms are generally small. They don't have a lot of money, and they don't have a lot of workers. So, they won't be able to pay for the changes they'd have to do to adhere to the guidelines.
Second, they would probably still fail the guidelines on some technicality. They will then be pushed out of business by the exorbitant fines they will be hit with.
Of course, none of these fines or charges will come crashing down upon the heads of big businesses. Why? Because those same big farms have lobbyists. They have lawyers, lawyers strictly on the job of finding loopholes in the laws mandating them. They can pay to get out of trouble.
Small farms cannot.
This is such a stupid, unAmerican, anti-liberty law, it isn't even disgusting. It's gone back around the circle and borders on hilarious. It's hilariously disgusting. It's hilarious because I'm left wondering if this is really true; if the government is really trying to do this.
Then, it's disgusting because I know this really is real, that our Congress really is contemplating this.
I'm so proud of my elected officials.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Helping Small Business
Yay! Let's all help the small businesses!! I have an idea to help them. Let's stop taxing the lives out of them. Let's stop making them pay outrageous unemployment. Let's stop making them pay Medicare, social security, and all the thousands of dollars they pay in taxes.
That'd help them a whole lot more than this. Believe me.
My dad is the owner of a small business. It was started just this last year (2008). He now owes over $10,000 in taxes. He didn't even make a profit on the business. They own all their own vehicles. And they owe the government, which thinks it owns the business.
You know how much unemployment tax the company has to pay? $28,000 a year. Yeah. $7,000 a quarter. If that isn't just disgusting, I don't know what is.
Businesses have to pay per employee for medicare and social security. Lest that sound not so bad, let me clarify. The employees themselves pay about $100 per week from their paychecks for these two costs. Then, the employer must match that money. For instance, if a business has seven employees, then the employer/company must pay $700 per week, including the other $700 that is being taxed from the employees themselves. That's $1,400 each week per business the government is raking in.
Not outraged yet? Let us continue.
The capital gains tax is a tax on the profit a company makes. But even companies that haven't made a profit have to pay the 'capital gains' tax. These are the taxes President Obama is seeking to raise. Yeah, that's a great idea!
Not.
So, in closing: what is the point of so many taxes? Apparently, the government is trying to dig itself out of a trillions-deep hole...and not getting anywhere, despite the many taxes they charge. Want to know why? They keep borrowing. And investing in stupid programs that don't do anything anyway.
Sometimes politics disgust me.
That'd help them a whole lot more than this. Believe me.
My dad is the owner of a small business. It was started just this last year (2008). He now owes over $10,000 in taxes. He didn't even make a profit on the business. They own all their own vehicles. And they owe the government, which thinks it owns the business.
You know how much unemployment tax the company has to pay? $28,000 a year. Yeah. $7,000 a quarter. If that isn't just disgusting, I don't know what is.
Businesses have to pay per employee for medicare and social security. Lest that sound not so bad, let me clarify. The employees themselves pay about $100 per week from their paychecks for these two costs. Then, the employer must match that money. For instance, if a business has seven employees, then the employer/company must pay $700 per week, including the other $700 that is being taxed from the employees themselves. That's $1,400 each week per business the government is raking in.
Not outraged yet? Let us continue.
The capital gains tax is a tax on the profit a company makes. But even companies that haven't made a profit have to pay the 'capital gains' tax. These are the taxes President Obama is seeking to raise. Yeah, that's a great idea!
Not.
So, in closing: what is the point of so many taxes? Apparently, the government is trying to dig itself out of a trillions-deep hole...and not getting anywhere, despite the many taxes they charge. Want to know why? They keep borrowing. And investing in stupid programs that don't do anything anyway.
Sometimes politics disgust me.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Stem Cell Research
Today, President Obama overturned the stem cell research ban put in place by former-President Bush. I'm not exactly sure what to say about this. Yes, I disagree with abortion. At the same time, I do not think the government should beinvolved in it, whether to legalize it or no.
The same with stem cell research. It should not be mandated by the federal government in any form. Such issues should stay in the domain they were intended under the Constitution- under the state's authority.
So, what do I have to say about this? Not much, really, beyond to say that I think the government should get their nose out of it, period.
So anyway...here's a blog, LOL
The same with stem cell research. It should not be mandated by the federal government in any form. Such issues should stay in the domain they were intended under the Constitution- under the state's authority.
So, what do I have to say about this? Not much, really, beyond to say that I think the government should get their nose out of it, period.
So anyway...here's a blog, LOL
Friday, March 6, 2009
MessO'Potamia
Monday, March 2, 2009
545 vs. 300,000,000
545 vs 300,000,000
Original Article
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.They, and they alone, have the power.They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
Original Article
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.They, and they alone, have the power.They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
FDR's Sweater Fable
THE LAST WORD
George F. Will
FDR's Sweater Fable
President Obama said he is strengthening government 'not because I believe in bigger government—I don't.' Chant: Yes you do.
Published Feb 28, 2009
From the Newsweek magazine issue dated Mar 9, 2009
On April 12, 1933, the 40th day of his presidency, Franklin Roosevelt met with reporters and recounted to them "a story that was told to me the other day." The story of what FDR called "a certain little sweater factory in a little town"—"I won't even give you the location of it"—helps to explain why the Depression lingered through the 1930s, and why it is troubling to see the Obama administration auditioning for the role of the New Deal Redux.
The factory, which FDR said was the town's only industry, normally employed about 200 people who "had always been on exceedingly good terms" with the owners. However, "it was difficult to sell enough sweaters to keep them going because there were so many sweater factories" in the nation, all of which had had only about six weeks' worth of work in the past year. The town, FDR said, was "practically starving to death." So the people decided that they all could work if they reduced everyone's wages 33 percent. That would cut the cost of their sweaters and enable them to undersell competitors. FDR said the factory's sales agent went to New York and "in 24 hours" sold "enough sweaters to keep that factory going for six months, 24 hours a day, three shifts."
A heartwarming triumph of community solidarity over adversity? Not as seen through the pince-nez of Roosevelt, who pronounced it "bad business, in all ways." Granted, "they get a good deal of cash into the community." But "they undoubtedly, by taking these orders, put two other sweater factories completely out of business." So:
"That brings up the question as to whether we can work out some kind of plan that will distribute the volume of consumption in a given industry over the whole industry. Instead of trying to concentrate production to meet that consumption into the hands of a small portion of the industry, we want to spread it out … It might be called the regulation of production or, to put it better, the prevention of foolish overproduction."
Well. With the unemployment rate then at 24.9 percent, it was perverse to diagnose the nation's problem as overproduction. But government's confidence in markets and government's confidence in itself vary inversely. FDR's Washington was awash in confidence about government's ability to skillfully engineer a proper allocation of production within each industry. Supposedly the government's knack for economic planning would soon have the nation regulated back to prosperity. This would happen by, among other things, replacing competition with cartelization, the sweater cartel being, presumably, a paradigm.
Note the zero-sum and reactionary assumptions. If one sweater factory prospers, others must fail. And if x number of sweater factories exist, x number should forever exist. Sound familiar?
One of the last acts of the Bush administration was to give loans of $13.4 billion and $4 billion to General Motors and Chrysler, respectively, to save them from formally acknowledging their condition—bankruptcy. As the terms of their bailouts require, they recently submitted plans for regaining viability. The two plans say survival requires another $22 billion, which will tide the companies over until they need to be tided over again. GM's plan assumes that by 2014 Americans will be buying 18.3 million vehicles a year—500,000 more than the record set in 2000. It also assumes that GM, which has been losing market share almost constantly since the 1970s, will continue to do so for six years.
Chrysler's plan assumes 2014 sales of no more than 13 million. Cerberus, the private-equity company that owns 80 percent of Chrysler, has scores of billions to invest but instead is seeking more government money and a lifeline from Fiat, which will not put up any of its money until American taxpayers put up even more of theirs.
Bank of America now has a market capitalization less than half the value of the public money ($45 billion) it has received since October. Citigroup, too, is worth much less than has been pumped into it since then. American International Group's projected 2008 losses (more than $100 billion) are approaching 100 times its current market value. Deemed "too big to fail," it is failing in spite of $150 billion from the government.
The stimulus legislation, a.k.a. No Social Worker Left Behind, offers financial incentives for states to enlarge their welfare rolls. This looks like the beginning of a semi-stealthy repeal of the 1996 welfare reform. So it goes, as government, with a confidence disconnected from its current performance, toils to make more and more people more and more dependent on it.
In one wee particular, congressional Democrats want to shrink government. At the behest of the teachers' unions, the $410 billion omnibus spending bill dooms a $14 million (a rounding error on GM's bailout) scholarship program that enables 1,800 children, mostly low-income and minorities, to escape the District of Columbia's catastrophic public schools. But sinking this lifeboat for the poor serves liberalism's dependency agenda: No poor child left outside the government's education plantation.
Addressing Congress last week, the president said he is strengthening government "not because I believe in bigger government—I don't." Chant it, everybody: Yes you do.
George F. Will
FDR's Sweater Fable
President Obama said he is strengthening government 'not because I believe in bigger government—I don't.' Chant: Yes you do.
Published Feb 28, 2009
From the Newsweek magazine issue dated Mar 9, 2009
On April 12, 1933, the 40th day of his presidency, Franklin Roosevelt met with reporters and recounted to them "a story that was told to me the other day." The story of what FDR called "a certain little sweater factory in a little town"—"I won't even give you the location of it"—helps to explain why the Depression lingered through the 1930s, and why it is troubling to see the Obama administration auditioning for the role of the New Deal Redux.
The factory, which FDR said was the town's only industry, normally employed about 200 people who "had always been on exceedingly good terms" with the owners. However, "it was difficult to sell enough sweaters to keep them going because there were so many sweater factories" in the nation, all of which had had only about six weeks' worth of work in the past year. The town, FDR said, was "practically starving to death." So the people decided that they all could work if they reduced everyone's wages 33 percent. That would cut the cost of their sweaters and enable them to undersell competitors. FDR said the factory's sales agent went to New York and "in 24 hours" sold "enough sweaters to keep that factory going for six months, 24 hours a day, three shifts."
A heartwarming triumph of community solidarity over adversity? Not as seen through the pince-nez of Roosevelt, who pronounced it "bad business, in all ways." Granted, "they get a good deal of cash into the community." But "they undoubtedly, by taking these orders, put two other sweater factories completely out of business." So:
"That brings up the question as to whether we can work out some kind of plan that will distribute the volume of consumption in a given industry over the whole industry. Instead of trying to concentrate production to meet that consumption into the hands of a small portion of the industry, we want to spread it out … It might be called the regulation of production or, to put it better, the prevention of foolish overproduction."
Well. With the unemployment rate then at 24.9 percent, it was perverse to diagnose the nation's problem as overproduction. But government's confidence in markets and government's confidence in itself vary inversely. FDR's Washington was awash in confidence about government's ability to skillfully engineer a proper allocation of production within each industry. Supposedly the government's knack for economic planning would soon have the nation regulated back to prosperity. This would happen by, among other things, replacing competition with cartelization, the sweater cartel being, presumably, a paradigm.
Note the zero-sum and reactionary assumptions. If one sweater factory prospers, others must fail. And if x number of sweater factories exist, x number should forever exist. Sound familiar?
One of the last acts of the Bush administration was to give loans of $13.4 billion and $4 billion to General Motors and Chrysler, respectively, to save them from formally acknowledging their condition—bankruptcy. As the terms of their bailouts require, they recently submitted plans for regaining viability. The two plans say survival requires another $22 billion, which will tide the companies over until they need to be tided over again. GM's plan assumes that by 2014 Americans will be buying 18.3 million vehicles a year—500,000 more than the record set in 2000. It also assumes that GM, which has been losing market share almost constantly since the 1970s, will continue to do so for six years.
Chrysler's plan assumes 2014 sales of no more than 13 million. Cerberus, the private-equity company that owns 80 percent of Chrysler, has scores of billions to invest but instead is seeking more government money and a lifeline from Fiat, which will not put up any of its money until American taxpayers put up even more of theirs.
Bank of America now has a market capitalization less than half the value of the public money ($45 billion) it has received since October. Citigroup, too, is worth much less than has been pumped into it since then. American International Group's projected 2008 losses (more than $100 billion) are approaching 100 times its current market value. Deemed "too big to fail," it is failing in spite of $150 billion from the government.
The stimulus legislation, a.k.a. No Social Worker Left Behind, offers financial incentives for states to enlarge their welfare rolls. This looks like the beginning of a semi-stealthy repeal of the 1996 welfare reform. So it goes, as government, with a confidence disconnected from its current performance, toils to make more and more people more and more dependent on it.
In one wee particular, congressional Democrats want to shrink government. At the behest of the teachers' unions, the $410 billion omnibus spending bill dooms a $14 million (a rounding error on GM's bailout) scholarship program that enables 1,800 children, mostly low-income and minorities, to escape the District of Columbia's catastrophic public schools. But sinking this lifeboat for the poor serves liberalism's dependency agenda: No poor child left outside the government's education plantation.
Addressing Congress last week, the president said he is strengthening government "not because I believe in bigger government—I don't." Chant it, everybody: Yes you do.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Economy Still Shrinking
Despite President Obama and the Congress's very ardent efforts to put us completely under the control of the government, the economy is still plummeting.
Now fancy that.
I can just bet that all the aides in Washington were talking together on the day the budget and stimulus plan were being put through.
"Yeah, and we're going to get this all fixed up! Why, don't y'know that the way to get us all out of debt is to spend trillions more money that we really don't have?!"
"Hmm...never would have guessed..."
"Yeah, never woulda' thunk it either, but the whole government said it, so I guess we'll all be OK!"
"You sure Bob? I mean..."
"Ah, don't worry 'bout it! Why, even though we're heading towards a second depression, we can just deny this whole mess away!"
"Yeah..."
"Because, dontcha' know that if we try democratic socialism, it'll work so much better than China's democratic socialism?!"
"Yeah..."
Uh-huh.
So, even though we're spending trillions on an ineffective 'stimulus' package, don't worry! After all, that's a very, very expensive toilet the government is throwing your tax dollars down!!
Now fancy that.
I can just bet that all the aides in Washington were talking together on the day the budget and stimulus plan were being put through.
"Yeah, and we're going to get this all fixed up! Why, don't y'know that the way to get us all out of debt is to spend trillions more money that we really don't have?!"
"Hmm...never would have guessed..."
"Yeah, never woulda' thunk it either, but the whole government said it, so I guess we'll all be OK!"
"You sure Bob? I mean..."
"Ah, don't worry 'bout it! Why, even though we're heading towards a second depression, we can just deny this whole mess away!"
"Yeah..."
"Because, dontcha' know that if we try democratic socialism, it'll work so much better than China's democratic socialism?!"
"Yeah..."
Uh-huh.
So, even though we're spending trillions on an ineffective 'stimulus' package, don't worry! After all, that's a very, very expensive toilet the government is throwing your tax dollars down!!
'Enhanced' IDs
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Radio chip coming soon to your driver's license?Homeland Security seeks next-generation REAL ID
Posted: February 28, 200912:25 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Washington state's enhanced driver's license
Privacy advocates are issuing warnings about a new radio chip plan that ultimately could provide electronic identification for every adult in the U.S. and allow agents to compile attendance lists at anti-government rallies simply by walking through the assembly.
The proposal, which has earned the support of Janet Napolitano, the newly chosen chief of the Department of Homeland Security, would embed radio chips in driver's licenses, or "enhanced driver's licenses."
"Enhanced driver's licenses give confidence that the person holding the card is the person who is supposed to be holding the card, and it's less elaborate than REAL ID," Napolitano said in a Washington Times report.
REAL ID is a plan for a federal identification system standardized across the nation that so alarmed governors many states have adopted formal plans to oppose it. However, a privacy advocate today told WND that the EDLs are many times worse.
Radio talk show host and identity chip expert Katherine Albrecht said REAL ID earned the opposition of Christians because of its resemblance to the biblical "mark of the beast," civil libertarians opposed it for its "big brother" connotations and others worried about identity theft issues with the proposed databases.
"We got rid of the REAL ID program, but [this one] is way more insidious," she said.
Enhanced driver's licenses have built-in radio chips providing an identifying number or information that can be accessed by a remote reading unit while the license is inside a wallet or purse.
The technology already had been implemented in Washington state, where it is promoted as an alternative to a passport for traveling to Canada. So far, the program is optional.
But there are other agreements already approved with Michigan, Vermont, New York and Arizona, and plans are under way in other states, including Texas, she said.
Napolitano, as Arizona's governor, was against the REAL ID, Albrecht said. Now, as chief of Homeland Security, she is suggesting the more aggressive electronic ID of Americans.
"She's coming out and saying, 'OK, OK, OK, you win. We won't do REAL ID. But what we probably ought to do is nationwide enhanced driver's licenses,'" Albrecht told WND.
"They're actually talking about issuing every person a spychip driver's license," she said. "That is the potential problem."
Imagine, she said, going to a First Amendment-protected event, a church or a mosque, or even a gun show or a peace rally.
"What happens to all those people when a government operator carrying a reading device makes a circuit of the event?" she asked. "They could download all those unique ID numbers and link them."
Participants could find themselves on "watch" lists or their attendance at protests or rallies added to their government "dossier."
She said even if such license programs are run by states, there's virtually no way that the databases would not be linked and accessible to the federal government.
Albrecht said a hint of what is on the agenda was provided recently by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The state's legislature approved a plan banning the government from using any radio chips in any ID documentation.
Schwarzenegger's veto noted he did not want to interfere with any coming or future federal programs for identifying people.
Albrecht's recent guest on her radio program was Michigan State Rep. Paul Opsommer, who said the government appears to be using a national anti-terrorism plan requiring people to document their identities as they enter the United States to promote the technology.
"The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative was … just about proving you were a citizen, not that you had to do it by any specific kind of technology," Opsommer said.
But he said, "We are close to the point now that if you don't want RFID in any of your documents that you can't leave the country or get back into it."
Opsommer said his own state sought an exception to the growing federal move toward driver's licenses with an electronic ID chip, and he was told that was "unlikely."
He was told, "They were trying to harmonize these standards with Canada and Mexico [so] it had to apply to everybody. I was absolutely dumbfounded."
WND previously has reported on such chips when hospitals used them to identify newborns, a company desired to embed immigrants with the electronic devices, a government health event showcased them and when Wal-Mart used microchips to track customers.
Albrecht, who has worked on issues involving radio chip implants, REAL-ID, "Spychips" and other devices, provided a platform for Opsommer to talk about drivers licenses that include radio transmitters that provide identity information about the carrier. She is active with the AntiChips.com and SpyChips.com websites.
Opsommer said he's been trying for several years to gain permission for his state to develop its own secure license without a radio chip.
"They have flat out refused, and their reasoning is all about the need for what they call 'facilitative technology,' which they then determined was RFID," he said during the recent interview.
According to the U.S. State Department, which regulates international travel requirements, U.S. citizens now "must show proof of identity and proof of U.S. citizenship when entering the United States from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the countries of the Caribbean by land or seas."
Documentation could be a U.S. passport or other paperwork such as birth certificates or drivers' licenses. But as of this summer, one of the options for returning residents will be an "Enhanced Driver's License."
The rules are being promulgated under the outline of the WHTI, a result of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which requires travelers to present a passport or other identity documents on entry into the U.S.
While the government has expressed confidence that no personal or critical information will be revealed through the system, it also says drivers will need special information on how to use, carry and protect the radio-embedded licenses as well as "a shielded container that will prevent anyone from reading your license."
But Albrecht, the author or co-author of six books and videos, including the award-winning "Spychips: How major corporations and government plan to track your every move with RFID," warns it goes much further.
"This must be nipped in the bud. Enhanced DL's make REAL ID look like a walk in the park," Albrecht said.
"Look, I am all in favor of only giving drivers licenses to U.S. citizens or people that are otherwise here in this country legally," Opsommer said, "But we are already doing that in Michigan. We accomplished that without an EDL, as has virtually every other state via their own state laws.
"But just because we choose to only issue our license to U.S. citizens does not mean that our licenses should somehow then fall under federal control. It's still a state document, we are just controlling who we issue them to. But under the EDL program, the Department of Homeland Security is saying that making sure illegals don't get these is not enough. Now you need the chip to prove your citizenship," he continued.
Opsommer further warned the electronic chips embedded in licenses to confirm identity are just the first step.
"Canadians are also more connected to what is going on in Britain with the expansion of the national ID program there, and have seen the mission creep that occurs with things like gun control first hand … Whatever the reason, as an example, just last week the Canadian government repatriated a database from the U.S. that contained the driver's license data of their citizens," he said.
"Someone finally woke up and realized it would not be a good idea for that to be on American soil … I think it is only logical that we as state legislators really understand how the governments of Mexico and Canada will have access to our own citizen's data. Right now it is very ambiguous and even difficult for me to get answers on as a state representative."
But Opsommer said Big Brother concerns certainly have some foundation.
"So if EDLs are the new direction for secure licenses in all states, it just reinforces what many have been telling me that DHS wants to expand this program and turn it into a wireless national ID with a different name," he said. "We'll wake up one day and without a vote in Congress DHS will just pass a rule and say something like 'starting next month you will need an EDL to fly on a plane, or to buy a gun, or whatever.'"
Radio chip coming soon to your driver's license?Homeland Security seeks next-generation REAL ID
Posted: February 28, 200912:25 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Washington state's enhanced driver's license
Privacy advocates are issuing warnings about a new radio chip plan that ultimately could provide electronic identification for every adult in the U.S. and allow agents to compile attendance lists at anti-government rallies simply by walking through the assembly.
The proposal, which has earned the support of Janet Napolitano, the newly chosen chief of the Department of Homeland Security, would embed radio chips in driver's licenses, or "enhanced driver's licenses."
"Enhanced driver's licenses give confidence that the person holding the card is the person who is supposed to be holding the card, and it's less elaborate than REAL ID," Napolitano said in a Washington Times report.
REAL ID is a plan for a federal identification system standardized across the nation that so alarmed governors many states have adopted formal plans to oppose it. However, a privacy advocate today told WND that the EDLs are many times worse.
Radio talk show host and identity chip expert Katherine Albrecht said REAL ID earned the opposition of Christians because of its resemblance to the biblical "mark of the beast," civil libertarians opposed it for its "big brother" connotations and others worried about identity theft issues with the proposed databases.
"We got rid of the REAL ID program, but [this one] is way more insidious," she said.
Enhanced driver's licenses have built-in radio chips providing an identifying number or information that can be accessed by a remote reading unit while the license is inside a wallet or purse.
The technology already had been implemented in Washington state, where it is promoted as an alternative to a passport for traveling to Canada. So far, the program is optional.
But there are other agreements already approved with Michigan, Vermont, New York and Arizona, and plans are under way in other states, including Texas, she said.
Napolitano, as Arizona's governor, was against the REAL ID, Albrecht said. Now, as chief of Homeland Security, she is suggesting the more aggressive electronic ID of Americans.
"She's coming out and saying, 'OK, OK, OK, you win. We won't do REAL ID. But what we probably ought to do is nationwide enhanced driver's licenses,'" Albrecht told WND.
"They're actually talking about issuing every person a spychip driver's license," she said. "That is the potential problem."
Imagine, she said, going to a First Amendment-protected event, a church or a mosque, or even a gun show or a peace rally.
"What happens to all those people when a government operator carrying a reading device makes a circuit of the event?" she asked. "They could download all those unique ID numbers and link them."
Participants could find themselves on "watch" lists or their attendance at protests or rallies added to their government "dossier."
She said even if such license programs are run by states, there's virtually no way that the databases would not be linked and accessible to the federal government.
Albrecht said a hint of what is on the agenda was provided recently by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The state's legislature approved a plan banning the government from using any radio chips in any ID documentation.
Schwarzenegger's veto noted he did not want to interfere with any coming or future federal programs for identifying people.
Albrecht's recent guest on her radio program was Michigan State Rep. Paul Opsommer, who said the government appears to be using a national anti-terrorism plan requiring people to document their identities as they enter the United States to promote the technology.
"The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative was … just about proving you were a citizen, not that you had to do it by any specific kind of technology," Opsommer said.
But he said, "We are close to the point now that if you don't want RFID in any of your documents that you can't leave the country or get back into it."
Opsommer said his own state sought an exception to the growing federal move toward driver's licenses with an electronic ID chip, and he was told that was "unlikely."
He was told, "They were trying to harmonize these standards with Canada and Mexico [so] it had to apply to everybody. I was absolutely dumbfounded."
WND previously has reported on such chips when hospitals used them to identify newborns, a company desired to embed immigrants with the electronic devices, a government health event showcased them and when Wal-Mart used microchips to track customers.
Albrecht, who has worked on issues involving radio chip implants, REAL-ID, "Spychips" and other devices, provided a platform for Opsommer to talk about drivers licenses that include radio transmitters that provide identity information about the carrier. She is active with the AntiChips.com and SpyChips.com websites.
Opsommer said he's been trying for several years to gain permission for his state to develop its own secure license without a radio chip.
"They have flat out refused, and their reasoning is all about the need for what they call 'facilitative technology,' which they then determined was RFID," he said during the recent interview.
According to the U.S. State Department, which regulates international travel requirements, U.S. citizens now "must show proof of identity and proof of U.S. citizenship when entering the United States from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the countries of the Caribbean by land or seas."
Documentation could be a U.S. passport or other paperwork such as birth certificates or drivers' licenses. But as of this summer, one of the options for returning residents will be an "Enhanced Driver's License."
The rules are being promulgated under the outline of the WHTI, a result of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which requires travelers to present a passport or other identity documents on entry into the U.S.
While the government has expressed confidence that no personal or critical information will be revealed through the system, it also says drivers will need special information on how to use, carry and protect the radio-embedded licenses as well as "a shielded container that will prevent anyone from reading your license."
But Albrecht, the author or co-author of six books and videos, including the award-winning "Spychips: How major corporations and government plan to track your every move with RFID," warns it goes much further.
"This must be nipped in the bud. Enhanced DL's make REAL ID look like a walk in the park," Albrecht said.
"Look, I am all in favor of only giving drivers licenses to U.S. citizens or people that are otherwise here in this country legally," Opsommer said, "But we are already doing that in Michigan. We accomplished that without an EDL, as has virtually every other state via their own state laws.
"But just because we choose to only issue our license to U.S. citizens does not mean that our licenses should somehow then fall under federal control. It's still a state document, we are just controlling who we issue them to. But under the EDL program, the Department of Homeland Security is saying that making sure illegals don't get these is not enough. Now you need the chip to prove your citizenship," he continued.
Opsommer further warned the electronic chips embedded in licenses to confirm identity are just the first step.
"Canadians are also more connected to what is going on in Britain with the expansion of the national ID program there, and have seen the mission creep that occurs with things like gun control first hand … Whatever the reason, as an example, just last week the Canadian government repatriated a database from the U.S. that contained the driver's license data of their citizens," he said.
"Someone finally woke up and realized it would not be a good idea for that to be on American soil … I think it is only logical that we as state legislators really understand how the governments of Mexico and Canada will have access to our own citizen's data. Right now it is very ambiguous and even difficult for me to get answers on as a state representative."
But Opsommer said Big Brother concerns certainly have some foundation.
"So if EDLs are the new direction for secure licenses in all states, it just reinforces what many have been telling me that DHS wants to expand this program and turn it into a wireless national ID with a different name," he said. "We'll wake up one day and without a vote in Congress DHS will just pass a rule and say something like 'starting next month you will need an EDL to fly on a plane, or to buy a gun, or whatever.'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
