Sunday, November 30, 2008

National(ized) Economy

Take a look at the national debt counter spinning away at the top of the page. At the time of this writing, it's spinning away at 10 trillion dollars. Now play that against the money committed to bailouts so far - $3.9 trillion. That's right, the government has committed nearly half the value of the national debt to bailouts, and for those of you keeping score, that's about 6.75 times the cost of the Iraq war to date. That's just the financial system bailouts. Let's not forget that coming up in about a week, the big three automakers will be back in Washington with their hands out. Then it's also been rumored that the television networks could be asking for assistance.

These bailouts seem to be breeding requests for more bailouts. When I took logic class in college, I was taught that a slippery slope argument is fundamentally flawed. That may be, but I see a lot of ice forming on the hill we're standing at the top of, and it's a long slide down.

What makes this scarier is that President-Elect Obama has said in multiple speeches that because of the economy situation, we can't worry about the condition of the national debt right now. To the contrary, now is the perfect time to be worrying about the national debt. We have an administration coming in combined with a congress who want to enact billions and billions of dollars of social programs on top of the trillions of dollars of bailout money. Currently, the numbers in the thousands are spinning upward. If we don't watch what we're doing, the millions could start moving at that speed. As the debt spins upward, the government prints more money, and as the government prints more money, our dollar goes down in value.

Then let's add that the folks in congress are talking about the government having ownership interest in the bailed out companies. I hope it's not just me who is frightened by the idea of the government having ownership interest in the banking system, major industries and the media.

In the book, The Forgotten Man, we are reminded that when things aren't going well and the the government is doing a poor job, the solution isn't necessarily more government. Let's hope the folks in Washington remember this.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Two union tales

People wonder why it is that Detroit is in trouble. I had a friend send me a link to a detnews.com story on a Brazilian Ford assembly plant. Watch that video here. When you finish with that, check out this story by WDIV in Detroit. I've posted this in my blog before, but when you view the two back to back, it brings things into clearer focus.
This is the best illustration of why I think we should not be bailing out the Big Three. Quite simply, as long as the UAW has a stranglehold over the Detroit Automakers, the only way to make them competitive is with protectionist tarriffs, which history shows have never, ever, worked.

Monday, November 24, 2008

I was reading some of the forums on Fox News when I came across one that asked if Obama will be able to fix the economy. One of the early posts was that he wouldn't be able to because Bush and the Republicans made too much of a mess of it.


It just amazes me how uninformed people can be. I'm not going to pretend that Bush and the Republicans were pure as the driven snow because that wouldn't be true, but to act like they were solely responsible for this mess is plain ignorant. To act like the Democrats weren't the main driving force behind the genesis of this problem is ignorant.


Democrats like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and even Barack Obama himself were the ones who pushed for all these subprime loans. The motivation was that everyone should be able to own a house. When Republicans like John McCain started calling for more oversight, they were shouted down with charges of racism. Obama was even listed personally on the lawsuit against Citicorp (who, as of today is getting even more bailout funds) to force them to make more subprime loans. As late as July and August, Frank and Dodd were making speeches in Congress to tell everyone that Fannie and Freddie were in fine shape and there was no more need for oversight.


A simple proof is to look at the hearings that have been held so far regarding this financial crash. Honestly, if the Democrats, who have been running congress for two years, could find even one Republican to hang these problems on, they would have had him pilloried on the steps of Capitol Hill long ago.


And yet, with the major media outlets committing what can only be described as journalistic malpractice, the people remain uninformed. Check out the video below, it's part of a documentary done on how Obama got elected. People waiting to vote for Obama who haven't so much as heard of people like Dodd, Frank, Pelosi and Reed, much less know what their involvement in the financial crash is.





Saturday, November 22, 2008

Change as usual?

All through the campaign, I heard as President-elect Obama preached that he will bring change to Washington. Yet, now that he's won the election, I along with a number of Democrats that I know are wondering, "Where's the change?"
As the appointments come down from on the mount, it would appear that this will be the third term of the Clinton administration. One of the things that Bush 43 was criticized for when he took office was that he went through and appointed members of 41's administration. Now, here is Obama with the majority of his appointments coming from the Clinton administration. How is that change?
Now, another appointment indicates yet another lack of the promised change. Yesterday, the Politico reports that the White House Office of Political Affairs will be manned by Patrick Gaspard, a New Yorker and longtime labor operative. This appointment obviously means that Obama will not close the office which he and the Democrats, as well as many Republicans derided through the campaign. John McCain even vowed to close the office if he were elected. By keeping the office, Obama takes yet another step toward business as usual in Washington, which during the election, he dubbed "the perpetual campaign."
So, as I watch the transition work its way through and the appointments of Washington insiders come down, I have to ask, being that it doesn't appear that Obama is moving away from Washington politics as usual, what was the change we needed?

Thursday, November 20, 2008

My Bipartisan Moment

It's the coldest November that I can remember in quite awhile here in Northwest Ohio. Today I think I found out why. It would seem that Hell has frozen over. How do I know? I know because today, November 20, 2008, I agreed with something Nancy Pelosi said. It's just unthinkable!!

Today, Nancy Pelosi said that before they receive any bailout money, the Big 3 need to show a plan of how they're going to navigate their way out of this mess. I saw that on t.v. and actually found myself saying "Damn right, Nancy!" After watching how the banking bailout went, I'm glad to see that maybe the government is giving some thought to how things are going to work before they go pouring money down a hole.

Wednesday, the execs of the Big Three showed up in Washington to make their case for being bailed out-- via private jets. Apparently they went to the same school of being bailed out as the execs of AIG. I'm sure that they get the gravity of the situation, but it would be a much better appearance if we saw some effort like flying commercial rather than taking their private jets. To me it would show that they're willing to move toward getting rid of the old habits that got them into this mess.

Dont' get me wrong. I still think the Big 3 should not get a bailout. I think the best thing for them is to go for bankruptcy protection and reorganize so that they can come out stronger.

Unfortunately, it seems that this bailout is going to happen one way or another. So, before I see the government thowing my money down the hole that is the Big 3 automakers, I'd like to see a few things...

1) This is a loan. It is only a loan and it will be paid back. With interest. The government will be the lender and will not be a shareholder in any of the companies.

2) Bonuses, golden parachutes, and huge salaries are out the window. If you're steering the ship when it runs aground, you don't get a big bonus for your performance.

3) The execs show their plan to get out of this, including how they're going to sell off foreign properties, and work the assets (such as selling off unnecessary things like private jets) that they have to raise some of their own bailout funds, as well as what changes they're going to make in their lines to be more competitive.

4) When the Big 3 execs come back to Washington in December to make their case, they fly commercial and Ron Gettelfinger comes with them. He gets to testify about the UAW's role in this mess and tell what concessions they are going to make to help turn this around. If he thinks that the UAW doesn't have a part in this and doesn't need to be a part of the changes, he first needs to read my earlier blog about the cost of labor for the Big 3 and look the investigative piece that WDIV in Detroit did on how two of the UAW leaders are ripping off the companies for thousands of hours of overtime. You can check it out here.

Given that the Democrats owe so much to the unions, I'm sure that they'll never make that demand. I'm also sure that they won't allow the bankruptcy that so needs to happen. Quite simply, if they do, the UAW will lose a large chunk of the Working Man's Golden Parachute that is their deal with the Big 3.

So, while it probably won't happen yet this year, this bailout will probably happen, and it won't happen with concessions from the UAW. Which means that the companies will not be able achieve a competitive hourly cost, which will doom this bailout to eventual failure.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Working man's golden parachute

The management of the Big 3 Automakers will be in Washington today with their hands out looking for their bailout. I hear calls for the CEOs to take a hit in all of this and I can't agree more. The people who were driving the boat when it sank don't deserve bonuses, etc., but the government can't be blindly handing out money to everyone who has decided that they're too big to fail. Especially in this case, because it appears that one of the major root problems behind this is not going to be addressed. Namely, the Working Man's Golden Parachute that is the UAW contract.

Ron Gettelfinger says that the UAW membership will not make any more concessions in this try for a bailout. Yet, according to Ford's annual report it has paid at an average $70.51 an hour in wages, pension, and health care costs for hourly workers last year. General Motors' annual reports show that its labor costs average reaches $73.26 an hour while Chrysler Group reaches an average labor cost of $73.86. Contrast that with the $43 per hour that Honda, Toyota and Nissan are reportedly paying and you see what I mean.

Don't get me wrong, there are a number of things in this to list as causes. Mismanagement by the company execs, sure. So, they should be giving up the giant salaries, big bonuses and golden parachutes. Certainly, the fact that the Big 3 have continued to make huge, gas-guzzling cars despite the constantly rising fuel prices. I understand that there are market forces to be considered here. I understand the need to make the SUV's that the people want to buy, but much of this fuel situation was visible on the horizon. They should have at least been planning, so I think some direction for them as to more fuel-efficient cars is in order if they're going to use my money.

The problem is that even if the Big 3 implement lower salaries for CEO's and start making more fuel efficient cars, the root problem that their labor cost is nearly twice that of their competitors, they're still not going to be competitive and we'll just be throwing our money down a hole.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Internet President?

I was watching today as the folks on television were talking about Obama's address and that all of his addresses are going to be available on YouTube.

They were laughing about the idea that there would be nothing for them to do because he would just do YouTube videos and there would be no daily press briefings. Personally, that's not a bad idea, at least in part. It would be nice to see all of the speeches and press briefings in their entirety without the filter of the national media.

However, as they were pointing out on television, part of the job of the media is to ask questions and monitor how the President is doing and question what he does. The problem here is that we've already seen that media outlets such as Fox News and the papers who endorsed McCain in the election don't get called on in press conferences. So, the only ones who will get to ask questions will be the ones who have already proven their loyalty to Obama.

I hope he does put everything on YouTube because it may be the only way we get an accurate picture of what he's saying and doing.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Auto Bailout

I sit and listen as the people (Dodd, Frank, Pelosi...) who brought us the collapse of the financial industry through their demands for subprime loans and loose standards at Freddie and Fannie weigh in on the possiblity of bailing out the big three automakers and it's just unbelievable. Where does it all end? What is out there that's not too big to fail?

The biggest problem that I can see with this is that the Democrats want to put all kinds of strings on the bailout of the automakers. First are the standards on what kind of cars they can make. I understand the need for cleaner and greener cars, but the fact is that all the restrictions that have been put on the automakers here are the reason that they're having problems. The automakers are doing much better overseas where they have fewer restrictions.

Second, they want to put a lot of restrictions on the execs as far as salaries, golden parachutes, etc. This is a pretty good idea. The execs at AIG are a perfect example of how idiotic people who are being bailed out can be. This is also a good idea because these idiots are the ones who made the deals that are causing the major problems, which is linked to the third item.

The third item is a big problem for me. The Democrats who are pushing this are so very much in the pockets of the unions that they'll never push for dealing with the biggest problem the automakers face: the deals with the unions. Autoworkers for the big three make so significantly over what factoryworkers in other industries make that it's ridiculous. For that matter, they make much more than those working in the United States for foreign companies like Honda and Toyota. Then, at least here in Toledo, is the layoff pay. The factories are making non-competitive cars that are not selling. So they don't need to make more. So, they shut down and the workers get "laid off." The problem with a layoff as far as it doing anything for the finances of the automakers is that the person who is sitting at home not producing anything for the market gets paid 95% of his salary. That along with the Union pensions which, to me, rival a golden parachute. It's no surprise that the US automakers aren't competitive. And the Democrats will never want to address these problems in a bailout.

So, being that the Dems and the automakers will never address the union problems that are the primary cause of the need for a bailout, any money thrown at the automakers will be a complete waste.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Bailouts... the good... the bad and the ugly

The Good...



AP is reporting that Citicorp will be doing a moratorium on foreclosure and will be working with homeowners at risk of losing their homes. According to the story, Citi said it won't initiate a foreclosure or complete a foreclosure sale on any eligible borrower who seeks to stay in a home if it is the borrower's principal residence, the homeowner is working in good faith with Citi and has sufficient income to make affordable mortgage payments. They also said that they are working to expand that program to loans that they service but do not own. In additon, over the next six months they say they will be reaching out to homeowners who are not currently behind but who potentially could need assistance.



"Typically the lender loses the most money when a house goes into foreclosure," said Barry Zigas, director of housing policy at the Consumer Federation of America. "(The lender) takes some kind of loss that's usually much greater than what they sacrificed through some kind of workout."



The story also says that a number of other lenders are moving to do the same thing. You can read the entire story here.



I have two questions here...



1) If foreclosing actually loses the bank more money than working something out, why haven't they been doing this all along in hopes of avoiding a situation that I have to believe they saw on the horizon if they were paying attention.



2) Is anyone from the government (specifically the Obama folks) paying attention here? It looks like people may be working this out without the government getting involved (more than they are) perhaps we could see if these people can work it out without the government.


The Bad...

The big three automakers are currently in talks to get the government to delcare them too big to fail. I'm really not behind this for a couple of reasons.

First is that slippery slope argument. We've decided that all these banks are too big to fail. Now we're looking at the auto industry. What's next?

Second is that the Democrats are making noise that if the government does the bailout they want to start dictating the cars that they can build and how they can be built. If you look around the world, the US automakers are doing quite well in other countries, and that would be because we have more regulations on cars than they do. If the government wants to put even more restrictions out there, they'll just make more problems and at that point, we might as well just take a big pile of money and set it on fire.

Third is the conditions that brought about the problems that the big three are having. They've spent decades making cars that weren't fuel efficient in spite of the fact that fuel was going up and up in price. They should have been looking and planning. Add to it the combination of management and unions. For decades the auto industry has been run by management that was willing to give away the store and unions that were willing to kill the host. The unions didn't care about the automakers' ability to do business, they were just bleeding them for all they could; and the management was willing to give everything away. At this point I say, "You made your bed..."

The Ugly...

Albert Einstein (or Ben Franklin if you believe some arguments) is attributed with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I think the executives at AIG could learn from this. After receiving not one but two big bailout payments and being caught on a retreat that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, they have once again been caught on tape at another resort retreat that people are saying once again cost a few hundred thousand. What amazes me is that AIG managed to become "too big to fail" with these idiots in charge. According to Fox News this morning, staff at the hotel were told not to talk about these people being from AIG and to keep it a secret. Honestly, in the era of Youtube and cell phones that shoot video, how could these morons think that this was going to stay a secret? As one of the people who is paying for this company to be bailed out, I have to say, I want my money back. I think the government needs to stop payment on those bailout checks until these idiots are put out and new leadership who gets the gravity of the situation is put in. They had their chance and now it's time for them to go.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Time for change

It would appear that Rep. Daniel Lungren is going to challenge House Minority Leader John Boehner for his leadership position. If Boehner is actually behind his party, he will do the right thing like Roy Blunt and step aside.

The thing that the GOP leadership needs to realize is that this election wasn't a referendum on Conservatism. A quick look at the number of state issues that went the way of conservatives should say that. What we should take away from the election is that it was a referendum on the direction that the Republican Party had taken.

I've been reading about Lungren, he's a moderate and much like Eric Cantor, who will replace Blunt, I'm not entirely sure that he is the man that the GOP needs in a leadership position at this point in history. However, if the last election has proven anything, it's that the current leadership should not remain in place, and certainly Lungren and Cantor could hardly do worse.

It's time for some fresh, new faces to lead the party out of the swamp that it's in. As I have said in my past blogs, there are a number of them out there who are rising to the top.

We've already seen some of the old guard do the right thing and get out of the way. Now it's time for Mr Boehner to do the same.

Friday, November 7, 2008

Change we need

I've spent the last couple of days off my blog because I've been trying to parse all the information that has been coming out since the election and trying to decide how I feel about all this.

Don't get me wrong. I'm disappointed. I'm certainly worried for the future. It seems that Mr. Obama and the rest of the Democratic leadership, in spite of their word that they want to unite everyone and work toward bipartisanship, seem to be moving to the hard left. As I said in my last blog, it appears that Lieberman will be spanked for speaking out in favor of John McCain during the campaign. Also, the appointments for transitional teams do not bode well for future unity and bipartisanship -- that is unless you define bipartisan as the conservatives giving up all their beliefs and coming over to the liberal way of thinking.

Having said that, I'm happy. Why? Because I do see evidence that Obama will bring about the change we need. I doubt that it's the change he intended although it could be, since we don't really know what he actually meant when he said change, but I doubt it. The change I see is within the Republican party.

I actually see a future in the Republican party now. I fully think that the majority of the party's problem is that it had lost its way. Now I see the first light of a direction emerging, and it's a good one -- back to the conservative values that we need.

First of all, is the attempt to smear Sarah Palin. Unnamed staffers leaking stories about her and disparaging her to the media. Even CNN is saying that these stories are false. Read it here. It's fear. These people realize that they have lost and lost big. They realize that their plans have failed miserably and they're trying to put it off on one of the people who is the future of the party in an attempt to save their own skin. Thankfully people are seeing it for what it is and launching a campaign to thwart it. Michelle Malkin addresses Project Leper in detail.

I've heard interviews with defeated moderate Republican candidates who say that the problem has been that the party wasn't moderate enough. Really? You take a strategy the fell flat on its face and say that more of it would have been better?

The media are reporting the Palin smears and the words of the defeated Republicans like they're gospel. They know. Despite their best efforts, true conservatives are a threat to the leftism that they so love, and if we've learned from history, true conservatism wins.

You don't have to look far to see the future of the party. It's in Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and many others.

There's an energy out there. I know I'm part of it. I've always been a conservative like many people are religious. They go to church on holidays, say an occasional prayer and even talk like Christians. I've been the same way in my conservatism. I vote conservative, I'll even talk conservative sometimes, but I haven't really gotten out there to help. Until now. Now I'm going to get involved, I'm going to work on campaigns, I'll be donating, and I know I'm not the only one.

With the appointments he's made so far, it appears that Obama will make many of the same mistakes that Bill Clinton made in his first term that brought about the Contract With America and a turnover of congress. Combine that with the conservatives of the future and you have a recipe for success.

Hang on. The change we need is coming.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

And so the uniting begins

I see by the news tickers that tomorrow is set for the meeting in which Harry Reid will spank Joe Lieberman for supporting McCain in the Presidential election.

Lieberman holds two chairmanships in the Democratic Conference, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. All of the major news outlets are reporting that Lieberman will most likely be stripped of at least his Homeland Security chair.

Last night, Reid said that the election is "not a mandate for a political party or an ideology." I think it would be pretty hypocritical for him to then punish someone for holding a different opinion on the election.

Lieberman has sided with the Dems on almost everything, except the war, and the election. Yet, a growing number of Democrats, while calling for unity and reaching across the aisle are also calling for Reid to punish Lieberman for his transgression in this race.

Both Obama and the congressional leadership have promised bipartisanship and unity. I don't know, maybe unity and bipartisanship are in the eyes of the beholder. If the Dems want to show that they are truly going to be their word and work to unite this country, this seems like a good place to start.

We're all Americans

As I sat last night, lamenting McCain's loss and being concerned for our future, a coworker who is a Democrat pointed out to me that "We're all Americans" and said that we need to come together and unite behind our new President.

I was struck by this statement as I listened to President-elect Obama deliver his victory speech, talking about reaching across the aisle and working together and saying that he wants to unite everyone. What struck me was that I had heard those themes in a victory speech before, but it was different this time.

It was four years ago. Not long after Peter Jennings, with tears welling up in his eyes, announced that George W. Bush had been reelected, and Bush was making a victory speech with very much those same themes of reaching across the aisle and the people uniting.

The difference was that nobody was calling anyone a crook, nobody was talking about how if he hadn't stolen the election four years ago, he wouldn't have even been running this year. There was no demonization of the VP and other staffers. There was none of that, save a couple of people running by across the street from us yelling "Go Obama! F--k McCain!"

There were discussions of tax and various other policies and how much would Obama actually be able to get done once in the White House. There were discussions of the possiblity of different outcomes had the Republicans put up a different candidate, but there were no cries for investigations. There was nobody saying that he's not the President that he shouldn't be allowed to take office. There was no talk of him being a Nazi. There was none of that.

There was, however, repeated talk of the fact that it's been a long election, it's over now, it's official, he's won, and that we're all Americans and, because of that, we need to put aside our differences and unite behind our new President.

I wonder how things would have gone had there been more talk like that from Democrats in 2000 and 2004.

Monday, November 3, 2008

The campaign that almost was

So, here we are on Monday morning before Election Day. The fat lady (sorry, caloricly enhanced) is off in the wings warming up her voice. The polls are not looking good for us at all. The polls have been starting to look better each day, unfortunately, I just don't think that there is enough time. The latest audio from Obama indicates that he would kill thousands of jobs and put the cost of turning on the lights in our homes out of sight. Give it a listen...



He did this interview in January. Where has this audio been all this time? I was listening to the radio this morning and one of the callers said that if this would have come out a couple of weeks earlier, Obama could not have carried Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and other coal producing states. Last night, I was watching Hannity and Colmes, and they said the same thing.

This seems to be a theme about the McCain campaign for the last couple of weeks. The idea of "Why didn't we hear that a couple of weeks ago?" "Why hasn't the campaign been pounding this for the past couple of weeks?"

A couple of weeks ago, I was driving across Toledo and McCain was doing an interview with WSPD radio here in town. The host asked what he had to do to win and McCain went down a list of things that they needed to say and messages they needed to pound home. Throughout that list, I was pounding my steering wheel and screaming at my radio, "When you gonna start, JOHN?!!!!!"

We've gone back to "It's the economy, stupid," in this campaign. The facts are that the Democrats in Congress as well as Presidents Carter and Clinton and Barack Obama have their fingerprints all over the genesis of this economic crash. They were the ones who forced the subprime loans that started this thing. Presidents Carter and Clinton pushed it, Democrats in Congress including Pelosi, Dodd, and Frank forced it to be expanded in spite of protests from Republicans like John McCain. Even as late as July of this year, Barney Frank was saying that the system was fine and Fannie and Freddie were fine. Obama himself even brought a lawsuit against Citicorp to force Citibank to make more subprime loans. Yet, as late as last week I was at a speech by McCain and a speech by Palin and I heard nothing of this.

The Democratic run Congress has a 9 percent approval rating while Bush is holding an approval rating between 25 and 30. Yet you almost never heard the campaign putting Obama together with congressional leaders like the Democrats put McCain together with Bush.

A friend and I were talking late last week and I said that if a person set out to throw an election I don't think they could have done a better job than the McCain campaign did. Also from that conversation is a theory we have as to why you never really heard about the economy stuff. We're thinking that deep inside himself, McCain so dislikes Bush that he would rather leave Bush's legacy with the economic problems than put it where it goes, even if it means losing the election.

Here is my last plea to voters before the election...

Last night, I watched an economic analyst who said that neither candidate has a great economic policy at this point. Obama's policy, if not implemented just right, will cause a depression. McCain's policy, if not implemented just right, will cause runaway inflation. The potential problem comes in that there is a very real chance that Obama and the Democratic Congress will have nobody to slow them down. If McCain were to manage to pull off the miracle come from behind or the Republicans manage to stave off the Democratic supermajority in congress, we could probably keep this in check. Otherwise, there will be very little to slow down the oncoming depression.

I pray that tomorrow we manage to pull off something, be it stopping the Democratic supermajority, or putting a Republican in the White House, to keep the two party system alive, but I don't hold out much hope. Without one or the other, I see a very real dismantling of the things that made this country the greatest on earth.

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Patriotism vs. Selfishness

The point to remember is that what the government gives it must first take away.
--John S. Coleman

There are these two quotes from Obama and Biden have me flummoxed. I just can't understand how paying more in taxes makes you patriotic and wanting to pay less taxes makes you selfish...





There are any number of people who would disagree with those two statements. First would be the US Court system. There are two cites I feel are on point here...

1."Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934) (Hand, J. Learned), aff'd 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266.

2."As to the astuteness of taxpayers in ordering their affairs so as to minimize taxes, we have said that 'the very meaning of a line in the law is that you intentionally may go as close to it as you can if you do not pass it.' Superior Oil Co. v. Mississippi, 280 U.S. 390, 395-396, [50 S.Ct. 169].This is so because 'nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands; taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions.'" Atlantic Coast Line v. Phillips, 332 U.S. 168, 172-173, 67 S.Ct. 1584, 1587 (1947) (Frankfurter, J.).

And as for selfishness, let's look at what Mr. Obama has given to charity in recent times...

2006: 6.1%
2005: 4.7%
2004: 1.2%
2003: 1.4%
2002: 0.4%
2001: 0.5%
2000: 0.9%

Only when he started running for office did he actually start donating anything. One can only assume that's because he figured it would look bad to be making no donations as a candidate.

And Mr. Biden is even worse. Since 1998, he has made $2,450,042 and yet he has made total charitable contributions of $3,690. For those of you without a calculator, that works out to just over one-tenth of one percent!

I think the reason they want to take people's money and give it to others is because they figure everyone is like them and won't give anything unless forced.

The fact is that their plan just won't work. No country has ever taxed and spent itself into prosperity. Ever!

I think Winston Churchill said it best...

For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

Another thought on the Vice President

I had another thought regarding yesterday's blog about Palin being a heartbeat away from the Presidency. If Obama is elected, Joe Biden will be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. If you look at what he has said over the campaign, he is an absolute gaffe machine. He can't even stay consistent with the ticket's policy. The only difference is that the liberals who run the major media outlets do not want to hurt the campaign of their chosen candidate give him a pass on everything.





And as we go into the election with the potential of giving over complete control to a group of people who want to make the biggest government in history, I give you the words of Milton Friedman...

"If you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there will be a shortage of sand."