Category: Current Posts

The surprising ascendancy of Herman Cain to the top of the Republican presidential hopeful heap has been interesting, but since we have 13 months before the presidential election, it may or may not make any difference.

However, the prospect of an election featuring Obama vs. Cain is VERY interesting, since the standard charge against Republicans and the Tea Party has been that they are racists.  That’s ridiculous of course, since Republicans freed the slaves and voted as a bloc for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, whereas Democrats brought about the deaths of 400,000 Americans rather than give Blacks full citizenship and stood in schoolhouse doors rather than let them be educated.

Obama was elected president at least partially because a lot of white people were ready to vote for an African American for president and they vaguely (or consciously) believed it would be racist NOT to vote for him.

The polls would indicate those white-guilt-afflicted people are over it.

Joseph Lowry, the grand old man of the Civil Rights movement, famously said that Obama was not an “authentic” American-American  because he didn’t have “slave blood”.

It’s true that Obama is African-American; in fact, his father was African and not an American citizen at all.  However, Obama’s American half was as white as I am.  And he was raised by his white grandparents.

Herman Cain, on the other hand, can hearken back to  great-grandparents who were slaves here in Georgia, and grandparents who were sharecroppers.  It doesn’t get more “authentic” African American than that.

1 Comment

“Ask five economists and you’ll get five different explanations — six if one went to Harvard.”

Edgar Fiedler’s quote came to mind as I was thinking about the “Occupy Wall Street” protestors.  It seems if you ask five of them what they are protesting you’ll get six answers.

Putting aside the vague unhappiness expressed by the “Occupiers” in the motley hobo camps, there are things to be unhappy about, but Wall Street and the rest of Corporate America are not the total cause or solution of the problems.  The president and Congressional Democrats gush about the protests being a spontaneous answer to the Tea Party organizations, but it’s difficult to nail down a one-to-one list of opposing ideas.

In fact, one of the many things mentioned by members of the “Flea Party” is the National Debt, followed quickly by references to their own student loans.  Many Tea Party members would agree with the protesters about that, although they probably wouldn’t be able to stand the stench long enough to stand too close to them.

I remember the protests of the 1960s, and even then I thought they were stupid.  We live in a country where we don’t need to demonstrate and riot to throw off an iron-heeled dictator (so far), but we can achieve change through the ballot box.

Probably 99.9% of the protestors voted for “Hope and Change” (if they voted at all), but the change they voted for was like the woman who rejoiced when Obama won because he was going to pay her mortgage(!)

It turns out that even President Obama, who has gotten everything he wanted all the while castigating Republicans for opposing him, can’t change the forces of nature, like economics, the weather and human nature.  Apparently the protestors believed him when he said, “We will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.”

Or not.

Leave a Comment

I left work early today, which allowed me to hear an exchange on the Michael Medved radio show that I would have missed otherwise.  I must say, I have never heard the mild-mannered Medved as exercised as he was with this caller.

The discussion was about the death of Apple founder Steve Jobs.  The caller, whom, since I came in late, don’t know who he was or what his credentials, was saying that it was “immoral” for Steve Jobs to be “allowed” to have all that money when people are starving in the world (Jobs had a net worth of more than $8 billion when he passed away yesterday).  Medved went ballistic at that.  “It’s called freedom!” he asserted.  “In a free society, people get to work hard and keep the fruits of their labors!”

My comment to my wife who was listening with me in the car, was that it was immoral for the government to take so much of the fruits of his labor away from Jobs!

Then the caller said what made ME go ballistic.  “After all,” he said, “There’s only so much money in the world.”  Michael Medved really went off on him then, but I didn’t hear most of it because I unloaded with both barrels myself.  Sorry that my wife had to listen to both of us.

The caller voiced the Big Economic Lie of the left, that economics is a “Zero-Sum Game”, which means if one person has a dollar, it’s because they have deprived another person of having enough.  Anyone with a brain who takes the time to think about it knows that is the furthest thing from the truth.  It’s not as if Steve Jobs was sitting on a pile of wrapped $100 bills that added up to $8 billion while people around him were hungry.

You can be sure that Steve Jobs, savvy business man that he obviously was, had put that money to work in a variety of ways.  Here are just a few possibilities:

Obviously a lot of his wealth was probably in Apple stock, which is not really money at all until you sell it, but think of the tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people who put food on their families’ tables because of the value of that company and the products it produces!  And, note to the caller: that value was not stolen from anybody; before Steve Jobs and Apple, that value, those salaries, those retirees’ investments, didn’t exist.  It’s NEW value added to the economic mix as a result, not just of hard work, but of creative genius.

There is NOT a static amount of money.  Entrepreneurs and dreamers like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and many more going back to Andrew Carnegie and beyond CREATE wealth that didn’t exist before.  And in the process they create prosperity for many, many people.

Besides the thousands who have worked for Apple, there are thousands more who have started businesses to provide software and “apps” for Apple products and to piggyback on the technology with their own innovations; activities which the bitter, petty caller has no clue about.

But even if Steve Jobs did have $8 billion dollars sitting there, what was he likely to do with it?  You can be sure he wouldn’t have stuffed it into his mattress.  He would have at least put it into a bank, where it could be loaned out to thousands who dream of owning a home, a new car, starting a family, etc.

But Jobs probably also invested in other companies, which enabled them to hire people, build facilities, expand operations into new regions, etc.; each company creating NEW wealth of its own.

But some of his money Jobs certainly spent on high-dollar toys, like cars, boats, vacation homes, etc.  All of which, might inspire jealousy and covetousness in the caller, but created jobs for countless factory workers, truck drivers, construction workers and salespersons.

But the caller would have none of that.  He would prefer all those truck drivers, construction workers, car salesmen and real estate agents not have work, if it requires that someone be rich.  Oh, and by the way, I’ll bet Steve Jobs gave more to charity than the caller will earn in his lifetime.

Leave a Comment

Some people are saying the Solyndra scandal is President Obama’s Watergate.  Maybe so, maybe not.  A lot of people certainly have a lot of “splainin'” to do about half a billion dollars of taxpayer money going down the drain.  President Obama himself needs to justify his administration’s efforts to prop up an industry (solar energy) that the nation seems to be apathetic about, while it makes it more difficult for conventional energy companies to produce and deliver their vital commodities.

The IDEA of solar energy is very attractive.  Energy directly from the sun is free and clean, we are told.  Of course that’s not quite true.  Outfitting your home to run on entirely on solar energy is actually quite expensive and would require the life of a 30-year mortgage to earn back the cost compared to most monthly electric bills.  And then it would be time to replace the system.  And there is necessarily some pollution involved in producing the panels and batteries that are part of any solar system.  Perhaps that’s why Solyndra’s solar panels weren’t exactly flying off the shelves.

More than half our electric power comes from coal-fired electric plants.   Actually when you think about it, coal is solar energy, too.  Nature just stored the energy for us until we learned how to release it.  By the same token, oil, plant-based ethanol and even wood are storage systems — Nature’s batteries — for solar energy.  When we burn them we are releasing that stored solar energy.

Of course, ultimately we know that ALL energy is solar energy.  If you believe that the earth and her sister planets were spun off the sun in the Big Bang, then even geo-thermal energy is solar energy, even though it’s boiler is deep in the earth “where the sun don’t shine”.

The only exception might be hydro-power.  But then again, the sun causes evaporation, then rain, the rain flows downhill, man builds a turbine and produces electric power. Yep, hydro power is solar power too.

So, it’s all solar, and it’s all good.  Efforts to make clean, direct solar power more practical and affordable should go forward.  When solar is actually cheaper and easier than conventional fossil and plant fuels, then it will become dominant, but Solyndra is exhibit A for the folly of government trying to force something on the marketplace.  Market change has to happen organically.

1 Comment

So everyone is apoplectic about Governor and presidential wannabe Rick Perry saying that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme”.  Some will take the transparently hypocritical route of saying Perry wants to starve old people.  On the other end will be those like Charles Krauthammer who called Perry’s statement a “gaffe”, then defined a “Washington gaffe” as “when a politician inadvertently speaks the truth”.

Good one Charles!

Ponzi schemes are illegal of course, but Perry may have been saying that Social Security as it is administered WOULD BE illegal if it were not done by the government.  That’s true of a lot of things, like a state lottery.  Here in Georgia, only the state can run a gambling operation.  Not even the Indians have casinos.

Technically it may not be an illegal scheme, but few would argue that the program is sustainable as it’s currently configured.  Remember that the Baby Boom Generation (my buds) are just beginning to receive benefits, but it will be 20 years before that chicken goes all the way through the snake.

I don’t know the exact numbers, but when Social Security was instituted in the 1930s there were something between 50 and 150 people working for every retiree in the program.  And the life expectancy of an American man was 64.  That’s why they set the retirement age at 65.  About half the people would never collect a dime.  That’s how the upper end of that 50 to 150 range worked out.

Today, there are three (count ’em, one, two, three) people working for each retiree receiving benefits.  Soon, as the Baby Boomers stretch out their hands in large numbers, there will be just two people working for each person collecting benefits.

Add to that the fact that life expectancy for Americans is now dangerously close to 80 and you can see the problem.  Not only will the majority of people eligible for benefits live long enough to collect, they will live SO LONG that they will probably collect much more than they put in.

Social Security actually spent more than it took in last year for the first time, but it probably won’t be the last.

George W. Bush attempted to reform Social Security so that it could survive what we know is coming, but every attempt to make the program viable in the changing demographic climate is demagogued and torn to shreds by the press and statist left.  If Perry becomes the Republican nominee, we can expect the “starving old people” card to be played to the nth degree.

Leave a Comment

After a deranged atheist attempted to assassinate Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the press blamed the Tea Party and President Obama solemnly told us we needed to be more “civil”.

But Obama’s cheerleaders apparently thought he meant civil WAR, because on Labor Day, that upstanding citizen Jimmy Hoffa Jr. said in a speech which referenced the Tea Party Movement, “…they got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner….  We’re going to win that war….  President Obama, this is your army! We are ready to march.  Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.”

And they said Sarah Palin was bad when she talked about “targeting” vulnerable politicians in the last election.

Hoffa’s bonkers rant came close on the heels of Rep. Maxine Waters telling the Tea Party to “go to hell.”  Isn’t that special?

So why are the leftists bent out of shape to the point of insanity about the Tea Party Movement?  It seems to me that the Tea Party is the soul of sobriety and responsibility, simply asking that the government doesn’t spend money it doesn’t have.  What could be more reasonable than that?

So on the one hand you have a grassroots movement that is simply asking for a return to sensible government and on the other hand you have red-faced leftists screaming insanity and obscenity without addressing the issues the Tea Party has quietly and soberly raised.

I guess I’m a little mystified at the crazy hatred displayed by the left for not just the Tea Party but Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, etc. etc.

Leave a Comment

Talk about bad timing!  This week President Obama returned from vacation tanned and rested and ready to fulfill his pre-trip promise to reveal his “jobs plan”.  His first misstep was to plan a speech to both houses of Congress on the very day and time of a long planned Republican presidential candidate debate. House Speaker Boehner said, “Thanks but no thanks,” so the speech was rescheduled to the same time as the first regular season NFL game.  Is that better?

Then, today news broke that Solyndra, a solar company in Fremont, California, is closing its doors, filing Chapter 11 and laying off 1,100 people.

Why is that important? Because just last year the president visited Solyndra’s shiny new factory, built with a half BILLION dollars it borrowed from taxpayers (and won’t be able to pay back), and famously held the company up as symbolic of the promise of the “Green Jobs” that have been the centerpiece of his “Hope and Change” economic agenda.

Apparently it takes more than “Hope” and good intentions to succeed in business.  You must also produce a product or service people want at a competitive price.  In spite of $1 billion in investment and another $500,000-plus in tax money, the company couldn’t be competitive with Chinese companies.

Like the Chevy Volt, which the president also trumpeted but has sold less than 3,000 in the first seven months, Solyndra has failed to live up to the promise of a new paradigm of clean, green jobs.  As Linus said in the pumpkin patch when the Great Pumpkin failed to appear, “How can we fail when we’re so sincere?”

So, this couldn’t come at a worse time, since the loss of these 1,100 highest-possible-profile jobs will still be fresh in our minds when the president reveals his anticipated jobs plan.

I wonder if Solyndra was unionized?  That would explain a lot.

1 Comment

In spite of appeals for civility from President Obama, acrimony continues in Washington, with prominent administration and Congressional personalities calling Republicans “terrorists” for refusing to roll over on budgets, the debt ceiling, etc.

The heart of the controversy is a difference in philosophy about the purpose of government.  Most Democrats believe government should do as much as possible; Republicans mostly believe government’s role should be limited and as much as possible should be done by the private sector.  Should the government provide/control your health care (Hillarycare/Obamacare), your retirement (Social Security), your food (15% of Americans are on food stamps) and even your consumer goods (Obama’s takeover of General Motors)?

Democrats would say “yes” to the above questions.  Many Republicans and most Libertarians would say those things would be better done by the private sector.  The latter would go further and say education (public schools) and infrastructure (airports, utilities, prisons, roads) could be done better by private companies than the government.

I’m fond of saying “Government is a Necessary Evil, with the operative word being ‘Evil'”.  I don’t say that to be cute or hyperbolic.  While I know we must have some  government functions to maintain order and protect borders etc. (one thing the current Federal government refuses to do!), government by nature is evil and it should do as little as possible.

What do I mean by “government by nature is evil”?

Consider how government gets its money.  This is crucial, since more and more people see the government as a SOURCE of money for them, whether paid to them directly or to the business they work for through grants, contracts or “corporate welfare”.  The government has one main source of funds: taxes.  How does it collect taxes?  In most cases it takes money from you BEFORE you get your paycheck.  You never see it.  You worked to earn the money, but the government believes it can use the money better than you can, so it just takes it.  That’s evil.  You worked hard for that money, but the government takes it by force.

What do I mean, “by force”?  If you evade (as opposed to “avoid”) paying your taxes, you will be fined and ultimately men with guns will come and take you to prison.  So the government takes your money or they take your freedom.  For that reason all government money is “dirty”.  It’s taken by force and tainted by the threat of violence.  That’s why taxes should be as low as possible and the government should do as little as possible.  I’m not saying there should be no taxes.  I know some is necessary, since the government doesn’t really do anything that people would willingly pay for.

Which brings us to the other side of the argument.  Private business is “clean” in my estimation, because business gets its money from people voluntarily.  When you buy corn flakes for your breakfast, you can choose Kellogg’s, Post Toasties, or a store brand.  The corporations may use advertising and colorful packaging to convince you to buy their brand, but you have choices and there’s no danger that you’ll go to jail if you decide to buy English muffins instead.

The same can be said of charity.  Democrats wail about children and the elderly starving if any cut in government spending is proposed, but there’s a big difference in the checks I happily write to my church or the items I give to Goodwill and the money that’s forcibly taken from me in taxes.  There’s no way I can feel very charitable about the latter.

With the government, even the most benign government, choice (i.e. freedom) is always limited, and the penalties for breaking the rules are always severe.  Hence Obamacare, like Hillarycare before it, includes fines and jail time if you go to a doctor out of network or if your doctor prescribes a treatment the program hasn’t approved for you.  There can be no better argument against government involvement in health care.  How can we see that as anything but evil?

2 Comments

Today the Dow Jones Average dropped 500 points after dropping 800 over the past 10 days.  How is that possible?  I thought Congress and the president had saved us by raising the debt ceiling.

I thought Wall Street liked certainty and Tuesday’s deal for raising the debt ceiling would soothe the financial jitters.  But apparently, Wall Street also likes solvency, and the Federal government doesn’t have much chance of that.  Therefore today we got panic on The Street.

To me that just means one thing: the whole debt ceiling scare was bogus from the start.  The press, pundits and politicians alike told us that unless they raised the debt ceiling, the country “can’t pay its bills.”  It would “default”.

I knew all along that that was not true.  For that to be true, the government would have to have no source of funds but borrowed money.  But the Federal government receives tax money EVERY DAY.  I sent them about $2,500 this week myself.  It was the payroll taxes from my itty bitty small business.  I’ll send them another $2,500 give-or-take in two weeks.  Multiply that by several hundred thousand businesses, many much bigger than mine, and the Feds are piling in the moolah.

So it simply wasn’t true that the United States would default on ALL its obligations.  They just might have been forced to prioritize for once, like the rest of us.  And that’s what makes politicians panic.

Leave a Comment

Well, the Debt Ceiling debate has ended.  The deadline was August 2 and that’s when the politicians finally got around to doing something.  The “whimper-instead-of-bang” conclusion to the debate had few surprises: the debt ceiling was raised (yawn), the Democrats are upset that the Bush tax cuts are still in place (of course) and the Republicans caved, although the MSM is insistent that the Tea Party caucus has destroyed the country (always predictable).

Meanwhile, the ship of state continues to sink beneath the waves of red ink and the raising of the debt ceiling has just made the red tide deeper.  Before raising the debt ceiling, 43 cents of every dollar the Federal Government spent was borrowed.  Now what will it be? 50%?

Today, the day after the debt ceiling agreement, there is puzzlement in the media and on Capitol Hill.  The stock market continued a nine-day losing streak, the DOW barely turning up $30 at the closing bell after losing $850.  Didn’t they hear that the government raised the debt ceiling and all’s right with the world?

Even more puzzling, Moody’s continues to say they may still downgrade the Fed’s credit rating.  Why?  Didn’t Congress save us?

Actually, reality can now set in.  The stock market and Moody’s weren’t threatening disaster UNLESS the debt ceiling was raised, but BECAUSE of the debt itself.  In just five years, President Bush , but mostly Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress added as much to the national debt as had accumulated over the previous 235 years( ! ).

Do you need to reread that last sentence?

The debt ceiling deal, in spite of hard-won, but insignificant Republican cuts, will add no less than 10 trillion dollars to the national debt over 10 years.  That will mean the total debt will be $24 trillion dollars.

How much is that?  I have no idea.  I understand $24,000.  1,000 times $24,000 is $24 million.   What about $24 BILLION?  $24 billion is 1,000 times $24 million and 1 million times $24,000.  The last year of the Clinton Administration, the annual deficit (not the same as the national debt) was less than $24 billion.

But, $24 trillion is 1,000 times $24 billion and a MILLION times $24 million.  24 million-million dollars of debt.  That’s roughly $80,000 for every man, woman and child living in America today.  That’s where we are going.

Leave a Comment