A stimulating day at the zoo

The following story warms my heart.  Our tax dollars are being spent to help those who were ravaged by flood waters in Cook County.  The Cook County Board took these flood victims to the zoo for a day at a cost of $79,000.00.  You can read the details here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-todd-stroger-brookfield-zoo-20101130,0,6134064.story

Here are some of the details:

Cook County Board President Todd Stroger's administration treated families whose homes were damaged by floods to a nearly $79,000 party at Brookfield Zoo, paying for the day of fun with federal grant money meant to restore those homes, newly released county documents show.


The Sept. 12 zoo event included parking, admission, special attractions and "hungry as a bear" picnic baskets for up to 2,250 people, according to an invoice. The zoo tab also covered more than $8,000 in entertainment, including a prize raffle, a disc jockey, a face painter, seven caricature artists, a juggler and a stilt walker.... There was a music therapy workshop.

This is another example of why government should never have the authority to spend your money.  There is one question about this article that I can’t answer, what is a music therapy workshop?

Quantitative Easing Explained

A friend of ours sent me the following link to a humorous look at our current economic policy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k&feature=player_embedded

The end of the beginning

In a speech on November 10, 1942 after a series of defeats from Dunkirk to Singapore, Winston Churchill could finally tell the House of Commons that "we have a new experience. We have victory - a remarkable and definite victory."

Today those who have fought for personal freedom have won “a remarkable and definite victory." The midterm elections of 2010 are a victory for the vision of a limited government that is responsible to the people.

Churchill also presented this historical perspective in his speech on that November day: “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

We are in the same position today as the Allied Forces were in 1942. We have won a decisive victory against a ruthless and oppressive adversary. The final outcome is far from certain in this battle for freedom. There will be many challenges to overcome in the days and months ahead. All that has transpired will pale in comparison to the epic struggle for the White House on November 6, 2012.

In our celebrations today remember one final quotation from Churchill’s 1942 speech “The late M. Venizelos observed that in all her wars England always wins one battle -- the last.”

VOTE!

Vote on Tuesday November 2, 2010. This election can become another “shot heard around the world”. Be sure that all your family votes. Convince all of your friends to vote.

Vote to remove incumbent politicians. Vote for candidates that are committed to reduce government spending, borrowing, and taxation.

We can create smaller government, lower taxes, and more freedom.

The food police

Here is a news story that will cause you to drop your donut:

http://www.wbaltv.com/r/25508790/detail.html

Your government is here to save you from yourself. Some of the highlights from this article are below:

The Baltimore City Health Department issued its first environmental citation for repeat violations of the city's trans fat ban.

The Health Department issued Healthy Choice, a food facility in the 400 block of Lexington Street, a $100 fine on Thursday.

"It was the second time they were found with a high trans fat level in their ingredients," said Health Department agent Juan Gutierrez.

They originally had a margarine that was above 3 grams, actually, which is very high compared to the .5 that is allowed. Then when we came back and they had replaced it, they replaced it with one that was 2 grams, so it still was too high, Gutierrez said.


Healthy Choice owner Ki Jeong said he will abide by the decision but said the new margarine will cost him double what the original type costs.

When we talk to proponents of big government they always scoff at the warnings we give about government controlling all aspects of society. This is another example of government confiscation of individual freedom. This story also exposes the costs of government interfering in free markets; when individual choice is eliminated from economic decisions prices increase.


The moral of this story is that government is a threat to our individual freedoms at the federal, state and local level. The battle for freedom must be waged on all fronts. Vote to remove incumbent politicians and replace them with new representatives who will reduce the size of government at all levels.

Speaking Frankly

Our friends at Verum Serum http://www.verumserum.com/ (a political blog) have posted several videos concerning Congressmen Barney Frank.

In the most recent video Congressman Frank denounces the concept of pushing home ownership on those who cannot afford to pay the mortgage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFVd6CKcipI

In an earlier video Barney Frank extols the virtues of home ownership for all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE

In the above video Barney presents a profound economic theory on the nature of “asset bubbles” and his theory that housing prices will not collapse because housing is a real asset not a financial instrument.

These 2 videos expose Barney’s ability to distort the facts and to make completely false statements in order to promote his political career.

Also there is this compilation of videos about Barney’s opinions of Fannie May and Freddie Mac:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC88oox9TBo

Fight for freedom

As we approach the midterm elections please consider the following 3 quotes by Winston Churchill:

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

One ought never to turn ones back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

Churchill helped convince a nation threatened with annihilation that they could fight and win. Today those of us who cherish freedom must convince our fellow citizens to fight against the dark forces of totalitarianism and socialism. Rise up and vote!

The time is now

A friend of ours sent me the following short video (2 min 18 sec).  It is a compilation of current events interspersed with Ronald Reagan’s 1964 speech “A Time for Choosing”.

“A Time for Choosing” is more relevant today than it was when Reagan spoke those words 46 years ago.  A video of the entire speech is at the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY

The text of the origional speech is available at the following link:

http://www.reaganfoundation.org/pdf/ATimeForChoosing.pdf

Government accounting 101

The following news article describes the mounting debt crisis at the local government level:

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/nyt/20101005_Options_dim_cities_in_debt_seek_havens.html

There are so many disturbing facts and quotations in this article that I do not know where to start commenting.  The primary focus of the article is on Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.  The recent actions by Harrisburg are symptomatic of the financial mismanagement at the local government level worldwide.  Consider the following facts from the above article:

Harrisburg, the Pennsylvania capital, dodged financial disaster last month by getting money from the state to make a payment to its bondholders.

It did so even though the state warned that the money had to be used for city workers' pensions.

Now Harrisburg is calling on the state again. On Friday, the city said it could not meet its next payroll without money from the state's distressed cities program.

In the private sector borrowing money to pay bondholders and to make payroll is the path to liquidation. But in the government sector accounting has mysterious properties:

Using the pension money to pay bondholders last month has increased the city's total debt burden, by the state's calculation. The city's audited financial statements are a year late, and the most recent one gives four-year-old pension data, showing a surplus before the recession and the financial crisis took its toll.

Officials in Harrisburg said they saw no harm in using this year's state pension money to pay their bondholders because they thought the municipal pension funds had a surplus.

But they see a surplus only because they are looking at a five-year-old number, said Bernard S. Kozlowski, deputy director of the state Public Employee Retirement Commission, which administers the state pension law. He said the state would eventually come after Harrisburg, demanding the missing money with interest. But not for at least two more years, he added, because of the lags built into the state system.

If you are considering the purchase of municipal bonds, beware; if you own municipal bonds, you have been forewarned.

Larceny is the new community outreach

Once again we are taught an important civics lesson by Chicago politicians. On October 4, 2010 authorities arrested Carla Oglesby, a top aide to Cook County Board President Todd Stroger as part of a probe into whether contracts were steered to the aide's company and her associates. The full story can be found at this link:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/10/top-stroger-aide-carla-oglesby-arrested-in-contract-probe-.html

Here are the highlights:

Oglesby, a one-time promoter of sports stars and hip-hop artists, was the spokeswoman for Stroger's failed Democratic primary re-election campaign. Stroger briefly suspended Oglesby earlier this year from her $120,000-a-year county job after reports that she authorized a $24,975 contract to her public relations firm, CGC Communications, to inform suburban residents about federal flood relief grants.

Later, it came out that Oglesby sought approval to spend nearly $150,000 on census outreach contracts. The deals were given to people recommended by Oglesby and Eugene Mullins, Stroger's spokesman and boyhood friend.

The civics lesson I have learned from this episode and countless others from the past is that the corruption never ends.  If you do not live in Cook County Illinois you may be consoling yourself in your belief that this type of behavior does not happen where you live.  You are wrong.  This type of behavior happens everywhere.  To decontaminate the political cesspool we must vote out the incumbents.

Workers of the world, Unite!

On Saturday 10/2/10 organized labor and left wing political organizations held a rally on the mall in Washington DC.  The title for this rally is “One Nation Working Together”.  The following video highlights some of the “socially progressive” organizations, signs, and literature that were prevalent at this rally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkw7n9Qagu8&feature=player_embedded

Another piece in the health care puzzle

This article describes the response by major health insurers to the new “no preexisting conditions” provision for children:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/21/business/la-fi-kids-health-insurance-20100921

The socialized medicine supports will use this as a spear to demonize the insurance companies.  You will see commercials and ads depicting the helpless children abandoned by the money grubbing insurance companies.  The next step will be to enact legislation that creates a Federal solution to this great social crisis.  This will be one more piece in place of the socialized medicine puzzle.

Just cut it

The Cato Institute is running the following full page advertisement in these publications, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Examiner and Politico:

http://www.cato.org/files/DownsizingAd.pdf

If my math is correct the federal spending cuts suggested in this ad would total $650 billion per year.  That’s a lot of money, even in Washington D.C.

Zero Tolerance

Your federal government is here to help you once again. Recently the United States Department of Health and Human Services has begun a campaign to stamp out a threat to our society, free speech. The following letter was mailed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to the executive director of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), (the national association of health insurers):

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/09/20100909a.html

Some of these statements are hard to believe but here is what her letter says:

It has come to my attention that several health insurer carriers are sending letters to their enrollees falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. I urge you to inform your members that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.

This is nothing more than a threat by a government agency to suppress criticism of the Obama administration’s programs.

According to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact from the new consumer protections and increased quality provisions under the Affordable Care Act will be minimal.

What about the analysis of other experts? Are we now only allowed to view favorable studies?

Moreover, I want AHIP’s members to be put on notice: the Administration, in partnership with states, will not tolerate unjustified rate hikes in the name of consumer protections…… Later this fall, we will issue a regulation that will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers, with the justification for increases posted publicly for consumers and employers. We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014.

I knew that this day would come but I am surprised at how quickly it arrived. The Federal Government is in the process of drafting a regulation that will effectively control the rate increases of private insurers. Over time the Government will force the private insurers out of business by preventing adequate rate increases and presto the United States Government will be the “insurer of last resort”. You will then be in a single payer government controlled health care system.

If you doubt the effectiveness of this process I suggest you study the history of public transportation. Street cars and buses were once owned and operated by private enterprise. Over time government regulation dictated what the private operators could charge their customers. By keeping the rate increases below the cost inflation of the service provided the government put the private operators out of business. Government then placed itself in charge of public transportation.

The following quotation is from Friedrich Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom:

When the state has the final say on the economy, the political opposition needs the permission of the state to act, speak, and write. Economic control becomes political control.

The most expensive school ever constructed

A friend of ours sent me the following article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575454013855538920.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

The following paragraphs highlight the orgy of spending involved in this Los Angeles public school project:

At $578 million—or about $140,000 per student—the 24-acre Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools complex in mid-Wilshire is the most expensive school ever constructed in U.S. history. To put the price in context, this city's Staples sports and entertainment center cost $375 million. To put it in a more important context, the school district is currently running a $640 million deficit and has had to lay off 3,000 teachers in the last two years. It also has one of the lowest graduation rates in the country and some of the worst test scores.

"It wasn't cheap, but it was saved," says Thomas Rubin, a consultant for the district's bond oversight committee, which oversees the $20 billion of bonds that taxpayers approved for school construction in recent years.  I asked Mr. Rubin whether some of the school's grandiose features—like florid murals of Robert F. Kennedy—were worth the cost. "Did we have to do that? Hell no. But there's no accounting for taste," he responded.

The Kennedy complex is Exhibit A in the district's profligate 131-school building binge. Exhibit B is the district's Visual and Performing Arts High School, which was originally budgeted at $70 million but was later upgraded into a sci-fi architectural masterpiece that cost $232 million.


Even more striking is Exhibit C, the Edward Roybal Learning Center in the Westlake area, which was budgeted at $110 million until costs skyrocketed midway through construction when contractors discovered underground methane gas and a fault line. Eventual cost: $377 million.

If you find this unaccountable spending outrageous you may ask yourself how this can occur. The answer is in this paragraph from the above article:

Expect more such over-the-top and inefficient building projects in the future. Los Angeles voters have approved over $20 billion of bonds since 1997 and state voters have chipped in another $4.4 billion of matching funds. Roughly a third of the cost of the Kennedy complex will be shouldered by state taxpayers.

This is the recipe that government has found so effective. Place a referendum on a ballot that asks voters to approve more government spending.

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

Just say no to government spending.

Increased tax revenue leads to increased spending

Recently there has been much discussion about enacting a Value Added Tax in the USA. Experience in the real world shows us that this new tax will solve nothing. The following article from Investor’s Business Daily examines this subject:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/545596/201008311833/If-VAT-Is-Rx-For-Deficits-And-Debt-Why-Are-VAT-Users-On-The-Brink-.htm

The moral of this story is summed up in this paragraph:

The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development reported that since the 1960s, when the VAT began to be widely adopted, government spending by OECD member countries with a VAT soared from 30% of their GDP to 50%. Governments tend to spend all available revenue, and then some.

Just say no to raising taxes.

Let the buyer beware

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently settled a fraud claim against the State of New Jersey.  The details are in this Bloomberg News article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-18/new-jersey-settles-sec-claims-of-misleading-bond-investors-on-pension-fund.html

Here are the highlights:

New Jersey settled claims that it misled investors in $26 billion of municipal bonds by masking underfunding of its two biggest pension plans, in the first Securities and Exchange Commission case to target a state.

Documents for 79 bond offerings from 2001 to 2007 “created the false impression” that the Teachers’ Pension and Annuity Fund and the Public Employees’ Retirement System were adequately funded, hiding that the state couldn’t make contributions without raising taxes or cutting services, the SEC said in a statement today.

The suit marks the first time the SEC has sued a state for violating federal securities laws and marks an early salvo in the agency’s plan to crack down on fraudulent practices in the $2.8 trillion municipal bond market.

State and local governments all across America have substantial unfunded pension liabilities. Can bond holders now file claims against these bond issuers due to misrepresentation of their pension liabilities? If so this could be a bonanza for trial attorneys.

Tax exemptions for any cause

New York City will soon consider tax-free financing for the Ground Zero Muslim center:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67Q5BW20100827?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

The Muslim center planned near the site of the World Trade Center attack could qualify for tax-free financing, a spokesman for City Comptroller John Liu said on Friday, and Liu is willing to consider approving the public subsidy.

The mosque's backers hope to raise a total of $70 million in tax-exempt debt to build the center, according to the New York Times. Tax laws allow such funding for religiously affiliated non-profits if they can prove the facility will benefit the general public and their religious activities are funded separately.

Whether you support or oppose the building of this project the fact that it may be financed by tax exempt bonds is outrageous. This is what happens when someone else is allowed to spend your money. Just say no to government spending! (Please note that handing out tax exemptions has the same effect as increasing government spending).

Where are the Government ethics courses?

The following article "Business 'ethics' wrong focus, It's government, not the corporate world, that is inherently unethical" is written by Thomas DiLorenzo a professor of economics at Loyola College, Maryland, and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-08-22/news/bs-ed-business-ethics-20100822_1_business-ethics-unethical-behavior-wrong-focus

Professor DiLorenzo offers a strong argument that teaching business ethics is counterproductive. What students should learn is that government is the root of all corruption, and that more government unavoidably leads to more corruption.

This is an excelent article, short but directly to the point.  I encourage you to read the entire article, but here are some of the highlights:

Under the dubious proposition that the current economic crisis was caused by a sudden outburst of greed (as though greed did not always exist), a new growth industry in America is the teaching of "business ethics" at the university level.

Business ethics courses typically combine anti-business moralizing with advocacy of more government regulation of business and, subsequently, a greater politicization of society. In doing so they actually encourage unethical behavior because it is politics, not markets, that is inherently immoral.

... when government uses its legal monopoly on coercion to confiscate one person's property and give it to another, it is engaging in what would normally be called theft. Calling this immoral act "democracy," "majority rule" or "progressive taxation" does not make it moral. Under democracy, rulers confiscate the income of productive members of society and redistribute it to various supporters in order to keep themselves in power. The government also pays itself very well out of these confiscated funds. Today the average federal bureaucrat makes about double the salary and benefits of the average private-sector worker according to the U.S. Department of Labor. State and local government bureaucrats make about one-and-a-half times their private-sector counterparts.

In order to finance a campaign, a politician must promise to steal (i.e., tax) money from those who earned it and give it to others who have no legal or moral right to it. There are (very) few exceptions, but politicians must also make promises that they know they can never keep (i.e., lie). This is why so few moral people are elected to political office. The most successful politicians are those who are the least hindered by strong moral principles. They have the least qualms about confiscating other peoples' property in order to maintain their own power, perks, and income. In his bestselling 1944 book, "The Road to Serfdom," Nobel laureate economist F.A. Hayek described this phenomenon in a chapter entitled "Why the Worst Get on Top."

In short, universities perform a disservice with their relative neglect of the real ethical problem in America — the politicization of society and the growth of government — while greatly exaggerating ethical problems in private enterprise.

The lone voice of reason

Thomas Hoenig the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City may be the only member of the Federal Open Market Committee who is willing to honestly review the role of the Federal Reserve Bank in our recent financial crisis.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) consists of twelve members--the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents, who serve one-year terms on a rotating basis.

The FOMC holds eight regularly scheduled meetings per year. At these meetings, the Committee reviews economic and financial conditions, determines the appropriate stance of monetary policy, and assesses the risks to its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth.

The FOMC determines Federal Reserve polices that control short term interest rates.

In the following article Thomas Hoenig is quoted after the most recent FOMC meeting:


http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/13/2149021/kc-federal-reserve-president-rips.html

Here are some of his remarks:

The Federal Reserve’s zero-interest-rate policy amounts to a “dangerous gamble” that may be holding back the recovery and risking a repeat of the financial crisis that put us here, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City said Friday.

Hoenig said low interest rates and lax regulation during a deflation scare in 2003 helped bring about the debt-driven boom and subsequent financial collapse. And the Fed is risking a future crisis.

“If we again leave rates too low too long out of our uneasiness over the strength of the recovery and our intense desire to avoid recession at all costs, we are risking a repeat of past errors and the consequences they bring,” Hoenig said.

 I agree with Thomas Hoenig. The Federal Reserve held interest rates too low for too long causing an orgy of excess speculation. The current zero interest rate policies of the Federal Reserve will cause the same phenomenon to occur at some point in the future.

A deadly virus

The following editorial is from the 8/19/10 edition of the Washington Times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/19/we-cant-afford-this-government/

The title “We can't afford this government” and subtitle “Costs of bureaucracy spread like a deadly virus” are strongly worded but are directly to the point.

Consider these 2 facts referenced in the editorial:

…Congressional Budget Office estimate that this year's federal deficit will be well above $1.3 trillion for a second straight year and remain above $1 trillion next year as well - causing as much debt in three years as government built up in the previous 219.

…the announcement by Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) that yesterday (8/19/10) was the 2010 "Cost of Government Day," which is "the day on which the average American has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burdens imposed by government at the federal, state and local levels." Just two years ago, Cost of Government Day fell an astonishing 34 days earlier. This year, the average American worked 231 days just to support government, which consumes 63.41 percent of national income.

Our obsession with debt

I have often wondered why the United States Government encourages debt and consumption rather than savings and investment. The following article by Robert P. Murphy of the Mises Institute explores the basis of this paradox:

http://mises.org/daily/4631

The following 2 quotations that are referenced in the above article drive home Robert Murphy’s point:

Marriner Eccles was the Governor of the Federal Reserve System in 1941. On September 30 of that year, Eccles was asked to give testimony before the House Committee on Banking and Currency. The purpose of the hearing was to obtain information regarding the role of the Federal Reserve in creating conditions that led to the depression of the 1930s. Congressman Wright Patman, who was Chairman of that committee, asked how the Federal Reserve got the money to purchase two billion dollars worth of government bonds in 1933. This is the exchange that followed.


ECCLES: We created it.

PATMAN: Out of what?

ECCLES: Out of the right to issue credit money.

PATMAN: And there is nothing behind it, is there, except our government's credit?

ECCLES: That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn't be any money.

Robert Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta, wrote in 1936, "If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible — but there it is."

Sunlight is the best disinfectant

The Sunshine Review is a new project intended to provide a clearing house of information on state and local government spending. This is the link to the website:

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Main_Page

The level of detailed information that is available is surprising. This website gives you the ability to see how your hard earned money is spent.

Uncle Sam wants you

The Cato Institute’s newest project “Downsizing the Federal Government” has a website that is a treasure trove of useful information. Here is the latest post:

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/federal-employees-continue-prosper

If you do not think that government spending is out of touch with reality you need to review this chart:

Clearly the Federal Employees have commandeered the levers of spending. This is one of the reasons that the Federal Government continues to grow larger as the rest of the real economy flounders.

Downsizing the Federal Government

The Federal Government is consuming a larger share of gross domestic product each year. Those who wish to study Federal spending may find it difficult to adequately research this subject. Thankfully the Cato Institute has codified the statistics and provided a website with a plan to downsize the Federal Government.

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/

Cato describes the purpose of this website as follows:

The federal government is running massive budget deficits, spending too much, and heading toward a financial crisis. Without a change of direction in Washington, average working families will be faced with huge tax increases and a lower standard of living.

Some people have lofty visions about how government spending can help society. But the essays on this website put aside such “bedtime stories” about how government programs are supposed to work, and instead focuses on how they actually work in the real world.

Downsizing the Federal Government is a project of the Cato Institute. Scholars at Cato believe that cutting the federal budget would enlarge personal freedom, increase growth and prosperity, and leave a positive fiscal legacy to the next generation.

Nero fiddles as Rome burns

Your government is here to help you once again. The Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Henry Waxman is holding a congressional hearing on the use of chewing tobacco by major league baseball players. This is how the ruling elite chooses to spend your hard earned money. See the following article:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-14/waxman-calls-for-major-league-baseball-ban-on-chewing-tobacco.html

Attend your local Tea Party on 4/15/10!

Tax Day Tea Parties

Thursday 4/15/10 is a milestone on the road to the midterm elections. It is important that those of us who wish to reduce the size and scope of government make our voices heard. The midterm elections are 203 day away. The current administration and their supporters will use all of their influence in the media to try and tamp down the anger prevalent in the voter base between now and the election.

You can fight back by attending a Tax Day Tea Party. There will be a Tea Party in every major city across America. Find your local Tea Party at this link:

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Today.aspx?date=4/15/2010

The Hawaii Tea Party is scheduled to begin at 4:00 pm at the State Capital:
http://www.overtaxedhawaii.com/

In Chicago the Tea Party will be held at the Daley Plaza, 50 W. Washington at 12:00 pm:
http://teapartychicago.org/

Difficult sheep to shear

Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute had the following article published in the Wall Street Journal on 3/30/10:


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11631

This article lists all of the health care tax increases that will affect individuals in the highest tax brackets. Alan has it exactly correct when he makes the following statements:

Add it up and the government is counting on squeezing an extra $1.2 trillion over 10 years from a tiny sliver of taxpayers who already pay more than half of all individual taxes.

It won't work. It never works.

Punitive tax rates on high-income individuals do not increase revenue. Successful people are not docile sheep just waiting to be shorn.

In short, the belief that higher tax rates on the rich could eventually raise significant sums over the next decade is a dangerous delusion, because it means the already horrific estimates of long-term deficits are seriously understated. The cost of new health-insurance subsidies and Medicaid enrollees are projected to grow by at least 7% a year, which means the cost doubles every decade — to $432 billion a year by 2029, $864 billion by 2039, and more than $1.72 trillion by 2049. If anyone thinks taxing the rich will cover any significant portion of such expenses, think again.

The federal government has embarked on an unprecedented spending spree, granting new entitlements in the guise of refundable tax credits while drawing false comfort from phantom revenue projections that will never materialize.

The basic economic principle of lower tax revenue generated by higher tax rates was explained by Economist Arthur Laffer. For a brief explanation of the “Laffer Curve” see the following:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Laffer_curve

The new public enemies

Unintended consequences

The debate and passage of the federal health care legislation has already produced 2 unintended consequences.


The first consequence is a grassroots revolt by enraged citizens. This revolt will manifest itself in the vote totals during the midterm election in November. Supporters of this health care legislation will find that they have drunk from a poisoned chalice.

The second consequence is of far greater significance. State legislatures are passing laws banning the enforcement of the federal health care act. Virginia and Idaho have passed laws that expressly prevent the enforcement of federal health care penalties. The Virginia law is as follows:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 38.2-3430.1:1 as follows:

§ 38.2-3430.1:1. Health insurance coverage not required.

No resident of this Commonwealth, regardless of whether he has or is eligible for health insurance coverage under any policy or program provided by or through his employer, or a plan sponsored by the Commonwealth or the federal government, shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage. No provision of this title shall render a resident of this Commonwealth liable for any penalty, assessment, fee, or fine as a result of his failure to procure or obtain health insurance coverage.

The Idaho law is longer and may be read at the following page:

http://legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2010/H0391.pdf

The most important sections of the Idaho law are these:

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

HOUSE BILL NO. 391

STATEMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY. (1) The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in the mode of securing health care services, or to impose a penalty related thereto, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is therefore a power reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. The state of Idaho hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of the state of Idaho regarding the right of all persons residing in the state of Idaho in choosing the mode of securing health care services.

(2) It is hereby declared that the public policy of the state of Idaho, consistent with our constitutionally recognized and inalienable rights of liberty, is that every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty.

This second consequence can be summarized as the States Rights Movement. The foundation for this movement is expressed in the Idaho legislation paragraph 1.

10 amendments were added to the U.S. Constitution on 12/5/1791. Collectively these amendments have become known as the Bill of Rights. The first and second amendments are well known to most citizens and are constantly discussed in the media. The ninth and tenth amendments are less well known and rarely discussed. These two amendments set the fundamental ground rules for the federal government’s activity.

Amendment 9:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The States Rights movement is in its infancy. According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, 37 states currently have legislation under consideration that is similar to those listed above. You can learn much more about this movement at the following websites:
 
http://www.alec.org/

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

Speak no evil

The following Chicago Tribune story describes an almost daily routine for Chicago politicians, granting favors in return for bribes:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-developer-corruption-carothers-19-20100318,0,7896465.story

The story itself is as old as the incorporation of Chicago. An alderman accepts a bribe to rezone property for a developer. This process of aldermanic enrichment is written into the City of Chicago zoning laws. All zoning changes must first be approved by the alderman before it can be considered by the rest of the zoning governing boards.

 

Why should we examine this particular case of a developer who bribed an alderman? I find the details of this trial fascinating. In this trial the developer Calvin Boender was convicted of paying Alderman Isaac "Ike" Carothers a $38,000.00 bribe. Alderman Carothers has already been separately tried and convicted for accepting this bribe. The interesting part of the Boender trial is that the federal prosecutors did not call Alderman Carothers to testify against Calvin Boender. The following is a quote from the news article:

 

• Carothers pleaded guilty to corruption charges last month and resigned as 29th Ward alderman. He has been cooperating with the FBI's investigation for months, working undercover at times. In a surprise, prosecutors decided not to call him as a witness at the trial.

 

Why would the prosecutors choose not to have their star witness testify? The Tribune offers this as an answer:

 

• Veteran lawyers said the decision not to put Carothers on the witness stand may have been a signal that prosecutors were concerned about his credibility, the baggage he brought or what he might say on the stand.

 

In my opinion the concern was not about the alderman’s credibility or any baggage that he would bring. The prosecutors could not allow Alderman Carothers to testify because of what he might say. The following paragraphs from the Tribune story contain the smoldering embers of testimony that could ignite a political firestorm:

 

• In 2008 the Tribune chronicled how Boender eventually got his way on Galewood Yards after enlisting the support of Carothers and U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. Gutierrez, who had just received a $200,000 loan from Boender for his own real estate investments, personally lobbied Mayor Richard Daley. The congressman has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

• Daley's and Gutierrez's names came up during the trial when a former city planning commissioner testified about a meeting involving the two and Boender in 2004-05 at which Boender brought a model of his 50-acre project.

• The Tribune reported this week that FBI agents and other federal authorities had secretly interviewed Daley in 2008 at a downtown hotel about the politicians who supported the Galewood Yards project. Daley had no comment Thursday on Boender's conviction.

 

My conclusion is that Alderman Carothers was not called to testify because he has first hand evidence of malfeasance by U.S. Representative Luis Gutierrez and possibly by Mayor Daley himself. The question that we now must answer is this:

 

Is the U.S. Attorney’s office holding back on indictment of Gutierrez and possibly Daley because their investigation is ongoing and these indictments will occur at sometime in the future, or have they been called off by someone higher up in Washington?

Dreams from my public employee unions

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn is proposing a 33% tax increase. Some of the details can be found in this Chicago Tribune article:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-quinn-budget-speech-0311-20100310,0,4512692.story?

Think of the reaction you would receive if you were to ask your employer today for a 33% raise, or if you were to tell your customers that you will be raising your prices or fees by 33%. Only politicians and government employees live in a world where such fantasies could come true. This passage from the article is truly at odds with reality:


“The Illinois Federation of Teachers welcomed Quinn's call for a tax increase, but said it's not large enough to deal with the state's overall money problems.”

So there you have it, the government employees do not think that a 33% tax increase is enough to satisfy their gluttony.

The Governor is selling this outrage to the taxpayers of Illinois in the name of education for the children. It is a minor oversight for the Governor not to mention that the State of Illinois does not pay one dime for education of children in grade school or high school. The state is only responsible for some community colleges and the state university system. The primary education system grades 1 through 12 are paid for by local governments primarily by real estate taxes. The burden on local taxpayers to support primary education is overwhelming. This crushing real estate tax allows the Governor to imply that the state income tax is now low at the 3% level and that he is only proposing an additional 1% increase.

Resist this madness. Just say no to raising taxes.

Government grants distort scientific research

During a recent conversation with one of my friends a question arose:

Why would respected academics and scientists intentionally distribute false scientific results?

The following article answers this question:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece


Theses excerpts from the above article are of interest:

• The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
• Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion's share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers. It means that EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus. The revelation comes just a week after The Sunday Times highlighted serious scientific flaws in the IPCC's 2007 benchmark report on the likely impacts of global warming.
• The IPCC had warned that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 - an idea considered ludicrous by most glaciologists. Last week a humbled IPCC retracted that claim and corrected its report.
• The cash was acknowledged by TERI in a press release, issued on January 15, just before the glacier scandal became public, in which Pachauri repeated the claims of imminent glacial melt. It said: ""According to predictions of scientific merit they may indeed melt away in several decades."
  The same release also quoted Dr Syed Hasnain, the glaciologist who, back in 1999, made the now discredited claim that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035.
  He now heads Pachauri's glaciology unit at TERI which sought the grants and which is carrying out the glacier research.
• Critics point out that Hasnain, of all people, should have known the claim that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 was bogus because he was meant to be a leading glaciologist specialising in the Himalayas.
• Any suggestion that TERI has repeated an unchecked scientific claim without checking it, in order to win grants, could prove hugely embarrassing for Pachauri and the IPCC.

Grant money is the lifeblood of scientific research. The flow of government grants are controlled by politicians and bureaucrats who have political agendas. These political agendas dictate who receives the grants. If you accept grant money and then publish results that conflict with the political agenda your grant flow will cease.

Victory in the first battle to reclaim America

The elections of 2010 are the last chance for US taxpayers to reclaim their government. The special election in Massachusetts to replace Senator Edward M. Kennedy has resulted in the defeat of the big government politician and the election of the candidate who promised to limit the size and spending of the federal government. This is an epic upset for the big government politicians. Election results can be found here:

http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/2010/senate/results.html





To all of you who support smaller government, lower taxes, and more freedom today is a day to celebrate. We face a determined adversary who has now been wounded and will grow more desperate to achieve victory.