A few weeks ago, Schultz called on fellow executives to sign a pledge to stop donating to political campaigns until Washington can pass a bi-partisan, fiscally-disciplined deal to reduce the deficit.  In addition, he asked that the executives also agree to accelerate hiring within their businesses to assist in the economic recovery.

Schultz has written two open letters to America.  Although Schultz is a lifelong Democrat, he equally criticizes both sides of the aisle for partisanship and a complete lack of fiscal discipline, which he refers to as a ‘crisis of confidence’.  The following is an excerpt from his latest letter, but you can read the full letters here.

And I am a beneficiary of the promise of America.  But today, I am very concerned that at times I do not recognize the America that I love.

Like so many of you, I am deeply disappointed by the pervasive failure of leadership in Washington.  And also like you, I am frustrated by our political leaders’ steadfast refusal to recognize that, for every day they perpetuate partisan conflict and put ideology over country, America and Americans suffer from the combined effects of paralysis and uncertainty.  Americans can’t find jobs. Small businesses can’t get credit.  And the fracturing of consumer confidence continues.

We are better than this.

His letters and the pledge are very bold moves for any executive, much less one of a large, public company.  Leaders of these types of businesses often blow with the political wind to remain in favour with the party in power.  It’s almost unheard of for one to publicly speak out against Washington, as Schultz has, because it could result in many forms of backlash from offended politicians.

Few thought that his pledge would gain any traction, but in a few short weeks, he has garnered signatures from over 150 business leaders, such as Tim Armstrong, Chairman and CEO of AOL, Bob Greifeld, CEO of NASDAQ, Doug Hertz, CEO and President of United Distributors, Duncan Niederaur, CEO of the New York Stock Exchange, Walter Robb, Co-CEO of Whole Foods, Myron Ullman, CEO of JCPenney.

In addition, Schultz has founded Upward Spiral.  It is intended as a platform for business leaders and individuals alike to show bi-partisan discontent with Washington and the direction of this country.  Last night, Upward Spiral and No Labels (an organization that believes parties need to be put aside to move this country forward), held a national town hall meeting, headlined by Schultz, to discuss how to get America back on track.  Click here to watch the full town hall.

Schultz may not be locking Obama and the leaders of Congress in his library as Morgan did so many years ago, but he’s doing something that is even more powerful… he’s taking away their money.  My hope is that Schultz and Upward Spiral continue to gain traction.  I have signed his pledge and will support Starbucks (not just because they recently brought back the pumpkin spice latte) and the other companies represented.  I hope you do the same.

Do you think Schultz will be successful in forcing Washington to create a fiscally-disciplined debt reduction plan and bring down unemployment?  If so, how do you think it will impact 2012?

What is their view of the Stimulus, and how do they explain the still-disappointing job and unemployment numbers?

What do they think of his pushing Obamacare first instead of concentrating on jobs?

What do they think Obama should do about jobs and economic growth or do they think his policies are perfectly-chosen, just give them a little more time, we’re headed in the right direction?

Most liberals (I know I’ll get in trouble for that one!), obviously don’t feel that Obama “owns” this bad economy yet; they cling to the belief that it’s all Bush’s fault and as long as it takes to turn around, it is still all Bush’s fault. But when it does turn around (assuming it ever does), they will give Obama all the credit and never say that if his policies had been different, things would’ve improved sooner, and to a greater extent.

So, a specific question, to which I’d like a specific answer: How long before the bad economy is “Obama’s”?

If it’s still bad next spring, 3 1/2 years after the 2008 election, is it Obama’s then?

If it’s still bad by Election Day in 2012, is it his then?

Or is it never Obama’s bad economy?

What in your opinion constitutes the end of the “bad economy”? What numbers: Unemployment, GDP growth, unemployment weekly claims, gas pricing, etc. We need to know your benchmarks for saying “The economy is no longer bad.” When it reaches what numbers?

So, to all the Obama-supporting Liberals out there, I’d like specific feedback on

1. His economic policies
2. What, if anything, he could have done better/differently (And no weasel answers like, “He could have had better Republican cooperation.” I mean what in your opinion are the specific policy changes he could have made to better effect, or do you think they’ve all been perfect?)
3. When he owns the bad economy, if ever.
4. What numbers are ‘bad,’ and what numbers are ‘good,’ so we’ll know what you mean and we can track it.

These are lots of specific questions. Liberals generally don’t deal in specifics. They usually turn the questions back on the questioner and then attempt to shift the basis of the discussion so that they remain unaccountable.

Surprise me. Give me the policy evaluation. Give me the numbers. Be accountable.

Since I have only had a few moments to review the proposal, I have only formed an early opinion. My initial reaction is so far so good! The numbers are $3.7 trillion in total cuts and $500 billion in immediate cuts. This bipartisan measure seems to focus on spreading the tax base which allows us to increase revenue by $1 trillion yet lower marginal rates for everyone. The new highest income tax rate would be 29%. This bill sets up three tax brackets and abolishes the Alternative Minimum Tax (worth $1.7 trillion) The legislation also reforms enitlement spending and cuts from discretionary spending from every department.

I feel like this really is a fair and balanced compromise. (By this I do not mean a “Fox News compromise.”) Let me know what you guys think about this deficit plan. Judging from the comments on the last post I am sure we will have a number of varying views so go ahead and sound off on this!

Republicans get:
Spending cuts worth $2.4 trillion
Corporate tax reduction

Democrats get:
Debt ceiling increase by $2.4 trillion
Marginal tax rate increases

So here’s the deal, lets lower the corporate tax rate with modest increases to the tax base to offset revenue loss. This would increase economic activity for businesses and promote prosperity. Republicans have been complaining about our corporate tax rates,highest in the world, for a long time and many Democrats including Obama agree. This works for both sides. Republicans can say overall taxes weren’t raised and jobs will be added because corporations will be relieved. Democrats can say they also support job growth but will show their base that they did get those rich fat cats and jet owners to share in sacrifice.

Trade Scenario 2:

Republicans get:
Spending cuts worth $1.2 trillion
Balanced Budget Amendment

Democrats get:
Debt ceiling increase by $2.4 trillion
Tax loopholes closed

This one is very simple. Democrats get some tax loopholes and get a 2 to 1 dollar debt increase to spending cut ratio. That would make liberals giddy because entitlements would not be touched. The Republicans aren’t crying foul though. They get a new amendment (which most of Americans want) that would otherwise be impossible to get plus NO NEW TAXES!

My 3rd grade self would be proud…

Per the AP:

The Wisconsin Senate succeeded in voting Wednesday to strip nearly all collective bargaining rights from public workers, after Republicans outmaneuvered the chamber’s missing Democrats and approved an explosive proposal that has rocked the state and unions nationwide.

Per the Wisconsin Senate’s press release:

After nearly a month of debate on the budget repair bill, nearly three weeks of childish stunts and delay tactics from the Democrats, the longest public hearing in state history and the longest Assembly debate in state history, the Senate met tonight to pass the non-fiscal items in the Budget Repair Bill. . . .

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald added:

Enough is enough. The people of Wisconsin elected us to do a job. They elected us to stand up to the broken status quo, stop the constant expansion of government, balance the budget, create jobs and improve the economy. The longer the Democrats keep up this childish stunt, the longer the majority can’t act on our agenda. . . .

We have confirmed with the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the Legislative Council and the Legislative Reference Bureau that every item in tonight’s bill follows the letter of the law.

The people of Wisconsin elected us to come to Madison and do a job. Just because the Senate Democrats won’t do theirs, doesn‘t mean we won’t do ours.

Today in our country only 53% percent of all workers pay 100% of the federal income tax bill. Therefore 47% of workers pay no taxes. Additionally 40% of workers actually receive additional funds when filing their taxes redistributed from the group that pays all the taxes. I’ll even point you to that evil conservative news source NPR for this data (though it is widely available).

Further, in research released yesterday, “government social benefits . . . were equal to 35% of all private and public wages and salaries in the 12 months ended January, up from 10% in 1960 and 21% in 2000.”

Meanwhile, the government is working diligently to implement its takeover of an additional approximate 15% of the economy through the healthcare law. Yet, over 1,000 waivers to the law have been granted and now the entire state of Maine has been exempted for the time being.

When you also consider that the United States Department of Justice, whose role is to defend the laws of this land, is only selectively defending laws its leaders and likely the White House (for personal or political reasons, we do not know) agree with, as in the case of the Defense of Marriage Act*, you have to wonder, what is next.

We are creating a great block of voters, who will soon be the majority of voters, who pay no taxes. At the same time, our federal government grants broad exemptions to laws or chooses not to defend the law altogether.

As the federal government has never shown any signs of actual restraint, where does it all end?

*It is my view that marriage should be defined by the states, not the federal government. It is not a federal constitutional issue. Don’t get sidetracked on the nature of the law, the point is the DOJ not defending an existing law, which is their responsibility.

Or read the highlight here. Enjoy this sample conversation between Obama and his Special Assistant for Reality on the topic of the TSA-groping debacle:

President: This thing is all ginned up, isn’t it? Right-wing websites fanned it. Then the mainstream media jumped in to display their phony populist street cred. Right?

Special Assistant for Reality: No, Mr. President, it was more spontaneous. Websites can’t fan fires that aren’t there. This is like the town hall uprisings of summer 2009. In the past month, citizens took videos at airports the same way town hall protesters made videos there, and put them on YouTube. The more pictures of pat-downs people saw, the more they opposed them.

President: What’s the essence of the opposition?

SAR: Sir, Americans don’t like it when strangers touch their private parts. Especially when the strangers are in government uniforms and say they’re here to help.

President: Is it that we didn’t roll it out right? We made a mistake in not telling people in advance we were changing the procedure.

SAR: Um, no, Mr. President. If you’d told them in advance, they would have rebelled sooner.

President: We should have pointed out not everyone goes through the new machines, and only a minority get patted down.

SAR: Mr. President, if you’d told people, “Hello, there’s only 1 chance in 3 you’ll be molested at the airport today” most people wouldn’t think, “Oh good, I like those odds.”

President: But the polls are with me. People support the screenings.

SAR: At the moment, according to some. But most Americans don’t fly frequently, and the protocols are new. As time passes, support will go steadily down.

President: I’ve noted with sensitivity that I’m aware all this is a real inconvenience.

SAR: It’s not an inconvenience, it’s a humiliation. In the new machine, and in the pat-downs, citizens are told to spread their feet and put their hands in the air. It’s an attitude of submission—the same one the cops make the perps assume on “America’s Most Wanted.” Then, while you stand there in public in the attitude of submission, strangers touch intimate areas of your body. It’s a violation of privacy. It leaves people feeling reduced. It’s like society has decided you’re a meat sack and not a soul. Humans have a natural, untaught understanding of the apartness of their bodies, and they don’t like it when their space is violated. They recoil, and protest.

President: But you can have the pat-downs done in private.

SAR: Mr. President, you don’t know this, but when you ask for that, a lot of TSA people get pretty passive-aggressive. They get Bureaucratic Dead Face and start barking, “I need a supervisor! Private pat-down!” And everyone looks, and the line slows down, and you start to feel like you’re putting everyone out. You wait and wait, and finally they get another TSA person, and they take you into the little room and it’s embarrassing, and you start to realize you’re going to miss your plane. It’s then that you realize: all this is how they discourage private pat-downs.

President: I’ve wondered if this general feeling of discomfort might be related to a certain Puritan strain within American thinking—a kind of horror at the body that, melded with, say, old Catholic teaching, not to be pejorative, might make for a pretty combustible cultural cocktail. This heightened consciousness of the body might suggest an element of physical shame we hadn’t taken into account.

SAR: Mr. President, the rebellion isn’t shame-based, it’s John Wayne-based.

President: I don’t follow.

SAR: John Wayne removes his boots and hat and puts his six-shooter on the belt, he gets through the scanner, and now he’s standing there and sees what’s being done to other people. A TSA guy is walking toward him, snapping his rubber gloves. Guy gets up close to Wayne, starts feeling his waist and hips. Wayne says, “Touch the jewels, Pilgrim, and I’ll knock you into tomorrow.”

President: John Wayne is dead.

SAR: No, he’s not. You’ve got to understand that. Everyone’s got an Inner Duke, even grandma.

President: What should I do?

SAR: Back off. Say you spent a day watching YouTube. You’re not giving in to pressure, you’re conceding to common sense. “Free men and women have a right not to be trifled with. We’ll find a better way.”

President: If I don’t?

SAR: Well, every businessman in America already thinks you’ve been grabbing his gonads. You’ll continue that general symbolism.

President: Janet Napolitano won’t like it. Drudge is always after her. He’ll get all “Big Sis Bows Now.” She might quit.

SAR: Oh God, yes. A twofer!

President: I’d look like I got rolled.

SAR: Then look strong. Fire her. She’s been a disaster from day one. Now she’s the face of the debacle.

President: Won’t they think I’m weak?

SAR: No. They’ll think you returned to Earth. They’ll think ground control broke through to Major Tom. They’ll think you took a step outside the bubble.

Those purchases are intended to lower interest rates on mortgages and other loans and help boost the economy.”

Interest rates are not the problem. Mortgage rates are already at historic lows, and have been for quite some time. The car companies have been offering zero- and low-interest loans for quite a while, yet the annual sales rate is mired in the 10-11 million units/yr. range, far, far off from the halcyon days of 15-16 million units per year in the early 2000’s. Home equity loan rates are in the very low single digits, with virtually no room to go lower. Lowering rates from 1.5% to 1.25% or 1% won’t do anything.

This Fed action will not have any meaningful positive effect. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke undoubtedly knows this—this is very likely an action undertaken strictly for “public consumption,” an attempt to show the consuming public that the Government is “doing something,” which would then, presumably, buoy customer sentiment and spur increased economic activity.

In fact, it will have several very tangible negative effects:

1. It will reduce (or cause to remain unchanged at the current virtually-zero levels) the bank interest yield on savings and CDs. Most seniors rely on their interest returns for a major portion of their retirement incomes. When CDs were yielding 5% just a few short years ago, a senior with a ‘life savings’ of a modest $200,000 could expect an income of $10,000/year from CD interest. Combined with their Social Security benefits, that’s not so bad.

Now that $10,000 is reduced to $2000, a drop in real money that’s close to disastrous for many older people. Combined with no COLA adjustment in Social Security for the past two years, and for many it’s a dire situation.

2. The Fed’s actions will further reduce the dollar’s value on the world’s currency market, resulting in an increase in crude oil pricing. This in turn will drive up both home heating oil and gasoline pricing, eroding real buying power, and undermining consumer confidence even more. Simply on the announcement of the Fed’s intended actions, crude oil spiked this week to $87/bbl, the highest it’s been in a year—and it’s headed higher.

3. If the Fed had instead announced that it would reverse its policy and raise interest rates in the near future, this could very well have spurred people to act on buying and borrowing now, before rates go up, with the agreeable byproduct of increasing seniors’ incomes.

The Fed is an independent branch of Government, supposedly non-partisan and non-aligned. But “clueless,” “unimaginative and “stubborn” should not be among their prominent traits.

So Much Worse Than Carter
By Peter Ferrara on 10.13.10 @ 6:08AM

The most important fact to take from the September unemployment report released last week is that almost three years after the recession began the economy was still losing jobs! Almost 100,000 (95,000) additional jobs were lost last month from the economy overall. That makes 400,000 jobs lost since May. Moreover, in a regular annual benchmark revision to calibrate unemployment rates for updated data, the BLS reported a further 366,000 jobs lost for March. The total number of Americans unemployed stands at almost 15 million (14.8).

Read the rest.

Don’t get me wrong. There are some great themes embedded into the GOP’s plan. Consider the following text:

Politicians in Washington have imposed an agenda that doesn’t reflect the priorities of the people. What’s worse, the most important decisions are made behind closed doors, where a flurry of backroom deals has supplanted the will of the people. It’s time to do away with the old politics: that much is clear. It’s not enough, however, to swap out one set of leaders for another. Structure dictates behavior, so we have drafted this blueprint on a process of listening to the American people and fielding their concerns and ideas for turning things around.
• Our plan offers a clear and clearly different approach, one in which the people have the most say and the best ideas trump the most entrenched interests.
• Our plan stands on the principles of smaller, more accountable government; economic freedom; lower taxes; fiscal responsibility; protecting life, American values, and the Constitution; and providing for a robust national defense.
• Our plan puts forth a new governing agenda that reflects the priorities of the American people – priorities that have been ignored, even mocked by the powers-that-be in Washington.
• These are focused concrete examples of the policies through which we will promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, and national economic recovery – and they can be implemented today.

In the document Republicans also tackle the boondoggle healthcare law:

Our Plan to Repeal the Job Killing Health Care Law and Put in Place Real Reform o Repeal the Costly Health Care Takeover of 2010: Because the new health care law kills jobs, raises taxes, and increases the cost of health care, we will immediately take action to repeal this law.
o Enact Medical Liability Reform:Skyrocketing medical liability insurance rates have distorted the practice of medicine, routinely forcing doctors to order costly and often unnecessary tests to protect themselves from lawsuits, often referred to as “defensive medicine.” We will enact common-sense medical liability reforms to lower costs, rein in junk lawsuits and curb defensive medicine.
o Purchase Health Insurance Across State Lines:Americans residing in a state with expensive health insurance plans are locked into those plans and do not currently have an opportunity to choose a lower cost option that best meets their needs. We will allow individuals to buy health care coverage outside of the state in which they live.
o Expand Health Savings Accounts:Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are popular savings accounts that provide cost-effective health insurance to those who might otherwise go uninsured. We will improve HSAs by making it easier for patients withhigh-deductible health plans to use them to obtain access to quality care. We will repeal the new health care law, which prevents the use of these savings accounts to purchase over-the-counter medicine.
o Strengthen the Doctor-Patient Relationship: We will repeal President Obama’s government takeover of health care and replace it with common-sense reforms focused on strengthening the doctor-patient relationship.
o Ensure Access For Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions:Health care should be accessible for all, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses. We will expand state high-risk pools, reinsurance programs and reduce the cost of coverage. We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, eliminate annual and lifetime spending caps, and prevent insurers from dropping your coverage just because you get sick. We will incentivize states to develop innovative programs that lower premiums and reduce the number of uninsured Americans.
o Permanently Prohibit Taxpayer Funding of Abortion:We will establish a government-wide prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion and subsidies for insurance coverage that includes abortion, this includes enacting into law what is known as the Hyde Amendment. We will also enact into law conscience protections for health care providers, including doctors, nurses, and hospitals.

Again, the GOP has succeeded in communicating some great ideas that should and must be part of an expanded Republican control of Congress. Unfortunately, they failed in providing a clear and concise path to achieve that change. Under the leadership of Ronald Regan the way forward was clear: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.” Under the current GOP leadership and the “Pledge to America” the plan is not as clear: “See Section 2; appendix C.” That should draw the masses.

The full text of the “Pledge to America” can be read here.

As promised, the best of Troll 2. Be sure to check out the scene around the two minute mark. It had a real impact.

Here’s The Question: So what do you think would be better – the Repubs gaining both chambers, or just winning the House this fall? What would be the pros/cons of either scenario?

For instance: If the R’s win both, and submit bills to repeal Obamacare et al, they probably won’t have filibuster proof majorities, even if any remaining Blue Dogs go along. The Prez would undoubtedly veto any legislation like that. The Prez could also blame all the problems on the Congress, and with all the R’s in charge, they’d be considered the incumbents to get tossed out in 2012. Obama would have pretty good Vegas odds at repeating at that point. Throw in a slowly recovering economy, and we’re talking Toast in America all over.

If the R’s only own the House, they could starve all funding for the bloated gov’t budget, and force Obama to meet them to negotiate, derailing his tax-n-destroy agenda. Downside: they’d also not get much at all past the Senate if Harry “no republican-voting-hispanic-dialect-here” Reid is in charge. They also may not be able to prevent some of the initial phases of Obamacare from wreaking havoc on the economy. Upside: they could continue the surge towards a total takeover in 2012 without appearing like the kings in the castle.

So is the O’Donnell insurgency a godsend in disguise, or the first signs of an eventual overreach by a particular movement? Which scenario gives the R’s better odds at repealing and scaling back the gov’t reach, and which give the Obawan special powers to pull more Jedi mind tricks on his gullible minions in OFA?

In the long run, is an Obama as president (yet denied his spending sprees by an R House) a better recruiting tool for a long term conservative ascendancy than a total R takeover that may be throttled in infancy?

Hmmm….

He nails it. For starters:

“This is not the culture war of the 1990s. It is not a fight over guns, gays or abortion. Those old battles have been eclipsed by a new struggle between two competing visions of the country’s future. In one, America will continue to be an exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise — limited government, a reliance on entrepreneurship and rewards determined by market forces. In the other, America will move toward European-style statism grounded in expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy and large-scale income redistribution. These visions are not reconcilable. We must choose.”

He rightly points out this didn’t start with the Obama Administration. We have been heading this way for a long time. But he notes 2008′s financial crisis and the bailouts as a tipping point.

Brooks contrasts the “tea party” protests here with those in Europe to illustrate the two competing visions.

“Just compare the protests in America with those in Europe. Here, we see tea partiers demonstrating against the government’s encroachment on the free enterprise system and protesting the fact that the state is spending too much money bailing out too many people. Why are people protesting in Greece? Because they want the government to give them even more. They are angry because their government — in the face of its worst economic and perhaps existential crisis in decades — won’t pay the lavish pensions to which they feel entitled. There’s no better example of the cultural difference between America and Europe today, yet it is toward European-style social democracy that the 30 percent coalition wants to move us.”

There is much more to commend in this article, especially Brooks’ explanation of “earned success” as what was meant in the Declaration of Independence by “the pursuit of happiness.” But he concludes by summarizing what those of us on the free enterprise side (which he calls “the 70 percent majority”) must do.

“To win, the 70 percent majority must come together around core principles: that the purpose of free enterprise is human flourishing, not materialism; that we stand for equality of opportunity, not equality of income; that we seek to stimulate true prosperity rather than simply treat poverty; and that we believe in principle over power.”

Amen.

Meanwhile, the rest of us have to live in this strange world commonly referred to as “reality”.

During his canned stump speech, The One took a risk and unplugged himself from the TelePrompTer and spoke “off the cuff” for a few minutes about his effort to reform the way Wall Street does business. I’ll omit – for the sake of brevity – a discussion regarding The One’s non understanding of basic business principles.

Here’s a taste of The One’s off Prompter remarks:

You might want to rewind the last ten seconds of that clip to make sure you heard him right. Yep, you heard him right. The One believes that

at a certain point, you’ve made enough money.

Thomas Jefferson and 55 other brave men boldly declared that the “pursuit of happiness” was an inalienable right endowed to all people by their Creator. It goes without saying that one man’s pursuit of happiness is not necessarily the same as another’s.

So, dear reader, what happens if your personal “pursuit of happiness” involves living in a huge house, driving a fast car, and having a yacht the size of a WW II destroyer? Say in order to pursue the form of happiness, you go off and get an excellent education and acquiring a skill set which happens to be in high demand in the market place? Well, we already know that Barack Obama values the public sector over the private sector, so you’ve already run afoul of his plan. If you are fortunate enough to be well compensated for your work product and, heaven forbid – be profitable – you’ll be considered a Wall Street Fat Cat and be subject to endless public (virtual) flogging by all branches of government. You’ll be chastised by the media as one who is taking “more than their fair share”. You’ll also be taxed at a confiscatory rate.

All this because, as far as The One is concerned, “you’ve made enough money”.

This comes from a man who has never held a real job in his life, yet for some reason known but to himself, he believes himself to be The One who should decide exactly how far your pursuit of happiness should be allowed to go.

I’ve often referred to John Wayne’s soliloquy about why he loved this republic. He saw it as a place where

A people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober – however they choose.

Obama’s declaration that he knows when someone has made enough money violates so many tenets of this Republic, I know not where to beging. I’ll just say this: I don’t know about you, but I’m getting really, really, really tired hearing The One tell me what I can no longer do.

Memo to The One: With all due respect (however much that may or most likely may not be) Mr. Obama, I’ll be the one to decide when I’ve “made enough money”. Maybe if you’d stop shoveling it all down the proverbial rat hole, there might be enough for me to buy an In-N-Out Double-Double. Then again, that would violate your fiat declaring that “we can’t eat as much as we want”. End Memo.

Take for instance the salt issue. Earlier this week the FDA announced its plans to regulate the amount of salt in processed foods (a.k.a. a lot of the stuff you buy at the local grocery store). The government interfering in our lives again? I know. Hard to believe.

At least a woman can decide whether or not to kill a fetus inside her womb. But salt? That’s dangerous! What’s next? A recall on all the salt shakers sold in the US?

Pretty soon we’ll be on a monitoring system for carbonated beverage consumption. Or potato chips, Oreo cookies, and Hostess cupcakes. You know…..kinda like buying Sudafed or any nasal decongestant at your local drugstore.

Forget about personal responsibility and self-reliance. Maybe we should hand all decision making over to the Feds. In fact, I’m thinking we need a Food Czar. Just imagine the possibilities! Hmmm. Who could we nominate for that position?

To top it all off, a report claims that school food is making kids unfit to serve. That’s right; I forgot how those evil lunch ladies tie down the students and force them to eat high-calorie meatloaf. Did it escape anyone’s mind that no one actually makes students buy school lunches? Here’s a concept: Bring your own dang lunch!

I’m so glad we have these reports to pin down reasons why kids are unfit to join the military. Because I’m sure that PlayStation, Facebook, text messaging, surfing the web, and overall lack of physical exercise has nothing to do with the obesity “epidemic” amongst youngsters.

Hold on to your chocolate folks; that could be next!

Fifty three percent of likely Arizona voters are concerned that the state’s tough new law targeting illegal immigrants will also be used to violate the civil rights of United States citizens.

The majority of them support it anyway.

Such is the state of the state of Arizona, where frustration is the official state emotion and our official nickname?

With one stroke of a pen it was changed Friday from Grand Canyon State to Police State.

Read the rest.

In Virginia three of the last seven governors have been AGs. In part, this is because Virginia has a very short ballot, electing only the lieutenant governor and attorney general in addition to governor, and the governor is limited to one consecutive four-year term. (Virginia is the only state remaining with such a prohibition.) The other statewide elected officials are naturally considered in line for the statehouse, and they often run flat out for four years to get the promotion.

Virginia State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has made headlines recently with his suit against the federal governemt charging the recently passed healthcare law to be unconstitutional. He recently spoke publicly about the upcoming suit:

“Our focus is not the policies that are included in that bill. Policies are what elections are for. My job is the protection of the Constitution and the laws of Virginia and that is the narrow focus of what we are doing … in our lawsuit against the federal government. Virginia was the first state to pass a law on a bipartisan basis protecting Virginia citizens from being mandated to purchase health insurance. No one here. under Virginia law, can be ordered by anyone to purchase health insurance. Period. Obviously, those two laws are in conflict.”

So, Cuccinelli has put himself front and center. On one side the lowly AG from Thomas Jefferson’s Commonwealth; On the other, the mighty Barack Obama. Will David slay his Goliath? Or is this another swing for Casey up to bat? Imagine, Cuccinelli on the plate in Mudville:

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Mudville — mighty Cuccinelli has struck out.

I guess that only applied back when Obama still believed everyone loved him. And it certainly doesn’t apply when one of Obama’s core base groups is protesting him! Didn’t they get the memo?

Americablog posted the below video of capital police closing Lafayette Park (next to the White House) to prevent reporters from covering a “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” protest.

So, when do we get to the transparent part?

This is very good news. The President says it is designed to “reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” and also to “produce jobs.” He further added that it would be unwise to “ignore reality”–one presumes he means the reality that we still need oil in the short term, even though we want to switch to some other energy later on.

This is good news and we can all applaud his decision.

The bad news is he’s doing it not because of the obvious need for oil-based energy, but to try to “bribe’ Republicans into supporting his cap-and-trade legislation.

That’s bad. Cap-and-trade is a loser, no matter how you look at things. Besides raising energy costs, it operates on the mistaken assumption that energy consumption in the U.S. is far more price-elastic than it actually is. Raising the cost of energy production by putting onerous emissions standards on power companies that they will then be forced to pass along to their customers will not curb consumption to any major degree.

The vast majority of our energy use is not discretionary. We drive to work as we must. We heat our homes as we must. We operate our machinery as we must. The amount of that that can be reduced or eliminated is limited, regardless of the price.

Drastically higher energy costs will simply rob the country of economic activity as people pay for their lights instead of buying new clothes or going on vacation. As companies’ costs go up they will reduce their workforces. And so on. You know the drill.

Also, the world’s energy/commodity market knows this and knows why Obama is opening up drilling. If he were serious about increasing our oil self-sufficiency, the world oil market would respond like it did in summer 2008, when the expanded oil exploration plans were first unveiled: crude plummeted to $35/bbl, and gasoline dropped to well under $1.70/gal.

The oil market–like all commodity markets–operates as much on buyer sentiment and expectation as it does on actual supply and demand. The world’s supply didn’t change in the fall of 2008, but the market’s sentiment did–it expected a serious U.S. effort at expanding its domestic oil supply. So world pricing dropped accordingly.

As President Obama has made clear he wouldn’t follow through on that and rescinded those exploration leases last year, the market’s sentiment changed again, this time in the other direction–up. Now we’re paying close to $3.00/gal.

It’s highly doubtful that the world’s oil market will see this latest move as anything other than what is it: a disingenuous political feint, designed more to further his domestic political agenda than serve the country’s energy or economic needs.

The proof will be at the pump–if the summer rise in gasoline doesn’t take place, we’ll know that the world’s oil market is pre-emptively keeping pricing low in advance of the expectation of increased U.S. oil production.

If gasoline rises in the coming months, we’ll know that the oil market has disregarded Obama’s move as being merely a shallow gesture.

We’ll see, won’t we?

Do you want to know how you can stop the insanity?  I have the solution (somewhat borrowed from Dick Morris).  Call members of the House and tell them to vote no.  Morris has compiled a list of House members that voted for the healthcare bill in November and are in jeopardy of losing their seats come November.  Use the phone numbers provided and call them.  You don’t have to be one of their constituients to give them your opinion.  You may not be able to vote against them, but you can always threaten to support their opponent through donations, media, etc.

Specifically, Bennet’s Plan for Washington Reform would:

Salaries, Spending, and Perk
* Freeze congressional member pay until there are 4 quarters of job growth
*Freeze congressional office budgets until there are 4 quarters of job growth
* End the health care subsidy for Members of Congress until health care reform passes and eliminates discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, doesn’t cut guaranteed Medicare benefits, increases coverage, and is fully paid for
* Require full payment for the seat and disclose of those traveling with a Member of Congress on a charter jet

Lobbying Reform
* Put a lifetime ban on Members of Congress becoming lobbyists
* Ban congressional staff from lobbying their former boss for 6 years
* Ban former committee staff from lobbying their former boss or any member of the committee who was active during their time on staff for 6 years
* Ban lobbyists from joining congressional staff or committee staff for 6 years
* Create stricter rules for lobbyist registration
* Institute penalties for failing to register as a lobbyist

Earmark Reform
* Ban earmarks to private, for-profit companies and institutions.
* Make earmarks transparent
* Members of Congress must report all earmark requests they receive and all earmarks requests made
* Earmarks.gov should list all earmarks requests, sortable by member of Congress
* Hold Members of Congress accountable on earmark requests
* All earmark requests above $1 million should go before the Appropriations Committee
* Hold earmarks recipients accountable
* Each year, a certain percent of all earmarks will be audited to ensure that taxpayer money is being spent wisely. These reports should be made public on earmkarks.gov

Reform the Floor
* Eliminate anonymous holds
* Require holds to be bipartisan. If not, the hold expires in 2 days. Even bi-partisan holds expire in 30 days.
* Reform the filibuster in the Senate
* After 3rd failed cloture vote, the minority must find a member of the opposite party or the threshold raises to 45 votes.
* After the 3rd cloture vote, if the majority finds support from three members of the minority, it raises to 45 votes.
* End the filibuster for motion to proceed
* Require 41 Senators to show up to vote in order to block cloture, or else it’s invoked

Campaign Finance Reform
* Support the Schumer/Van Hollen campaign finance bill, which would require Chief Executive Officers to stand by their ads, quick disclosure and sunshine rules, restrictions on foreign corporations and TARP recipients, and codifying coordination rules.
* Support a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to regulate contributions and expenditures.

On March 3rd, Bennet delivered a speech on the floor of the Senate on the Plan for Washington Reform.

Watch it here:

Now watch as his Democrat brethren eat him alive.

I’m on the leading edge of the Xer age. And I’ve been convinced since my early years that things will not perpetually get better and better and better in our country, especially not with choices, patterns, and lifestyles that do not reward thrift, restraint, modesty, and patience. When I examine my elder brethren, I am left wondering if their lasting legacy upon this great land will be one which will resign them to the doghouse of historical judgment.

Boomers are poised to leave a determinative mark on their country. The question is what kind.

Compare the Boomers with the Builders generation. The Builders’ formative years, when their impressions of the world were being anchored in the wet cement of youth, consisted of experiences of tremendous loss and hardship – the Depression and successive recession of the 1930’s, followed by World War 2.

People had no choice but to learn the values of thrift, restraint, modesty, and character. There was no margin for reckless living without consequences. Margins were more than a line on a paper; they were rules to keep life in perspective. People retained an accurate view of their humanity—the clay feet that kept them grounded in a truthful, even if slightly harsh, view of life.

And yet, to have survived, endured, and then allowed to thrive after WW2 probably made it feel like they were being given a new lease on life. The future was a confident one, because the values they had learned through the fire were now in a position to pay off. The trials that started their life gave way to the optimism that followed.

The Boomers did not have it the same way. Their early years were full of bounty, plenty, even opulence by the world’s standards. They reveled and regaled in their abundance, and became consumed by triviality to where it became a staple of their life, a defining more of their generation. They had the ‘luxury’ of being radicalists, socialists, Marxists, anarchists, or whatever-ists because there was a thick, soft bottom known as prosperity that gave them the margin to experiment with all kinds of whacky, unrealistic philosophies on life – and get away with it, at least for a long time. If you’re leaping off a steep deck, it’s good to know whether you’ll land on a plush mattress or a concrete slab.

American Socialism as we see it today is not driven (or at least promoted and communicated) as much by an ideological purity to its European ancestors as it is by its own unique Yankee twist – something I would call “self-absorbed” socialism. It’s a socialism that is driven more by self-gratification and self-security than anything else. Unlike Bolshevism, which was driven into power during harsh and lean economic times in Russia, American socialism is driven by a sense of fulfillment – I want mine. It is rationalized into an entitlement – I deserve it. Don’t these phrases sound like typical commercial jingles and slogans heard ubiquitously on air?

When I heard the phrases a year ago about how “Obama will pay our mortgage” or “Obama will hand out cash”, it wasn’t for some noble cause of philosophical advancement. It was simply a case of “I want it, I need it, so give it.” Easy money from an unending supply, something the Boomers would have been accustomed to expecting. Thus they perpetuate the expectation.

The irony is that with the policies so favored among the receding hairline crowd of old 60’s flower kids now holding positions of power in DC, culture, and community, we could very well see the return of hardship to our country. Chief among these is a recognition that while the Builders endured great hardships on their way to a better future, the Boomers could see the squandering of their predecessors’ wealth from their own early years turned into an unforgiving winter of their final days as a generation.

Only this time, the character of the generation may not be ready to endure it.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security Program (FICA) and promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.
The program is no longer voluntary.

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program.
Now you pay 7.65%. (plus your employer pays 7.65%)

3.) The money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income tax each year.
This money is no longer tax deductible.

4.) The money the participants put into the independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.
Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund to be spent.

5.) The annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton and Gore, Up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month, only to find out that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put away’, you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democrat Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democrat Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democrat Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

After violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! The worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

Therefore, I propose the Social Security Reform Act. This act will repair the damage the Democrats did which undermined the very program they started.

1. The program will revert to a voluntary status in that you can now choose to divert 10% of the money put into FICA into a private account in your name to be used to buy into the bond fund of your choosing in the first five years of the program with an aditional 10% availible to divert every five years thereafter until 100% of the money is placed into private accounts. At the age of 65 you may start recieving annuity payments until that fund is paid out in full.

2. The percentage per person and employer shall be forever fixed at 4% each of annual income before taxes.

3. FICA funds shall again be deductable before any tax rate is employeed.

4. All FICA funds shall again be locked away from the General Fund. The first part as a private personal account and the second to fund FICA payments to current recipients until FICA is completely privatized.

5. All annuity payments to retirees will be taxed at a flat 10% rate.

There you have it. I invite your comments.

Weigh in, PD gang, with what you heard and saw. We know he gives good speeches; but did he “ring the bell” yet again?

There is no coverage of this in the news. There is no media attention whatsoever. But when gas gets too high, the Liberal Elite Media (LEM) will once again—predictably—be fanning the flames of the “Big Oil is ripping us off” storyline.

This is totally and intentionally misleading. Crude oil pricing (and therefore U.S. retail gasoline pricing) can be influenced to a very large extent by Presidential/Congressional actions. Traditionally, summer gasoline pricing maxes out about $.80 /gal higher than winter lows, so summer 2010 pricing looks headed into the $3.60/gal range.

It’s not “Big Oil’s” fault. It’s largely the fault of President Obama and his Democratic majorities in Congress.

We have a lot of potential oil supply right here, off the coastlines, in the Gulf of Mexico, in ANWR, and in the Western states’ oil shale deposits. Oil reserves that if developed would lead to dramatically lower crude oil pricing and greatly stabilize the world energy market.

But President Obama and the Democratic Congress have rescinded the off-shore oil exploration leases and refuse to allow exploration in the oil-rich ANWR region of Alaska—in spite of the fact that environmentally safe technology exists for such exploration and extraction. Our oil-drilling technology is far cleaner than that of say, OPEC member Nigeria, but we willingly outsource ‘dirty’ oil production to them and deny the world’s oil market our ‘clean’ oil exploration and extraction technology. It’s politically disingenuous, done solely to curry favor with the environmentally-sympathetic (but technologically unaware) segment of the electorate.

As far as drilling off the coastlines, in ANWR, developing our oil shale resources, etc. are concerned, it’s important to understand how the world’s financial/commodity markets operate.

The world commodity trading markets operate on two main levels: the actual supply and demand of the commodity being traded, and the so-called ‘market psychology’ or confidence that the traders have in that market. The confidence (or lack thereof) in any given market is based largely on the traders’ collective expectations regarding future events. US gasoline pricing is determined by four main factors:

1) World crude oil supply and demand

2) Restrictions on U.S. oil exploration (controlled mainly by U.S. environmental concerns)

3) Distribution/refining inefficiencies (controlled mainly by U.S. environmental concerns—a long article onto itself, dealing with why there have been no new refineries built here in 30 years and the resulting over-demand on our refineries’ too-limited capacity, “boutique” gasoline varieties only being allowed to be sold in certain markets, etc.)

4) Geo/political influences, AKA the ‘terror premium.’

It’s the expectations of the commodity trader that we’re concerned with now. If there is geo-political instability in a critical oil-producing region, then the confidence of the commodities market—based on their expectation regarding possible future events—affects the trading (and therefore the pricing) of that commodity. We all have heard the talk that if, for example, Israel looks to be close to attacking Iran, then the price of oil will soar worldwide. That’s because of the expectations of the commodity traders. You’ve heard a lot about speculators in the oil market driving up crude oil pricing, that it’s not so much a world-wide supply and demand issue as much as it is a speculators’ issue. There is a lot of truth to this, because it’s the commodities traders’ degree of confidence in a given market (along with the actual supply and demand in that market) that determines the pricing.

This is a pretty simplified explanation, but the fundamentals are absolutely true.

Barack Obama is fond of saying that our drilling for oil won’t produce enough appreciable oil in the short term to affect the world’s supply in a way that would bring down prices quickly. That may be true.

But he ignores the reality of the effect that enhanced US domestic oil drilling and development will have on the world’s oil market’s psychology and confidence. Does he ignore this because of his ignorance of basic economics or because of a willful intent to be deceitful? Is he really that unaware of the intricacies of the commodities market or is he intentionally misleading the inattentive, casual electorate for the purpose of political expediency? Hard to say, but the end result is the same—another in a shamefully long line of examples of a Democratic politician putting the Democratic Party’s interests (coveting the supposedly all-important Green vote) ahead of the country’s.

If America expands its search for domestic supplies of oil and makes a major find, the psychological impact on the world’s energy commodity market will be instantaneous. The knowledge by the world’s oil market that America is serious about developing its own oil resources will have an immediate downward effect on world pricing. Obama is likely correct when he opines that the supply aspect of the equation won’t be affected by US drilling for several years. But the speculative/commodity-trading effect on pricing would be instantaneous.

(To wit: “The prospect of considerable supply, even though it may take some time to bring on line, changes decisions of energy buyers, hedgers and investors,” said William Whitsitt, president of the American Exploration and Production Council, which represents oil and gas companies. “There is no doubt in my mind that this can have a positive effect for consumers.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=auuFx1yMkFdg)

And what will the oil sheiks in the Middle East do when the US finds and begins to develop its own significant oil resources? What does any business in any industry do when its near-monopoly is threatened by new, significant competition? It lowers prices to head off the competitors in a pre-emptive attempt to keep them at bay. Either way, whether it’s greater domestic oil supply or lower Arab oil pricing, America wins.

It’s not only the short-term lowered pricing that will accrue to our benefit. The mid- to longer-term supply effect of major US oil development will be quite positive as well. We’ll have affordable oil-based products for the next 20 years, with more of Americans’ money going to US companies in the U.S. instead of financing Arab sheiks’ next palaces. This, coupled with the increasing momentum—driven by the promise of free-market profits—of alternative forms of energy (they’re coming, and soon, no turning back those capital-market inventors now!) means that our energy future could soon be settled and secure.

But in this interim period, domestic oil exploration and increased oil production is the KEY to keeping the next 10-20 years or so as reasonably calm and economically-smooth as possible. We’ll see if President Obama is more concerned with the country’s long-term interests or simply trawling for short-term votes.

The man is not yet cold in his grave, and the left are already touting the use of Kennedy’s name, as suggested by Sen Byrd, to further their agenda.

Liberal political action committee, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC has created a website to petition such a change, by saying the following:

“Ted Kennedy was a courageous champion for health care reform his entire life. In his honor, name the reform bill that passed Kennedy’s health committee ‘The Kennedy Bill’ — then pass it, and nothing less, through the Senate.”

Moveon.org hasn’t wasted any time:

let’s re-commit ourselves to achieving the thing that mattered most to him: Quality, affordable health care for every single American

Former Vice President Al Gore:

“Ted would want nothing more than for his colleagues to continue his life’s work and to make real his dream of quality health care for all Americans.”

An article from the Washington Times states:

there is no more fitting way to honor the legacy of this prolific public servant than by fulfilling what he called the “cause of my life.”

Even a grandson at this morning’s funeral offered an intercession including

……(Kennedy wanted) In every part of this land that every American will have decent quality healthcare as a fundamental right and not a privilege.

Ralph G. Neas, the CEO of the liberal National Coalition on Health Care, urged that Congress “win one for Teddy” by passing the bill.

Unbelievable.

Why waste a “crisis”, right? As if shoving this ginormous bill down our throats with a sense of urgency wasn’t painful enough, we now witness a pathetic effort to use Kennedy’s death to further the left’s political fortunes. A mere opportunistic ploy in desperation to advance an agenda. A simple name change doesn’t alter the horrific nature of this bill. Whether we call it H.R. 3200 or Kennedycare it’s still an attempt for government takeover of our healthcare……that will cause disaster already seen in our neighbor to the north and European friends across the Atlantic.

It’s actually somewhat humorous that they would choose to rename a doomed bill after the “lion” of the Congress, the “soul of the Democratic Party”….as Obama calls him. Naming it after one of the most liberal politicians in Washington will only procure its demise.

Kennedy’s “valiant struggle with a mortal illness,” to quote Mr. Obama, would have been sped up under the Democrats’ prescription for the rest of us. Had he been subject to Obamacare, he might have been given a blue pill “for the pain” and sent home. He would have been deemed unworthy of the costly treatments because the money would have been seen as more properly spent on someone half his age.

Count on the Dems to take advantage of the passing of one of their own as one last fatal attempt to ratify a controversial bill; a bill that is causing great uproar across the nation. Let’s not have the Wellstone effect of abusing the death of this senator as a rallying cry for “change”.