There has been a seemingly endless debate about the Federal government budget, debt and spending cap that has dominated the news. I hate to think about all of the money that has been wasted on endless studies and “expert” economists to try and come up with an solution to the problem.

Based on all of this chatter, discussion, debate and brain power, you would think that this is an insurmountable problem. Well I am here to tell you…it’s not. Forget about all of the battles and numbers and boil the problem down to two pretty basic numbers and you can see exactly where the problem lies.

In the 50 years between 1960 and 2010 the revenue coming into the federal government is 20 times greater. In other words the dollars we took into the Federal government coffers is 20 times the amount of money that we took in back in 1960.

The other number is based in that same 50 year period…spending by the Federal government in 2010 is 42 times! greater than it was in 1960.

If you can’t figure out what the problem is, based on those two basic numbers, you’re either not trying, you’re lying or you’re stupid. It’s really that simple.

 

Michael Graham- That’s No Angry Mob, That’s My Mom (Regnery Publishing)

While I realize there will always be the Kool-Aid types that will latch onto President’s of any stripe like a barnacle and blindly agree with that leader’s policy with a cult-members mindlessness, but I have been absolutely amazed by the reactions that Barack Obama has gotten during his first fifteen months in office.

I’ve been at a loss to explain why seemingly intelligent people have bought into the big government, anti-capitalist, class warfare doctrine pushed by the Obama administration and the predictable attacks on talk radio, Tea Party activists and anyone who dares disagree.

In his new book, That’s No Angry Mob, That’s My Mom, talk show host Michael Graham comes up with the most plausible explanation I’ve heard up to this point, when he draws the humorous analogy to the classic television show Green Acres.

For those not familiar with the 60s era classic, the Green Acres storyline has Attorney Oliver Wendell Douglas living behind the rat race of Manhattan for the simple life, down on the farm. Douglas sets up to work the land in Hooterville, a town populated by the goofy, the weird and frankly the downright insane and since the town’s residents are of a like twisted mind, it is Douglas who ends up the weirdo.

Welcome to Obama’s Hooterville! Where perfectly normal, hard-working Americans who are concerned with the growth of government, the growth of the national debt and looming death of American exceptionalism and choose to express that concern in a public way are treated like to a volley of insults ranging from Tea-baggers to being labeled racists by the lazy media and what Graham dubs the O-bots.

Graham does the not-so-heavy lifting that the lazy media won’t do when detailing the ridiculous charge that the Tea Party types are short fuse looking for a light and claims that these ordinary, hard working folks are secretly plotting to overthrow the government or worse. The lazy media claims that Tea Party rallies are a hot bed of violence just doesn’t stand up even the lightest of scrutiny, in fact Graham points out that much of the “violence” has been perpetrated by the loyal O-Bots, most often sporting some form of Union garb.

Graham acknowledges that like any large group there are a few loose cannons in the Tea Party, but unlike liberals who embrace the nutcases, conservatives tend to shun the lunatic fringe and generally denounce their actions and words loudly and clearly.

Graham utilizes a sharp wit and clear-headed point of view to dissect the left’s ridiculous reactions to Tea party dissent.

This may be a surprise to some and will likely outrage others, but here is a news flash; Businesses DO NOT PAY TAXES! Business owners may be crying foul, but the fact of the matter is that any person who operates a business that wants to stay in business rolls the cost of their taxes into the price of their goods or services.

That simple fact alone should have every person in the United States screaming mad and running for the phone to call their elected officials! No! Not to protest that businesses don't pay taxes but to make in absolutely clear that the Obama administration floating the possibility of a value added tax or VAT is a non-starter and would destroy any makings of an economic recovery.

For those not familiar with the VAT, it is a tax that is rendered on every step of the process of taking a raw material and adding value to it. Let's take a bolt for example. Take all of the raw materials that go into making a steel bolt, now add a tax on each one of those steps. The cost of that bolt rises dramatically. Think about it; the raw materials are formed into a steel bar, tax. The steel bars are formed in into steel rods, tax. The rods are machined into the form of a bolt, tax. The bolts are threaded, tax.

Imagine that multi-taxed bolt is used as part of the manufacturing of a car, along with thousands and thousands of other parts, each taxed every step of the way. What do you think is likely to happen to the cost of that car? Certainly the automaker isn't going to eat the cost of the increased taxes, anymore than the the bolt maker would for all of the taxes on the bolts. So the costs get passed along to the final end purchaser, you the car buyer.

Now to multiply the effect. Say the car manufacturer buys new equipment for building the vehicle, the company that makes that equipment is hit with taxes every step of the way so the cost of that equipment goes up and naturally get factored into the cost of doing business for the automaker and gets passed along to you once again.

The Obama administration will try to sell this as a way to cut down the Federal Government's spending deficit and the debt built up by decades of overspending on he part of the Federal Government. This tax will have a detrimental impact on any economic recovery we may be experiencing. The tax will hit hard on the lower and middle class as well as higher income earners.

The only way to avoid the VAT will be to avoid any unnecessary purchases and history has shown that to be the reaction. As part of the 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, then President George H. W. Bush, broke his “read my lips, no new taxes,” pledge by placing stiff tax on luxury items like cars, planes, yachts, and other items costing in excess of $100,000. Sounds about right, right? Tax the rich who can “afford” to pay the cost if they can buy $100,000 plus boats.

The Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the lux-tax would generate $31 million in 1991. The actual number, $16 Million. Why? Because even so-called rich people don't like to waste money. George Will ran the numbers in a 1999 column as follows: “According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.”

So when the Obama administration starts floating out wondrous projections for the impact of the VAT, take it with a grain of rock salt. They won't talk about the negative impact on jobs, purchasing and the economy as a whole. Keep in mind we live in a consumer driven economy, with consumer spending generating two-thirds of the U.S. economic engine.

Unlike the healthcare mess where they sold us a bill of goods, we need to demand answers up front on the impact of this ridiculous idea. Unless the goal is to make the United States a Third World Country, this idea should not see the light of day!

Michael Lewis- The Big Short- Inside The Doomsday Machine (W W Norton - $27.95)

When our current financial meltdown was in it's earliest stages I distinctly remember asking the listeners of my radio show the question “what are these companies, (that have lost a huge portion of their value) doing differently today from what they were doing yesterday?” The products and services they where providing are still the same, so why has the value of their company dropped so dramatically?

The question was based upon the simplistic theory that the value of a company was based on the demand for the products or services they provided. The reality is that often times that value was manipulated by financial institutions who created a series of complex financial instruments for the purpose of having investors place bets, not on those products and services, but the fluctuations in the values of those companies.

Author Michael Lewis takes readers inside the inner workings of how those financial institutions operate in his latest book The Big Short (W W Norton) which focuses on the sub-prime mortgage debacle that is front and center as the root cause of our current financial meltdown.

The Big Short paints a dubious portrait of the “brain” trust of Wall Street investment bankers and bond traders. Literary takes on these modern day tycoons often portray these financial titans as swashbuckling, work-hard, play-hard types, swathed in $5000 suits and expensive silk ties and packing best and brightest, Ivy League credentials.

The reality Lewis describes is loaded guys who don't qualify as the sharpest tool in the shed, who sport a track record of past failures on a grand scale, that move on to the next rung on the ladder and are rewarded with new levels of power and even larger piles of cash to plunder.

The Big Short is an at times confusing road map, think Mapquest on crack, that runs through the multiple layers of investment banks, bond houses, hedge funds and insurance companies, where billions of dollars are gambled and where all-to-often the house gets bailed out by the taxpayer.

Lewis is a master storyteller, with the ability to both entertain and outrage. As he walks you through the story of how the sub-prime house of cards was being constructed and how financial operators developed the so-called investment “derivatives” which boil down to nothing more than the investment equivalent of placing bets, you'll be left scratching your head wondering what it is that government regulators actually do? The sub-prime story combined with the the Bernie Madoff Ponzi Scheme, is a scathing indictment of the mismanagement of financial watchdogs like the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The amazing thing, even to those like me, who are casually literate in these kinds of financial doings, is that each of this dubious investment vehicles received a sign off from a government regulator. You had some of the largest investment houses packaging these doomed-to-fail loans for bond trade and then creating derivatives that boiled down to taking bets that those bonds would fail.

Like Madoff's plan and all Ponzi schemes, these Wall Street geniuses need to have enough new loans in the pipeline for re-packaging, that even after it became obvious that they were building a house of cards on a windy day, they continued to write new loans that should have been stamped “Guaranteed to Fail” rather than “Approved.”

Lewis cites the example: “In Bakersfield, California a Mexican strawberry picker with an income of $14,000 and no English was lent every penny he needed to buy a house for $724,000.” Now some folks would have you feel pity for this poor schmuck when he inevitably lost his house. Really? At what point did we completely toss having any iota of personal responsibility out the window? Even if this guy paid every dime of his earnings each year toward an interest free loan it would take him over 50 years to crack the nut! Sorry, but I feel no sorrow for this guy.

Along the way, The Big Short, makes an interesting statement about the current state of ethics in this country. There are no real heroes here. Some of the players involved in the story discovered the brewing tempest and rather than warning about the impending storm, they looked for ways to capitalize and make billions off the mis-management and down right wrong doing. It also begs the question; if Bernie Madoff belatedly ended up behind bars for his scheme, will we ever see anyone, aside from the taxpayers, pay a price for this outright crime?

A couple of recent news stories have me scratching my head...

Am I the only one that finds the story about the alleged Michigan militia group calling themselves the Hutaree more than a little odd? The timing of this arrest strikes me as more than a little staged by the Obama Justice Department to coincide with all of the alleged threats being directed at Democrat Congressmen following the vote on the ridiculous healthcare legislation.

As if to reinforce the “danger” posed by Tea Party conservatives, this band of nine (!) Christian militia members get scooped up Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano, because they were plotting to overthrow the government with talk of “armed conflict” and “weapons of mass destruction.” Really? Based on the mug shots of this band of backwoods goofs. I think Homeland Security might be giving them a little too much credit. I'm thinking they might struggle with finding their backsides with two hands and a map!

What makes this story even more bizarre is the coincidental story of Norman Laboon, the Philadelphia based man charged with threatening Republican Congressman Eric Cantor and his family. Laboon posted a YouTube video in which he states "You receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads," according to an FBI affidavit accompanying the charge.

According to the Reuters story Leboon was arrested on Saturday and during an interview with the FBI, he said he had made the video with his cell phone and submitted it to YouTube, the FBI affidavit said. Leboon said he had made more than 2,000 videos with threats, it said. 2000 threatening videos! This guys makes 2000! threat videos and doesn't get arrested until after a bullet is fired through the window of Cantor's Virginia district office. Kind makes you wonder what the hell Holder/Napolitano and their minions have been up to? Guess it might have something to do with who you're threatening.

Where do I start with this mess, also known as Amazing Feats of Obamacare, where bills can become law without being voted on and where insurance companies will pay you to but insurance! Don't believe me? The President said it...so it must be true! Right?

Amazing Feat #1

Is it any wonder that from the administration that gave us a Department of Homeland Security terrorism report centered not on Islam-ists who would do us harm, but on “domestic terrorists” you know, those people who “talk about the Constitution” a lot, would give us the Constitutional abomination known as the “Slaughter Solution.”

Proposed by the powerful chair of the the House Rules committee, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the “Slaughter Solution” would have Democrats pass a rule that would deem the Senate version of the health care bill to have passed, without the House of Representatives having actually voted on it! This would allow the Congress to fix what are viewed as flaws in the bill without House Democrats having to go on the record an answer to constituents for this piece of political toxic waste!

This whole thing may seem incredible to the average fifth grader, who has spent any time at all watching the Schoolhouse Rock video on “How A Bill Becomes a Law.” I'd suggest that the typical Democrat member of Congress, (you know; room temperature IQ, signed Obama - HOPE poster on the office wall and a fading Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker on their Prius) spend a couple minutes viewing the School House Rock video on You Tube, it will prove deeply educational.

While politicians try to mystify the Constitution and make it seem that you need a law degree to truly understand it, that's a load of bunk! The U.S. Constitution is all of about 3800 words long and isn't really a mystery that takes guys in suits or justices in black robes to decipher. The language is pretty straight forward and easy to understand.

As Stanford law professor Micheal McConnell pointed out in the Wall Street Journal “a bill containing the "exact text" must be approved by one house; the other house must approve "precisely the same text." It's not exactly brain surgery, is it?

Amazing Feat #2

While out on the campaign trail yesterday stumping for his Health Care bill, President Obama speaking to a throng of 200 in Strongville, Ohio stated “How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now? Raise your hands. All right. Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it's estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a raise.” Naturally the dimwitted faithful on hand liked the sound of that and the President's comment was met with warm applause.

But, let's take a closer look at what the President said and what it means.

Say it costs you or your employer $5000 per year for your health insurance. If this bill resulted in just a 100 percent fall in those premiums then your or your employers bill would be ZERO! So if we take President Obama at his word and we max out the fall in premiums at 3000 percent, then the evil insurance giants would be paying you/your employer $145,000 ($5000 multiplied by 2900 percent.) as The American Thinker points out "If you're fortunate enough to be paying $25,000 a year for health insurance, insurance companies will pay you $725,000 a year."

Only in Obama-world could the purchase of health insurance result in a wind fall for the purchaser! If this mess passes, I'll be the first in line to buy a high end Caddilac plan, followed closely by the announcement of my retirement.

 

ABCnews.com is out with a report raising serious questions about the legalities of faux-newsman Stephen Colbert’s, Doritos sponsored run for the White House.  At first glance it’s hard, actually near impossible to take Colbert’s Democrat and Republican campaign too seriously, but apparently that won’t stop the Federal government.

"The Federal Election Commission doesn't have a great sense of humor," said Massie Ritsch, director of communications for the non-partisan, Center for Responsive Politics.

Federal law bars corporations from contributing to candidates and while media organizations are allowed to cover campaigns, no precedent exists for a televeision network to promote the candidacy of one of their talk show hosts according to Lawrence M. Noble, a former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission.

"The real problem comes in the fact that he actually has his own show, talking about his campaign, paid for by a network," Noble said. "These are the kind of things on slow days you'd debate until the late afternoon at the FEC, but there are serious questions that come up. In theory, he could end up having some campaign finance problems."

This from the same agency that couldn’t that could find any wrongdoing on the part of the infamous Clinton/Gore ’96 campaign that took in bags of cash from poverty-stricken nuns and Chinese donors! 

Maybe instead of spending lazy afternoons worrying about a comedian playing the part of a Presidential candidate, the FEC could be looking into Hillary Clinton’s money laundering scam in New York’s Chinatown, where busboy’s at Chinese restaurants are donating the max to her campaign.  I know, I know, she’s cornered the market of the poor downtrodden busboys, who are struggling to pay New York City rents, but have an extra two grand lying around.

Cleveland Plain Dealer blogger Nark Naymik is out with the story that well-known mystic and actress Shirley MacLaine details Democrat Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich’s close encounter with a UFO in her new book, “Sage-ing While Age-ing.”

Naymik quotes MacLaine’s recounting of the Cleveland Congressman’s encounter as follows, (Dennis) "had a close sighting over my home in Graham, Washington, when I lived there. Dennis found his encounter extremely moving. The smell of roses drew him out to my balcony where, when he looked up, he saw a gigantic triangular craft, silent, and observing him. It hovered, soundless, for ten minutes or so, and sped away with a speed he couldn't comprehend. He said he felt a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind."

Not sure why I get the sense that the kooky actress has the series of events in the wrong order; it seems more likely to me that the little green men dropped off the man who’s running for President with the Department of Peace as a main platform item.  I’ll leave the anal probe punch lines to you.

The Congressional Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force that can be bestowed upon a member serving in the Armed Services of the United States.

In a White House ceremony early today President George W. Bush posthumously awarded that honor to the family of Navy Lt. Michael P. Murphy. Like all of the recipients of the Medal of Honor who proceeded him, Lt. Murphy's story is a seemingly familiar one; an average guy thrust into an extraordinary situation who disregards his personal safety and rises to feats of heroism.

When you read the stories of these amazing American you get the sense that most would be embarrassed to be labeled heroes; they were merely reacting the way they had been trained and that their buddies would have done the exact same thing under the circumstance.

It is for that reason that the Medal of Honor has risen to the level of reverence it rightfully deserves. There is a specific detailing of the stories and events that led to it being bestowed upon the recipient. The circumstances vary greatly, but the common thread is that of a warrior rising above and beyond the simple call of duty. While the World War Two era soldiers were dubbed The Greatest Generation and a reading of the medal of honor citations reveals that every era has their own greats.

Lt. Murphy's citation reads as follows:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as the leader of a special reconnaissance element with Naval Special Warfare Task Unit Afghanistan on 27 and 28 June 2005. While leading a mission to locate a high-level anti-coalition militia leader, Lieutenant Murphy demonstrated extraordinary heroism in the face of grave danger in the vicinity of Asadabad, Konar Province, Afghanistan. On 28 June 2005, operating in an extremely rugged enemy-controlled area, Lieutenant Murphy's team was discovered by anti-coalition militia sympathizers, who revealed their position to Taliban fighters. As a result, between 30 and 40 enemy fighters besieged his four-member team. Demonstrating exceptional resolve, Lieutenant Murphy valiantly led his men in engaging the large enemy force. The ensuing fierce firefight resulted in numerous enemy casualties, as well as the wounding of all four members of the team. Ignoring his own wounds and demonstrating exceptional composure, Lieutenant Murphy continued to lead and encourage his men. When the primary communicator fell mortally wounded, Lieutenant Murphy repeatedly attempted to call for assistance for his beleaguered teammates. Realizing the impossibility of communicating in the extreme terrain, and in the face of almost certain death, he fought his way into open terrain to gain a better position to transmit a call. This deliberate, heroic act deprived him of cover, exposing him to direct enemy fire. Finally achieving contact with his headquarters, Lieutenant Murphy maintained his exposed position while he provided his location and requested immediate support for his team. In his final act of bravery, he continued to engage the enemy until he was mortally wounded, gallantly giving his life for his country and for the cause of freedom. By his selfless leadership, courageous actions, and extraordinary devotion to duty, Lieutenant Murphy reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

 

 

 

I’m amazed at all of my fellow bloggers who are posting on so-called Blog Action Day.   Today, bloggers around the world are supposed to unite, sing a chorus of Kumbaya and comment on the environment and offer up suggestions to “reduce your carbon footprint.”

 Sorry, but I won’t be participating in adding to the global warming panic created by nitwits like Al “Nobel” Gore; so I won’t be quoting his Web site.

I consider myself to be a common sense environmentalist: I recycle my weekly mountain of newspapers, packaging, bottles and cans.  I plan errands to knock out a bunch of stops in one trip, more to save time than anything else. Plus I do basic winterization of my home, more to save on natural gas bills than any carbon footprint.

These are the kinds of things I think many people do without having to resort to the ridiculous steps of over-priced, death trap, hybrid cars or Sheryl “One Sheet” Crow.

I drive a big honkin’ SUV, love red meat and imported strawberries year round.

I’ve done enough research to see the unintended consequences of radical environmentalism, like millions of deaths caused not by the use of DDT, but from malaria, which could have been curbed except for the banning of DDT.

I’ve also researched the last extended period of warming that the earth experienced, the Little Climatic Optimum where the planet’s inhabitants experienced a positive impact from temperature elevation rather than the catastrophe predicted by the environmental whack-a-moles. 

The LCO occurred during Medieval Times, which leads me to conclude the global warming likely has more to do with the S U N than the S U V.

 

 

 

 

For years I’ve been saying the solution to the illegal immigration problem is easy; simply take away the reason why most of these people illegally cross our border, money. 

We’ve been told by politicians from the President on down that it’s “impossible to deport,” the 12, 20 or 30 million (depending on which report you read) illegals in this country.  I bet the number of companies hiring these criminal aliens is a significantly lower figure and the way to force these law-breakers out of our country is to crack down hard on their paymasters.

The fines against those who hire criminal aliens should start at $5 million and go up from there.  If you have to make a choice between hiring an illegal, saving a few dollars and the chance you might lose your business, then I think most people would choose to keep their livelihood.

So how do we do this crack down?  We start with the long list of “do not match,” files; the laundry list of companies wanting to do the right thing and send payroll tax withholding (social security) to the government, only to find that the social security number given to them by their employee doesn’t match the name on file or the person or number doesn’t even exist.  Many times this is a case of identity theft.

Sounds like a good starting point right?  That is until U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, based in San Francisco (no surprise) steps in with a restraining order preventing the feds from starting just such a long overdue crack down.

The Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security were to send joint letters in September warning businesses they'll face penalties if they keep workers whose Social Security numbers don't match their names.

The new rule would require businesses to sort out any Social Security mismatches within 90 days of being notified by the government or to fire the employee involved.

Judge Breyer said he needed more time for his final ruling and that the restraining order was necessary because "it's clear ... there could be irreparable harm to plaintiffs" if the government went ahead with its plan as it stands.

The plaintiffs fighting against the government are a strange bedfellows mix of the union hacks at the AFL-CIO, the ACLU, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce!

It seems clear that if the judge is so concerned about the irreparable harm to the plaintiffs that he’s not concerned about the harm being done to this country by criminal aliens. 

There isn’t a problem we face in this country that hasn’t been exacerbated by the massive influx of illegals.  The high cost of health care, education, crime and punishment, are just a few of the problems made worse by criminal aliens.

For those of you worried that we’ll be paying $5 for a head of lettuce if we crack down on illegals, you already are; it’s just that the difference is divided up in your school taxes and your health insurance payments.

Until we use common sense and remove the reason they are here and secure our borders then we will continue to be buried in the high costs of illegal immigration.

 

 

 

 

 

Every U.S. citizen could get a 401 (k) retirement account and up to $1000 in matching funds per year under a proposal floated by Democrat Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

According to the AP, “Clinton said she wants to create "American Retirement Accounts" in which everyone could put up to $5,000 annually in a 401(k) plan. The federal government would provide a tax cut to match 100 percent of the first $1,000 for anyone who makes less than $60,000 a year and 50 percent of the first $1,000 for those who make $60,000-$100,000.”

All this sounds oddly similar to the abandoned Republican plan to privatize Social Security, giving citizens an opportunity to pick and choose investment vehicles.

It had me revisiting all of the opposition hoopla against privatizing the so-called social safety net. You know the litany of attacks and out right lies; there’s no guaranteed return, politicians will choose Wall Street firms to make your investment choices, what if the stock market goes down?

Which raises the question; where are most 401 (k) plans invested? Yep, the stock market! So how is the Hillary plan any different?

In the war of words over privatizing Social Security the left droned on and on about what a great success the program has been. Well if it’s so great, so successful, then why would we need Mrs. Clinton’s retirement account?

The answer is really simple; social security is a HUGE government boondoggle, which faces a numbers battle that pretty much doom it to failure in the not too distant future. Even a third grader can figure out too many people taking out, not enough people paying in, you’ve got to wonder why Democrats, Union hacks, and Senior groups don’t quite grasp the problem?

So how will Mrs. Clinton pay for latest re-distribution of of government largesse? Why taxing the “rich,” of course. “At a cost of $20 billion-$25 billion a year, the plan is Clinton's largest domestic proposal other than her plan for universal health insurance. The New York senator said it would be paid for by taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple and would help narrow the gap between the rich and those who don't have enough savings for retirement.”

The plan raises more questions than it answers. Rather than raising taxes and crippling the economy, why not just allow people to keep their money (or a portion of it, which currently go into Social Security and allow them to invest it on their own? Wouldn’t that solve the issue without creating yet another big government boondoggle?