Demand Side Economics

The supply economics of the Reagan era has taken quite a beating. Today we are about 1 year into the biggest demand side economic experiment ever attempted. We are going to see that it simply does not work particularly when the demand is created by giving people who don't pay taxes the money to create the demand. The government can't create a sustainable demand with this policy because it would be akin to having a $787 billion stimulus package every year. On the other side of the coin, encouraging people to invest will provide the impetus to get the credit markets moving again. Setting the capital gains tax at a permanent 15% would net the US government $15 on every $100 in profits generated. That could go a long way to closing the federal deficit gap. The other option, demand side, is to tax the American people until there is no more income to tax. One year into the demand side economic experiment we don't have anything to show for the money we spent except for higher unemployment. The Treasury Secretary who 1 year ago was telling us the jobs would be coming in 2009 is now saying they should start to pick up in the spring of 2010. When it doesn't happen again, and it won't, perhaps some people will start to pay attention. I doubt it though. Too many are still mesmerized by the orator despite the realities his policies bring.

Health Care Update

Last week the president told Republicans to stop using scare tactics in opposing the health care reform. Yesterday he laid out a line of scare arguments himself including saying the federal government would go bankrupt. Now there's no doubt that health care costs are going to continue to rise and something should be done but blaming the bankrupting of the federal government on a failure of the health care reform bill is a bit of a stretch. I guess we are just supposed to ignore the $700B stimulus and all the other money this administration has spent. But let's stick to the health care arena. I have a few recommendations that could significantly reduce medical costs in this country.
1. Tort reform for malpractice. The amount of money spent on malpractice itself is fairly small, less than 1% of health care spending. However, the amount of money spent of unneeded testing which doctors order to prevent getting sued is a significant portion of the health care expenditures coming in at about 9%. Tort reform could reduce this.
2. Allow Medicare and Medicaid to shop for the best drug prices. This is currently against the law. The elderly use more medications than any other demographic and more than many other age demographics combined. With our baby boomer bubble moving into their elderly years the demand for drugs paid for by Medicare and Medicaid is going to increase significantly. Let's allow them to purchase at a better price and save the difference.
3. Ease the government mandated administrative requirements in health care. Some studies estimate that administrative costs eat up 17 of every $100 in medical expenditures. There is a lot of opportunity for savings there.
The House bill which passed and the Senate bill which is floundering don't have any cost reductions in them. The House bill is supposed to save about $160 billion over 10 years but that savings is predicated on future reductions in Medicare/Medicaid spending of $420 billion over same period. No congress has ever reduced Medicare/Medicaid spending and I don't think any future one will either. We don't need the federal government to reform the health care in this country, we need the federal government to stop putting expensive requirements and restrictions on the health care system.

Tiger, Tiger, Tiger.

So long Tiger, it was nice knowing you. Sorry you didn't turn out to be the man we thought you were.

Health Care: Quick and Dirty Update

Today the President sent the Vice President out to make some comments on health care reform. Vice President Biden spoke in an attempt to counter the arguments from Republicans that the current health care bill would reduce Medicare/Medicaid benefits to the elderly. He characterized those arguments as "scare tactics." What he didn't say, and probably never will, is that for the health care reform bill now making its way through congress to meet the goal of not increasing the federal deficit, Medicare and Medicaid expenditures must be reduced by about $420 billion over the next ten years. Do I believe that will happen? Not in a million years. No congress has ever reduced the expenditures associated with Medicare/Medicaid and I doubt this one will either. That said, they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. One side says the health care reform will not increase the federal deficit based on reductions in Medicare/Medicaid while the other side says we won't cut Medicare/Medicaid.

Global Warming, Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize

I was just wondering. With the global warming scandal growing by the day and it looking more and more like the science was rigged from the start, will Al Gore be giving back his Nobel Peace Prize? What will be the long term effects on the prestige of the award once they realize they gave it to a fraud? This is just the beginning. I have to wonder why our president still plans on attending the opening of the climate change conference in Copenhagen. I hate to say it, no I don't, I told you so.

Healthcare in the Senate

Senator Mary Landrieu' s (D-LA) vote was vital to get to the debate stage of the legislative process for the Senator Harry Reid health-care bill moving through the Senate. So vital that two pages were added to the bill that would steer $200 - $250 MILLION dollars in Medicaid funds to her home state of Louisiana in fiscal year 2011. As a result, tonight the senate will vote on moving the bill to debate and it will pass. We should not underestimate the resolve of the Democratic party to pass their health-care initiative before the mid-term elections in 2010. They are going to use every trick in the book and they will promise anybody anything to get it done. The reason they want it now. When the mid-term elections are complete, the Democrats won't have the numbers they have now and their chance at passing a health-care bill will be dead. There is even a chance that Harry Reid himself will be on the outside looking in after 2010. If it costs $200M to get the bill to debate, you can imagine what concessions will be made should be get to the actual vote on the bill itself. One of the things being espoused in this bill is it will actually reduce the federal budget. What you're not being told is how it achieves that end which is not guaranteed. To achieve this savings and not actually increase the federal deficit, Congress will have to reduce Medicare/Medicaid and other federal expenditures by $420B. It's important to note that no congress has ever done this before. Additionally, they will have to pass an excise tax on that will be levied on the best health insurance policies. You read that right. Those who have the very best health insurance policies in this country will actually have to pay a tax on having health insurance. We should note here that even if Congress does pass this excise tax, it is something the President Obama has not endorsed or favored in the past. America is being told they are going to have better health-care and a reduced federal deficit. That's just not going to happen and anyone who believes it will is either not paying attention or is just plain stupid.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson

The Rev. Jesse Jackson recently said, "You can't vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man." In this day and age where so many are trying so hard to get past the racism of the past, why would anybody listen to one of the most racist people in this country? To Mr. Jackson I say, you can't say the things you say and call yourself a reverend.

Terrorist Trial in Federal Court

The Obama administration has decided that they they will try the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the United States, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or KSM, in Federal Court in New York. Side note here - I am guessing a change of venue will be the first request by the defense team. In any case, this is unprecedented territory. By what stretch of the imagination does this administration believe that this terrorist is due the rights afforded to citizens and residents of this country? What evidence won't be admitted because we failed to "Mirandize" KSM prior to his interrogation? What other evidence won't be admitted based on the already acknowledged intense interrogation techniques that were employed? In our court system the accused has the right to face their accusers. Will we have to trot out a long line of what will then be formerly undercover CIA operatives to afford KSM this "right"? The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that trials such as these can and should be conducted by a military tribunal and there are several examples in our history such as when we captured eight Germans during who were landed on our shores by a U-Boat. In the legal arena "precedence" is everything. By trying KSM in our federal court system, we are setting the precedence that terrorists are criminals and not enemy combatants. We are conceding them rights to which they are not entitled. Our illustrious Attorney General, Eric Holder, believes he can win this case without any of the evidence obtained through interrogation of KSM. Let's hope he is right. Many a guilty person has gone free in our legal system because of a technical slip up. I am praying we don't make any mistakes on this one. Does it bother anybody besides me that the taxpayers of this great country are going to have to spend millions of dollars not in the prosecution of KSM but in funding his legal defense team?

The U.S Bows

Short and sweet today. The question is whether or not the President of the United States should bow in the presence of another world leader. The answer is undeniably no. The office of the President of the United States is bigger than the person who holds the office. There is no higher symbol of what we as a nation stand for in all the world. As such, it denigrates an entire nation and her people when our leader chooses to bow before another suggesting inferiority or deferment. I might be able to bless this off as a mistake by an man who lacks the experience to actually hold this office except it's not the first time he has done it. I guarantee you every military man in our armed forces winces at this sight. To show even the slightest weakness is the largest of mistakes.

Death for a Killer

About two hours from now the state of Virginia will execute by lethal injection John Allen Muhammad the "Beltway Sniper", who terrorized the DC area in the fall of 2002 - hard to believe 7 years have passed. In all he and his accomplice killed ten random people. As you can tell by my previous writings, I am not a supporter of the death penalty. I believe life is God's alone to create and end. That said, if ever a person deserved to be executed, John Allen Muhammad does. I won't shed a tear for him today but I will say a prayer for the families and friends of his victims who will live with the punishment he dolled out for the remainder of their lives. I can't support this execution but if it brings some amount of closure to those families at least some good will have come from it.

A little extra. Did you know that the United States and Japan are the only two developed nations in the world that impose the death penalty?

Don't Jump to Conclusions

Interesting comments by our President. He has asked us not to jump to any conclusions regarding the massacre that occurred at Ft. Hood. In general that's good advice. Let's look at this particular incident a little closer. Six months ago the FBI was watching this guy for some web postings. He has previously said that a suicide bomber is much like the soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades in arms. I don't get the comparison. One is trying to save lives and the other is trying to kill innocent bystanders. Anyway, according to soldiers who were present while he was shooting the place and people up he yelled "Allah Akbar" which means "God is great" and has become the battle cry Muslim extremists. Now let's turn back the clocks a few months to when a Harvard professor was being arrested, and as it turned out rightly so. At that point in time, the President himself commented publicly that the Cambridge police acted "stupid". He also went on to link this particular incident to racial issues indicating he believed the arrest was racially motivated. Never mind that he didn't have all the facts; something the President admitted to later. I not saying the Muslim who shot up Ft. Hood is a terrorist or an extremist. He's a nut job no doubt. What I am saying is, I find it odd that our President would ask us not to jump to conclusions when that's what he does. If you still don't believe that President Obama's actions and affiliations prior to his election tell the truth about the man, you're either blind or stupid and that's not jumping to conclusions.

Obama and Those Who Praise Him

One of my favorite writers is Thomas Sowell and I have mentioned and quoted him here before. Recently I was reading his "Random Thoughts" column of October 7th. In this column he points out that before the election Barack Obama chose to associate with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers who have preached hatred of the United States for years. Since his election President Obama has garnered the praises of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Muammar Quaddafi, and Vladimir Putin. I'll ask the same question as Dr. Sowell, "at what point do you stop denying the obvious and start to connect the dots?"

You can find Dr. Sowell's writings here: http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell

Monday Morning Quarterbacks in War?

Those of you who think that prosecuting the CIA agents of the Bush administration time period for their actions to extract information from terrorists need to consider the consequences of such an action. Such an action will cause agents in the future to fear they too might be prosecuted. For those who don't believe that, please read Lone Survivor. It's the story of four U.S. Navy SEALs on a mission in Afghanistan. In short, a group of goat herders happen on the men. The four SEALs debate what to do with the goat herders. They agree the correct military action is to kill them; however, they let them go fearing they might be tried for murder in their own country. As it turns out, the goat herders notify the local Taliban who attack the four SEALs with about 100 soldiers. Our guys fight a running gun battle extracting a many times toll on the Taliban. Three of the four are killed with the last of the three being killed in an open area as he sacrifices himself to call for assistance. It would be bad enough if the story ended there but it does not. A rescue team is sent to assist. In attempting to land and deploy the rescue force, a rock propelled grenade strikes the helicopter killing twenty more brave U.S. soldiers. Twenty three dead because four of our own feared prosecution by their own courts for taking the correct military action. When the people we put on the front lines have to make decisions like that, it is going to cost American lives and it is going to leave us all less safe. War is hell and it is not something the average American should be making decisions about because we simply do not know enough about the realities of war nor are we ready to know and understand the realities. To Monday morning quarterback something this important is just dead wrong.

R.I.P Teddy

Edward Moore (Teddy) Kennedy and I agreed on very little. He is a champion of big government while I am not. He believed strongly that a national health care system was needed and I do not. One thing we do agree on, however, is that we should be working to make this country the greatest country on earth. It should be a model for freedom and equality that shines as a beacon of hope for those less fortunate. While we disagree on how to make that vision a reality I must admire and respect a man who so dedicated himself to the service of our country. Rest in peace Teddy and thank you. We're going to miss the "Lion of the Senate."

Economics 101: Lesson 3

Listen up class. A scarce resource is one for which there is more demand than there is supply. We commonly think of things like gold, diamonds, and works of art by Monet as scarce and that would be true; however, even things like gasoline, electricity, bread, and corn are also scarce. If they weren't you wouldn't have to pay for them. You want a cup of seawater? No problem, you won't need any cash. Just stroll down to the ocean and take your fill. You want a cup of corn? Now you need some cash. With an understanding of scarcity firmly established let's turn our attention to controlling demand. There are two effective ways to control the demand for a product. The first is price. Raise the price and you will reduce the demand for that product. We see this occurring around us everyday. The other way is to ration. When we ration, we don't really control the demand in the true sense of the word, rather we control the demand by enforcing an artificially low demand on those who are in need of the product.
That brings me to health care, another scarce resource. Health care in the U.S. is a scarce resource and as such we can only control demand one of two ways. Either raise the price to a point where supply equals demand or ration health care. Our president continues to say that under the public option there will be no rationing and that we must reduce the price of health care in this country. Folks, you can't have both. It either has to be expensive or you have to ration it. I think the whole administration needs a better understanding of economics.

Diane Watson's Wonderful Cuba

Representative Diane Watson, a Democrat representing California's 33rd district, recently held a town hall where she extolled the virtues of Cuba, the Cuban health care system, Fidel Castro, and even the Cuban Revolution itself. At one point she called Fidel Castro "one of the brightest leaders I have ever met." Cuba must be a wonderful place. So wonderful that people by the hundreds or perhaps thousands are willing to strap enough inner tubes to a 1955 Ford pickup to make it barely float and then set out across nearly 100 miles of open, shark infested waters knowing they have little chance of survival in search of something - a better life. Now I don't know about you but those people don't sound like they are happy or satisfied with their situation. They sound desperate much like the immigrants who attempt to walk across the Arizona desert in the middle of July. Yeah, Cuba must be a wonderful place. I'll have to visit this wonderful place along with the other wonderful places in the world like Iran, North Korea, the Pashtun region of Pakistan. I am sure we will find some more bright leaders in those places too.

Cash for Clunkers & Public Health Care

It seems car dealers all over the country are pulling out of the government's "Cash for Clunkers" program where you can get $4,500 for trading in a car that gets less than 18 mpg as long as you purchase a car that gets good gas mileage. The reason they are pulling out is the program has cash strapped the auto dealers. You see, the dealers have to fund the purchase out of their own pocket and then apply for reimbursement from their friends in Washington D.C. and that process is taking so long that the dealers have run out of cash. Many are wondering if they will ever get paid. Of course, our Treasury Secretary has spoken out on the topic claiming everybody will get paid. He didn't say when. Now all this really wouldn't matter that much except that it's a demonstration of our government's ability to operate anything. If you think the government will be better at processing health care reimbursements, whatever you are smoking cannot be legal. I know I've asked this question before but nobody's provided a good answer as of yet, "Can anybody name anything the government got involved in that actually got better?" Didn't think so.

"Death Panels"

Here's the disclaimer: I am not in favor of national health care. Sarah Palin came out much stronger than that accusing at least one of the plans currently being debated in congress as containing a provision for what she called "death panels." That term might be a little harsh; however, it's really not that far from being fully factual. The president has quickly responded with his own rhetoric. No substance to the rhetoric and no real explanation of what is meant by the wording in the bill, just a reading of selective portions of it. Take a look at Sarah Palin's response to the president on her Facebook page here http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434. Beyond that I offer this example of where the government of Oregon refused to fund a chemotherapy drug for a cancer patient but offered to fund her doctor assisted suicide - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6ojBgTyA7I. Not a chance I want to take.

Fool Me Once....

It's interesting to see the reactions to the agenda put forth by the Obama administration. While the president was looking for a grass roots movement, I don't think the current movement is quite in line with his plans. Apparently, our citizens value their own personal freedoms more than they value the "change" the president offered during the election season. The problem is, the "change" the president spoke of is not the same as the "change" he is offering. During the campaign he moved his rhetoric to the middle because he fully understood he could not get elected if he told the people really what he wanted to do. Now those same people who voted for him are surprised by where he is taking the country. That's the sad part because it was completely predictable. One only needed to look at the actions of Barack Obama over the previous twenty years. The actions, the people he kept company with, the voting record (when he actually voted), and the rest of that history painted a clear picture of the true Barack Obama. You see a chamelion can change its colors, but it's still a chamelion. A man like President Obama can change his rhetoric, but he is still the same Barack Obama who called for a single payer health care system back in 2003. To those of you who were fooled by the rhetoric in 2008, you will get another chance in 2012. This time I challenge you to examine the nominees, to look past the rhetoric of the campaign, to examine the actions of the nominees and their history, and to make a decision on what the nominee has spent a life becoming rather making a decision on what the nominee is telling you they will become. You were fooled once, if you're fooled again, shame on you.

The War on Terrorism

Many, including our own president, will tell you that the war on terrorism cannot be won militarily on the battlefield. Nothing could be further from the truth and we only need look to Sri Lanka for proof. The Sri Lankans have been fighting the Tamil Tigers for a couple of decades. Every time victory was near the Sri Lankans would cave to international meddling and attempt to solve the issue "diplomatically." Terrorists love this because it is their time to regroup and rearm. If you don't know who the Tamil Tigers are that's not surprising. They are not about taking credit for what they did on the global stage but I assure you they wanted the masses in Sri Lanka to know exactly who they are or now were. I am sure you would recognize the latest in terrorists tactics such as suicide bombers and filmed beheadings. While these have been made mainstream by groups such as al Qaeda, these were developed and perfected by the Tamil Tigers. With that understanding you should know that recently the Sri Lankan army defeated the last of the Tamil on the battlefield. This time they did not at the last minute abandon their plan to conquer them and attempt a diplomatic solution. This time they ignored the international pressure and pressed on militarily killing or capturing the Tamil right down to the last terrorist. Sri Lanka won their war on terrorism by making a full commitment to defeating their enemy and not buckling to international pressure. America, we can do the same but we are going to need to stay strong. Many of our own may die, be maimed, or wounded but we must remain steadfast as a nation in our commitment to defeat an enemy whose publicly declared goal is to kill us all. Our president does not believe this. He even said that this war won't be won like WWII where Hirohito surrendered to McArthur - his history is a little lacking here since Hirohito did not surrender to McArthur and in fact did not even meet him until about a year after the surrender. But our president is wrong on this one. We can win the war on terrorism if we remain steadfast in our commitment to defeating our enemy on the battlefield.

Judges and Mortgage Modification

Rep. Barney Frank has threatened the banking industry with legislation that would allow judges to write down loan payments if the banking industry doesn't modify more loans. This guy is a real tool and those who elected him should be ashamed of themselves. The fact of the matter is, the banks wouldn't be in a position to have to modify loans if Rep. Frank and his cronies had not forced the banking industry to loosen their lending rules in an effort to increase the number of home owners, particularly minorities. It was Rep. Frank's own rules that created this mess and now he's threatening the banks. You can bet when they do meet his modification goals many of them will no longer be solvent. When that happens look for one Rep. Barney Frank to then step up to the microphone and accuse the banks of gross mismanagement. Does it surprise anybody that this guy comes from Massachussetts which has provided us with the likes of ultra-liberals Edward Kennedy and John Kerry?

The President's Citizenship

Let me weigh in on this very succinctly. To those of you who still question the President's citizenship I say, "Shut up and move on. You're making us look like sore losers." Senator McCain's legal staff looked into it. It's all rumor and innuendo.

The President Weighs In

Recently Cambridge Massachusetts police confronted a man entering the home of Louis Gates, a prominent scholar in African American studies at Harvard University. The man was entering through the back door. The police were responding to a call by neighbors that someone was attempting to break in to the Gates' home. According to the Cambridge police the man became beligerent and was arrested. To be fair, the police did at that time know that the man was actually Louis Gates, the owner of the home. Mr. Gates charged that the arrest was racially motivated. The President weighed in saying the police "acted stupidly" and then pointed out that Hispanics and African Americans are stopped more often than white people. It would be easy for me to say the president "acted stupidly" because weighing in on a situation where the race card is being played sounds stupid to me; however, that's not what really gets my gander up in this case. My real problem with the whole affair is after all the facts come out, it's looking like the Cambridge Police acted appropriately for the situation and the only possible racist is one Mr. Gates and the only thing the president has to say while backpeddling is, "I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically." It's not that you gave "an impression" Mr. President, it's that you did malign them. There can be no other impression or interpretation of the phrase "acted stupidly" particularly when you follow it up with support for Mr. Gates accusation that the arrest was racially motivated by weighing in with your own belief that Hispanics and blacks are stopped more often than whites. Interestingly enough there was also a black officer who was present for the confrontation between Sgt. Crowley and Mr. Gates and that officer fully supports the actions of Sgt. Crowley and the arrest of Mr. Gates. I think it's time for the President to stop backpeddling and just apologize. My real advice is to just not get involved in things like this until all the facts are known.

Just a Bit Outside

Watched the MLB All-Star game last night. President Barack Obama threw out the first pitch. Little short of the plate but right down the middle. I really thought it would be wide left like everything else he does. Game was pretty good for a change and not too long. Sheryl Crow did a great job with the National Anthem.

The Media: Rant 1

Why does the media have to twist and sensationalize everything. I just read an article from the Los Angeles Times. The first line read, "A 15-year-old Los Angeles girl -- who navigated a single-engine Cessna through thunderstorms in Texas and took in breathtaking aerial views of Arizona's sunsets -- landed her plane to cheering crowds at Compton Woodley Airport Saturday and is believed to be the youngest black female pilot to fly solo across country." Now if that was true it would be two things, amazing and illegal. Amazing because any 15-year-old who could pull that off would be a step ahead of their peers. Illegal because the FAA does not allow you fly solo until you reach the age of 16. If you read the story you will find that the only thing factual in that first line is that there was a 15-year-old girl in the plane, the plane did fly cross country, and the girl was black. Beyond that not a sliver of truth. You see what actually happened is the young girl was actually accompanied by a 'safety pilot' and a man who was part of the Tuskegee Airman. The story doesn't mention it but the safety pilot in this case would also have to have been a certified flight instructor because the girl was not old enough to fly an airplane alone and even if she was she could not have had the Tuskegee Airman passenger as a student pilot with a solo endorsement. I don't know about you but to me 'solo' means 1 or alone not one plus the required instructor and an additional passenger. Was this young girl really the sole manipulator of the controls throughout the flight? Did she make the weather decisions necessary on a trip of this magnitude. Did she do the flight planning? We will never know because the article only wanted us to think that a 15-year-old black girl piloted an airplane across country. If she did, she should be proud of her accomplishment and she should be mad as hell at the LA Times for exploiting her - I think they wanted the race angle myself. Why couldn't the LA Times just tells us that 15-year-old pilot planned and executed a cross country flight under the expert tutilage of her flight instructor? Because even though it is a fabulous achievement, the media has to twist and sensationalize everything even if it means not telling the truth. Sad but true.

Oil Payments for Alaska Citizens

I just got back from fishing trip in Alaska. I had an interesting conversation with a couple who are residents of Alaska. They get a check every year from the government. Think of the check as a royalty payment for the oil that comes from Alaska. Every resident of Alaska gets one - even their 18 month old daughter got one last year. According to them the checks have ranged from about $800 to $2,000. That's a sweet deal. It got me to thinking though. I live in Arizona so how come I don't get a check based on the copper that gets mined here in my great state? I think I am going to write my local legislators. You see, if my kids each got a $1,000 check each year from birth to age 18 and I put their check into an account making a measly 6%, they would have $30,905 for college and I wouldn't have to have contributed a dime. If I could get 10%, which is less than the long term average of the stock market, that little college fund would be worth $45,599. That pays for four years at any state college in Arizona - sweet!

Oil in Alaska

I used to be for drilling for oil in Alaska. The truth is the actual footprint of the operations would be very small and the effects on the environment/wildlife would be minuscule. I admit the vehicle I drive is not the very best for gas mileage; however, it does average about 22 mpg for all the driving I do which is not bad. Today I saw a Hummer H2 with a bumper sticker that read "... drill now, pay less". I am no longer in favor of drilling for oil in Alaska. I just can't support people driving vehicles like the H2. Did you know that the H2 is so heavy that it puts it in a class of vehicles that the makers don't even have to put that sticker that tells you about its gas mileage on the vehicle. Truth is, the H2 gets less than 10 miles per gallon and that my friends is something we should not tolerate.

Arizona Government

Can we get any more ridiculous. The GOP in Arizona should be ashamed of themselves. We recently made a national list of the 5 worst governments in the US. We were placed in the same category as New York, California, and New Jersey - not very good company. Why can't the legislature figure out what we need is a conservative state government that meets the needs of the people. We need to put our money into solid infrastructure and education. Those two things will bring businesses to the valley that will provide the jobs needed to drive an invigorated economy. We need to stop giving away 100's of millions of dollars to companies that don't need the assistance. If their business plan is solid, why would they need you and I to offer them an incentive? We need a legislature that respects the property rights of individuals. Why can't we get the legislature we need to run this state? I surmise that's the fault of the citizens. Would you take on the job for $24K per year? Me either. I keep hearing people say when the legislature starts to perform they will vote for the pay raise. That's backwards folks. You get what you pay for and if you don't think that holds true in government, take a stroll down to the capital and speak with some of those willing to do the job for $24K a year or just sit back and observe. One more thing. We need to get rid of "Sheriff Joe." The fact that somebody wants to make a reality show out what we call a sheriff should tell you something about the reality of the situation.

Economics 101: Lesson 2

The president has now spent or committed hundreds of billions of dollars in "stimulus" money. What you will here in the media and from the White House is that it has created or saved 160,000 jobs to date. That's true and many of those jobs are within our own government which is not a good thing. What you won't here is that the economy has shed 1,600,000 jobs for a net loss of 1,440,000 jobs. Unemployment went past 8% like a Toyota Prius goes by a gas station and the Obama administration is now admitting that unemployment will make double digits. You see, you can't spend your way out of crisis and debt and neither can the government. Bad companies need to fail to be replaced by more agile, well run companies that meet an actual need. Propping up the lousy automobile industry only prolongs their and our misery. Interfering in the banking and insurance industry only guarantees a less efficient system that can then be exploited by overseas competition.

Campaigning vs. Reality

With President Obama signing an Executive Order to allow "enemy combatants" to be detained indefinitely he has completed his affirmation of the Bush policies. You see, while campaigning he could say what the world wanted to hear, that indefinite detention was a violation of basic human rights. Now that he is President and the reality of situation sets in, he understands that he has no choice. The people we have detained at Guantanamo Bay are dangerous and if released would immediately return there ways of seeking ways to maim and kill our citizens. Many of his own party and many of his followers are upset with his apparent change in position. These people don't get the reality of the situation because they don't get the daily intelligence briefings that the President receives and they don't understand the reality of this world. Our president has altered course in two areas. First, he has limited the use of interrogation techniques allowed by the previous administration. This will be fine until the next significant terrorist attack. If it comes on Obama's watch, many will then be asking if it could have been prevented had we utilized those interrogation techniques that many have said prevented significant terrorist attacks in the past. Second, he has set in plan of removing our troops from Iraq. A major step in that plan, the removal of troops from cities, will take place in the next few days. If the deaths in those cities at the hands of insurgents accelerates in the coming weeks and months it will be a major setback as it would demonstrate the the Iraqi military/police force is not yet capable of maintaining the peace. I personally hope it works. I would like nothing more than for our boys to be brought home but I don't want it done before the job is done.

Communism - A Follow Up

Apparently Pravda and I aren't the only ones who see the US on a path to communism. Check out the cover article in this week's Newsweek.

Sotomayor - Really?

I have to weigh in on this and I must admit that some of these thoughts come from Thomas Sowell. If you don't know who he is you might want to check him out as his writing is very good.
Nominee Sotomayor has on many occasions said that it is okay for her to consider race in her ruling and has even on many occasions said that because of her race she would make better decisions. Her actions support what she has said. A group of firefighters took an exam to determine who would be promoted. According to nominee Sotomayor, the results should be thrown out because too many caucasion firefighters did better than the other races and therefore the results were not diverse enough. Does this really make any sense? Which firefighter to you want leading the fire team when they respond to your house on fire, the one who did the best on the exam or the one who ensures the mix of the group makes the whole group diverse enough for a judge? Which paramedic do you want responding when your loved one is having a heart attack? The one who performed the best on the test or the one who makes the the group of paramedics diverse enough to satisfy a judge. You see, when you put logic and realism into the mix, the answer is clear. The trouble is, nominee Sotomayor sees it just the opposite. She seems to think that we need to make up for the wrongs of times gone by. I agree with Mr. Sowell on this in that there are two problems with this thinking. First, you are punishing people who by and large have not committed a wrong. The people who did wrong are long since dead and buried. Second, if it's okay to discriminate against a group now who have committed no wrong, why wasn't it okay to discriminate against another group who committed no wrong 100 years ago. The answer is, neither is acceptable and discriminating now does not correct the earlier wrong nor does it punish the offender. I personally think there is a reason the lady holding the scales of justice is blindfolded. She isn't supposed to be able to see the race of the parties or anything else. She is supposed to provide equal protection under the law for all. Our President and nominee Sotomayor think that empathy has a place in a judge's ruling. I think there is no place for this in the application of the law by a judge. If we want empathy in our laws, that's a different matter and it is one for those who we have elected to make our laws, our legislators. Legislators create laws and judges should apply the law and neither should get involved in the others business.

Gitmo to USA: Direct Flight

President Obama has refused to rule out the release of some detainees at Guantanamo Bay directly into the gool ol' US of A. I am going to reserve any judgment on that until it actually happens. I just don't see how that could actually be allowed. Imagine the backlash if a detainee were released in this country and then that person committed a crime of almost any kind much less an act of terrorism.

Economics 101

The next time you read that the economy is starting to recover or you can expect a recovery in 2010 be skeptical. If history has any lessons for us, it just isn't going to happen. The policies and actions of the Obama administration are very similar to the actions and policies of the FDR administration. It didn't work in the 1930's and it won't work here in the 21st century. Until the government stops meddling in the business of business, it's not going to improve. Bad companies have to fail. If there is a need for their product or service, somebody, somewhere, more capable than them will meet that need. FDR and his meddling prolonged the Great Depression by many years. Even economics professors in this country's most liberal institutions of higher learning agree on that fact. I challenge you to name one thing that got better and cheaper when the government got involved. Didn't think so. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Communism

I read an interesting article in Pravda the other day. The topic was how fast the United States is moving towards communism. Now when you read these things in the media of other countries you don't have to wonder whether or not your getting the liberal or the conservative slant. You are actually getting a fairly objective view of the situation. Think about it. If the government runs the health care system, that's more akin to socialism. Our government is taking over banks and auto companies. Our government is firing CEOs and making decisions about compensation. I believe the insurance industry is next. The government is already working on a bill that would "limit insurance company profits." Folks, that's not socialism. That's communism and you should be very afraid.

Illegal Immigration

I'm not like everybody else; I don't have the solution to our illegal immigration problem. I do know this. It's damn hot here in Arizona in the summer and any person who would attempt to walk across our southern desert has to be very desperate. I doubt that building a fence or any other artificial deterrent is going to solve the problem. The fact of the matter is, it sucks in Mexico. Until we/they do something about the corruption in their government, make their economy viable, and give those people some form of hope that they can have a better life in Mexico, they are going to keep coming here. The other option is to destroy our own ecomony and hope. That's seems to be the tack Obama is taking.

Riddle Me This

I don't understand how liberals, including our fearless leader, can justify the killing of an innocent child in the womb but won't allow a man who raped and murdered a child to be put to death. Is it just me or does that seem backwards?

First Attempt

This is my first attempt at a blog. My goal is not to change you. My goal is to get you to think.