Show Me the Money

The House of Representatives was seen gleefully cheering and patting themselves on the back after passing a bill to create one of the most expensive government programs in the history of the country. Democrat members of the House spent the following day before television cameras extolling the claimed benefits of their handiwork. They never once revealed where the billions or future trillions of dollars were going to come from to fund this massive federal takeover of healthcare in America. I won’t begin to get into all the controversial provisions of this bill, as it is highly unlikely to pass the Senate in its present form. What every American should demand to know though is where all this money is going to be found. Supposedly there is $500 billion dollars in Medicare fraud that they plan to find and convert to new benefits. If that were true, it would seem to be the biggest argument against giving federal bureaucrats more money to waste. If they are in fact throwing away half a trillion dollars a year in fraud, they should all be put in jail for criminal negligence.

The nation is out of money as I write this article. We are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign nations just to pay the interest on our existing debt. How can we be taking out more loans when we can’t even pay the interest on existing debt? As this is being written, the debt now stands at $11,981,837,000,000. That is essentially now equal to the Gross Domestic Product of the entire country. The interest on that amount is increasing at the rate of $864,000,000 per day. Not only are we adding to the debt through borrowing on the interest, we continue to add to the debt through continued deficit spending. This is like maxing out your credit cards and then getting loans to pay the interest on your cards. Since you have no money left in your bank account, you borrow some more.

The sight of these House members jumping up and down and congratulating themselves is just astonishing to watch. Do they care nothing of the financial solvency of our country? Do they not realize that the greatest threat to our nation is not importing foreign oil, but exporting cash to countries that care nothing about our own survival? Wake up America. Congress is spending your freedom. They are spending the future of all of our families. Unless this is reversed, the numbers cannot be sustained indefinitely. At some point it will just stop because there is not enough money in the world system to support it. China is already starting to back away from buying more American debt. There are few other countries with the cash to replace their support. China could single handedly collapse our economy if they dumped all of their notes at once, or even a substantial portion. China only continues to support us because it is in their own self interest. If they quit believing that, we would be in serious danger. This is an enormous threat to the sovereignty of our nation and the freedom of every American. Not only is this Healthcare Bill an intrusion into the individual’s decisions on their own healthcare, all massive spending bills, that have no funding from existing revenues, threaten the economic survivability of our nation. This should be causing us to jump up and down too, but for a much different reason and it is not in celebration.

Opinions versus Knowledge

Lately, I’ve been hearing a lot of people talking about their opinions on various issues. Often they expressed all kinds of ideas about topics in which they’ve had no personal experience and no knowledge of the subject in any formal way. In some cases their opinions were simply based on conversations with others. Frequently they express these views as though they were experts in the subjects and become very indignant or even outraged when they are actually challenged on those views. The reaction is often that as American’s we are entitled to express our views and therefore my opinions are as legitimate as yours. Frankly that just isn’t always a fact.

Let us start with the very definition of the word, opinion. The dictionary defines it as “ A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty, a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.” Opinions are often based on nothing more than wild speculation with no facts at all. We need to be very careful when we accept opinions as though they had real value. Not all opinions are good and some are downright dangerous. Because someone has an opinion on something, does not necessarily add value to any discussion of serious issues.

Matters that are critical to the survival of our nation should not be based on opinions. They should be founded on the best available facts, data, and analysis that we can find. There is a fine line between censorship and responsible journalistic decisions on what to publish. That is no easy decision, but it is one that journalists need to take very seriously. All of us need to challenge others who are simply expressing uneducated opinion. There is a huge difference between knowing something and expressing an opinion. I may have climbed a mountain many times and looked out across the valleys below, while another person sees that same mountain and says it is just a mirage. That person might well believe it is a mirage and has a right to hold that opinion, but it means little. The mountain is still there and we’ve traveled upon it.

I have tried many times to make a distinction between matters of opinion. We probably all hold some opinions on many things, but opinions really don’t matter much unless they are supported by the best information available. No one cares much about my personal opinions. My purpose for writing most articles is not to express opinion, but to explain and generate thoughtful consideration of new ideas. Discussion is important to the learning process, but closed minds are of no value to a discussion. If we are to learn and advance our thinking, we have always got to be open to new ideas and ways of thinking about things. That seems to be the biggest obstacle to political debate these days. No one seems to be able to discuss anything without the other side just name calling. These are closed minds with no intent to learn anything. Since it is unlikely that those people will ever be able to change, it is best to focus on those more toward the middle of an issue. Hopefully the vast majority of Americans will keep their minds open and continue to seek what is true.

Where Are the Journalists?

Where have all the Journalists gone? The question reminds me of a refrain from an old Peter, Paul, and Marie song. Has objective journalism died in this country? Have news agencies evolved into political blogs? As we watch the White House news corps these days, it certainly seems so. I often feel like I am listening to Pravda or some other state run television station. Broadcasters at ABC prepared a two hour infomercial on the President’s proposed healthcare package, allowing no GOP rebuttal or dissent. They wouldn’t even accept opposing view commercials. Now that is truly in the political tank. What is going on here? How did we get so far astray from the journalistic ethics of just 25 years ago?

I’ll leave some of that speculation to the insiders of the news agencies, but there is usually a more fundamental truth within corporations. If the minions within the business are all running up the hill in one direction, they are following someone higher up the hill. Look to the top and you will get your answer as to who is giving direction to this cast of reporters. Nothing goes into a newspaper without the approval of the managing editor and even he/she won’t be around long if that editor opposes the publisher. The same is true of these TV companies. The question shouldn’t be, why is Brian Williams bowing before the President, or why is Charlie Gibson avoiding asking the tough questions. The question should be, “Who is telling him to do it and why?”

When I first began my research for this article, I fully expected to find a correlation or common thread running through the individuals who make the real decisions for these news agencies. What I began to see was a collection of very different characters with their own reasons for supporting the views they promoted through their holdings. If there are commonalities, they weren’t apparent to me. Those people who are really curious about what is going on should look at the CEOs and members of the Board of Directors of these companies. This is where the financial truth lies. That is where you will find the real incentives for political support. Don’t expect journalistic objectivity from businesses who own the media outlets for the purpose of promoting their own interests. Real journalism seems to have been lost. We no longer have reporters of the news. We now have writers who want to tell us their version of a story.

Congressional and Presidential Bailouts or Theft?

In earlier articles on this blog site, I’ve written about the Constitution and included copies of the actual wording in the US Constitution that were written to prevent intrusion by the Federal Government into matters reserved to the states and to the citizens. The Constitution is very specific about these issues as were all the writings of the founders at the time. There can be little question that they worried that their newly formed government might try to revert to the ways of Europe and to control by a central authority. When writing the Constitution, our fore fathers were trying their hardest to prevent the very things we are seeing being reintroduced by Congress and the President.

While the erosion of state’s rights has been going on for some time, never have we seen a wholesale take over by any level of government of private enterprise like we are seeing over the last year. This recent activity is such an over reaching of the Commerce Clause of Article One that it is hard to make any rational argument for its legality. Yet, we have hundreds of Congressmen supporting these outrageous activities. Here is what Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says:

“To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”

I doubt there is any other single sentence in the entire Constitution that has been so badly stretched and abused by Congress, except the Necessary and Proper Clause in the same section which reads as follows:

“To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

These are the only sentences in the entire Constitution that mention any commercial authority at all. The rest is dedicated to security of the nation and the rights of the states and the people. With these two simple sentences we have gotten government takeovers of banks, various other financial institutions, car companies, government health care, and on down the list of every federally sponsored program in the states. We now have Congressmen telling us that Congress and the President have the right to tell individuals what they must buy, like health insurance or car companies. Under what provision of the Constitution do they have the right to tell me that I have to acquire stock in a car company, or subsidize my neighbor’s purchase of their car with a clunker rebate? Where does it say Congress has the authority to tell any citizen that they have to buy health insurance, a winter coat, or any other commodity or service? This is so egregious that every American regardless of party affiliation should be outraged and terrified of these crazies who have taken over our government. Until people stop the political allegiance blather, set aside their personal biases, and start to recognize what is happening to their personal rights and freedoms, we are all in danger of losing our country to corrupt politicians. Taxing us for unconstitutional purposes is not a bailout. It is theft. Wake up America and start to demand that politicians get out of our lives and wallets. They have no right to be there in the first place.

The Politics of Self Interest

In all the recent debates in Congress, in local town hall meetings, and on television, it seems to me that many of us have lost sight of what people really mean when they hotly express their views of various issues. We hear the President profess his beliefs that we have a moral obligation to care for others. We hear people talk about the concerns of government entering their lives. We hear politicians debate the pros and cons of various options for extending government programs to stimulate the economy. Very little of this addresses the main reasons people vote for candidates.

Milton Friedman, a famous economist and theorist, probably expressed it best when he said that we all act in our own self interests. If you interview people anywhere in the world, most will tell you that they believe they are good, caring people. Even members of the violent M13 gang often will say their reason for joining the gang was to find others who cared about them and would protect them from the violence of others. Only a minority of individuals that have been abused throughout their life and have lost all self worth think of themselves as bad people. When politicians forget this simple idea or believe that they know what is best for other people, they will surely stir the ire of many in society. What we are seeing is part of that rebellion among different self interests. Trying to force our own ideas on others without helping them to understand how it is in their best interest will surely fail. Any government program, regardless of how well intentioned it might be, will always fail without the support of the public. This is true even in totalitarian governments. If the discontent rises to a high enough level, the public will rebel and throw out the tyrants.

An old axiom in politics is that the public always votes its wallet. That has probably been true throughout history. It is easy to be charitable when you are very wealthy and all your needs are met. It is even easier to be philanthropic with other people’s money. However, when people are struggling to make ends meet, or have very little themselves, or are just comfortable, they are not so quick to give away hard earned money. Americans have begun to realize that the massive debt that is accumulating will soon come due. Someone is going to have to pay the bill and that someone is all of us. Just like running up a massive personal credit card debt by spending on all the nice things we want now, the national debt must eventually be paid and that is doesn’t mean starting 30 years from now.

While it is important to discuss and understand our various differences, it is probably even more important to discuss what is in it for each of us. How will each of these proposals directly affect our own wallets?

Should Congress Spend More? The Answer Is In.

All questions about whether Congress should spend more money on any new programs were answered this week. All such discussions should end and the nation should be focused on the number one problem that literally threatens our national security and survival as a nation. With a single document this week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has likely altered the course of all international business, foreign government currency rates, the ability of the US to borrow on the international markets, and our own government’s outlook for financial stability. That is an astonishing accomplishment for a single report. While not entirely unexpected by most in the financial community, the CBO just announced that the White House projections for the size of the governments accumulated budget deficits during the next 10 years, were misstated by two trillion dollars. Let me write that out in zeros. That is $2,000,000,000,000. An error of that size is literally inconceivable. In fact, it is unlikely that it was an error, but an intentional misstatement of our massive problem as the White House and Congress raced to get their healthcare and other budget agenda items passed before the Congressional recess and before the CBO could release this news to the nation.

The current US debt currently stands at $11.7 trillion dollars. The new CBO report estimate is that projected spending will create another $9 trillion that must be financed in the next 10 years. If that requires the government to borrow the money and add to the current staggering debt, it is estimated that just the interest on that debt would be more than $500,000,000,000 with interest payments to China alone approaching $1 billion a week. Let me remind readers that the worth of the entire countries production is only around $14.7 trillion. That is everything the nation produces. In 1975 the entire national budget was only $279 billion. The nation had budget surpluses until 1983. With the massive growth of federal spending in this decade, Congress has managed to dispense totally with any of the rules of financial responsibility. Congress and the Administration have gone on an unprecedented spending orgy which has created a situation that threatens economic collapse within the US, and a domino to other countries.

In practical terms, what does all this mean? It means devaluation of the US dollar against most other currencies. It means massive inflation of all imported goods. Several senior financial executives of some of the major international corporations have said that they are currently revising their business models to provide alternative strategies. Rather than converting their foreign currencies to dollars and transferring them to US holdings, money is being maintained in foreign currencies and left in countries where they are earned. Capital investments are being diverted to other countries where they can earn more and have less risk of devaluation. This means jobs go with it. That in turn will further undermine the country’s ability to recover or to pay down the deficits, and that could then become a downward spiral. Most law makers are not financial experts and far too many in Congress have no business training at all. Most have no concept of the problems they are creating or their impacts. They don’t even comprehend the enormity of these numbers, yet they go on naively spending as though the national treasury was their personal bottomless pit of gold. This is coming to end, with or without their help. The numbers simply won’t allow it and the outcomes are certain if the spending continues. It is quite simply unsustainable. The question now is, “What will happen to us”?

We must ask ourselves whether we are going to allow the lunatic fringe of our society to force us into national bankruptcy. There is only one course and it is now or later, but later could be a very bleak scenario. The country always seems to have to be faced with disaster before they react, but in this case it will be too late. It is not too late to prevent a financial collapse, but even now the choices will be difficult and severe. We must stop contributing to the debt, even a little, and start to pay it down. We are already past the point of letting the next Congress and Administration deal with the problem. It is exactly like our financial positions when we allow ourselves to go into debt beyond our ability to pay. This is real and it is now. The future of our country is now at stake and the stakes are enormous. This is about our national security and survival. Our voices must be heard and they had better be heard in the next elections or we will soon be discussing our own personal financial survival.

Getting To the Root Causes of Rising Fuel Prices

I agree with the criticism of many who want Congress and the Administration to stop oil speculators from running up prices in the world oil markets. New regulations, over speculators in all of the commodities markets, are long overdue. However, the abuse by speculators goes beyond the manipulation of oil prices. Critics are correct that this particular market has been especially abused, but I fear that many in the media may have been mislead by information that has been being drummed into the public realm by numerous interests groups from the oil industry, from financial houses, and from environmental groups who seem to tailcoat on the first two groups.

The price of crude oil sold by producers is one issue, but the bottom-line issue is what refined products cost the consumer and whether consumers are being treated fairly in terms of price. The last piece of that question is somewhat subjective, but there are reasonability tests that can be applied. Let me start with the assumption that the US must produce more oil in order to have an impact on prices. It often not clear to me if the media’s issue is oil or refined gasoline prices at the pump. Either way, producing more oil domestically has little to do with oil prices or prices at the pump. While the focus of some in the media has been on speculators, it is not true that producing more natural gas, coal, oil, or even wood from American land will necessarily affect the cost of those products to consumers. Power plants in the South, like those in South Carolina, burn coal from Brazil while China is keeping West Virginia mines operating. Producers of any product seek the lowest raw material costs they can find from any place in the world they can find it. The big picture issue is whether supply is meeting demand on a world scale or at least within a regional one where the cost of transport does not offset the cost of local products. For example, if Brazil can produce and ship coal cheaper than American mines can, then industry will buy from Brazil. In the case of oil, there are now just five major oil companies who represent most of the gasoline sold in this country. They pump the majority of their own oil from their own wells in this country, Canada, Mexico, and other places in the world. They just pay the countries for the right to pump it out. They will send to and use in their own refineries the oil that is the cheapest to produce and will sell to others that which they can get more money. When a company requires more than they can produce themselves or it is cheaper to buy from others, then they will supplement it from the cheapest sources. Producing more Alaska oil may only cause more sales to the Asian countries, just as it doesn’t all come here now.

While oil is destined to run out some day, there is no credible evidence anywhere that there are true shortages of either oil or refined products. Producers are meeting all consumer demands, therefore pumping more oil that cannot be consumed only means producers must store it or find some other consumer markets for it. It is far cheaper to leave it in the ground if it can be obtained elsewhere for less. This is a fairly complicated issue, but like so many that become political, no one seems interested in the root causes for escalating prices. Instead, they look at the symptoms and discuss various options that help individual interest groups. I hear no one even discussing the problem with the formation of oligopolies in the oil industry or various other industry segments. If the media was really curious, I would suggest looking at the huge number of mergers and acquisitions that have taken place in American industry over the last 25 years. Why aren’t journalists questioning the market share of some of these huge businesses and the level of control they have over the price to consumers. Most of these numbers are available through various government websites.

Yes, speculators have been and are a problem as far as running up oil prices, but they may have had less impact on oil company costs and subsequent price at the pump than some think. Speculation has clearly impacted the price of oil that companies must buy to supplement their own crude oil production, but not all of it. Having tracked this since the early 90s we have frequently seen that world spot oil prices do not correlate well with price at the pump. There is a variety of other issues in this complex equation, but I hear very little discussion of them beyond political talking points. I would encourage journalists in particular to be a little more curious beyond the comments from the talking heads on TV and from columnists.

Restoring Consumer Confidence Should Be Job One

We can talk about job creation all day among ourselves, but virtually every CEO and senior business executive I know is either in a wait and see posture or is still planning further employee reductions. Business is not the leader in the economy, nor is government. The engine and driving force of the economy remains the consumer. The Consumer Confidence Index (CCI) is once again retreating. Congress had talked it down for two years, it took a short upswing after the election, but the public is again becoming skeptical. The CCI has always been the best predictor of the economy and correlates nearly perfectly with the production output. Jobs will not return to the nation until the public's confidence in the country returns. As long as the media, politicians, and other pundits constantly chant the negative and convince people of the terrible dilemma they are in, the CCI will stay down, consumers will retreat from spending, and business will continue to layoff, not invest, or hire.

Political leaders must put aside their political objectives and take every opportunity to talk about the positive potentials for recovery. It is not possible for government to tax and spend its way into prosperity. The numbers don't work that way. As most economists know, 60% of the economy is consumer spending and 10% is business spending which is also entirely dependent on the consumer portion. That is 70% of the economy. All levels of government represent the remaining 30%, but even with deficit spending these onetime discretionary portions cannot change the economic direction. Government spending requires extracting money from the 70% consumer and business sectors, leaving them with less to spend or invest. Congress is trying to follow a nonsense scenario.

The focus of leadership must first be to encourage our citizens and find ways to give them more to spend. Taxing more and talking of gloom and doom will only prolong this recession. We can all do more to encourage leaders to be more encouraging. One of our biggest problems lies with state legislators who have become complicit by accepting federal money, sacrificing state sovereignty, and not standing up against federal intrusion into all of our lives.

It Is Time to Reform Congress

When the first Congress of the United States was elected and convened, it was comprised entirely of average working citizens. Granted many, especially in the Senate, were among the wealthier land owners, but still the vast majority was citizens who saw the position as a part time job. Compensation for their service was trivial and they viewed it as an honor to serve the public good. As the years have rolled by, members of Congress in both the House and Senate found more and more ways to reward themselves and fewer and fewer went home to their main occupations. Today, we have a Congress of career politicians who now see advancement through seniority and have created all manner of personal perks that the founders could never have imagined. All of this career building has been done under the banner of the growing complexity of a government that must deal with international and domestic issues daily. One might think that is true, but is it?

If we look around the country, nearly all of the state governments have part time legislatures. The elected state legislators work only part time for 3 or 4 months out of the year, yet they can handle state business, often while still endlessly debating seeming silly legislation. In one of our largest and most populist states, Texas, legislators meet no more than 140 days only every other year. Now that clearly does not equate to the federal government which covers all national and international issues, but it causes people to wonder what Congressmen are doing.

In the 60s and 70s, the House met on an average of 162 days. In the 80s and 90s it went down to 139 days. In 1948, that session of Congress which was labeled the “Do Nothing Congress”, met for a total of 248 days. The second session of the 109th Congress may prove to be the laziest and worst Congress in our nation’s history by meeting only 218 days in the House and Senate combined. The current estimate is that the House in 2009 will have met no more than 93 days. That is less time than the state legislators, yet they are collecting their paychecks for only 3 months of work, not to mention having chauffeured luxury limos, private jets to take them on junkets, free meals, full pensions, health benefits better than most in the public, and various other Congressional perks. To be fair, Congressmen do spend more time on official business than just attending the floor sessions, but how much real time. Yes, there are committee meetings, but how often are they held and for how long? There is some preparation, but how much? Obama claimed to head a committee that never held a single meeting. Yes, there official functions, but what kind, how much business is really conducted, and for how long? When these are pursued in detail, we usually find that real working time is very small and social gathering is huge. Some Congressmen seem to be professional party goers.

Like all government reform, its genesis will not come from within Congress. There is simply no incentive. It will only be when the American public finally cries enough and demands that candidates running for election will support change. There are probably way too many other issues to divert the public’s attention now, but eventually these abuses of the public’s money and trust must be corrected. The time is growing very near.

More on Congressional abuse in a coming article. Stayed tuned.

We Get What We Vote For

In a recent article, columnist Michael Barron wrote that with the nationalization of the car companies, banks, and other businesses, we may be entering an era of "gangster government." That was his term for the way the Obama administration has been trampling on the rights of private enterprises. He was referring to the way some members of the administration and Congresses, such as Barney Frank, have directly intervened with car manufacturers by insisting on restoring dealer franchises to their friends. There is clearly a problem when the federal government can force businesses to reverse business decisions to help politically connected people, while excluding those who aren’t. When Mr. Frank and others say they see no problem and are just helping constituents, there is obviously something wrong with their moral compass. What is going on in the country when millions of people can continue to support members of Congress who lie, cheat, steal, and commit all manner of other crimes? Have Americans become so hardened and cynical about this kind of behavior that they have begun to accept as the price we must pay?

Over and over, we see the hypocrisy of so many members of Congress. We hear talking heads on television try to dismiss charges as just politics. We hear politicians try to blame the other guy for doing what they themselves are caught doing. They try to argue, “Yes, but the other party is doing it too,” as though that made it acceptable. The White House Press Secretary dismissed the protest of all the citizens across the country that opposed the proposed healthcare bill as manufactured protest by big business. The sliminess of national politics has become so bad that we no longer believe any of our leaders. Many elected officials themselves now acknowledge this as part of the game and feel they have no choice but to fight back using the same tactics. So America, what is the answer?

The answer to the problem lies with the American voter. They can either accept this abuse, the lies, the scandals, and the stealing of their freedom, or they can stand up for what is right and vote these people out. Americans must stop whining and complaining about what is wrong and fix it at the polls. If they don’t like what these people do, then they clearly have the option to remove them. Until that day comes, Americans will get more of the same. We get exactly what we vote for.

Science Drivel in American Universities

While scanning the TV channels his afternoon, I came across a science channel that was talking about theories on time and the laws of physics. I watched it for a few minutes until they started talking about a bunch of nonsense theories being put forward by several college professors. Essentially these guys were suggesting that we can learn to travel back and forth in time as though it was movie to be played. One at the University of Connecticut claims he is building a time machine. I decided to check this out and sure enough, this so-called physicist is on their teaching staff and is supposedly conducting such experiments. Any real physicist knows that these ideas have nothing to do with Einstein's theories of relativity or time dilation. It is just science fiction and there is absolutely nothing in the standard model of physics that would allow this to happen, in fact it is prohibited by several laws including the first law of thermal dynamics. Further it is a misunderstanding of the very concepts of time, which is a measurement of motion, not a destination or place.

I know this is a ramble, but I am constantly disturbed by the absurd level of incompetence that universities hire in so many fields. Where do these people come from and why don't they get weeded out early in the process. Is management so incompetent themselves that they can't tell fraud from fact? Parents are spending small fortunes on their children's education. They should be demanding that they get excellence, not moronic drivel. University presidents should be held accountable for their personnel and when they sell junk to the public, they should be financially responsible. Educating our youth is critical to the future of our country. Parents and students deserve the best and should be insisting on it.

Leaders Without Credentials

The next time you enter the voting booth, consider this idea for a moment. Should your candidate actually possess any of the skills and experience that the job might require? After all, this is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, isn’t it? Aren’t we the the employers? Aren’t these politicians’ government employees who report to us, their employer? When any of us apply for a job, we must normally provide a resume and to be considered for the job we are applying, don’t employers expect us to have proper skills and experience for the job? Why then do voters ignore this requirement for the most important positions we have to offer? Let us explore that notion for a moment.

Let us try to imagine that we have brought into our interviewing room the top business executives in the nation from our largest corporations to help us interview Barrack Obama who is applying for the job of President. The interview might go like this.

Recruiter: Good morning Mr. Obama. Thank you for coming. We appreciate your interest in our government and the position we have open as President. I see you have brought your resume with you. Let’s start by going over it and see how it compares with the responsibilities of our job. It says here you were a Community Organizer. There are millions of employees and thousands of managers and executives that you will be required to manage and direct. How many managers have you previously managed?

Obama: Uh, hmmm, none actually directly managed.

Recruiter: We have millions of soldiers and officers whose lives you are directly responsible for in the field and in battle. What is your military experience, where have you served, and what officer experience do you have?

Obama: Well, actually none really. But I’ve played some computer games.

Recruiter: The safety of our nation depends on our President’s good judgment and expertise in negotiating foreign policy with foreign leaders, including many who would like to see our country destroyed. What actual experience do you have in dealing with these foreign leaders?

Obama: That is an excellent question and certainly one that should be considered carefully. I know I would do an excellent job.

Recruiter: You will be required to manage a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars and billions more in assets. What is your financial management experience?

Obama: I haven’t actually managed a budget, but how hard can it be? Bush did it, and besides I’ll just ask some other guys to do it. I’ve got some friends in Chicago who say they know how to do it.

Recruiter: Mr. Obama, the economy is in dire straits. We need someone who can get business going again and start hiring all the people that are being laid off. What will you do to fix that?

Obama: I truly believe that the fault is with business because they are doing such a poor job. We don’t need them; we just need to get government to spend more so that local governments can put people to work. We should tax business more, tax all those rich folks, and give the money to the poor who have been cast out of their jobs because business took all their profits.

The interview would go on this way, but you get the idea. What is going on in the minds of Americans who cannot see how ridiculous it is to elect people into positions like the President, Governor, or Congressman, who have no skills or experience to make valid judgments in that position? Is it any wonder that they have run up trillions of dollars in debt, want to tax more, want to take over more, and want to run the country into the ground? Is this their fault or ours for hiring them? The problem lies squarely with the employer and that is the American Voter.

Fun and Games with CO2

Recently I saw a TV report about some bureaucrats in Washington who were considering requiring farmers to change the diets of cows to reduce their methane output. That is truly a revolutionary idea and worthy of some kind of bureaucrat of the year award. It caused me to think a little more about his whole gas problem in Washington. I just opened a diet coke and realized that I had just released a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere that had been in the can under high pressure. After drinking a few sips, I also released some more when it caused me to burp. By the way, excuse me. It was at that moment that I realized that the Obama administration probably needs to institute a gas recovery system for all people who consume carbonated beverages. There are billions of Buds and Corona Lights being popped as we speak all over the world. Merciful heavens, think of the massive impact to global warming. We should be required to wear some kind of mask to recover these gases before they escape into the atmosphere. Every can and bottle of soda, beer, champagne or other carbonated beverage should only be opened inside a gas recovery box before it is consumed. I wonder why this oversight has been allowed to continue so long.

Is there a difference in the quality of CO2 that beverage manufacturers use? Are they filtering their CO2 to allow only the non-polluting variants of the gas into their products? Is the CO2 that comes from the stacks of power plants a dirty contaminated kind of CO2? Why is that gas so much worse than all the other sources of CO2 like the beverage kind? I am sooooo confused. Surely the government knows best and have identified a really nasty type of CO2 and that is why they are picking on the power industry to remove their CO2. I bet you can help me to understand this apparent contradiction. Do you think it is because CO2 comes in different forms or is there some other motive here? Hmmm, I wonder.

Let’s see now, we’re told that man made CO2 is causing the entire planet to heat up, the poles to melt, the seas to rise, and soon New York and all its inhabitants will be under water. While CO2 represents only 3/10ths of one percent of the atmosphere and water vapor, which is also a green house gas, can be as much as 4% of the atmosphere, you’d think the government would at least be a little concerned about water vapor and the other gases in the atmosphere, However, factory generated CO2 seems to be unique in some way and the steam from the stacks apparently poses no problem, therefore no selling of steam credits to other businesses. I wonder whether money has anything to do with this. Now I’ll have to ponder that some more.

Dear Mr. President and Members of the House and Senate;

Please explain this to me one more time. Here is what you just appropriated and spent in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which you have euphemistically called the stimulus bill. This is a breakdown of the hundreds of billions of dollars that you plan to tax Americans to pay for projects that you cannot constitutionally involve yourselves directly.

Now here are the enumered powers under the US Constitution. I am having considerable difficulty understanding where in the list you believe you have a right to tax me, except for the Armed Forces and maybe a little art and science. Yes, I know, the courts have allowed it, but that does not excuse your involvement or the state legislatures willingness to accept it. Please help me to understand why you believe you have a right under the constitution to tax the people to pay for your ill conceived plan.

Constitutional Powers of Governement

Article 1.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Article 2.

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.


Amendment IX

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

Amendment X

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.

Idealism versus Pragmatism

Recently I attended a political party fundraiser dinner at which all the candidates for governor spoke. Before the speeches began, I had the occasion to speak twice with the state’s current Lieutenant Governor who was one of the candidates. I quizzed him for perhaps 15 minutes on his positions on a number of issues, particular those that oppose the positions of the current governor. I wanted to try to understand why he believed the Governor was wrong and how he reconciled his positions with the constitutional conflicts they seem to imply. He said he disagreed with the federal spending, but he was a pragmatist and saw no alternative. He felt that we were only one state and that if we didn’t take it, others would. I also questioned his support of politicians who had no credentials to hold the offices they sought. His reply was that the reason it was hard to find good candidates was the low pay. When I pointed out some of the reasons Benjamin Franklin, Washington, Jefferson and others were so opposed to rewarding public office with high pay, he retorted that we were living in another time.

While I understand and can even appreciate why he felt these things, I’m not sure I will ever be able to agree. Clearly idealism alone will not solve the problems the country faces, but if we lose our ideals in the process of accepting the pragmatic views of others, then what are we? There is an obvious place and need for pragmatism, but when it subjugates our idealism we lose some of ourselves.

The more I study history, the more I find that times have not changed as much as many believe. Certainly our technology has advanced dramatically, but the behavior of people has changed little over the centuries. Cicero wrote about the very things that we are dealing with today. He wasn’t being prophetic; he was simply observing and commenting on the nature of mankind.

The recent actions of Congress challenge our entire belief system. The Constitution set out an amazing set of guidelines for us and left us with an enormous volume of explanations for their reasoning. Yet the Constitution alone has not prevented others from usurping power from the people through the courts. The judicial system has slowly chipped away at the meaning by declaring federal jurisdiction through its rulings. Those rulings have more force of law than the Constitution itself and are why there are such titanic struggles for control of the courts.

If we believe that the Constitution was intended to limit the powers of the federal government and if we believe that values and principles really matter, then we should stand up and defend those beliefs. The men and women that died defending our Constitutional rights certainly did. How can we so cavalierly give those values up under the guise of pragmatism? Is there nothing these people are willing to fight for in this country?

What can we do? We can loudly make our voices heard. We can stand on our principles. We can vote against all who do not defend our rights under the Constitution. We can insist on appointing only judges who will adhere to the original intent of the Constitution. We can tell all everywhere that we are tired of this intrusion and aren’t going to sit back idly and accept it. We can demand that our legislators pass legislation that begins to reverse this federal intrusion of our freedom. We can tell our state representatives to start standing up for the sovereignty of their state and the rights of its citizens. Even the courts listen when there is an overwhelming cry coming from the public. We must single out those who betray our freedom and ensure they hold no public office. These are but a few and there is a great deal more we can do. However, the one thing we must not do is to allow pragmatism to replace our idealism.

Why Credentials Matter

It is difficult to know what is really going on in our federal government these days or to know what the extent of their involvement is in the private businesses to which that have loaned money. Why they have become the nation’s banker is not entirely clear either, but now that they have decided to do so, it is also unclear what the long term strategy is.

Recently, the Administration has proposed to establish pay guidelines for executives within the auto companies and financial institutions that have become their borrowers. They have either directly or indirectly helped to decide the changing of management and decide what products to offer to the public. In other words, they have taken on the role of the board of directors of these companies. That raises new questions about how business in general around the nation will be run. If the bankers are allowed to make the executive decisions of any company to which they loan money, what is the likely success of those businesses?

In a capitalist system, business must be able to survive or fail based on its ability to meet the demands of the market place. The ability of a business to meet those demands lies primarily in the skill, knowledge, and experience of its management. That management must understand the market in which they sell, the complexities of its own operations, and its capabilities to participate. Few lenders are qualified to make a company’s decisions and therefore do not participate directly on a company’s board. In the rare instances that they might, they occupy but one seat among many others. When that one seat becomes the only voice in the room, that business may find itself in great peril. If this is occurring with federal government involvement in the management of private businesses, it would be hard to understand why any federal bureaucrat would deem themselves more qualified to make decisions than those who manage day to day operations.

I have long been critical of the compensation structures of many corporations. I’ve felt that many senior level executive pay plans have been excessive in terms of the kind of compensation they receive. However, these matters must be decided by board members who are elected by the stockholders. Stockholders also decide through their willingness to purchase stock. The market place decides through their willingness to pay the price of a product. Finally, like all jobs, it is decided by the availability and competition for the skills of those managers in the job market. Arbitrary limits on compensation do not work and upset the fundamental controls of competition. It would be far wiser to look at how executives are compensated rather than in how much. My personal concern has been in the way executives are incented to perform. Many CEOs and top level executives receive very large numbers of stock options in addition to their salaries and bonuses. Too often, the value of these options has considerably exceeded all other compensation combined. The intent is to incent management to protect stock value for the stockholders and theoretically to increase the profits of the corporation. The argument is that the higher the profits, the stock price will follow. The problem becomes that when a manager’s financial goal is based primarily on stock price, the decision paradigm dramatically shifts from financial growth to profit maximization. To increase profits it is unnecessary for a company to increase sales, revenue, or market share. One simply has to reduce costs proportionally against existing available revenue. Revenue can actually go down, but as long as costs are cut proportionally, a business can continue to show an increase in profits. This has been happening within many American companies as executives try to maximize profits and increase the price of their stock and personal options. This is what needs to be reevaluated, not how much an executive makes.

Before you invite your banker into the boardroom, it would be my opinion that you should be very certain of their credentials for making operational decisions. I would suggest the same consideration when voters go to the polls to elect those who are going to run their federal business.

The Role of Religion in Government

Because the issue has come up numerous times recently and because of the frequent misreporting of the facts in the general media, I decided to go back and do a little research on the subject of the part religion played in the formation of our Constitution. While I took several courses in college that dealt with this subject, I decided I could use a little memory refreshing. I’ve repeatedly heard politicians, secularists, and various people generally opposed to religion in government refer to the practice of religion within government as though it was prohibited or illegal. This is a common tactic by many who wish to impose their views. They make claims without proof. They make the claim and demand that they be disproved, when in fact they bear the burden of proof themselves. However, to simplify this for some, I’ve decided it is time to restate the facts and they are all self provable. One only has to take the time to read a few documents for themselves.

Let me start by pointing out that there has never been any prohibition of religion in American government, nor is that implied in the principle of separation of church and state. That principle is not in the Constitution and evolved over time as a legal idea to ensure that no one religion would ever become a state sponsored religion like that which had been created in England. The colonists were fleeing religious persecution, were very strong in their religious Christian beliefs, and were determined to protect them, not prohibit their practice anywhere. Virtually all public meetings were opened and closed with prayer. Religion and moral values were taught in the schools of many states and were considered mandatory for the right upbringing of the young. If you read the Northwest Ordinance, you will find that it was required in the schools of the new territories. The Christian Bible itself was often used as a reader for children and most colonists, as noted by Alexis de Tocqueville, were more knowledgeable of the verses than those in Europe. However, one of the concerns that Jefferson noted was that it was important not to allow any religious teaching which was not common to the others. Over time the courts would gradually whittle away at that to mean virtually anything and is why we find our Constitutional right to the free practice and expression of religion being muffled by extreme groups.

Our country was founded on Christian Judeo principles, not any other major religion. In their zeal to protect their right to practice it, they recognized that they must also allow others not to believe. That provision of fairness seems to have gone strangely against them. Those that do not believe and remain a minority want to insist that those who do believe should have no right to their own expressions of their faith. That was clearly not intended, is specifically protected under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution, and was exercised in all government daily activities. I would encourage everyone to read the Constitution periodically and become familiar with the language. In recent years, some in the Federal Government have slowly been reaching beyond any reasonable interpretation of Section 8 of the Constitution. The powers of Congress are specifically enumerated in that section and it would have been hard for the framers to imagine how Congress has so over reached its Constitutional authority. While scholars can debate this into the small hours of the night, any rational thinking person can read that section, easily understand the wording, and then form their own conclusions. However, the importance of pointing out Section 8 is that the country was established as a Republic and as one, the central government was to have very limited, specifically enumerated powers, with all others reserved to the individual states. This was in direct and specific opposition to the governments of Europe. Franklin constantly warned of people’s tendency to return to European authoritarian law.

Section 8 of the Constitution is critical to all Constitutional matters because it defines where the authority of the governments lies. The central federal government only has certain defined powers and all others are reserved to the states. In matters of religion, the First Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It should be noted that the Constitution does not say that the Congress nor the states shall make no law. It only limits Congress. At the time of the signing of the Constitution, there were seven states that had established state religions. Jefferson mentioned this point several times in his writings and even in his 2nd inaugural address. He pointed out that the subject of religion within the states was entirely within the jurisdiction of the individual states, not the federal government.

Americans need to stop listening to the spinmiesters of television and magazines and do a little more reading of these documents including the Declaration of Independence which also gives homage to God. If people were to try to set aside their own biases for even a few moments to consider the facts instead of the spin, we might have a more democratic society. Forget all the politicians, forget the columnists and talking heads and read the actual words of those who risked their lives so that we might live in freedom. Don’t be so quick to be willing to give away our personal freedoms to government bureaucrats. The Federalist Papers are filled with the warnings of what could happen and we are seeing those things today. The documents I mention above are but a start, but they are compelling in their clarity of purpose. Once you read them, it is clear that Congress, some members of the courts and others have gone far astray of the framer’s original intent and specific wording of the law of our land. If we do not stand vigilantly strong against these constant attacks on our individual liberties, we will one day awaken to find that they have been taken from us.

Understanding the Numbers

The internet has been full of ideas from citizens about how the government might create new jobs and help to stimulate the economy. One goes something like this:
The federal government should offer citizens of the United States their own bailout package. Each person over the age of 50 would be given $500,000 with the stipulation that they must retire and buy a new car. This would free up millions of jobs for younger workers, while stimulating the auto industry.

While this idea may be amusing, some actually like the idea. The problem comes when you analyze the numbers. It also demonstrates how difficult it is for many to grasp the enormity of the numbers that Congress is so freely bandying about these days. I’d like to demonstrate part of this.

Currently more than eighty million (80,000,000) Americans are age 50 or older. Forget for a moment that many are already retired, but assuming we gave each $500,000, that would total forty trillion dollars ($40,000,000,000), or far more than the entire gross domestic product (GDP) which is currently only about fourteen trillion dollars ($14,000,000,000,000)per year. The GDP is the total value of the nations entire output. The federal government’s total tax collections, which are down from last year, will be around $2.2 trillion. The budget deficit, which is the amount we have over spent our income, already this year is expected to be about $1.2 trillion. We will have to borrow money again to pay for our shopping spree and that loan added to our already bulging credit card will total somewhere around $11.3 trillion. That is an amount approaching the nations entire output.

How do we get a handle on comprehending these enormous sums? It is not easy and the average person has great difficulty in trying to get their heads around it. Clearly many in Congress have not a clue. Let’s look at this a different way. Let us start with a billion. How big is that? Let us also say we take our average billionaire and tax him a billion dollars. How long would it take him to count his money out? If our billionaire started laying down his tax dollars at one dollar per second, every hour of the day, it would take him more than 31 years just to count out the money for that one tax year. That would be without interest and penalties since it took him so long to pay. If we were to ask that same billionaire to pay a trillion dollars, it would take him and his ancestors until the year 33,719AD to count out the money. With a modest interest of let’s say 5%, his ancestors would be counting until the end of time.

Somehow, we need to get people to understand both the size and the impacts of these government spending decisions. One of the reasons that it has gotten so far out of control is that so few understand how big they are and how destructive they are becoming to our economy. If the federal government was a private business, they would have long ago filed for bankruptcy. These practices cannot continue without a complete collapse of the monetary system. I urge all to call their congressman and plead with them to stop this runaway spending before it is too late. We all owe that to our own families.

California's Financial Suicide Mission

While there is no certainty that the federal government will involve itself in the financial disaster that California politicians have created, given the rest of the financially insane and irresponsible behavior of Congress and the Administration, it would not surprise me at all if they did. What has happened to California is just the predictable result of trying to create socialistic programs without regard for how to pay for them. Now that they have run up enormous deficits in the billions of dollars, they want the rest of the country to help them pay for it. Further, this financial bailout would only address the current deficit and would not deal with the problem that is creating the deficit in the first place.

This scenario becomes even more bizarre since they are talking about asking the federal government for money that the Federal Treasury doesn’t have either. Californians want the federal administration to borrow more money to pay for their debt because California can’t get the loan on their own. The federal government is already borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars just to pay the interest on their own current debt and now some in Congress are considering borrowing even more to pay for debts of one of the sovereign states. That would mean that all of us, in the other independent states, would have to be taxed to pay for those debts run up by the people of another state while receiving nothing for it. This is so outrageous, crazy, and beyond any logical economic explanation that it is hard to conceive that some are seriously considering it.

People ought to watch the California situation closely, because it is a wonderful model for all the things that go wrong with socialistic programs and why they don’t work. When people’s compassion leads them to spend everyone else’s money on benefits for which they are unwilling to be taxed, the bill must come due at some point. The longer this imbalance is prolonged, the more magnified the problem becomes. There is only one solution to the problem. Government must stop spending. Taxing more won’t solve the problem either, because when taxes become excessive both business and citizens will leave the state. This has happened in a number of states over the last few decades. It has even happened to entire countries.

Having said all of that, why then does California and the Federal Government continue down this crazy path? You can form your own conclusions, but all signs seem to point to the lust for political power and control. Governments always seem to suffer from this disease. The only solution is for the citizens to take that power back, remove those who are trying to steal power from the individuals, and vote for representatives that support their beliefs in limited government, personal responsibility, and freedom of choice. We will see if that message begins to sink in before the 2010 elections. Those individuals and states who are unwilling to take personal responsibility for their own lives must suffer the consequences.

The Attack on the Constitution and Freedom

Today’s Americans must decide whether they want to live as free men and women or change the US Constitution. I would argue that socialism, which seeks a communist ideal, is totally denied under our Constitution and can never be introduced without violation of the fundamental principles dictated by the Republican form of government for which it is written. In a socialist system, the government makes the decisions for the individual. Because the objective of socialism is to provide equally for all individuals, it must maintain control. Whether the individual agrees with the level or kind of service the government provides, does not matter. The individual does not have a direct voice in any of the decisions made. History proves that a government that requires control will take it and once the citizens no longer have a say, those in control will eventually take over all decisions. The system will feed itself.

Under Article 1, Section 8 of our current constitution, the federal government is limited to very specific activities. These enumerated powers are in everyday language and easily understood. The first ten amendments enumerate the rights and guaranteed protections of the people. The 9th Amendment also prevents the government from using its enumerated powers from infringing on those of the people. The 10th Amendment states that all powers not delegated to the Federal Government shall remain with the states and the people. It is hard to understand how Congress and the Executive Branch have reached so far beyond their intended authority. People should read the Constitution periodically to familiarize themselves with their own rights. They might be more likely to resist government’s attempts to interfere.

When we see government trying to nationalize or control private business, this is an infringement on our own freedom and rights. Socialism is a political system, not an economic system. Its goal is to achieve an economic system called communism. Capitalism is not a political system as some liberals try to portray it, but rather is an economic system and the opposite of communism. Capitalism demands freedom of the individual to make choices or it cannot survive.
The founding fathers were well schooled on the political ideologies of Europe. They were risking their own lives to establish a country that was free of the control of Kings and aristocratic governments. The freedoms they fought for were paid in blood and lives. Today we see people again playing with the notion of giving back that precious freedom of choice to a central government who they think will take care of them.

Most on the extreme left realize that Americans are patriotic people but with only a conceptual idea of freedom. However, they also know that many do not understand the difference between Socialism and a free Republic. They mask their language to avoid any terms which might frighten the public and through incremental introduction of government control, the government assumes control gradually and without public resistance. This chipping away at individual rights and the wording of the Constitution is their goal.

Only a handful of our elected officials of either party are fighting this erosion of individual rights. Unless people wake up to what is happening, they may soon find that they no longer have the right to resist. All of us should begin to demand that our state politicians start to fight back for states’ rights and to save the Republic. We must all fight back to save our freedom.

Welcome to Halley's American Views

Because I've had a number of my political collegues urge me to create a blog site to share my thoughts, I've somewhat reluctantly conceded and have created this site. I believe their thinking was that my articles might get wider distribution, while avoiding the occasional temptations of some who don't share these views to change them when forwarding the information. However, my greatest motivation is the hope that in some small way, I might stir people's ideas and thinking and motivate them to start to stand up for what they believe.

Thank you for joining me here.

John Halley