Category: Current Posts

Part of my family lore is that, through my paternal grandmother, I’m descended from Davy Crockett.  Maybe I am and maybe I’m not.  Someday I’ll join Ancestry.Com and find out.

There’s a Davy Crockett story from his time in Congress that bears repeating during the Debt Ceiling debate.  The reason we have a spending and debt problem in the Federal Government is that people have wanted too much and the politicians have fatuously obliged them with countless giveaway programs including the trio that threaten to bankrupt us: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

But, as I mentioned in my last post it wasn’t supposed to be that way.

The story, which you can read here, regards two bills in the House of Representatives, the first Crockett voted for, the second he quashed by making a speech against, after a constituent told Davy he wouldn’t be voting for him again and gave him a very cogent analysis of the Constitutional powers of Congress.

The first bill awarded $20,000 to victims of a fire in Georgetown. So what’s the problem? The frontier constituent explained:

“The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.”

The man went on to explain that if they could vote $20,000, they could just as well vote $20 million (or $20 trillion!). But he continued:

“No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose…”

“So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.”

There’s much more to the speech, but the upshot was that when a similar bill was brought before Congress, Crockett spoke against it but pledged one week’s pay for the cause of the bill.  As a result the bill was defeated and other members of Congress contributed their own money to help the people in need.

Congressmen giving their own money?  I know, it’s bizarre.

1 Comment

I’m tired of the Debt Ceiling debate, mainly because I don’t think anything meaningful will come out of it.  A recent poll showed that 69% of Americans don’t want the Debt Ceiling raised, but prefer that the Feds learn to live within their means.  However, in Washington DC, the default attitude is inevitability.  The ceiling will be raised; the only question is how high and will there be any spending cuts to begin fixing the problem?

President Obama says there needs to be compromise, and I’ll take him at his word.  The problem is, the two sides are so far apart, any compromise will enrage their respective bases.

America is deeply divided about the purpose of the Federal Government.  On the one hand, many of those who voted for Obama believe, as he does, that government is the answer and is best suited to provide most services and even some products needed by the citizenry.  They have no concept of a government being too big, because they see government as the source of their sustenance; the bigger the better.  Many of those people pay no income taxes, due to decades of politicians pandering and promising to “tax the rich”.  Almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax at all.  No wonder they have no interest in tax cuts.

On the other hand, those of a conservative-to-libertarian bent, often the same people paying the taxes, are often fiercely independent and wouldn’t stoop to ask the government for assistance.  It would be too humiliating.  But they have seen their taxes go up as politicians spend the money on ever crazier vote-buying schemes to help themselves get reelected.  The money goes to everything from countries that hate us to profane artists to people who have broken into our country to steal jobs and tax-payer funded government services.

How can there be compromise between these poles?

Will we go on down the road, with demagoguery as our background music?  Then, when we reach the cliff we’ll go on over, because no one had the courage to apply the brakes?  Will we dissolve into chaos like Greece because no one had the courage to tell people that the government is not their mama?

We have forgotten long ago that the intention of the founders was that the Federal Government would never make direct monetary payments to individual American citizens.  (You might have to reread the previous sentence because it seems like it’s from another planet today.)

Leave a Comment

Living in the Atlanta metro area as I do, I’ve watched several locally founded companies like Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines, Turner Broadcasting, and Home Depot.  Being an entrepreneur myself, I appreciate these rags-to-riches companies’ stories.

So I was interested to see an interview with Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus on Investers.com this week.  What was amazing was that Marcus answered the interviewer’s questions exactly as I would have.

“What’s the single biggest impediment to job growth today?” the interviewer asked.  My answer: The Federal Government.  Marcus’ answer:

“The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we’d tried to start it today.”

Amen.

Then a great question: “If you could sit down with Obama and talk to him about job creation, what would you say?”

Marcus: “I’m not sure Obama would understand anything that I’d say, because he’s never really worked a day outside the political or legal area. He doesn’t know how to make a payroll, he doesn’t understand the problems businesses face. I would try to explain that the plight of the businessman is very reactive to Washington. As Washington piles on regulations and mandates, the impact is tremendous. I don’t think he’s a bad guy. I just think he has no knowledge of this.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself.  Marcus gives Obama the benefit of the doubt regarding his intentions, but no one is more dangerous than someone who doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. yet wields unlimited power over people.

3 Comments

This morning in church my pastor mentioned Dr. Yousef Nadarkhani, a Christian pastor in Iran.  Yes I know, is there such a thing?  Well, perhaps not for much longer.

Yousef is condemned to die for the crime of being a Christian and protesting the fact that his son was forced to study the Koran in school.  He has been in prison for about 18 months.  Last week Iran’s Supreme Court upheld the death sentence issued by a lower court last September.

My pastor mentioned this in connection with July 4th weekend, as a reminder to celebrate the freedom we enjoy to worship (or not) in the mode we see fit.

Here in “the Great Satan” as Muslims refer to the good ole’ USA, Muslims have more freedom of religion than they would in Shi’ite Iran.  However, Muslim countries like Iran allow no such freedom for adherents of other religions. Coincidentally, Palestinians who live in Israel enjoy more freedom and opportunity than those who live in the “Palestinian Territories” of Gaza and the West Bank.

Christianity and Judaism promote and thrive in freedom.  Islam believes it can only survive in tyranny and oppression.  It’s no coincidence that Communism must live in tyranny and oppression, while capitalism thrives in freedom.  The contrast between the Berlin Wall, built to keep citizens from escaping Communism and rickety boats desperately coming to America from Cuba and even Vietnam is stark.

It is also no coincidence that America, with its freedom and opportunity, has an overwhelmingly Christian heritage.  While Christians have wielded swords in past centuries, real Christianity woos adherents with love, not force.

American Christians are praying for Dr. Nadarkhani, but except for a miracle or his recanting Christianity, he will join the ranks of Christian martyrs going back 2000 years.

Leave a Comment

During his speech about the debt ceiling on Tuesday, which I was not able to hear in its entirety, President Obama said something curious. He criticized Republican lawmakers of grandstanding on the debt issue so they could get on “cable news”.

You don’t have to be a Washington insider to know that “cable news” was a generality by which he meant “Fox News”.  The president is apparently still irked by free speech and the fact that people have the temerity to disagree with him on policy.

This reminded me that I have long been perplexed by the Democrats’ ironic dislike of democracy.  If Obama was a true populist, he would be praising Fox News, and I’m sure the newshounds there would be glad to interview him early and often.  The reason Fox News is a halcyon of democracy, besides being part of the Fourth Estate and asking “Fair and Balanced” questions of politicians from both sides of the aisle, is that Fox News is preferred by more people in this country than any other channel.

And I don’t just mean among the cable news channels; I mean among ALL cable channels.

In the week just past, June 20-26 (article), Fox News was rated number eight among all cable channels in total number of viewers.  That’s pretty good, but it’s even better when you realize that five of the top seven were children’s networks (the kids are obviously watching too much TV!)

For adult programming, only USA and TNT beat Fox News.  Fox’s nearest rival, Headline News, was No. 18.  But this also means that Fox was ahead of History (9), A&E (10), ESPN (14), Discovery (19) and the Food Channel (21).

I can respect President Obama’s preference for his own ideology and I wouldn’t pretend that Fox’s opinion programming doesn’t tilt right, but shouldn’t he realize that being critical of, not just the most popular news channel but one of the most popular cable channels period, wouldn’t be good for his own popularity?

1 Comment

The House of Representatives just voted down a measure to raise the debt limit to more than $14 trillion.  The vote was more than three to one against the bill.  That doesn’t mean everyone who voted against it didn’t want the debt ceiling raised; many probably voted against it because it required that $2 trillion in spending cuts be instituted to offset the additional $2 trillion in debt the bill would have allowed.

Am I the only one that doesn’t understand how people can say that if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, confidence in the economy will fall?  If that’s the case why don’t we double the debt limit to $24 trillion?  That would REALLY inspire confidence!

Actually, confidence comes from being in a strong financial position with a lot of cash in savings and investments and very LITTLE DEBT.  At least that’s the way things work in the real world.  Of course, Washington DC often doesn’t act like it is in the real world.

I wish I had confidence that the members of Congress would do something substantive about the national debt, but even the most severe budget hawks among Republicans seem unable to maintain that stance in the face of liberal politician and press demagoguery.

Leave a Comment

There’s a broken record in the media right now.  It’s playing “Obscene Profits…Obscene Profits…Obscene…”  So I got to thinking, how do you define “Obscene Profits?”

In my last post, I pointed out that many people, including many politicians and reporters who babble about the “Obscene Profits” the oil companies are making right now, don’t understand the difference between profit and profit margin.  The dollar amount of profit can be huge for companies like Exxon or BP, but their profit margin (profit as a percentage of revenue) might still be alarmingly small.  After all, there are times that any business will experience a loss, so the times of profit help balance that out.

Also, I pointed out that Government often makes more money on gasoline than oil companies, because government collects taxes without any of the risk the oil companies take.  Thus the title “Can you say H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y”.

So, what are “Obscene Profits”?  Undoubtedly, the people who use that term are statists who love government or non-profits and think any profit at all is dirty.  However, when a hard-working couple fills their 401k’s with the stocks of public companies, they are counting on those companies making a profit so they won’t starve to death during their declining years.  They would prefer that the profits be as “obscene” as possible.

Also, when a young person get her first job right out of college in a company that has a “last-hired-first-fired” policy, she certainly hopes that the company makes a profit, the more “obscene” the better, or she may be moving back with Mom and Dad.

And when an entrepreneur works 18-hour-days 6 or 7 days a week for 10 years, investing his lifeblood and borrowing every dollar he can, until he finally sees black figures on the bottom line, he needs to start making a profit consistently, or why would he do it?

Why would anyone take the risk of working and investing unless there was the promise of a good return, and why would we begrudge anyone generous rewards of their labors?  If we deny business the rewards of capitalism, the flow of goods and services we count on would cease.  And then where would we be?

Leave a Comment

Perhaps nothing illustrates better how Democrats don’t understand economics than the effort now underway to punish the oil companies for the current increases in gasoline prices.  First suggested by President Obama, the Senate tried but failed to pass a bill taking certain tax breaks away from specific large oil companies.

The measure was defeated procedurally and may yet pass.  It specifically targets the five largest oil companies and, since the tax breaks apply to most businesses, not just oil companies, was a blatant attempt to punish these companies for changes in the market, some of which are beyond the oil companies’ control.

Did it never occur to the politicians that raising taxes on companies that produce gasoline can only cause gasoline prices to rise further?  Such obvious logic appears lost on the Democrats, who function on the economically illiterate level of a janitors union member, always sure some faceless, corner-office executive is cheating them just because they’re mean.

The current cliche is that oil companies are making “record profits”.  Trouble is, the dollar amount of profits is meaningless unless you also know the profit margin, which is the percentage of profit compared to gross revenues.  Oil companies actually have razor-thin profit margins and the taxes received by Federal and state governments on each gallon of gasoline is often greater than the profit made by the oil companies.

So the president and the Senators who want to punish the oil companies because gas prices have risen are actually netting more money on each gallon than the oil companies are.

Can you say “H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y”?

Leave a Comment

After the execution of Osama bin Laden, I heard a report which may not have been connected, but it seemed to be.  I think it was ABC News which reported gleefully that gasoline prices were about to plummet 25 cents to levels we haven’t seen since, well, March.  The jubilant tone of the report gave the unmistakable impression that President Obama had vanquished Public Enemy No. 1 and, could it be?  Gasoline prices, the one thing that could harm him in the 2012 reelection bid, were about to fall!

True enough, crude oil prices did fall from about $100 to just above $80 per barrel, prompting prognosticators to predict a corresponding drop in gasoline prices.  Surely the politics gods had smiled on the President and the Democrats!

However, today the price of crude oil futures was over $100 again and average national gasoline prices had fallen less than a penny.  It is true that refineries are about to ramp up production, which is one of the factors that led to the rosy predictions of falling crude prices, but now we have another problem.

It seems that, in addition to the murderous tornadoes that sliced across the South two weeks ago, we are now faced with near-record flooding of the Mississippi River and its tributaries, which are threatening oil refineries in Louisiana with Katrina-like shutdowns.  Thirteen percent of the nation’s domestic fuel production comes from the 11 threatened refineries.  Hence the return to $100-a-barrel crude.

According to this article, futures traders have given up on $80-a-barrel crude prices and are thinking of $100 as “the new $80” and the bottom of the trading ladder.

Yikes!

Leave a Comment

I’m often critical of President Obama because I don’t like his world view or his policies one little bit, but today I have to say, he has hit all the right notes with the daring and dangerous raid that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden.  My congratulations and thanks to the president.

In many ways, this operation was out of character for Obama.  It was well-conceived, planned in detail and executed flawlessly.  No American lives were lost, which is astounding considering the potential for disaster.  At one point it appeared a “Black Hawk Down” disaster could be in the making, when one of the two helicopters’ engine failed and the bird had to be downed and destroyed.  But that eventuality had been planned for and the courageous Navy Seals were able to get in, kill and remove the body of Public Enemy No. 1, and get out to safety.

Also uncharacteristically, no one notified the Pakistanis that we were going in.  That is pretty much an act of war among diplomats, but this was not a time for diplomacy.  Now, the Pakistanis have “some ‘splainin’ to do”, since bin Laden had apparently been living in his large comfortable compound for years, with retired Pakistani military officers living all around him.

Perhaps the thing that will be most unsettling to Obama’s leftwing base is that the intelligence which made the raid possible came directly from the “enhanced interrogation techniques” applied at Guantanamo Bay.

One college student among those who poured out to celebrate in Times Square after the announcement by Obama commented, “Now we can bring our soldiers home from Afghanistan.”  Wrong.  Would that that was the take-away from this, but it is more likely that the War on Terror will escalate as true believers plan retribution.

However, bin Laden was still an important symbol and the fact that America persisted through three presidential administrations to pursue and dispatch the founder of al Qaeda must give at least some extremists pause to realize that, as Obama said, “When Americans set our mind to do something, we can do it.”

One of my Facebook friends correctly noted that it would have been unfortunate to mark the 10-year anniversary of 9-11 with Osama bin Laden still at large.  Now that remembrance will have a completely different flavor.

Leave a Comment