The imagination runs wild.

I try and ground myself. I think, overall, I am a normal guy. I love my family and pay my taxes. Perhaps writing has opened the door to my imagination, but I found myself musing over things the other day and then found myself unable to un-think these thoughts. I write now, as much to purge as to entertain... or perhaps just to be able to say "I told you so."

****************************************************

If I were going to be a dictator...

First off, I'd get myself elected over the largest and strongest economic, military, socio-political power in the world. 

Then I'd start to keep track of everybody's comings and goings. Maybe even so far as to monitor their health. 

Then I'd probably start looking at making sure that the general populace couldn't defend itself. 

Then I'd look to centralize all power under my control, to the extent that I would have even the census brought "in house". If I'm going to control people; I have to know where they are, who they are, and how they vote.

Then I'd make sure there was no voice of opposition.

Then I'd generate crisis. A people in crisis are easier to control. Perhaps it would be economic in nature. Perhaps it would be geopolitical. Or even climate oriented. But it would be swift and cause widespread panic. 

In "response" to this "crisis", I would issue orders to "control the situation". All the authority I need has already been granted to be through a series of Executive Orders. (This link, while otherwise a little kooky, has a great list of pertinent executive orders... all real. Google them if you don't believe his description of them.)

******************************************************

"A good conspiracy is unprovable. I mean, if you can prove it, it means they screwed up somewhere along the line."-Jerry Fletcher

Another Piece of News You Won't Be Reading About

Back in March of 2008, a conference was held by a group that had, apparently, not heard Al Gore's declaration that debate on global warming was over. Several hundreds of scientists got together and debunked the global warming mythology. Though I shouldn't have been, I was surprised that there was little to no coverage in the mainstream media. 

So this year the Heartland Institute is holding another Conference and I am interested to see if the media, and indeed all those who have been duped by the global warming bogeymen, will take any notice at all that there happen to be several scientists who do not hold with "consensus". That there are indeed people on the planet that are still willing to hold to the scientific method and not just the latest whimsy of corporate profiteers. 

Of interesting note this year Dr Jack Schmitt, the twelfth guy to walk on the moon, is scheduled to speak at the conference and it seems that it gets harder and harder for the eco-oppressors to simply write off dissenting opinions as those of mere crackpots...

Some economic history... tell your friends, if they can stay awake.

So I have this reader, he is very liberal and very concerned and a very dear friend, and we have been arguing about the solution to the current economic recession (I think I am going to stop using the term "crisis" because this country has weathered much, much worse.). Instead of continuing to back-and-forth with him in the comments section, I am just going to use this as a teachable moment for everyone.

He says…

But why do you believe that lowering taxes is going to help anyone that has actually been hurt by this economic downturn? And how long does your plan take? Years? And at what price? Bread lines and soup kitchens? Widespread bankruptcy and foreclosure? 20-30% unemployment? Do you really think the government should do nothing to create jobs, however temporary, including funding roads projects and other infrastructure projects? I just don't understand such a dogmatic approach that leaves no room for the possibility that another philosophy may work as well.

Here's why I know tax cuts work to really stimulate economies. This is going to be a little boring, but necessary.

--President's Harding and Coolidge passed the Revenue Acts of 1921,'24 and '26. The top marginal rates went from 73% to 58% in 1922, to 50% in 1923, to 46% in 1924, to 25% in 1925 and finally 24% in 1929.

            *When taxes were reduced on top income earners, the actual taxes paid to the government increased from $300 Million to $700 Million.

            *Also, top income earners went from shouldering 1/3 of all taxes paid in the early 1920’ to approximately 2/3 by the late 20’s

            *Also, from 1922 to 1928 the average of those earning greater than $100,000 increased by 15%. BUT, those earning between $10,000 and $100,000 saw their incomes increase by 84%!!

--In 1962 John F Kennedy (a Democrat, by the way) leveled across the board tax cuts by 20%.

            *From 1962 to 1966 employment grew by One Million jobs.

            *The economic growth rate jumped from 4.3% to 6.6%

            * And…federal taxes paid from 1964-68 grew from $48.7 Billion to $68.7 Billion

--In 1981, Reagan cut marginal tax rates across the board.

*Income taxes paid went from $500 million in 1983 to over $1 Billion per year, in 1989

Those are the reasons why cutting taxes work.

Here’s why the government pumping money into the economy won’t. (Borrowed from this article here.)

            --[Under FDR] Unemployment remained very high, averaging more than 17 percent throughout the 1930s, and overall output did not get back to the 1929 level until World War II. According to recent research by economists at UCLA, New Deal policies extended the Depression by seven years.

            -- Other Keynesian episodes generated similarly dismal results, though fortunately never as bad as the Great Depression. Gerald Ford did a Keynesian stimulus focused on tax rebates in the mid-1970s. The economy did not improve. But why would it? After all, borrowing money from one group and redistributing it to another does nothing to increase economic output. As mentioned above, George W. Bush gave out so-called rebate checks in 2001 and 2008, yet there was no positive effect either time.

                -- International evidence also undermines the case for Keynesianism. The clearest example may be Japan, which throughout the 1990s tried to use so-called stimulus packages in an effort to jump-start a stagnant economy… The Japanese economy never recovered, and the 1990s are now known as the “lost decade” in Japan.

All of these numbers and such aside, the very logic of Keynesian economics seems false at its core. How can borrowing money or creating it out of thin air for the purpose of dumping it i anto the economy, be good? If it was good, why wouldn’t we just do it all the time? Why stop at a $789 Billion package? Why not $14 Trillion (the current US GDP)? Or hell, if we really can borrow our way out of this recession, why not just say an even $100 Trillion dollars and REALLY get the economy roaring?

And as far as the “bread lines” and “bankruptcy” and “people dying in a cardboard box”, those are all very bad things. No one wants to see that happen. But you dilute the argument into empty platitudes when you try and use hysterics to make your point.

And to your “Do you really think the government should do nothing to create jobs…?” My answer is… sure they could do some things, like lowering taxes or providing more low interest loans for small business entrepreneurs, or cutting some of the red tape at the Small Business Administration so that you could get help as a small businessperson. But ultimately, your question smacks of the misguided notion that it the government’s job to create jobs, last time I read the Constitution, job creation wasn’t on the list (and don’t try that “promote the general welfare” nonsense, that’s like saying your going to fix the economy with money you don’t ha… oh, wait, nevermind).

Anyway hope this has been helpful or entertaining. But given that it was about probably one of the most boring subjects (economics), it was probably neither. Sorry.

A simple lesson for President Obama...

All economy is driven by creation. 

With that being said it is easy to see why so many are against this "stimulus" package. But there are those who rail against the inevitable truth of my opening statement and so for them, two simple analogies....

#1) Joe and his nine friends each have $10 dollars. There are ten people who, together, have $100. The government comes along and takes $1 from Joe each of his friends. Then, the government then gives that ten dollars to Doug by creating a "job" for him. Now there are 11 people who, together, only have $100. 

#2) Joe and his nine friends each have $10 dollars. There are ten people who, together, have $100. Joe and his nine friends pool $1 each to create a company that produces something. This company makes enough money to pay back Joe and his friends the $1, plus hire Doug and pay him ten dollars. Now there are 11 people who, together, have $110. 

The government cannot drive economy because in reality, it doesn't produce anything. There are things that the government mandates the production of, but it does so on the financial backs of those that it taxes. It is not real creation or real growth. It is simply the transfer of wealth from one person to another. 

Obviously, my analogy is terribly simple. It doesn't take into account things like, corporate taxes, or market fluctuations, or interest on loans etc. But I hope that it shows the idea of taking trillions of dollars from the market place only to turn around and inject them right back into the market place really makes no logical sense. You've not created any growth or stability,  you've simply taken (or borrowed) from yourself (or future generations).

Inspiring Confidence in the Obama Era

February 9, 2009

February 10, 2009

Feb 10, 2009

This is from the Wall Street Journal... 

"The vice president also offered some trademark candor about the prospects of success.

He recalled a recent White House meeting with the president and senior aides in which they were discussing the many challenges the country faces. “If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there’s still a 30% chance we’re going to get it wrong,” was his message at the meeting."

And finally...

In response to Obama's statement about universal agreement by economists on his stimulus bill, this was posted in the New York Times. 

If this is how they work when they're urgently trying to get something accomplished, I wonder what it looks like when they don't care as much.

I need Ten Billion "C-Notes" of stimulus...STAT!

I think it's sad that the truth is so easily lost in this country. While Obama is professing to have the most transparent administration ever, Besty McCaughey and those like her have to chase Obama and the Democrats around like a mother wondering what her kid is getting into next. Ms. McCaughey writes an excellent piece here. The upshot of the article being that the Democrats are slipping little provisions into the "stimulus" bill. 

Obama assured us last night that this bill is desperately needed to create (or sustain??) 4 million jobs and that without it we would spiral deeper into crisis. And indeed, the opening line of the bill is "Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes." But it's that last little tag ("and for other purposes") that has apparently given Congress the green light to "establish[ed] within the Department of Health and Human Services an Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (referred to in this section as the ‘Office’)." I'll leave it to both you (my educated reader) and Ms. McCaughey to hash out the details, but here are two big ticket items the new Coordinator will handle.

"...provide appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care.."

"...[create] specific objectives, milestones, and metrics with respect to the following: The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014."

Let's parse that out. The government is going to "guide" your doctor in medical decisions and is going to place your health record into an electronic government file. Two questions: 

#1) When was the last time the government used the word "guide" and didn't really mean "tell"? 

...and...

 #2) Do you really want the same type of people that run the DMV having an accessible database of every time you got treated for...(insert one of a multitude of embarrassing conditions here)? 

(Side note: All you smokers out there better beware, it's a short jump from a nationalized "health file" to your insurance agents desk.)

Furthermore, can someone tell me how creating a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology is going to pull this country out of this "unprecedented crisis"? It makes you wonder how many other "desperate" measures are tucked away in this 680 page monstrosity. 

It does however shed some light as to why Obama is so quick to shove this thing through...he doesn't want you to have enough time to read it. 

You can follow along at home...

Last night Obama made a speech which was essentially a series of condemnations wrapped up in a campaign speech. I'm going to give some commentary based on these two youtube.com postings, but they were a little big to try and post here. I really don't want to make you guys work that hard, but dissecting this piece by piece is the only way, I think, to really address this. Click on the headings to see the speech and then read along to the time signatures…

Part One

00:23- Let me open with an observation, without a teleprompter, this guy is terribly uninspiring.

01:32- What happened to hope? I thought Obama was all about making people feel good. Why is he trying to scare us? For a better series of thoughts on that... check this out.

03:02- How quickly he's changed his tune from two weeks ago...

"By Major Garrett/FOXNews.com/Friday, January 23, 2009

The "I won" comment came after Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Republicans believed cutting income taxed would do more to stimulate economic growth than providing a $500 per person payroll tax refund for individuals earning less than $200,000. The president said, according to those present, that this was an important philosophical divide between Republican and Democrats and that it had already been settled -- and would remain settled -- because he won the election."

04:47- He found this deficit? Wasn’t he the guy, when campaigning, railing on the “failed policies of the Bush Administration”? How did he not know that the country had a deficit? And his answer to the “found” deficit is to increase it almost a hundred fold? (Check out he graph above.)

07:36- His answer to earmarks is…more earmarks? It’s the old, “If all your friends were jumping off  a bridge…” thing.  Seriously? The leader of the free world’s response to the enormous amount of earmarks in this bill is to say, “Everyone else is doing it.” So much for change…

Part Two

01:28- Let’s assume that that 3M number is correct.  According to conservative estimates the stimulus package will run about $825B. That breaks down to $275,000 a job!  Man, I’d like to get in on that.

02:29- Is anyone else tired of this old saw? “Firefighters, police, teachers…” Instead of threatening us that we’ll lose “essential services”, can’t you just be honest and say “You’ll lose essential services, because we won’t cut unnecessary spending (see earmarks above) or try and reduce programs that suck the country dry (read: welfare etc).

02:45- Great! Let’s reduce our dependance on foreign oil by using unproven and unworkable technologies, all while completely ignoring the decades worth of our own oil sitting under our feet and just off our shores. Awesome!!

06:18- It was right around here that he stopped whining and started stumping. I kind of lost interest after that.

What kills me the most about this little speech, is that fact that Obama is going to get what he wants anyway. He has control over both houses and the pen that are needed to get this bill passed. I think his real problem is that he doesn’t want this hung around his and the Democrat’s necks alone. This bill is a failure and he knows it, otherwise he’d just tell Pelosi and Reid to ram it through and not worry about making it bipartisan. If it was that good for the country and that pressing of an issue, this would be the perfect way to ensure Democratic dominance in Washington for years to come.

Throwing down the Climate Change Gauntlet

So you read this story. Nothing really surprising here, another liberal democrat shouting to the rooftops about how the sky is going to fall. Then you read this story, and you might even laugh a little because you realize that MSN-B.S. didn't even have the integrity to mention that Energy Secretary Steven Chu has a PhD in (and won his Nobel Prize for) work trapping atoms with laser light. But then you read this goomba and you get irritated because you see what a simplistic, unoriginal,  mouthpiece this guy is. 

All of these "news" stories, and not one contrary position. My liberal friends will tell me that there is no contrary position. Regurgitating the scientist Al Gore, they simply say there is "consensus" and that the "debate is over". Oh, really? Are you sure about that? Really sure? 

Here's where I am at...I am tired of overblown media hacks who have an interest in scaring the living daylights out of people (read: selling more news copy, airtime, and carbon credits) running around, consuming my Congress' time and flooding my airwaves with half-baked, often fully fabricated, half truths and innuendos. Look at the language they have to use "farms and vineyards could all be gone by the end of this century", "the Sierra snowpack could disappear". They can't truly predict a thing. "Might", "could", "possibly" these are the watchwords of the Environ-mental Scare Patrol (ESP). They don't know a thing.

I propose a compromise. For one year, one short year in our planet's long long history, all the member's of the ESP stop running around and trying to scare and shame everyone. In that year they need to predict (every day) whether the global temperature goes up or down and by how much. They also need to predict at least 50% of every major natural disaster (tsunami, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, droughts, etc) that may occur and be accurate within 3 days of the occurrence. 

Now, one year on a global timeline is not very long. The variables for one year of weather are infinitely less than 100 years from now, which is what Mr Chu and his ilk claim to be able to predict. Do this for one year and I will begin to believe that you can tell me what's going to happen 10 years from now. Do it for 10 years and I'll believe you can do it for 100. 

But if you can't, for even one short year, use your models and computers and your PhD's to predict the weather future... you have to hang up your spurs and go and find some other way to bilk the public of their time, money, and freedom.

From the "Whatever happened to..." Files

London has gotten some snow and I guess it's bad. Coming from Wisconsin, I can totally understand how difficult it can be to deal with...wait, how much did they get...TEN CENTIMETERS!??

Holy Crap!, how is this news at the BBC?

For those of you playing at home, 10cm is approximately 4 inches of snow. Four inches, and the country of Margret Thatcher, Sir Winston Churchill, and curry fries (the ultimate in fried gastronomical evolution), is "paralyzed".

How sad is that?

And Enlgand is all over this carbon-credit thing too, right? I thought that this is what they wanted... a cooler Earth right? So what's the big deal? This is just proof positive that human's can affect the world's overall temperature. This shows we're winning. Hooray!