Financial "In"stability

OK, so I am just as irritated as you are that 165 Million dollars ended up being paid as bonuses out of "our" money to AIG executives. After thinking about it over the weekend, I have to admit that I am more irritated that 170 Billion was spent in the first place, and now our Congress is reacting in a very terrifying manner in an attempt to keep the public's eye on AIG and not themselves. Looking back, this whole issue has ceded impressive new powers to our government's ability to tax, and we the people are the dummies clamoring for it...another reason to enjoy our Founder's wisdom at creating a Republic rather than a democracy, other than the small fact that the leaders of our Republic are actually the ones leading the masses into quick, reactive and punitive decisions instead of protecting us from that type of "mob rule."
One of the reasons I prefer limited government as the Constitution mandates, is that under this arrangement I can expect my stuff to be safe from arbitrary government action. When I see local governments declare property condemned with no other designs other than confiscation, I feel threatened that my property might be next. Now we have the nation's Congress applying a targeted confiscatory tax on a special group of taxpayers. Regardless of our feelings on the subject, whether we can associate with the overwhelming percentage of Americans who see this as an opportunity to "stick it to the man" that has stuck it to them with the gift of recession, or with the group that was contractually promised a certain income much as a waiter/waitress or salesperson would be compensated, the reality and long term implication of this action is we have implicitly given our Congress the right to tax specific groups of people at will.
Add to this frightening new development the role that the government intervention has played in normal business activities. Leaders of financial institutions are afraid to commit to normal business activities, out of fear of being the focus of the next public outrage. In a personal example, a large bank was recently in negotiations with a company I am involved with, the object of the "partnership" was to entertain selected high value clients in a special environment where those clients might be convinced to begin investing or increase an investment in the bank. With the recent developments and instability that our government has created by issuing funds and later disagreeing with the way those funds were used, this project was completely shut down before it ever got started. People are out of a job, and not business executives; caterers, hotel staff, organizers, mechanics, etc are all looking for work or have their job in jeopardy because of this situation. Whatever the intent of stabilizing the financial system, we can now clearly see the reality that any time the government gets involved in a uniform instead of a striped shirt the whole game gets confused, and people lose their jobs.
I will give President Obama one kudo, in the racing industry you hire the biggest cheater as the Chief Technical person. When he hired Tim Geithner he did the same thing, now we can expect the IRS to be fully capable of recognizing the tax cheats out there and getting every last penny out of them, after all, he has the best experience to know how to catch the rest of the cheaters. Its too bad that the real villains are the ones that refused to regulate companies like AIG, instead preferring to pander to their "constituents" at the expense of people that did the right thing and lived within their means. Now those same people in Congress are pointing distracting fingers at the greed of Wall Street, and in many cases rightfully so, but if those pointing fingers expect even the slightest credibility there needs to be some self examination at the same time, and some accountability for throwing money around like drunken sailors while using the AIG execs as their scape goats. It is the whole lot of 535 people in Congress that needs to be fired, well before we ask for the money to be repaid by the banks, so when and if we do get it back it can be spent in a prudent and reasonable fashion to repay the mountain of debt we are creating.

Top American Cities with Poverty-a Lesson?

A friend set this to me, I haven't verified this information and thought someone might have a few comments. If its true then it speaks to a culture of dependence and oppression we have to stop empowering.
Cole

TOP 10 POVERTY CITIES



This has got to be one of the greatest American tragedies. What do the top 10 cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?



Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;



Buffalo, NY (2nd)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954;



Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984;



Cleveland, OH (4th)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989;



Miami, FL (5th)...has never had a Republican mayor;



St. Louis, MO (6th)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949;



El Paso, TX (7th)...has never had a Republican mayor;



Milwaukee, WI (8th)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908;



Philadelphia, PA (9th)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1952;



Newark, NJ (10th)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907.



Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'



It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats --- yet are still disadvantaged.



The disadvantaged remain disadvantaged because they are looking for a Liberal Democratic Government to give them something, when all they have to do is work for it.



(How can a person be 5th generation & disadvantaged in this country?)



"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream.

It must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free".

The Greatest Socialist of All Time

I was very happy to see the President return to the "Hope" and "Change" mantra that earned him the White House last night. Regardless of your opinion of the man and the direction he is taking our country, we all benefit when the tone is a positive one. This change of approach from words like "catastrophe" to "sputtering along" when referring to our present economy is a step in the right direction, sure to help stabilize markets and start some positive energy.

I don't know where this all takes us in the future, I fear a return to oppressive interest rates and the tax of runaway inflation due to our manipulation of the money supply, which I am not convinced is needed. I am not an economist, just a concerned citizen that sees a course of huge spending increases causing pain for future generations that could be avoided. The natural business cycle may prove to be the most powerful tool toward turning the economy around, and I am sure plenty of people will be lining up to take credit for it in a few years. I admit there are different points of view on the subject that can, and should, be argued in civil discussions, but I don't think anyone would refute the idea that we are headed for a period of increased government growth. Whether that growth proves to be a good thing or a bad thing is open to debate, and how the future will be told.

One area I am concerned about is the creep toward socialism. I am not sure exactly what the definition of a socialist nation is, I believe an economist would tell you when spending on social programs reaches about half of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) then you are classed as a socialist nation. The US is headed toward 40%. What that means in reality is a nation where the people prefer their government to be in control of taking care of its citizens. The care of individuals will be more in the hands of government run programs than in the hands of family, friends and community than ever before, but what does that really mean and why should we worry?

From my perspective, in simple terms, that means a government that wants to replace God as our caretaker. Providing for every need is the intent, so that we are all happy, productive and settled contributors for the common good. There are a few elements missing from this idea, however, first and foremost is that even if our physical needs are met we will all still hunger for something more. Over 90% of Americans profess a faith in God, whatever the religion doesn't matter to make this point, we mostly believe there is something else out there that is more than we can comprehend. Our understanding of this fact, and how we react to it, is just as important (I would argue more so) as our physical care and well being. We need to be allowed to wrestle with out current condition, struggling together to find our way out and learning about our inner selves at the same time.

The best care for any individual is to consider ALL of their needs, just not the physical ones. Government can swallow our corporate financial resources to provide for some important items, but in reality we are still left wanting more, and more, until the nation is bankrupted (see previous post on stages of democracy). The greatest socialist of all time was none other than Jesus Christ, he wept, healed, provided for and loved so much that he is regarded as one of the most important figures of our time. He truly understood people's needs, not just the physical ones, but the spiritual ones, and put himself in a position of relationship where those needs could be called out and filled. We would do well to learn a lesson from that example, we cannot provide for needs without relationship. Allowing people to fill out a form, stand in a line or Google up a webpage to collect some of our national resources for themselves is not providing, it is creating dependence. We are giving fish instead of teaching to fish, replacing relationship with bureaucracy, administering medicine for our bodies while our souls are withering. 

Jesus Christ put modern socialists to shame. Not only did he provide food, health and well being, he provided relationship that went even further to heal the complete needs of the people. And he did it with no money. Now, I can't walk on water, or expect to fix problems without financial resources, but what I am able to do is help people by building relationships first and having faith toward positive resolution. Who better to understand financial issues than our families, communities and friends who are living with the same concerns? What better situation to push people together and help each other solve problems, instead of pulling them apart to rely on the ease of the government dole that requires no personal commitment? Modern socialists would do well to consider their own imposed references to separation of church and state. True need is a matter for the church, which does not require government to succeed, but partial need is a matter for the state, which must have a moral and upright society for the republic to function. Washington stated this reality in his farewell address, yet we are still trying to prove him wrong.

So while we are throwing money at a problem that might reach part of the physical need that is out there and protect us from struggling together, it still falls to those of us that respect personal responsibility to seek out and help those in need. It falls to us to build relationships, understand the problem, and attempt to help the best that we can, albeit with fewer resources since more and more will be going to DC to pay for a partial solution. It is easy to complain, but our responsibility remains, a responsibility not to our nation and its programs but to the citizens that make it up. The gift of Christ is part of that responsibility for those that believe Him as the only path to the Father, and if you want to give someone real "Hope" then that is the best path you can take.

The New Economy

Should have been a Dead Donkey...

Young Chuck in Montana bought a horse from a farmer for $100. The farmer agreed
to deliver the horse the next day.

The next day the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry son, but I have some bad
news... the horse died."

Chuck replied, "Well, then just give me my money back."

The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it already."

Chuck said, "Ok, then, just bring me the dead horse."

The farmer asked, "What ya going to do with him?"

Chuck said, "I'm going to raffle him off."

The farmer said, "You can't raffle off a dead horse!"

Chuck said, "Sure I can, watch me.  I just won't tell anybody he's
dead."

A month later, the farmer met up with Chuck and asked, "What happened with
that dead horse?"

Chuck said, "I raffled him off.  I sold 500 tickets at two dollars a piece
and made a profit of $998."

The farmer said, "Didn't anyone complain?"

Chuck said, "Just the guy who won. So I gave him his two dollars
back."

Chuck grew up and now works for the government.  He's the one who figured
out how this "bail-out" is going to work.

New Economic Stimulus Plan

It has taken me a while to catch on, but I think I am starting to get the economic stimulus program that President Elect Obama is proposing. We can see the program taking shape in the inaugural whistle stop tour leading toward the 20th on the mall in Washington, as hundreds of millions of dollars are bring spent to create jobs and stimulate local economies along the way. If people are losing jobs in the recession, all that needs to be done is to hire unemployed workers for security and service jobs along the way, fill up the hotels and provide the local restaurants and street vendors with crazed and trapped DC visitors to spend their money, and viola-instant recovery plan. 

Once this starts to take hold, then we can use this model all over America to employ people in short term solutions so they have money to spend, and even throw in a dose of tax "cuts" to spur the recovery along even further. Never mind that the cost projections for this inauguration are estimated to be 5 to 6 times the cost of the '01 Bush inauguration, or that all of these jobs are temporary at best, or that our spending deficit is at obscene levels and projected to continue for several years. Never mind that defining a tax cut to include people that do not pay income taxes is a play on words at best and deceitful at worst, and never mind that the projected 825 Billion "shock and awe" stimulus project that will likely be voted on within days of Obama taking office includes over 500 Billion in entitlement projects that we were promised would not happen. I was one that intended to wait and see what Obama was going to do, for often those who are the most fervent supporters during an election are among those who are most disappointed after the election, but the respect due to his office must be tempered with some anxiety that he now plans to take our nation in a direction that has be tried before, and failed on the shoulders of oppressive taxes, regulation and government run programs.

This is welfare, plain and simple, promoted by the government using tax dollars that could be used much more efficiently by family, friends and neighbors to provide for those in need than by our federal government. When that money is taken from us, we are less able to provide for those needs on a personal level, and the inefficiency of the programs designed to provide for those needs wastes our combined resources. I am plenty angry about my money being taken and used in ways that I may or may not agree with, but I am more angry about those resources being removed and lessening my ability to support needs that I can see right in front of me.

We have managed to elect a President that is using the current economic mess, one created by the combined reckless spending of Republicans and Democrats alike, as an excuse to actually go even further down the road of reckless spending instead of an excuse for restraint. I use the word restraint because it was the word Barack Obama used during the debates with Senator McCain when referring to economic policies that included entitlement spending. The high cost of this inauguration alone is symbolic of where we are going. I realize a big chunk is being paid for by private donors, but Sharon Stone and Steven Spielberg paying out millions so they can come and weep at their accomplishment of helping elect Obama is less than a third of the total cost. Who pays the rest? The taxpayer.

The government is going to be allowed to intrude even further into our lives, and to take an even greater role in continuing the sloppy and wasteful management of people's needs that can only be solved by limiting governmental influence in their lives and turning over their "care" to local communities, faith based organizations and families that know and love them. We cannot rely on the media to report in an unbiased way on this subject, they are weeping along with the Hollywood elites and can't see through the fog of their own tears, choosing to spend their time whipping President Bush on his way out and coddling the new administration that they elected by virtue of their reporting. If they would only show a shred of fairness and report these inauguration costs as they had blasted Bush about them in '01 (40 million compared to an estimated 200 million for Obama), I would start to give them some credibility again.

People have needs now more than ever, and those needs must be met by other people that know their situation and care about them on the local level. We need neighbors to look out for those that are out of work, helping them with electric and heating bills until they can find something else, keeping an ear open for jobs that can provide for their families. We need businesses to be allowed to spend time looking into ways to promote new income and hire more people, which starts with time spent focused on their business instead of onerous regulation and laws, complicated and overly expensive tax issues and new requirements that will only stifle American entrepreneurship. As a small business person, you can get to a depressing place very quickly, a place that replaces the care and obligation for employees that are helping to grow the business with a feeling of apathy and comments like "let Obama take care of them." 

This is not a healthy place to be, and the more we coddle and support this direction, the worse it will get. I warned of the potential for economic disaster several years ago when the stock market was at 14,000, even to the point of suggesting that a small % of your investments should be in "hard" assets. I wish I had suggested more, for given the direction we are heading, the consequences of inflation and higher interest rates are sure to erode our ability to provide for our families even further. The only "shock and awe" program that can get us moving again in a long term solution is something akin to the Fair Tax, a huge jumpstart in the private sector that will stimulate businesses in a way never seen before, rather than a replay of the Great Depression programs that did not lead to long term employment and paved the way for the eventual demise of our hardworking and productive society.

Is the Virginia Governor's Office for sale?

With the Presidential election dominating the news for the past 2 years, I am not sure if we Virginians are ready to turn our attention to yet another political season, but it will be upon us soon as we prepare to elect a new Governor in 2009. It is no secret that the localities with high population density drove VA to the blue side of the slate this year, and that "trend" has opened the door for many Democratic hopefuls to consider this post as a real possibility. I am looking forward to learning more about those considering this office, although it looks like the race may be dominated by spending, positioning and which PR machine can land the heaviest blow instead of a focus on the candidate's positions.

I for one am very concerned with one candidate in particular, Mr. Terry McAuliffe who hails from the state of NOVA. NOVA is a state sandwiched between the Commonwealth of VA, the District of Columbia and Maryland that has produced a wealth of Democratic voters due to the growing high density population. I am not sure when they will petition for state status, but it seems this area in particular is proving an insurmountable obstacle for the rest of the Commonwealth to elect a statewide official other than a Democrat. Now I don't have anything against people from NOVA or even Democrats, I even voted for one in the recent election cycle that was on the VA ballot (I will leave you in suspense on that one...), what I do have issue with are candidates that appear on the ballot that have one main asset: funding. 

The Republican candidate stands alone in the primaries, Attorney General Bob McDonnell. I have met Mr. McDonnell once, although I doubt he would remember it, and I have corresponded through Del. Steve Landes with his office on a recent issue concerning the VA State Police Chaplains. I have a pretty good idea of his stand on many issues (even though I don't agree with all of them), which for me are mainly the sanctity of life and less government intervention in the lives of its citizens, but I have less information on the other candidate's ideas. I am looking forward to learning more about the other Democratic primary contenders Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran, and where they will stand on the issues that are important to me before I have the chance to vote. Mr. McAuliffe, on the other hand, is preparing a campaign that alarms me greatly.

Mr. McAuliffe is not a native Virginian, something I could ignore if his status did not appear to be outright carpet bagging, and his campaign seems to be predicated on one thing and one thing only, money. The numbers promised to help his Democratic "friends" in the state legislature and elsewhere is reported to top 75 million dollars. Here is the layout, if you promise to support Mr. McAuliffe for Governor, then he will help you by providing your campaign with more money that you have ever seen for a local office. Who knows what resources are available for the Governor's race itself. I can only hope that the Governor's office can not be purchased, but just in case it can be I ask all Virginians to take notice of what is happening and join me in a public outcry against this outrageous activity. If the local Democratic candidates start running for office with a lot of "new" money and are supportive of Mr. McAuliffe as a result, I think their campaigns may be in serious jeopardy as the voters begin to recognize what is happening. This is not the integrity that I would expect from elected officials at the local and state level, and that lack of integrity will be hard to hide from the voters.

Mr. McAuliffe has never held a public office in the Commonwealth of VA that I have found, his public credentials seem to stand on his Chairmanship of the DNC (Democratic National Committee) and his claim of raising over 1 Billion dollars to support Democratic candidates. If he really has an aspiration to become the Governor of VA, my suggestion is to run for the State Legislature for a few years, let the people get to know him and what his positions are on key issues, and prepare a run that is based on service the people of VA. I am shocked at the idea that service is not a pre-requisite for this position from a voter's point of view, as a person who can afford to buy this office I do not have the feeling that he will "serve" the interests of our State and its citizens. This is strictly a business deal for Mr. McAuliffe, a short cut resume enhancer for perhaps something even more bold than this. The race for the VA Governor's office will perhaps be the biggest story in national politics in 2009, and we must ensure that we represent VA with our collective voices to prevent Mr. McAuliffe from purchasing that which should never be for sale. 

As for the Republican side, I hope that Mr. McDonnell recognizes that he can not succeed in a campaign that continues the mantra of providing "nothing" as a response to "something." At least the Democrats are working to solve problems like transportation and education, even though I do not agree with most of them that these problems are solved by more programs and more money from their constituents. The Republican side needs to get creative and not respond to every need with the answer "we can't afford to do it." There are people out there that have real needs and are hurting, so let's think about local answers to these issues. Let's discuss local vehicle registration fees, toll roads and higher taxes on those areas that are requesting the greatest transportation funding and leave the rest of the state alone. Let's consider saving education funds by freezing the raises for administrators at higher learning institutions until better economic times come along, and allowing parents to have more say in early childhood education programs that amount to little more than tax paid daycare. Let's talk about supporting our youth by giving a year back in service to the community after school, and getting them into church and youth programs that keep them out of gangs.

These are the issues that will define our future, and it starts with each individual and their choices to be productive their own community. That is what we Virginians must figure out in 2009, Democrats and Republicans alike as Virginians first, and while I anxiously wait to learn more about the candidates who live among us and have real answers to the issues, I also will be asking you to join me in public outrage against money that will buy status at the expense of answers.