Thursday, February 26, 2009

Stylin'

I watched Obama's speech, as well as Jindal's response, and I find a few things interesting...

First would be the response to Jindal's speech. People are saying that the speech wasn't good, but I think it was very good. Admittedly, the delivery wasn't as exciting as Obama's, but giving the speech to a camera in an otherwise empty room as opposed to a room full of fawning, applauding members of Congress is going to change the appearance. I think that a lot of this criticism is put forward by people who are worried about the strength of someone like Jindal.
The thing that Jindal did do was make people think. One of interesting the articles I read was about the sudden spike in online searches for the term volcano monitoring during his speech. That, among other things, would be one of the items that we couldn't do without in the Spendulus bill that Obama pushed.
So, did Jindal have the style that Obama had? No, but he had the substance that Obama didn't have. For example,

1) Obama talked about the deficit that they "inherited" which drew laughter and applause from the Democrats in the room. Really? Who was that running congress for the past few years? I'm not going to try to exonerate Bush, because the man did spend like a drunken sailor in a nudie bar. However, for members of congress to act like they just arrived in Washington to find a budget deficit left behind by someone else is preposterous.

2) He also talked about how we need to be more fiscally responsible and cut the deficit in half. Again, really? Being that the moves he and his cohorts in congress made in his first month in office more than doubled the deficit, to cut it in half still leaves us with a deficit larger than when he started in office.

3) He cited $2 trillion in savings "over the next decade." A nice thought, but the fact is he can only be sure he has a say in how money is spent over the next four years. He might be able to pull off eight years, but he won't be there for 10. It is common political speak to make projections beyond when you will be in office. That way if you want, you can put off things like huge program cuts or tax hikes until someone else is in office. You still get to make the grand statement, but you don't have to do the heavy lifting that comes with it.

4) Obama referred to the United States as the country where the automobile was invented. The fact is that while Henry Ford did invent the assembly line, which made it easier for everyone to get a car, historians generally agree that the car was invented by a man named Benz in Germany.

5) Obama said that regulations on the banking industry were taken apart and that people bought houses they couldn't afford and unscrupulous banks pushed the loans, "And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day." He implied that it was the Republicans who were responsible for this. That flies in the face of the fact that it was the Clinton administration that pushed for the changes in the banking laws and, in recent years, while the Republicans (like John McCain) were calling for more oversight, it was Obama's friends like Frank, Dodd, Reid and Pelosi who were saying that everything was fine and stifling the GOP's efforts to change the course of this problem.

6) He, once again, touted his plan to "create or save 3 million jobs." This is an excellent thing to say, but it's just that - something to say. First of all, the only way that the government could guarantee 3 million jobs is to hire 3 million people for government work. Either that or conscript them into the military. I don't know, maybe he's planning on bringing back the draft, but I doubt it. The fact is that his own economists said in a report last month that, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error." How many jobs are in a significant? Five, 10, a million, a couple of million? Who knows? There's really no way we'll ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. We know when people lose their jobs, but the estimates of jobs saved are based on predictions of how many jobs would be lost without the stimulus. So, basically, if we lose 10 million jobs, he can say that he figured we would lose 13 million and therefore he saved 3 million. Also, there's no way to figure how many jobs would have been created whether or not he put a giant spending bill out there.

These are just a few of the notable problems with Obama's substance. There were many more that have been noted by a number of outlets, but lest we forget, he did have style and that's what this is about, right?

Monday, February 23, 2009

Whiplash

Yesterday, President Obama announced that he intends to cut the deficit in half by the middle of his term. This statement leaves me somewhat dumbfounded. Being that just last week with a quick stroke of his pen, he doubled the deficit, doesn't that mean he's going to put the deficit right back where he found it? Which also begs the question, couldn't he have saved a step and not spent a trillion dollars we don't have?

In the presentation, one of his advisers said that the first step to get to entitlement reform is basically to spend billions on socialized medicine. The contradiction is enough to give you whiplash. The only way to get spending under control is to spend billions more?

Obama himself said that we cannot continue to pile debt onto future generations. Again the whiplash hits me. He and his party push through a trillion dollars in spending that heaps debt onto future generations without letting the people who are supposed to represent us read it, and he says we can't heap debt onto future generations. I'm at a complete loss.

Meanwhile, the Democrat-run congress is set to pass a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that Mike Pence, R-Ind. termed, "the largest increase in discretionary spending since the Carter administration."

Republicans have called for a spending freeze, which the Democrats seem to have already rejected.

Charlie Melancon, D-La., Blue Dog co-chairman for communications said, "The Blue Dogs will be President Obama's allies in Congress as he moves to re-institute tough budget enforcement mechanisms, such as pay-as-you-go rules, that have the force of law."

So, while they pass the largest spending increase in decades, they call for tough budget enforcement and pay-as-you go laws? In the wake of spending that makes the Bush administration's drunken sailor attitude toward money look frugal, all I can say is it's time to get a neck brace.

And we wonder why...

We've all been hearing the stories about the administration and apparently thinking that their own policies don't apply to them. The tax cheats, the orchid-growing temperature in the Oval Office, the list goes on.

Now, I read this story about the President's auto team. If a person set out to pick posts to give people a laugh because of the contradictions, he couldn't do much better than Obama.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Insight

It's been interesting to watch some creeping disillusion regarding the President and all of these grand bailout plans.
Some Republican governors, like Jindal and Palin are talking about not taking bailout money for their states, saying that it comes with too many strings. Among other things, it would require the complete repeal of welfare reform that was passed by the Clinton administration, which would then only be funded for the first couple of years. I have to say good for them. I wish more people would stand strong like this instead of caving and doing like Granholm, Schwarzenegger, and Crist and begging for whatever is left by those governors who aren't taking.
More interesting is a couple my Democrat friends who are looking at the latest incarnation of the bailout, specifically the $75 billion to save 9 million homes from foreclosure. It seems that they are wondering why the government is spending our money to bail out people who shouldn't have been buying homes in the first place. They are thinking that it isn't fair to the people who are doing things right, bought within their means, pay their bills and are sacrificing in this economy to realize "The American Dream" of owning a home.
While I like that they are seeing what the problem is, I have to wonder where they've been all along. I saw things like this coming, and so did many other people like me. It's not like Obama made a great secret out of wanting to do things like this. I guess I should just say, "Welcome aboard, glad to have you here."
It would also seem that they are not alone in their creeping disillusion, as I watch the President's approval rating start to dwindle. Hopefully, when that clock on the left column of this blog reaches zero, there will be enough people who have gone down this path to vote people into Congress who will slow plans like this down.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

The audacity of importance....

It's official. The President has signed the Porkulus bill, aka the Generational Theft Act of 2009. Passed on Friday, the President signed it today in Denver.
And so, in one single maneuver, to complete his first month in office, President Obama added nearly as much to the deficit as Bush did during his whole Presidency.
Does it seem odd to anyone but me that while this was so important that it couldn't wait for the Congress to read it, it wasn't so important that President Obama had to interrupt his long weekend to put his signature on it?
You would think that if this was so important and that the future of the country depended on it passing without delay, that the President would be standing outside the doors of congress with his pen in his hand. Of course, it was Friday and he had date night with his wife.
Michelle Malkin has an excellent story with pictures about a group who held a protest and pig roast in Denver for the signing. Check it out.

Friday, February 13, 2009

It passed

It comes as no surprise, but the stimulus bill passed. There are so many things to say (starting with an apology to the children and grandchildren that were just enslaved), but I can't find a way to improve on what John Boehner said...

Are you kidding?????

I see that the Democrats are following through with their promise of transparency, bipartisanship and accountability. As the Porkulus bill finishes at roughly $790 billion and the text balloons to over 1000 pages, reports are that Nancy Pelosi is asking for commitments of support without letting people read the bill. Even members of her own party say that they don't expect to have a chance to read it before the vote. Of course the Republicans aren't getting to see it, the logic being that they didn't vote for it in the first place, so why should the get a chance to read it? Although, Pelosi did say that since the Republicans weren't voting for it, the Democrats would be accountable for it. Right.
As my wife, who is a teacher, has pointed out, it goes against one of the first things they teach you in Kindergarten - read the directions before you pick up your pencil.

Way to go guys. You have become what you always said the Bush administration was.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Bailout, Stimulus $$$$$$$$$$$$

I heard in several places yesterday that if we were to take all the money the government is putting into TARP 1, TARP 2, the Porkulus package, and all the rest, the government could pay off 90 percent of the mortgages in the United States. If we have to spend this much money (which, much like this list of economists, I still think we don't), mortgage payoff is not a bad idea, but I have a modification to satisfy my friend who pointed out it wasn't fair to people who rent.

So, here's the theory...

You take the money and pay off 50 percent of every mortgage in America. If you want, I'll even use President Obama's income breakpoint of $250,000. Pay off 50 percent of every mortgage on a primary residence for everyone making under $250,000, and take their interest rate down to 4 percent.

Consider what that would do:

Using an online mortgage calculator, I figured, assuming a $100,000 house for which $90,000 is financed on a 6.25 percent 30-year fixed loan, the monthly payment would be $554.15 before my buyout plan.
After my buyout plan, that same person would be financing $45,000 at 4 percent on a 30 year fixed, making his monthly payment $214.84. That would be an additional $339.31 per month in the pocket of the homeowner, which will most likely get spent, causing a demand for goods and services, which would mean we would need to put people back to work to provide them.
In addition, there would be an influx of money into the banking industry, at least part of which would be made available for lending again, which should unfreeze the credit market.
Now, because my friend says that would be unfair to the renters, my plan is that each renter can apply for a one-time payment of half their annual rent.
Now, I know that there are those who are going to say that it isn't fair because some people get a bigger payment than others, etc. etc. etc. My answer is simple, no plan, no matter how well thought out it may be, is going to be absolutely fair to everyone. I wish it could, but it can't. This will put the most money in the pockets of the people who we are told need it most in the shortest amount of time.

Some renters, with a large lump of cash in their pocket, may even choose to use the money as a down payment on a house, thereby starting the housing market again.

This plan should also mitigate a fair amount of the inflation that should come with a flood of money in the market, because there won't be a giant influx. With the exception of the renters who would receive a large lump-sum payment, homeowners will see a few hundred dollars of extra cash each month, which should hold demand down to an extent.

Truth be told, though, I really think that we could do this and restart everything for significantly less. Buy down the interest rate on all the mortgages to 4 percent, and pay half the payments for each mortgage in the above plan for a year, maybe two. For one or two years, they will have a significant amount of extra money each month, and at the end of that two years, they would still have a lower payment than when they went in. Renters would, once again, get a payment for 1/2 their rent for the same number of years that homeowners. It should start the economy just like before, but it would cost significantly less.

It's just a suggestion, although I doubt that Congress would ever go for it. If they passed this as it stands, it would only be stimulating the economy, helping the housing market and creating jobs. However would they implement their socialist agenda?

Monday, February 9, 2009

Lost in the shuffle

One of the things that seems to be lost in the shuffle of the trillions of dollars of imaginary money being thrown about is this country's southern border.
I ran across this article about an Arizona rancher who is being sued for $32 million dollars by 16 illegal aliens. They say he violated their civil rights by holding them at gunpoint when he found them trying to enter the country illegally by crossing his ranch.
According to the story, he turned them over to the Border Patrol, but he allegedly yelled at them and kicked one of them while he was detaining them.
There are three things that amaze me out of this story. First would be that the article says he has turned over 12,ooo illegals to Border Patrol since he started patrolling his ranch in 1998. Second is that these people who are not citizens in this country believe they are entitled to the same civil rights that citizens here are. Finally is that a judge seems to agree with them. The judge actually denied a motion to dismiss from the rancher, saying that there was enough evidence to send the matter to trial.
Absolutely amazing. These people who are not citizens here trespass on this man's land and then sue him in courts that they should not be entitled to for protecting himself and his property.
I'm thinking that if the Obama administration wants to build things to stimulate the economy, how about that border fence?

Friday, February 6, 2009

Partisanship

President Obama went off his teleprompter and lashed out at those who are opposing the European Socialist Bill of 2009 according to a Politico article. In that lashing, he let more of his true color show.
At one point in the speech, he openly mocked the GOP for not following through on promises of bipartisanship. This would be the man who answered all of the Republicans' suggestions for the bill with "Hey, I won," right before ignoring them. This would also prove once again that Obama's definition of bipartisan is the Republicans rolling over, abandoning their values and doing what he tells them to.
“When you start hearing arguments, on the cable chatter, just understand a couple of things,” he said. “No. 1, when they say, ‘Well, why are we spending $800 billion [when] we’ve got this huge deficit?’ – first of all, I found this deficit when I showed up, No. 1."
Yes, you did, Mr. President and your answer to finding this deficit was to go out, first thing and try to borrow more money in one month than this country did in its first 200 years of existence. In other words, Mr. President, your answer was to go out and increase that $10 trillion deficit by nearly 10 percent in your first month.
“We were complimented by Republicans saying, ‘This is a balanced package . . . we’re pleasantly surprised,’” he said. “Suddenly, what was a ‘balanced package’ is suddenly out of balance.”
Could it be, Mr. President that the Republicans are listening to what the people are saying? According to Gallup, while 75 percent of Americans think there should be some sort of plan passed, almost 8 out of 10 Americans are concerned the plan would not stimulate the economy quickly enough. Yes, Mr. President, 80 percent of Americans are concerned that this is not the right plan. Perhaps the GOP was listening to the people - a phenomenon most of you in Washington are not familiar with.
And, under the heading of bipartisan, Mr. President, you have members of your own party who are saying that this isn't the right bill.
Once again, if you want to pass a stimulus bill, then pass a stimulus bill. Not a bunch of pork barrel spending. Don't spend the money to catapult us down the road to the European Socialism that even European countries are turning away from. Put the money where it needs to go. Put it toward helping the housing market, put it toward something that would pave the way for jobs outside of government - like tax cuts for the folks who, as you put it when you were trying to sound like Reagan last week, "make things and hire people." You know, those guys who were appearing with you, the business owners.
Mr. President, I know you're unhappy that you may not get all of your socialist policies set up in one fell swoop, but maybe it's time for you to put your partisanship aside and work for the best interest of the people of this country, instead of the best interest of your huge government programs.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

We may not survive

President Obama announced today that we have to pass this stimulus bill or we may not survive. Is it just me who's flashing back to 1987 when Oral Roberts locked himself in a tower and told his followers that they had to send in $8 Million or God would call him home?
I recognize that the going is fairly rough right now, but if we don't pass this we may not survive? Really?!?!?
If they want to have a stimulus, that's fine, but read the damn bill! There's more "pet project" spending in this than you can shake a stick at. Here's a few of the items...

● $9.0 billion for grants to extend broadband Internet services;
● $2.6 billion for grants to improve the criminal justice system;
● $1.5 billion for grants and programs to fund science and technology research;
● $1.5 billion for NASA programs;
● $1.2 billion for programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration;
● $1.0 billion for periodic censuses and programs;
● $1.0 billion for the Community Oriented Policing Services program; and
● $3.7 billion for other activities.
● $7.8 billion for environmental remediation and various other activities.
●$5.6 billion would fund various programs, including capital improvements and maintenance for the Forest Service and National Park Service, the Superfund program, and wildland fire management.
●$6.0 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
● $26.5 billion for grants to elementary and secondary schools, including funding for special education and Title I;
● $17.1 billion to renovate elementary and secondary schools, fund educational technology, and support homeless students;
● $13.9 billion for Pell grants and other student financial assistance.
● $4.2 billion for other education programs, including $3.5 billion to renovate facilities at post-secondary institutions
● $3.0 billion in 2009 budget authority for military construction and family housing projects of the Department of Defense
● $12.9 billion for housing assistance programs administered by HUD
● $79.0 billion to the Department of Education to create a fiscal stabilization fund to provide grants-inaid to states

Using the latest CBO report available, I found those items, totalling nearly $200 billion, in about 10 minutes of skimming. National Review has a list of 50. We won't survive without these things, or they won't get these things moved through appropriations if it's not done in a panic under the cover of economic stimulus?
Susan Collins, the senator from Maine, had it right. Many of these may very well be worthy projects, but they need to go through the normal appropriations process.
If they want to stimulate the economy, put the money where it will do the most good. In the hands of the people and small businesses. This thing started with housing, so maybe housing would be a good place to start fixing this, and yet it isn't mentioned anywhere.
Instead of doing the right thing, and sending these programs through the normal appropriations process, Obama is pushing the "we're all gonna die" button to try to panic everyone into passing a huge spending bill that will do very little to help the people who need it most.
Then again, why not do it that way? In 1987, Oral Roberts managed to get $1 Million beyond his request.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Apologies

Have you, like me, been feeling a bit disenfranchised? I know I'm feeling a bit like a second class citizen and here's why...
First would be the dope smoking medal winner Michael Phelps. You're a public figure and you go out and smoke pot at a party? Have you taken all leave of your senses? Bad pun, but good question. In this age of cell phone cameras and all kinds of "got'chas" going on, why would you do something like that? The smallest amount of common sense should have screamed no at you. Yet, it appears that he won't lose his endorsement contracts. Well, after all, he did apologize - it was just a youthful mistake.
Then there's Tom Daschle. A small $120 thousand "mistake" on his taxes. He didn't know that a car and driver gift should be reported as income. The tax code can be complicated, but this is something that everyone with a company car that they can use for personal business knows. He was the one who said, "Tax cheats cheat us all and the IRS should prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law." Who knew that the fullest extent of the law would be a promotion to the President's Cabinet? It does seem funny that, in spite of finding out about the problem last summer, he waited until just last week to pay. It couldn't be that he waited to see if Obama got elected and if he'd need to pay it back to get a post? Nah.
So, he'll probably get his Cabinet post. Oh, and don't forget that in spite of the fact that IRS penalties should run somewhere in the neighborhood of doubling the entire bill, he paid - none. After all, he did deeply apologize.
It makes sense though, we've already seen the precedent in Tim Geithner. Taxes.. don't pay 'em. Then, when you get caught, apologize. Sure, you'll still have to pay them back, but the apology should get you a waiver of interest and penalties and a Cabinet post.
Is it any wonder that polling shows that people feel disenfranchised? Look at the last three tales. If you were caught smoking dope, would you have endorsements or a jail cell. Do you think that an apology would save you? I know people personally who have the IRS nearly destroy their lives over a couple hundred dollars of unpaid taxes. Yet, tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes doesn't get anyone a jail cell. It gets them a cabinet post - of course, they did apologize.