You know what, why not?

Congress woman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen(R-FL), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, wants to make the dues paid to the UN voluntary. At first blush this sounded isolationists to me but upon further reflection…

"Making U.N. funding voluntary will give the U.S. control over how our contributions are spent at the U.N. Otherwise, U.S. taxpayer dollars will keep being spent on the bad, the ugly and the indefensible, and there will continue to be no incentive for the U.N. to reform," she said.

It appears that her goal is not for the U.S. to pull out of the U.N. altogether, but rather reform the institution. And how better to do that than controlling the purse strings? Currently the U.S. is responsible for almost a quarter of the U.N.'s budget, by far the largest contributor. So withholding that kind of funding would certainly get the attention of those in charge. And given the abuse, corruption and outright anti-American/Israeli sentiments, Congress woman Ros-Lehtinen's proposal would seem reasonable. So what does the state department have to say about it?:

"We just don't think this is the right way to go about it," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at a briefing Tuesday. "Rather, we would like to work within the U.N. system and will continue to try and do so on U.N. reform."

Reform from within? REALLY! Let's take a look-see at just a few of the great deeds this hollowed body has accomplished:

1. Many sternly worded letters to North Korea that accomplished absolutely nothing.
   
2. Members of the Human Rights counsel include: Libya, China and Cuba (Murderer's row huh?)
   
3. Condemnation of Israel's attack on the Gaza Flotilla (sovereign nations can't defend their borders anymore)
   
4. Israel is the only UN member not permitted to stand for election to the full range of UN bodies (a restriction not applied to such upstanding global citizens like Iran, Cuba and until recently Libya.
   

But no the Administration and the State Department are exercising smart power here. See people like Congress woman Ros-Lehtinen and me are just not clever enough to see that by allowing the U.N. to continue its naughty ways, it is somehow good for America. The one thing these folks have in common is their lack of understanding that America as unique in the world. Something other nations should aspire too be. Rather, they see a utopian one government world order based on autocracy where the elite are the only ones qualified to rule.

Hammer time!

Donald J. Boudreaux has a terrific post today, over at Cafe Hayek,  in response to Prof. Peter Morici's guest blog at CNBC. Prof. Morici's premise is that Hurricane Irene will be good for the economy. If you do nothing else today please, please, please check out Mr. Boudreaux's response. Shear genius!

Get down with your bad self Obama!

In today's column at the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson has proposed that in Obama's much anticipated 'Jobs' speech this September( where Obama is expected to put out a plan outline of a plan to the uneasy public) Robinson says the following (emphasis mine):

President Obama's promised jobs plan needs to be unrealistic and unreasonable, at the very least. If he can crank it all the way up to unimaginable, that would be even better.

Wow, I thought 'unrealistic/unreasonable' argument was the exclusive property of the Tea Party. And what is Mr. Robinson's reasoning for lowering the President to the level of the despised Tea Party? Why to get reelected of course (Snarky comments mine):

Obama can quite likely win (reelection) by convincing voters that even if they're unhappy with his economic policies, the nation is better off sticking with him — because (wait for it) - any of the Republican candidates is likely to make things much worse.

WOW! I mean - Just… WOW! New campaign slogan: "if you vote for me it won't get any worse". Sounds like a winner to me.

And what new and exciting ideas should the President convey to the unwashed masses:

Obama and his advisers know very well that this is the wrong time to cut government spending. They know that using federal money to seed big new initiatives — to upgrade the nation's crumbling infrastructure, jump-start the "clean" energy industry, retrain the unemployed so they can compete in tomorrow's job market — would give the economy a much-needed boost.

Such ambitious proposals would demonstrate that the president is willing to think big

Is it just me or do these 'new ideas' sounds a lot like the old ideas? You know the old idea where the administration flushed almost $1 trillion down the drain under the guise of stimulus. Where do you start with this nonsense? "Jump-start the (non-existent) green industry? Increase government spending? And all the other Keynesian nonsense that has failed over and over again.

So, to get back to Mr. Robinson's premise, that Obama should be unreasonable/unrealistic/unimaginable, the question is: How much more unreasonable/unrealistic/unimaginable can the man be? Should Obama be shooting for a bond rating of single A or maybe triple B?

I like Eugene Robinson but on this one he is just re-heating the Keynesian Kool-Aid again.


 

Thank you Brian, John and NavyOne

Being new to the blogging thing I have no idea what the hell I am doing. That being said, there are some very clever folks out there that do know. Today this blog has the honor of being included on John Hawkins's site Linkiest. Please visit this site daily you will not regret it. Together, John and Brian Garst pursue the webbernets for some of the best posts of the day so that you don't have to. Additionally, I would like to give a shout out to the Mellow Jihadi for his guidance and support as well - thank you all.

Just a reminder - Al Gore is still crazy

Greenhouse Gore is at it again. This time he is being interviewed by Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky on UStream. During the interview he equated the skeptisim his movement is receiving to the civil rights movement of the sixties (emphasis mine):

"I remember, again going back to my early years in the South, when the Civil Rights revolution was unfolding, there were two things that really made an impression on me," Gore said. "My generation watched Bull Connor turning the hose on civil rights demonstrators and we went, 'Whoa! How gross and evil is that?' My generation asked old people, 'Explain to me again why it is okay to discriminate against people because their skin color is different?' And when they couldn't really answer that question with integrity, the change really started."

Moral equivalence time? Bull Connor was out of his mind. And he paid dearly for his belief that blacks are inferior to whites. But now, Gaia Gore is trying to equate the hatred of blacks in the south with the 'hatred' of his beloved climate change movement. Never mind that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that man is causing any change in the climate. He continues by suggesting the way to win the day is simply ostracizing those who don't believe the way he does:

"- but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural. Then there came a time when people would say, 'Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don't go for that so don't talk that way around me. I just don't believe that.' That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won."

"We have to win the conversation on climate," Gore added.

So, rather than blinding us with science (all apologies to Thomas Dolby), Al wants his religious followers to make the debate about conscious and faith. Brilliant! This takes that pesky scientific method out of the debate and makes it a leap of faith! Well done Al well done indeed. He then suggests that there is a 'vast right wing conspirecy' crippling he and his follower's great work.

"This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money," Gore said.

This is just rich. All the research I have seen questioning the climate alarmists have concentrated on the data NOT the reputation of the scientific community as Gore suggests here. In fact it has been the other way around. Any scientist questioning Grand Pubba Gore and his nonsense gets their funding cut off and ostracized from the scientific community. Projection?

Clarity is a beautiful thing

I had dinner last night with a friend whose opinion I respect when it comes to both politics and the economy. We took our children to the local pizza parlor and as we are wont to do, we discussed Obama and his disastrous affect on the business community. Matt, my friend, is very close to the power brokers who decide what money goes where in large corporations and, more importantly, if the money goes anywhere at all. I made the comment "this uncertainty has everybody holding back." And then, Matt said - "Derek, it is not uncertainty, but rather certainty that is holding corporations back from investing in America."

Do you see the difference? My comment simply parroted the media's version of events over the last 30 months, suggesting that corporate leaders do not understand what is going on in the market. While Matt's statement - that corporate leaders are certain of what this administration is capable of and executing in the market - is the reason that has over $2 trillion dollars sitting on the sidelines.

The difference in real terms is that as long as Obama is in the White house there is nothing he can do at this point that will ever satisfy the decision makers. And the long and short of it is that these folks will look elsewhere to invest the corporate assets and that will undoubtedly be somewhere beyond the American borders.

I always love getting together with Matt. He has a singular way of putting things that clarifies my thinking.

Book Signing

Exciting news! I will be in my backyard this weekend where I will be signing any Kindle reader I find with  my new book Death at the Downs on it. You can 't miss me. I'll be right next to my daughter's lemonade stand ($0.25 US. What a steal!). Anyway, if I'm not around when you get there, just wait a bit. I'll be right back after I finish mowing the lawn and cleaning out the gutters. So just sit back and enjoy a glass of store bought lemonade while you wait! If you can't make it to Louisville, or you don't want me defacing your Kindle, you can always go to Amazon and buy it there.

Shameless! Shameless! Shameless! BAD Derek BAD, BAD BAD. Anybody got a wet newspaper?

Risk vs. Reward

The problem I have with the whole union vs. corporate argument is the level of risk vs. reward. Meaning, informed stakeholders look at investments with a certain expectation of what the dollar returned is vs. the dollar invested. When stakeholders look at various options, they will invariably maximize that investment by voting with their dollars (with all apologies to Adam Smith here).

This is what gets me all uppity when it comes to Unions. From their point of view, theirs is the only interest that matters. Whether their demands for total health care/funded pensions/early retirement etc. and the hell with the actual market realities. So as they price themselves out of the market, they become belligerent. Like two year olds who've been denied a second desert. The unions have plagued this country for too long. Don't get me wrong, they are working in their own best self interest and I respect that. The problem is, they are getting help from the liberal establishment in the form of laws that create an uneven playing field for the rest of us. Specifically, through the years they have discovered that if they fund certain lawmakers they will have a greater access to the treasury at the expense of the taxpayer. This creates higher prices and lower buying power for consumers.

What really gets my goat here is that these people believe that it is their God given right is for ME to pay more because they are unionized. Well fuck them. I run a small business and if I can find cheaper labor in Taiwan, thereby reducing my cost for my customers, then so be it. Un-American? I don't think so; in fact I think it is extremely American. It is what this country was built on. Simply put - freedom of choice. My competitors may choose to contract with union labor, and that is fine with me. If potential customers choose to pay a premium to fund the Union/liberal agenda then more power to them. Their costs will be higher than my customers' and the market will decide which the better proposition is.

Insults are the last refuge of the out-argued

Members of the black caucus are on a mission, a mission of making themselves completely irrelevant. And I must give them credit; they are doing a masterful job of it. I'm sure you've already heard the always delightful Congresswoman Maxine Waters' (D-Calif.) insightful comments concerning the tea party, where she invites them to 'go to hell'. And not to be outdone in the arena of well thought out debate, we find Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.) indicating to her constituents in Miami that the 'real enemy' is (you guessed it) the tea party again.

And these are just a few of our esteemed members of congress who hold this view of the tea party. Now, I am not one to shirk an argument, but if all the other side has is name calling and disparaging remarks there is no discussion to be had. That being said, the issue these folks have with the tea party goes much deeper that a difference of opinion. In fact it goes to the core of the liberal's power base. If the tea party succeeds in reducing the level of government involvement in everyone's lives, then the game is truly up for Waters and her ilk.

Why? Simple, she and her constituents have enjoyed unlimited access to the treasury for over forty years without having to participate fully in the democratic process. And now, here comes these dastardly tea partiers trying to upset the gravy train. Unbelievably to the liberal side of the aisle, the tea party can't be bought off. No, they do not want access to the treasury; they simply want to keep some of what they earn.

This concept of individual choice, without government interference, is both foreign and terrifying to the establishment. The tea party is bound by its principle to (re) create this country as it was intended to be. And in order for that to happen, all of those who choose to live in this country must participate fully. That means, not only exercising the right to vote, but to pay taxes as well. Currently, almost half of the county's citizens do not pay income taxes. Thus, the incentive of these people is to keep voting for people that will continue giving them something for nothing. As a closing argument against this fiscal policy, I give you a quote from the great Alixis de Tocqueville (emphasis mine):

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
— Alexis de Tocqueville

 

MUST READ

The Washington Post has an Op-Ed must read from Eric Cantor today. I could pull some selected excerpts from it but to be honest you really need to read it all. He carefully connects the dots between what is going on right now and how much of it was caused by Obama's job-killing agenda.

I think now I understand why the Democrats insist on hyperbole when trying to argue against people like Eric Cantor. It's because if he is right, which I think he is, then they, the Dems' idea of the new utopian government-run world falls apart like the house of cards that it is. They are terrified of lawmakers like him who argue against big government and freedom for the citizenry. When people are free to make their own choices without, government intervention, all the power resides with the populace and not with Pelosi, Obama, and Reid et al.

If Cantor and the GOP get what they want in congress, I suggest you put all your liberal friends on suicide watch ASAP!

More Keynesian Nonsense

E. J. Dionne has his column out today at the Post called Obama: Go big, long and global. In it he tries to make the case for yet more stimulus, but not just here at home, but also abroad. Now, I do like Mr. Dionne, I think he is independent minded and not subject to carrying the Dem's water like so many of his colleagues. That being said, he is clearly into his second glass of Keynesian Kool-Aid. But before we get into the tactics, let's talk about the strategy involved here and who Mr. Dionne is asking to get'er done (emphasis mine):

President Obama has only one option as he ponders a world economy teetering on the edge: He needs to go big, go long and go global.

Obama should not be constrained by what the Tea Party might allow subservient Republican leaders in Congress to do. He should state plainly, eloquently and in detail what he thinks needs to happen. Neither history nor the voters will be kind to him if he lets caution and political calculation get in the way.

This is amusing to me for a couple of reasons. First, the man Dionne wants to lead the world out of its economic malady is the man least qualified to do it. This nonsense about "state plainly, eloquently and in detail" was supposed to be Obama's forte. But as we have seen over the course of the last 30 months, Obama is incapable of swaying anyone to do anything with his eloquence. In fact, by most accounts, Boehner basically took him to the woodshed on the debt ceiling debate. The only thing Obama is good at is campaigning, period. Second, Dionne suggests that Obama give a detailed, ahem, plan is just plain laughable. This administration has gone out of its way to do exactly the opposite on major issue.

Okay, now the tactics. Dionne is suggesting, like all good and proper Keynesian's, that we spend more and of course tax the evil rich:

The federal government needs to come to the aid of state and local governments again; the budget cuts they are being forced to make are precisely what the economy does not need now. We must find ways of boosting spending as quickly as possible on roads, bridges, transit and other building projects, including a new program to rehabilitate the nation's dilapidated schools. And the administration needs to do far more to resolve the mortgage mess, which is holding back consumers.

Any plausible plan should include at least $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion in new revenue over a decade.

Let's see here; increase spending - check - bailout state and local governments - check - raise taxes - check and mate! Got all the Keynesian nonsense in one paragraph. Well done Mr. Dionne. By the way, were do you think the taxes will come from? The evil rich of course

[Warren] Buffett, bless him, puts the lie to the foolish idea that we need fewer tax rates, which pamper the very wealthy by taxing them at the same rates as the upper middle class. We need additional tax rates for the truly rich.

A carbon tax, partly offset by tax cuts or rebates for middle-income and poorer taxpayers, could provide additional revenue. And we need to do still more to contain health-care costs without hurting those who can't afford insurance and without voucherizing Medicare.

Buffet's proposal included higher capital gains taxes and higher rates on those making $1 million or more. Both of which will drive investment as far as possible from the country. Oh and don't forget the mysterious and ungovernable carbon tax! Tax - Tax - Tax!

Dionne is almost Krugmanesque in his argument. The amount of dollars he is suggesting for the stimulus is staggering and luckily would never get through congress. What about spending, you ask? Dionne does throw a bone suggesting that somewhere in the distant future we cut spending (Washington speak for kick the can down the road). The problem here is that there ain't no more money. Joe Biden is in China right now trying to convince them that the U.S.'s fiscal house is right as rain. Which of course the Chinese nod politely then snicker behind his back.

Both Dionne and Krugman want us to spend our way to solvency, taking the Global markets with us. Let me ask Mr. Dionne one question. Is this the way you run your household? My guess is no. The answer is to get the government the hell out of the business of social engineering. Simplify the tax code, reduce regulation and spend what you take in every year. But then if the liberals do this they would lose control of our lives and they can't have that can they?


 

Nancey Drew is in the HOUSE!

This story makes me so happy I will probably pee in my pants before I get through this blog. Jessica Maple, a 12 year old amateur sleuth solved a burglary case before the police. This from ABC News:

A 12-year-old amateur sleuth beat police at their own game by cracking the case of who ransacked her late great-grandmother's home last month.

Jessica Maple honed her detective skills at a Junior District Attorney camp in Atlanta this summer, sponsored by the Fulton County DA's office.

Hell and Yes! Not satisfied with the progress of the case, Miss Maple (not to be confused with Ms. Marple, although I can understand the confusion), decided to conduct her own investigation and actually solved the case!

After eliminating the possibility of an 'inside job', she looked at surrounding pawn shops for the stolen goods:

"They weren't thinking," she said of the robbers. "They put everything in the same shop!

The pawn shop manager told Jessica he knew one of the guys well because he frequently brought in items. He even had copies of both mens' picture identifications.

Okay, at this point you turn it over to the authority's right? Nope, this remarkable hero went and confronted the suspect!

The gutsy, crime-fighting pre-teen, accompanied by her mother, then went to one robber's home and confronted him.

"We went up to him and I asked him why he did it," Jessica said. "At first he denied it, but then he confessed." 

Are you kidding me? This wonderful young lady has more chutzpa than anybody I know. Not only does she solve the crime, she has the stones to actually get a confession from the perp. Well done Miss. Maple, well done indeed!

I have to change my underwear now because I just wet myself, excuse me.


 

 
    

Hi, I’m Joe Biden, Can we have some more money?

As God is my witness, this could be Neville Chamberlinesque in its stupidity. This from CNS News (emphasis mine):

Vice President Joe Biden told Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao today that the United States appreciates China's investment in U.S. government debt.

"We appreciate and welcome your concluding that the United States is such a safe haven because we appreciate your investment in U.S. treasuries," Biden said.

INVESTMENT IN THE U.S.? are you freaking kidding me? There is no investment here. The Chinese are simply supporting The U.S.'s ongoing transfer of wealth. It used to be from the so-called rich in the U.S. but not we are borrowing from the Chinese to fund our entitlements nonsense that we cannot, and never will be able to sustain.

This insanity is beyond the pale. Joe Biden, the Vice President of the United States of America, is thanking the (Bad word of your choice here, mine starts with an 'F') Chinese for sustaining an entitlement program that has no hope of ever being viable. Uggg, somebody help a brother out here. This idiot is cow-towing to the Chinese so that they will keep buying our bonds so the U.S. Government can continue to live beyond their means. I said it before but it bears repeating - Ugggg!


 

Who’s up for some more Keynesian Kool-Aid?

First we had White House press secretary Jay Carney telling us that unemployment checks were 'job-creators', now its Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack telling us its food stamps (from CSNSNews.com, emphasis mine).

"I should point out, when you talk about the SNAP program or the food stamp program, you have to recognize that it's also an economic stimulus," Vilsack said then. "Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity. If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It's the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times."

So according to this philosophy, we take money from the people who are producing (there by reducing their productivity or their ability to hire) give it to those who do not produce and magically, we get Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. Okay that was a bit snarky. Their real philosophy goes like this. You give unproductive people some form of money and those people but something with that money. The businesses that sell goods to the unproductive then get a 'stimulus' because they sold something and get to keep the doors open and then will subsequently hire those unproductive folks.

The problem with this is that the money the government doles out has to come from somewhere. And, oddly enough, that money comes from the businesses that are not hiring anyone because the government keeps taking their money and giving it to unproductive people. These knuckle heads never acknowledgment that for the government to spend a dollar, it has to take it from the private economy that is then supposed to create jobs. The multiplier theory only works if you believe there's a fairy passing out free dollars.

I just wish these guys would stop and listen to themselves just once.

From Union Busters to Union Thugs

In 1933, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt granted workers the right to organize into unions in Section 7(a) of the National Recovery Act, and workers rushed to join unions. But everywhere the employers put up violent resistance. In 1934, when 400,000 East Coast textile workers went on strike to win union recognition, the bosses responded with a reign of terror, provoking one of the bitterest and bloodiest strikes in U.S. labor history.

Fast forward to today and we find Union thugs doing exactly what was done to them 80 years ago. Fox WTOL Reports:

John King was shot in the arm last week when he surprised a man trying to slash the tires on the truck at his Lambertville home. The word "scab" was also scrawled on the side.

And why is this important. Well it seems Mr. King owns the largest non-union electricians shop in the Toledo area. Something that has not set well with the local electrician's union for a number of years. From the Daily Caller:

He has a long history of being on the receiving end of union-related violence, and this case doesn't appear to be any different. Before shooting him, the gunman etched the word "SCAB" into the side of King's SUV.

Labor unions have attempted, unsuccessfully, to organize King's employees, and he has been subjected to one legal nightmare after another in the process.

The only thing that has changed in 80 years is who has the billy-clubs and who has the cracked heads.



 

The Perception of leading

This from The National Journal (emphasis mine):

The White House, burned by failed efforts to work with Republicans and dismayed by a growing perception that President Obama is a weak leader, has made the decision to put more pressure – and blame – on Congress when Obama returns to Washington after his family vacation.

So rather than actually, um, lead, the brilliant advisors at the White House are going to play the blame-game. Unbelievable. Hey champ, here's an idea - LEAD!

Father of the year award is in the mail!

Alright, this is a true story, but it made me laugh. Here in Louisville last weekend, we had a huge storm rip through here and knocked the power out at the house. I am in the middle of remodeling the house so there are various appliances that are not exactly up to date. For example the gas oven/stove, circa 1974. Now, I don't know if you know this but even if the electricity is out the gas is still available. However, the stove has an electric start to ignite required to light it. Well, father of the year that I am, I decided to light the stove manually. So, being the clever guy that I am, I turned the gas on and opened the broiler drawer below the stove, and prepared to start the oven manually so I could feed my children.

At this point I heard my 9 year old daughter say from somewhere directly behind me say, "Daddy, should I be standing here?"

I turned to find her literally standing right behind me. Fire in hand and the gas on and said in my most calm voice, "Um, probably not."

To her credit, she bolted upstairs and told my son, "I think we are about to die!"

I ask you, where is the love?

Well, after the firemen left and I secured a hotel room for the week, we all had a big laugh about it.

Just kidding, I fed my children and had them in bed by 9!

Marketer-in-Chief

Not satisfied with running the R&D side of the Industry, Obama is now telling what Auto Makers what types of vehicles they can now make. This from The Hill:

"You can't just make money on SUVs and trucks," Obama said during a town hall forum in Cannon Falls, Minn. "There is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market. People are going to try to save money."

Thanks champ! Rather than letting consumers decide what they want, you are doing everything in your power to force people to drive golf carts through your never ending regulations and unattainable mileage standards. Is there any part of my life that this guy will not try to regulate?

Now hiring! Apply in, um, September

This headline is from ABC news:

President Obama: I Will Introduce Specific Plan in September to Boost Economy -- and If Congress Doesn't Act, We'll Run Against Them

Sooo let me see here. He's pivoted on jobs almost as many times as Joe Biden has put his foot in his mouth and we will have to wait until September? You mean after 30 months in office you still don't have a plan champ?

This is so transparent. Here's the set up. The President is going to 'pivot' once again to jobs with a detailed, hehe, plan that will no doubt include more stimulus/QE3/investment in green jobs/tax hikes, etc. The 'plan' will be so insane that no one in congress will vote for it. And that will free the President up to do what he does best: campaign. He will then get to go on the road to campaign for re-election the 'plan' while blaming congress for the lack of jobs. Wait and see, then I can say I told you so.

Fiction Time

(Editors note: Occasionally the blogger will feel it necessary to burden his readers with his muses)

The Easter Cake Caper

Late one winter evening I was called to the scene of one of the most baffling and heinous crimes of my career. It would seem that some person or persons of unknown origins had perpetrated what many believed to be the perfect crime.

I arrived at the home of Mrs. Mary Bakesalot at half past seven. It was already dark and the sky threatened snow. The officer in charge, Officer Idontknowalot, greeted me in the entrance hall and waved me into the kitchen.

At first glance I could find nothing amiss, that is until I came around the island in the center of the kitchen and to my horror found what remained of what was once a remarkable work of baking art. Gathering myself, I asked Officer Idontknowalot if forensics had finished dusting for prints and photographed the crime scene. He assured me that they had just left and told me I could proceed with my investigation.

The grizzly remains made my stomach turn, but I fought the wave of nausea and reluctantly stepped over the crime scene tape to take a better look.

 

It was clear that the perpetrator held little regard for ceremony. The cake was mauled almost beyond recognition. I could see that the decorative icing that adorned the edges had been painstakingly applied with care and love. However, the center of the delectable dessert showed where someone had literally dived in face first. The imprint of the perpetrator's face was unmistakable.

I stepped back to take in the crime scene and noticed a chair off to the side just outside the yellow police tape.

"Was that there when you arrived on the scene?" I asked Officer Idontknowalot.

"Yessir, nothing's been moved or touched," he assured me.


 

 
Taking a closer look I noticed frosted crumbs on the seat matching that of the departed cake. Hum, I thought, then out loud I said, "that is interesting".

"What's that sir?"

"Nothing officer," I said without looking at him, "where are the family members?"

"This way, sir," he said pointing to a doorway off the kitchen. I followed him looking back at the crime scene and wondered who could have committed such an atrocity.

* * *

Random Thought

Isn't Keynesian economics like the Mary Kay sales rep buying from herself? The more she buys from herself, the higher her commission. The same is true with the Keynesian model. The government effectively takes tax dollars and gives it to people to dig holes in the ground just to have these same people fill them up again. Then the government pays them a wage using tax dollars then tax that wage, with nothing productive as the result. No wealth is generated just an endless circle jerk of transferring tax dollars to unproductive workers then back to the government again, then back to the unproductive worker then back to … You get the point.

At this rate we'll all be in Pink Cadillacs in no time.

A train to nowheresville

And you wonder why people have no faith in government. If this project were considered in the private sector it wouldn't even make it past the 'What if stage" because it would have been laughed out of the board room. Why, because the private sector is actually driven by profit and not some socialist utopian fantasy.

Okay, a little background first. The California high-speed train idea has been knocked around since the 90's. Initially to, ahem, economically connect San Francisco to LA and Anaheim. Now the Feds have decided to grant money to the project $3.5 billion and the state is going to sell bonds worth $2.8 billion (by the way, anybody buying bonds from California should have their head examined). So there's $6.3 billion in the kitty and it's only about $6 billion short and they've not even broken ground yet!

Okay, money aside, the supporters want you to believe that this will generate an economic boom in the central valley, increasing tax revenue and so forth and so on. Sounds great right? But here is where the liberals go off the rails (sorry couldn't resist). There is a reason why no one is in the central valley. There are no jobs. And here is a great example of the difference between public sector thinking and private sector thinking. It all comes down to which side of the economic argument you believe. Supply side (read Keynesian) or Demand side (read Milton Friedman). The supply side argues that if we build it they will come. While the demand side argues that if you find an unsatisfied want or need in the market place and you build something to respond to that want or need, good things will happen.

But let's put that aside for right now. The more pressing problem is where the train will go. Right now the project will start almost 200 miles north of Los Angeles, an area noted for its lack of human population, and end almost 200 miles south of San Francisco, another equally appealing hot spot known for (you guessed it) an egregious lack of human population. And, if Amtrak is any guide at all, the wonderful people of California will not only have to pay for this debacle, but subsidize the cost of the ticket as well just to get anyone to ride the damn thing.

Right now you can fly to San Francisco from LA or Anahiem for $138 and only take 75 minutes. Using the proposed train it will take over 2 hours and you will still be 200 miles from your destination. What a deal!

So, what is the real reason liberals want this train so bad? Control. They want to control every aspect of your lives from which doctor you see, what energy source you use, down to how you get from point A to point B. You see, the more they control you the less free you are, and the less free you are the more power they have over you. And that is their ultimate goal. So when it becomes apparent that the train is not economically viable, look for a tax on more convenient forms of travel like air. Knowing those knuckle heads in Sacramento, they will simply apply some sort of user fee to airlines making them less attractive to get more folks to use the train ala Wesley Mouch.

Call from reality for Senator Reid

I swear this is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you - I can't hear you". The ever entertaining pomegranate politician, Harry Reid (D-NV), had this to say over the weekend via The Hill:

"That [the Tea Party] will pass. They will lose a number of seats next year,"

And his well thought out reasoning for this - Nada. Just wishful thinking given that Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) won the straw poll this weekend in Ames, Iowa. And oh, by the way, Congresswoman Bachmann is the Tea Party candidate in the race for the Republican nomination. Well played Mr. Reid, well played.

I thought the race card was maxed out

Apparently not. If there is a more morally bankrupt person in the world I don't know who it would be. Please watch this video from the Blaze, then feel free to use the curse words of your choice.
IF anyone in the audience think that this woman really gives a crap about them they deserve what they get.

Perry and Texas’ Growth

CNNMoney has a semi-hit piece, by Tina Luhby, on Rick Perry that I am sure will become the mantra of the Dems once Perry announces that he will run for President today (emphasis mine):

Texas has created a lot of jobs over the 10 years that Rick Perry's been governor -- there's no doubt about it.

But that doesn't mean that all is well with employment in the Lone Star State. Texas leads the nation in minimum-wage jobs, and many positions don't offer health benefits.

Texas is the lone bright spot in the nation, creating 40% of all jobs in the country over the last 10 years. Why is that, you may ask? The one thing that is great about this country is that if your state becomes hostile to business, you can move to another state. And people looking for a better opportunity will look around to find the state that would be the best to satisfy their need to be productive. Apparently over the last 10 years that state is Texas.

People have voted with their feet to find opportunity and escape the oppression of their home states. So Texas has benefited not only from pro-business policies, but also the hostile environment of donor states like California, Illinois and New York. All these states have one thing in common. Liberals run the show, high taxes and regulation.

So, Tami Luhby is trying to make the case that, just because Texas is doing well, it's really not that well because Texas leads the nation in minimum-wage employment that don't offer benefits. Oh the shame, the shame.

By her reasoning it would be better to pay fewer people a higher wage than more people a lower wage. Typical liberal thinking. Maybe, just maybe, the uptick in supply of labor (more people looking for work) has caused the market to value that labor temporarily  lower? This is what gets me about liberals and how they think. They are absolutely oblivious to market pressures. My guess is that since Texas is more business friendly, these so-called lower paying jobs will evolve into higher paying jobs over time as the market catches up with the sudden influx of labor. Point in fact:

Perhaps most importantly, Texas can't create jobs fast enough to keep up with its rapidly growing population. Since 2007, the state's number of working-age residents expanded by 6.6%, nearly twice the national average.

Tina doesn't bother to ask why Texas' population is growing so rapidly, she just simply laments the lack of, ahem, jobs to satisfy the influx. Texas is going through growing pains all the other states would love to have, yet Tina sees it as a bug rather than a feature. Further, rather than giving Perry credit for the growth, she of course sees Texas' natural resources as key.

Of course, Texas enjoys advantages that have nothing to do with having Perry at the helm. Rich in natural resources, the state has been benefiting from the high price of oil and the expanded interest in natural gas exploration. Energy employment has soared by 16.8% over the past year alone.

Really, Texas is the only state with these advantages? What about, say, California who have huge natural resource reserves that Sacramento refuses to utilize to create jobs and an economic boom. Texas does enjoy an abundance natural resources, it also enjoys a state government that stays the hell out of the way while living within their means. And that is the key to economic activity, not government intervention and high taxes.

Rant time

This just really ticks me off. Alexandra Petri shot off a blog this morning over at WaPo that sent me into orbit. Her complaint is based on Mitt Romney's comment in Iowa that "corporations are people, my friend." This sent Ms. Petri into a snarky (less than thought out) rant about how you can't invite 'corporations' over to dinner and other such nonsense. She also managed to get a solid dig in about Palin's special needs child (classless). Her point is way off base, here is what small businesses (corporations if you like) contribute to the economy:

Small firms:

Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.

Employ just over half of all private sector employees.

Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.

Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.

Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).

Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers).

Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.

Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007.

Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

 
You see, Petri doesn't consider the fact that most corporations are actually small businesses made up of a few hard working people. Most of us are barely keeping their heads above water. We in the small business community go to bed and wake up thinking about what we can do to make our company better. Not just for us but for our customers, employees and their families.

I am lucky enough to own a small boniness and yes I represent it everywhere I go. Even, oddly enough, when I'm invited over to someone's house for dinner (full disclosure this doesn't happen very often). What Petri does not understand is that if I were to get hit by a bus my 'corporation' would effectively die. So yes Ms. Petri, corporations are people you sanctimonious (fill in your own bad word here).

Rant over.

Who plays and who really pays?

Chris Kobus has a must read post over on Right Wing News. Chris, rightfully, asks:

Why does CNN point out that majority want higher taxes on the rich, but don't point out that the majority pay no federal income taxes? And that bottom 40% actually get money back?

Chris goes on with a series of charts and graphs to show just how imbalanced our tax code is.

Fact: Top 1% Pay More Fed Income Taxes Than Bottom 95%! Bottom 51% Pay None. Bottom 40% GET MONEY BACK!

Now rather than pointing out the Media bias (Chris does a much better job than I could), I want to throw out a few solutions. In the comments section I laid out a couple of possibilities:

I see a huge issue in our current tax code. What if we changed the code to one of two ways:

1. Abolish the income tax entirely and replace it with a national sales tax. This would by definition make sure that all Americans participate in paying for the government and have a say by voting with their dollars.

2. This one's more radical and surely has no chance. But if you are a chronic welfare recipient, then you give up your right to vote. This of course is much more cumbersome and creates a huge verification issue (not to mention Constitutional dilemma). But it would certainly incentivize those wishing to be a part of the democratic process to get off the dole. Not to mention reduce the number of democratic votes by at least half.

Once welfare recipients realize their access to the treasury is no longer there, they will have to, gasp, change their behavior.

I could go on and talk about the flat tax and other changes to the code but all these solutions have one thing in common. And that is if Democracy is going to work, then the entire citizenry will have to participate. And that means not only voting but paying as well. Our current tax system rewards bad behavior while discouraging good behavior. And this, my friends, is a recipe for disaster for the republic.

Rioting in the streets?

Rasmussen had this headline out today: 48% Think Spending Cuts Could Trigger Violence.

Nearly one-out-of-two Americans (48%) think that cuts in government spending are at least somewhat likely to lead to violence in the United States, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. But that includes just 13% who feel it's Very Likely.

My guess is that the respondents of this poll have a bit of a London hangover. Any adjustments to Social Security or Medicare will be phased in over a number of years. Thus, any 'rioting' would be from people that will not be eligible for either of these for a number of years yet. But I gotta tell you, I'd love to see the Man with no name ride again. Even if he's 81!

Constitution gets in the way again

You know, I'm really starting to think that those fellas in the funny breeches and white wigs knew what the hell they were doing when they wrote the Constitution. This from Reuters:

An appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

Man, Obama just can't buy a break, bad week bro, bad week.

Two quick points to make. First, let's not get too worked up here; this debacle will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. That being said it sure helps when you can get the lower courts to rule against it. Second, the bit about "the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect" doesn't mean much, because without the mandate forcing Americans to buy this nonsense, it all falls apart because there will be no funding for it.

Just thought I'd brighten your Friday.

The true threat to the Unions

The biggest problem the anti-austerity movement has is when it works. This is gonna leave a mark (emphasis mine):

Recently, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
noted that under Walker's plan to require greater health-care and pension contributions from government employees, the City of Milwaukee actually comes out $11 million ahead

 

That's $11 million ahead! Walker was faced with deficits for as far as the eye could see. Rather than kicking the can down the road, he put in some common sense plans and already, not 10 years down the road, good things are happening. And the Union response?

Mayor Tom Barrett's March prediction that Walker's budget "just makes our structural deficit explode." Barrett, who lost to Walker in the 2010 Wisconsin gubernatorial election, refuses to give the governor any credit for helping him balance his city's books, instead complaining that Walker's plan to curb collective bargaining went too far.

Er, okay. It gets better tho. Apparently, the Democrats and Unions were reticent to even mention collective bargaining in their television ads during the recall elections because they didn't want to alert voters to the plan's successes.

There are many other examples of how the new law is benefiting the students while saving the state millions of dollars. All of which will further hurt the unions and their brand. The best thing that can happen is that the unions continue attacking Walker and other like minded Governors, it will only serve to remind voters just how irrelevant these extortionists are becoming. Taxpayers 1 Unions 0!

Rather than jobs The President offers the ‘idea’ of jobs

President Obama spoke yesterday in front of auto workers in Michigan. Reuters reports (emphasis mine):

President Barack Obama sought to reassert economic leadership on Thursday by pledging to deliver new ideas every week to create jobs, and he slammed Congress for "bickering" that hurts economic recovery.

"I'll be laying out more proposals in the days ahead," Obama, a Democrat, said. The problem was not a lack of answers to the pressing issue of economic growth and hiring, rather it was people "playing political games,"

Zzzzzzz, um, is he done, sorry dozed off for a second there. Okay, let's see, a new idea every week to create jobs. Wowsers, this ought'a be entertaining. Just yesterday Jay Carney came out with this week's hi-fi-slam-a-jamma 'idea' - unemployment checks. Can't wait for next week's idea. I know, how about more stifling regulation? That will really get the job market booming! A new idea every week, I ask you, have you ever seen a group of people so clueless in your life? Obama's been in office 30 months and this is the best he can do?

And let's not forget who's to blame. That's right Congress. It's the 'na-na-nu-boo-boo-stick-your-head-in-do-do offensive.

Obama's inability for self-inspection is truly breath-taking. Mr. President, do you think that there might be the ever-so slightest possibility that you are the problem and not the solution? Maybe all this Keynesian nonsense you've been ramming down the throats of the business sector might, just might, have a detrimental effect on the jobs market????

I almost feel sorry for this guy. All his life he was told that capitalism is bad, socialism is good, and when he gets a chance to prove it, reality slaps him squarely in the face. Welcome to the real world Mr. President.

Unemployment insurance, the new job creator!

I swear you cannot make this stuff up. The Specter of Spin, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, had this to say in response to a Wall Street Journal reporter's question. "How the White House can claim that extending unemployment insurance actually creates jobs?" (emphasis mine):

"Oh, uh, it is by, uh, I would expect a reporter from the Wall Street Journal would know this as part of the entrance exam."

What a jerk. I tell you what Jay, why don't you enlighten us unwashed rubes if you don't mind.

"It is one of the most direct ways to infuse money directly into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren't running a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They're not going to save it, they're going to spend it. And with unemployment insurance, that way, the money goes directly back into the economy, dollar for dollar virtually."

This isn't just a peek into the minds' of those who've partaken of the Keynesian philosophical Kool-aid, it's a full-blown exposé. So, my man Jay, if I'm to understand your, ahem, argument correctly, by paying people not to work, it will create jobs. Really? Well then let's take this to the extreme, shall we? How about everybody quits their jobs and you and your Keynesian morons in the White House just pay everybody not to work and we will have zero unemployment!! Woo Hoo, sign me up for that baby.

Seriously, where does he think the money comes from to pay these people? Oh wait, that's right from the people that actually create jobs. If you take money from them then they can't hire those same souls that are getting paid for not working.

This is exactly what happens when you get rookies in the White House. They have no basic understanding of how capitalism works (primarily because they hate capitalism). Rather than looking at all the obstacles that are preventing small businesses from hiring (e.g. oppressive regulation, uncertainty from Obamacare, the threat of rising taxes), no these idiots think that unemployment insurance is actually a job creator.

Come on everybody, let's all go get drunk and quit our job so we can help reduce unemployment!

True dat!

One of the smartest men alive, Walter E. Williams, has an excellent column out concerning the unintended consequence of government intervention. Please read it all.

‘Greenhouse’ Gore in 2016!

I saw this while eating my morning cereal and literally shot milk through my nose. Seems Brent Budowsky wants to draft, ahem, Al Gore for president in 2016 (emphasis mine):

Let me be the first to propose a national movement to draft Al Gore for president in 2016, carry the banner of the New Frontier heritage of the Democratic Party

On the playing field of national politics, Gore is the conscience of the Democratic Party, the soul of what true Democrats stand for, and the fighting spirit that Democrats everywhere hunger for.

Hell and Yes!! Please, Please, Please draft this barely marginal lunatic for the Democratic nomination. My guess is that you could get donations from the right as well.

After lamenting the disappointment of the current administration, albeit not by name, Mr. Budowsky gives 'Greenhouse' Gore's qualifications:

If Gore runs in 2016 he would be the most qualified candidate for the presidency in a century.

Gore was a first-rate member of the House. A leader of substance and depth in the Senate. An influential vice president in the highly successful presidency of Bill Clinton. A Nobel laureate who earned the honor through decades of service to save the earth from poisons that could destroy her, and from those who threaten her with their lust for profits and their cult of greed.

Wow, a member of both the House and the Senate. Um, any real work experience? Nope, just a career politician. Oh, yeah, and a Nobel prize winner for a left-wing movie that has been thoroughly debunked. Niiiice. A career politician and a liar, wait that's redundant. Oh, and Brent don't forget he invented the interwebs too!

Mr. Budowsky goes on for another eight paragraphs further solidifying his bromance with Gore comparing him to both John and Ted Kennedy and, gulp, Reagan. By implication Budowsky has all but given up on Obama's chances in 2012, and rightfully so. That being said I really think he is on to something here.

GORE 2016!!


 

Pivot time!

Obama to talk about Jobs in Michigan, Fox News has the story (emphasis mine, snarky comments in parentheses):

President Barack Obama was making a pitch Thursday about the (non-existent) job-creating potential of investing in clean energy before talking up his re-election at a pair of fundraising events with high-dollar campaign contributors

Obama planned to tour a Holland, Mich., factory that makes advanced batteries for alternative-fuel vehicles such as hybrids or all-electrics (That nobody wants).

Investing in clean energy, huh? Again, our socialist overloads are trying desperately to create a market that just does not exist. The so called 'green' technology is NOT viable. So the same nobody's that were lining up not to buy the Chevy Volt, will line up to not buy this piece of crap. But then he goes on to justify this nonsense:

In Michigan, where the unemployment rate was 10.5 percent in June, higher than the national rate, Obama was expected to talk about the benefits of spending (other peoples') money on producing such clean-energy technologies as advanced batteries: jobs and reduced consumption of foreign oil.

Ah, that sounds great. So electricity is free right? And since Obama's EPA is hell bent on shutting down all the coal plants in America, there will be no energy to charge the batteries for these lemons. Great planning!

He calls them "jobs of the future" (sounds like a Disney ride) and says the U.S. should lead the way in developing energy sources that pollute less.

Why? Why should the US lead the way into a dead-end, left-wing agenda driven, technology that is going nowhere? The arrogant presumption that this technology is 'right around the corner' is stunning in its naiveté and dangerous in its execution. Let's say this nonsense works to some degree. Has this genius figured out what the hell we are going to do with all these batteries when they go bad? Where the hell are we going to put them? Yucca Mountain Nevada? Do they think that maybe these spent batteries might, just might, be an eco-hazard? That the danger could quite possibly be far worse than burning evil fossil fuels.? Lastly the money quote:

Johnson Controls Inc., the energy company that owns the plant that was welcoming Obama, has received a $3 million federal grant and expects to create 150 (subsidized) jobs at facilities in Michigan and Wisconsin, White House energy adviser Heather Zichal said.

Really? Create 150 jobs. How the hell does he work that out? The rest of the country is giving the plant $3,000,000, that's not creating jobs, that subsidizing them my friend.