Stimulus Was Wasted According CNN Poll.

Findings of a CNN poll released on January 25th reported that an overwhelming majority of Americans think that at least half of the money spent in the Federal stimulus plan has been wasted.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/25/poll.stimulus.money/index.html?hpt=Sbin

"A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday morning also indicates that 63 percent of the public thinks that projects in the plan were included for purely political reasons and will have no economic benefit, with 36 percent saying those projects will benefit the economy."

Do you remember this?

I wrote a post on February 10th, 2009, the headline which was Real Stimulus. In it, I regaled you with the higher points of a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers that bespoke, in alarming detail, the continued decay of our national infrastructure. It identified nearly $1.6 trillion in repairs to U.S. bridges, roads, locks, the power grid, and water treatment systems. Fixing these would not only create many hundreds of thousands of jobs, it would create a legacy of a healthy national infrastructure for decades to come.

Nope. They would rather pay for wetlands studies on the coast of California, or improvements to the Las Vegas Strip.

Count me with the 63%.

News Flash -- Capitalism Works

On January 27th, Ford Motor Company announced that had a profit of $2.7 billion in 2009. While this was no doubt achieved with the help of the misguided "Cash for Clunkers" program that ran in the fall of 2009, the stunning fact is this: Ford, the only US based auto manufacturer that did not accept any stimulus or "bailout" money from the US Federal government was the only US based auto manufacturer to report a profit.

It is clear to this writer that Ford is exhibiting a better level of fiscal discipline and program management than either Government Motors or Fiat's Chrysler division. Ford is providing a quality product at a competitive price and consumers are buying. And the same attributes that made it possible for Ford to avoid living on the government dole are now paying in newfound profitability.

Congratulations are in order for CEO Alan Mulally and his company. I only hope that other American companies and THEIR GOVERNMENT take notice.

Meanwhile, even though I've always been a Chrysler kind of guy (RAM truck, Crossfire Coupe), my next car will probably have to be a Ford.

MacroEconomic Theory Rap

This is priceless.


Simply proof that anybody that is arrogant enough to think that we can design, much less control something as complex as macroeconomics shouldn't be working for the American people. The best we can do is bump the highs and try to shorten the duration or magnitude of the lows.

Italian Minister Slams U.S. Haiti Aid Effort.

Reported on January 25th Mr. Guido Bertolaso, Italy’s top disaster relief official lambasted and impugned the so-called “U.S.-led” relief effort in Haiti as a “pathetic” failure.

The confirmed death toll for Haiti is now 150,000, which if true represents nearly 1.5% of Haiti’s total population. It is estimated that nearly three million Haitians are now homeless, which would be about 1 in 3 Haitians. Reports from Haiti indicate that the government is all but gone with little or no native police or military presence in ravaged neighborhoods and that mobs of looters have been ravaging the remains of both retail businesses and private residences alike. Further, vigilante mobs have been executing suspected looters without due process or trial. Haiti is on the verge of reverting to the “law of the jungle”. And yet, Mr. Bertolaso believes that the U.S. has confused “military intervention” with “emergency intervention”.

I would invite Mr. Bertolaso to identify just exactly what he would do if given unlimited opportunity. For myself, I have seen angry mobs in the U.S. and they will turn violent if not controlled. And never in the history of our nation have we had to deal with a crisis on the level with the situation the Haitians face. At the same time that the U.N., with assistance from numerous nations, tries to distribute food, water, clothing and medical supplies to desperate Haitians, it has to deal with the fact there is essentially no effective Haitian government that could assist in controlling the victims from violence.

Desperate people will perform desperate acts. We have seen over and over again where well-meaning missionaries or aid workers have been attacked, injured or even killed while trying to distribute supplies to victims of disasters. We have also seen over and over again where those same supplies tend to go to the strong instead of the weak and helpless unless armed men oversee such operations. Strength respects only greater strength, and 13,000 armed soldiers trained in the art of imposing its will on organized enemy resistance will likely find little opposition from bands of thugs trying to monopolize on the supplies being provided by the generous people of the world.

I further suspect that had the United States simply decided to take over coordination over the relief effort, that Mr. Bertolaso would then have lambasted the arrogance of the Americans in taking over what should be a U.N. operation. So the U.S. is damned either way. In such a case, I support the U.S., considering our overwhelming contribution to Haitian relief, to just go ahead and take over the relief operation.

Oh yeah, to date, the United States has delivered about $184 million in aid to Haiti. By the same date, Italy had contributed about $9 million. By my math, that means that the U.S. response to this tragedy is about twenty times the size of the Italian response. That apparently is a fact that Mr. Bertolaso did NOT get quoted on.

The Wisdom of Luis Rodriguez, Massachusetts voter.

According to a FoxNews.com article concerning the strongly contested race between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy's vacated Senate seat, a voter by the name of "Luis Rodriguez" appears to speak for many across the nation:

The 46-year-old plastics factory supervisor, who emigrated to the U.S. in 1988 from Uruguay and became a citizen last year, said he's fed up with what he calls the lies told by Washington. It's enough for him that Coakley supports Obama, who Rodriguez says has failed to make good on his pledge for openness.

"We don't buy what we can't afford. We don't spend what we don't have," said Rodriguez, echoing the anger expressed by other voters who say Democrats are too eager to bail out bankers and people who bought homes they couldn't afford. "These people, what they're doing now, they're spending money they don't have so they can get elected again."

Assuming that the attribution is correct (you never know, after all, this was reported on Fox News, which according to President Obama's administration is not a "real news organization", then I would have to say that Mr. Rodriguez has completely and correctly stated my opinion concerning Democratic lead initiatives. They are a "chicken in every pot" in order to maintain control in a government that Democrats believe should be used to "take care" of it's citizens, whether they want it or not.

'nuff said.

MSNBC Ed Schult "I'd Cheat to Keep Brown From Winning".

MSNBC's political talkers continue to prove that they are an entirely owned subsidiary of the Democratic National Committee.

As reported on January 16th by the Washington Times and then highlighted on the much vaunted (or reviled) DrudgeReport, MSNBC's Ed Schultz made the following statement:

"I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are."



Ed's comments were made in context of the surprisingly competitive Massachusetts Senatorial seat election between Democrat Martha Coakley and Rebuplican Scott Brown. And expectedly, he's supporting Coakley over Brown.

I'd not be surprised if you were to say "Ed who?". Ed Schultz is a MSNBC primetime opinion talker (6pm to 7pm Eastern). This puts him up against Brett Baier on Fox News, who is crushing him in the ratings.

Ed appears to be a little unclear on the whole "democracy" concept that is supposedly the basis for our government. You know, that part that says that each person gets a single vote, and when you tally up those votes, the candidate with the most of them win? (OK, the US Presidential Election doesn't quite work like that because of the Electoral College thingy that actually helps low-population states a little, which makes it possible to win the popular vote by a slim margin and still lose the electoral college vote by a fairly large margin.)

What Ed, a national (in theory) cable commentator is doing is encouraging voter fraud in the State of Massachusetts for the benefit of the Democratic Candidate.

Now say what you like about the right-wing talkers like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilley but you have not heard them encourage illegal voter behavior or insinuate that they'd do it themselves.

And what do you think the "main-stream" media pundits, talkers and bloggers would be doing right now had Hannity or Beck said the same thing in support of Scott Brown? So I'm completed fascinated by the defeaning silence from them concerning Ed's angry outburst. I attribute it to one of two possibilities: One) Nobody watches "The Ed Show" on MSNBC except for other political hacks, so they're the only ones noticing, or Two) most of media in this country is friendly to left of center commentators and are willing to give him a pass on his indiscreet commentary and thereby doing a huge disservice to the voting public by failing to equally illuminate outrageous commentary from either the left or right.

As I have said to my friends many times, you must consider the source from which the comment came and then discount it accordingly.

Not Kowtowing to Special Interests? Dems are Lying to Us.

On Wednesday, after a fifteen hour closed-door session between key Democratic Senate and House leadership and Labor Union executives, it sounds like just like Senator Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback", the special tax on "Cadillac" plans will be deferred until 2017 on labor union members.

What a crock of flup. Didn't Candidate Obama run on a platform that specifically said that they would not kowtow to special interests? In fact, doesn't he specifically say in a current political ad for Candidate Coakley, the Democrat running for Teddy Kennedy's vacant senate seat, that a vote for Coakley will help cement the progress being made against special interests in Washington?

This is how bizness is done in Washington, ladies and gentlemen. It's a process where people are bought and sold. The labor unions have managed to buy themselves 7 years of protection from Health Care Reform costs even though they will be permitted to participate in it immediately.

Just like the campaign lies of "transparency and openness" in the current administration, we are now seeing that special interest involvement in the writing of legislation is alive and well.

Candian Troops Show Their Heart To Belgian Boy

The Story: "A lone young Belgian boy is waiting to salute the Canadian troops passing
by who had been attending a memorial service."

This does not indicate where this little scene occurred. "Eyes right!" is a command normally reserved to troops that are engaging in a "Pass in Review", and is issued just prior to troops coming on line with the reviewing stand where the dignitaries or military superiors usually are.

Clearly, the little lad's military uniform and very proper military bearing impressed the fellow commanding the contingent (The quality of the video makes it hard for me to determine if it's an officer or an NCO. My guess would be that he is an NCO.)

May there forever be a Canada!

Trent Lott and Harry Reid. There Is a Difference.

While attending the 100th birthday celebration for Dixie-crat Senator Strom Thurmond in 2002 then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott stated in essence that the United States would be "better off" had Strom Thurmond won the 1948 presidential election. Mr. Lott was pilloried not only by the Democrats but even by his own GOP, which ultimately resulted in Mr. Lott stepping down as Majority Leader.

Now, a new controversy has arisen concerning the current Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Harry Reid who is the senior Senator from Nevada and a Democrat. In a book titled "Game Change", Mr. Reid claimed that the reason that then-candidate Barack Obama had a good chance of becoming the first African-American U.S. President was because he was "light-skinned" and did not speak with a "Negro dialect" unless he chose to do so.

Republicans are now crying "racist!" while Democrats circle the wagons around the "inartfully articulating" Senator Reid. The Republicans are furious that when Sen. Lott made his "inartful" toast to Strom in 2002, they stood against his comments and were a major force in his resignation from the Senate Majority Leader position. By contrast, the Democrats, instead of declaring their abhorrence at Senator Reid's "racist" statements are in fact standing behind him.

I'm a member of the Heritage foundation and a reluctant supporter of the Republican party. But I think that in this case that the Republicans are trying to create a controversy that doesn't exist.

When Trent Lott made his famous statement, he essentially said that he supported Strom Thurmond's 1948 "pro-segregation" Dixiecrat platform. Equal but separate. How could any modern politician think that he could publicly articulate such an opinion and then not be held to account for it? Not to mention that segregation has been proven to be bad policy.

Senator Reid, by contrast, was stating a painful fact about American politics. White Americans in general are more comfortable with black politicians that speak Harvard English and whose appearance more closely correlates with their own. Senator Reid has been a strong supporter of civil rights legislation, especially as seen by the NAACP and the Black Congressional Caucus.

A far more appropriate subject for comparison would be Rush Limbaugh, who lost his NFL commentator position when he stated his opinion that the mainstream press was motivated to overstate Donovan McNabb's accomplishments in order to support the position that black quarterbacks can perform as well as whites, who at that time dominated the quarterback position. He later clarified that he felt that Donovan McNabb had the potential to be a great NFL quarterback but that at that time he did not deserve the praise that was being given him by the press.

In any case, I believe that the Republicans are making a case that is not supported by the facts or public opinion. Trying to equate Lott's comments that essentially said that a pro-segregationist president would have produced a better America with Harry Reid's analysis that Barack Obama, as a light skinned African-American who spoke very precise English are not even remotely the same class of comments.

In this situation, I think that the GOP needs to figure out that "this dog won't hunt".

Is Archie Bunker talking about 1974 or 2010?

Faith, Hope and Charity -- Glenn Beck Talks About These Virtues

Today on the Glenn Beck radio program at the beginning of his third hour, he talked about how he had spent the previous week closing the case on all the arguments that he had raised in 2009, but that he now wanted to look forward to 2010.

So imagine my surprise when he stated that going forward, he was going to be talking to America about "Faith, Hope and Charity". He specifically said during the second hour of his show "Faith, hope and charity is the direction we're going. Remember who you are and faith, hope and charity. And when you hear the way I define through the founders, how I define faith, hope and charity, everything's going to lock into place and you'll remember who we are and who you are and what you have to do."

I have no idea where Glenn Beck is going with this, but since he has obviously long studied the "Founders" of our government, I would not be surprised if he found these particular three words tied together through the Fraternity known as "Freemasonry" or that many of the "Founders" were proud members of the "Craft".

"Faith, Hope and Charity" are taught to every initiate who receives the 1st Degree of Freemasonry, also known as the "Entered Apprentice" Degree. They are considered by the Fraternity to be three of the most important virtues that a man can possess.

Faith gives us the ability to believe in the unseen. It is the basis of trust. Trust in our fellow man's word. More importantly, Faith is a necessary virtue for those who are obedient of God for without Faith it is impossible to believe in the Divine. And for those of us who are faithful we earnestly believe that the divine attributes of God beautifies man and gives us a worthy goal for good living by putting into execution those "divine" attributes.

Hope gives us the ability to believe that mankind can progress to a better condition than those that exist today. As a single class of people, Christians believe that God has restored to mankind the promise of eternal life through the sacrifice of his only begotten son. But notwithstanding, hope is what gives all men the ability to continue to try and be good even in the face of overwhelming evil and inequity in the world.

Charity, for Freemasons, is the greatest of the three. For charity is not more or less than the sacrifice by a man for the benefit of others. It is the embodiment of benevolence. The charitable man is the most like the divine because like the divine, he gives time, resources, or money to relieve the sorrowing or to benefit the disadvantaged. And charity will endure forever, unlike faith and hope. Faith ends when man is confronted with the truth of his belief. Hope ends when a man's goal is achieved. But charity uplifts mankind and the effects of charity and it's positive effect will outlive the charitable man.

President Obama Promises Openness, but Won't or Can't Deliver

Whoo boy. The honeymoon is over. President Obama hasn't been in the White House quite one year and yet he's got some pretty influential reporters pretty steamed at him.

Of course everybody who keeps even a token watch of politics remembers how distinguished senior White House reporter Helen Thomas dressed Robert Gibbs down for President Obama's inaccessibility. That was quite a sight. In my opinion, Ms. Thomas is as much a shill for the DNC as any reporter I've seen in some time. That's quite all right, as long as we're up front about it. If anybody doesn't think that Fox's Major Garrett doesn't lean right, then I'd like to smoke whatever it is they've got.

Then there was the Saturday Night Live sketch on President Obama's accomplishments prior to receiving the Nobel peace prize: "I've done absolutely nothing". OK, it is SNL after all, so we can just laugh that one off.

But Jack Cafferty? CNN's Jack Cafferty? That Jack Cafferty? This reporter had no problem giving a negative opinion about pretty much every aspect of President Bush's administration. Jack has a nightly opinion segment on CNN. Here's what the acrimonious Mr. Cafferty had to say about the "transparency" that President Obama promised:



Ouch.

And then you have CNN's Gloria Berger with this article.

Ouch more.

When CNN starts really ripping on the Democrats and their leadership, you know that there are stormy waters ahead. While this is coming about due to the health care "reform" debate, the fact is that this administration and this Congress seem to be just as reclusive and hidden as any other, especially considering both Candidate Obama and Speaker Pelosi's insistence that we would find ourselves witnessing the "most open and transparent" government ever.

I think that President Obama's campaign promises were laudable. Unfortunately, I never believed them.

2009, Yup. Nothing even comes close.

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

An Open Letter to the President from Harold B. Estes

This letter was written to President Obama from 95-year old Harold B. Estes, who served in the Navy for over two decades in the 1930's and 1940's and is now a retiree in Hawaii. This has been posted on numerous websites and blogs. According to www.snopes.com, this letter is authentic and correctly attributed to Mr. Estes. I agree with every sentiment expressed in this brave letter.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
"We're no longer a Christian nation"
"America is arrogant" - (Your wife even announced to the world, "America is mean-spirited." Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I'd say shame on the both of you but I don't think you like America nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said, "America hasn't lived up to her ideals." Which ones did you mean?

1. Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British ?

2. Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War?


3. I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellahs I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around because we stand for freedom.

4. I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.
Take a little advice from a very old geezer,young man. Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now. And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Sincerely,

Harold B. Estes

Happy New Year!

2008 sucked.
2009 sucked more.
2010 will probably suck less, because at least Wall Street is reviving from the great Recession of 2009, which means that my retirement portfolio is recovering. But the economy is still very shaky. Things that will, in my humble opinion, make 2010 suck more.

Nationalized Health Care Reform bill actually gets reconciled and passes. With that, my children will get health care (maybe) but they will also be in debt to the government their entire lives.

Whether Nationalized Health Care Reform passes or not, the government does not immediately begin to do something to restrain medical lawsuit abuse (called "tort" reform by some). Why should the lawyers and politicians miss out on the recession?

Timothy Geithner gets his wish and TARP money is instead used as an administration "slush fund". If they are not going to use it for Troubled Asset Relief, then they should put it back in the treasury. But instead it appears that the Chief Financial Wizards of Smart think that hard-earned American taxpayer money can be fraudulently used for any purpose they want once they manage to get it out of the treasury. Note to Congress: You want to spend TARP money on other funds to stimulate the economy? Cool. Put the TARP money back first, then have a stand-up debate in the Senate and House like you should, and if it passes, then GREAT.

The government printed $2 billion in March, 2009. This makes inflation an almost guaranteed bet to occur in 2010. To make 2010 suck less, take $1 billion of that out of circulation as a preventive measure. It would additionally make every dollar that would be left in circulation worth about 6% more, which would make everybody who invests or saves with dollars as opposed to, let's say, gold,(which is almost everybody) happy.

The government continues to advocate spending our way out of the recession (Cash for Clunkers, extension of the first-time homebuyer tax credit, the new proposed Cash for Old Appliances).