Krauthammer speech

Charles Krauthammer (born March 13, 1950) is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist and a prominent political commentator. His weekly column appears in the The Washington Post and is syndicated in more than 200 newspapers and media outlets.[1] He is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and The New Republic. He is a Fox News contributor, a regular panelist on Fox’s evening news program Special Report with Bret Baier and a weekly panelist on Inside Washington.[2]



Suffering a paralyzing accident in his first year of medical school, he was hospitalized for a year, during which time he continued his medical studies.[5] He graduated with his class, earning an M.D. from Harvard Medical School in 1975, and then began working as a psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital. In October 1984, he became board certified in psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.



From 1975–1978, Krauthammer was a Resident and then a Chief Resident in Psychiatry at the Massachusetts General Hospital. During this time he and a colleague identified a form of mania resulting from a concomitant medical illness, rather than a primary inherent disorder, which they named "secondary mania"[6] and published a second important paper on the epidemiology of manic illness.[7] The standard textbook for bipolar disease (Manic Depressive Illness by Goodwin and Jamison)[8] contains twelve references to his work.



In 1978, Krauthammer quit medical practice to direct planning in psychiatric research for the Jimmy Carter administration, and began contributing to The New Republic magazine. During the presidential campaign of 1980, Krauthammer served as a speech writer to Vice President Walter Mondale.



A good read!!!!



Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have shared this with many of you and several have asked me to summarize his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not drunk the Kool-Aid, feel free.



Summary of his comments:



1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. Taking down the Clinton dynasty from a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.



2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!



3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can¹t be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada .



4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, & NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada , God forbid.



5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can¹t work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.



6. Obama doesn¹t really see himself as President of the United States , but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in&nbs p; Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America , as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!



7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Mr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.



8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. Were pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state¹s rights.



9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don¹t have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn¹t work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama¹s allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.



10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.



11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but were right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late.




Do yourself a long term favor, send this to all who will listen to an intelligent assessment of the big picture. All our futures and children's futur es depend on our good understanding of what is really going on in DC!!!! And our action pursuant to that understanding!!! It really IS up to each of us to take individual action. Start with educating your friends and neighbors!!!

Adding Bodies To Watch Over You

Everyone Should Work for the Government - Vast new patronage for Democrats to win election and re-election.

While many in the left-leaning media are indicating the the "stimulus" bill was a success, think again. With less than maybe $120,000,000,000 spent (not even 1% of GDP) for one-time, barely-boosting tax cuts, and other monies that would have been spent by states anyway, such as Medicaid, food stamps and unemployment insurance, the impact on the economy and unemployment has been not even marginal. Now on the opposite, job-killing side, Obama has nationalized the student-loan industry (loss: 35,000 jobs), gone after successful technology companies and appointed czars over each industry to keep them in line. Jobs are NOT created with highly-burdensome regulation and threatened tax hikes. NOT. Please check out my posts about Obama diminishing business.

Editorial (In The Seattle Times)
More students drawn to public-service careers
The College Class of 2009 is more interested than its predecessors in public service and government. The surge of applications at graduate schools of government and public policy is good news for a nation in economic trouble.
Seattle Times editorial
AS the college Class of 2009 heads out into the world the next few months, the career paths these bright-eyed graduates are choosing should encourage a troubled nation.
A country in financial turmoil ought to cheer the fact that more college students than before are interested in public service and government — and the idea of giving something back.
Yes, of course, students flock to fields that offer the best chance of landing a job. Government offers more opportunities in certain disciplines than the private sector.
That only explains part of what is happening. Graduate schools of government and public policy are receiving a surge of applications.
"Young people today understand that government has a powerful role to play in solving these problems," said Sandra Archibald, dean of the Evans School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington. Applications increased 26 percent this year.
College experts report fewer students seeking careers on Wall Street. The switch is obviously because of the enormous mess in the financial world.
More compelling, however, is where the students are going. Officials at universities report a trend toward government and public service. The energy and ideas of young people eager to help in social services, health care, energy and climate change will benefit communities.
The New York Times reminds us that college students flooded into civil engineering during the Great Depression seeking jobs, yes, but also to help the nation rebuild itself. They designed highways, dams and bridges. In the Sputnik era, the trend was toward sciences, and some of that is taking place today.
President Obama said during the campaign he wanted government to be cool again. Some will argue government could never be cool. High schools emphasizing community service also deserve credit for boosting interest in the public sector.
Perhaps. Yet young altruists can help chart the country's direction. Everyone benefits if an emerging generation devotes enthusiasm and bright ideas to the numerous public-policy problems vexing our nation.
Copyright © 2009 The Seattle Times Company

My response.

To the Seattle Times Editorial Board:
"The career paths these bright-eyed graduates are choosing should encourage a troubled nation". Would these exact same graduates be "bright-eyed" if they had chosen to work on Wall Street? To the "enormous mess in the financial world"? "Wall Street" which is a all-embracing term for the mechanism that raises capital from American citizens who have some to spare, institutions and foreign individuals and institutions and deploys it into American business to add to capacity, perform research and development of new products and services and create jobs. A base of lasting jobs. Yes, those jobs ebb and flow with the over-all economy. But without that "Wall Street" you so easily dismiss as a "mess", our country would not be the most prosperous country ever known to humankind.
OK, the Seattle Times Editorial Board, from where does the money to pay the salaries and expenses of these "public-service careers" come? (The answer, which you probably won't get from the University of Washington Evans School of Public Affairs, is business.) Now, for the sake of argument, if everyone in this country were young (and old) altruists working for the government, exactly who would pay for their salaries and expenses?
The answers can be emailed to:
superamerican@att.net

Early May, 2009, The House Committee on Oversight and Government "Reform" approved a bill to provide paid parental leave (four weeks) to federal workers. It should help attract more private sector workers to government, attract more Democratic voters and expand the number of children born, adopted or foster parented by government employees.

California has the highest teachers salaries in the United States. (California has the second lowest math and reading test scores in the United States.) California's unions have it spend $49,000 per year on prisoners, 50% more than average. California gets more than 50% of its income from the second highest income tax rate in the country (11% second only to NY's 12.5+%) from Kobe Bryant and the other rich 1%.

Transparency for Taxes!

This is a brilliant article. Bring transparency to taxes would open people's minds to what they are paying and for what.

OPINION (Wall Street Journal, Thursday, August 13, 2009, page A 15)

Tax Withholding Is Bad for Democracy
So is the payroll tax. End them both and voters will have a healthier understanding of the government burden.

By CHARLES MURRAY
America is supposed to be a democracy in which we're all in it together. Part of that ethos, which has been so essential to the country in times of crisis, is a common understanding that we all pay a share of the costs. Taxes are an essential ingredient in the civic glue that binds us together.
Our democracy is corrupted when some voters think that they won't have to pay for the benefits their representatives offer them. It is corrupted when some voters see themselves as victims of exploitation by their fellow citizens.

By both standards, American democracy is in trouble. We have the worst of both worlds. The rhetoric of the president tells the public that the rich are not paying their fair share, undermining the common understanding from the bottom up. Meanwhile, the IRS recently released new numbers on who pays how much taxes, and those numbers tell the people at the top that they're being exploited.

Let's start with the rich, whom I define as families in the top 1% of income among those who filed tax returns. In 2007, the year with the most recent tax data, they had family incomes of $410,000 or more. They paid 40% of all the personal income taxes collected.

Yes, you read it right: 1% of American families paid 40% of America's personal taxes.
The families in the rest of the top 5% had family incomes of $160,000 to $410,000. They paid another 20% of total personal income taxes. Now we're up to three out of every five dollars in personal taxes paid by just five out of every 100 American families.

Turn to the bottom three-quarters of the families who filed income tax returns in 2007—not just low-income families, but everybody with family incomes below $66,500. That 75% of families paid just 13% of all personal income taxes. Scott Hodge of the Tax Foundation has recast these numbers in terms of a single, stunning statistic: The top 1% of American households pay more in federal taxes than the bottom 95% combined.

My point is not that the rich are being bled dry. The taxes paid by families in the top 1% amounted to 22% of their adjusted gross income, not a confiscatory rate. The issue is that it is inherently problematic to have a democracy in which a third of filers pay no personal income tax at all (another datum from the IRS), and the entire bottom half of filers, meaning those with adjusted gross incomes below $33,000, have an average tax rate of just 3%.

This deforms the behavior of everyone—the voters who think they aren't paying for Congress's latest bright idea, the politicians who know that promising new programs will always be a winning political strategy with the majority of taxpayers who don't think they have to pay for them, and the wealthy who know that the only way to get politicians to refrain from that strategy is to buy them off.

For once, we face a problem with a solution that costs nothing. Most families who pay little or no personal income taxes are paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. All we need to do is make an accounting change, no longer pretending that payroll taxes are sequestered in trust funds.
Fold payroll taxes into the personal tax code, adjusting the rules so that everyone still pays the same total, but the tax bill shows up on the 1040. Doing so will tell everyone the truth: Their payroll taxes are being used to pay whatever bills the federal government brings upon itself, among which are the costs of Social Security and Medicare.

The finishing touch is to make sure that people understand how much they are paying, which is presently obscured by withholding at the workplace. End withholding, and require everybody to do what millions of Americans already do: write checks for estimated taxes four times a year.
Both of those simple changes scare politicians. Payroll taxes are politically useful because low-income and middle-income taxpayers don't complain about what they believe are contributions to their retirement and they think, wrongly, that they aren't paying much for anything else. Tax withholding has a wonderfully anesthetizing effect on people whose only income is a paycheck, leaving many of them actually feeling grateful for their tax refund check every year, not noticing how much the government has taken from them.

But the politicians' fear of being honest about taxes doesn't change the urgent need to be honest. The average taxpayer is wrong if he believes the affluent aren't paying their fair share—the top income earners carry an extraordinary proportion of the tax burden. High-income earners are wrong, too, about being exploited: Take account of payroll taxes, and low-income people also bear a heavy tax load.

End the payroll tax, end withholding, and these corrosive misapprehensions go away. We will once again be a democracy in which we're all in it together, we all know that we're all paying a share, and we are all aware how much that share is.

Mr. Murray is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His most recent book, "Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality," will be out in paperback later this month (Three Rivers).

The Postal Service will be put in Private Hands. Free Enterprise?

The U. S. Postal Service is expected to lose billions and billions of dollars this year. The Article I read stated it would be returned to private hands. Oops. That is Socialist France. Hmmmm. Its cabinet approved the first step toward the possible privatization of La Poste into a joint-stock (private) company. Mail services will be opened to comptition in the European Union in 2011, this is France's first thrust of an initiative to compete.

Barack Obama, president of the formerly free-enterprise United States of America, are you listening?

The Obama Revolution: America Down the Toilet

Since General Motors can't seem to sell cars, ditto Ford, Chrysler and others, President Obama will take tax money (borrowed from China in the short term) and bribe Americans to buy new cars. The one stupid proviso is that the gas mileage needs to be what he wants. Might be 17 mpg if you trade in one getting 15 mpg. Great green victory! $1 billion of cash spoken for in about a week. Does that end the program? Not on your life, add $2,000,000,000. This will make Obama look good the Third Quarter of 2009 and kill new car sales in the Fourth Quarter. This man is ridiculous and his thoughtless protection of union bosses is hurting America and Americans, as will be shown in the future. Central control of economies and manufacturing has never in history done anything but put dictators in power and destroy countries. USA next?

Here's the impact of Obama stimulus: states and cities spent $21 million on lobbying the Obama Administration for stimulus cash from April to June, 2009.

Here's the impact of Obama threatening healthcare takeover: the healthcare sector shot up to Number One of 10 major industries in attempting to buy influence from Congress and the Obama Administration with $133,000,000 in lobbying over the second quarter of 2009.

This week, from July 27 through July 31, the Treasury Department of the United States of America will pray. It needs to borrow $200,000,000,000 the most since 1985 -- nearly 25 years ago. Way to go Obama! You'd better get back to Rev. Wright's church. Will it be China? Will it be Russia? Will it be...just who will be buying America this week? And $200,000,000,000 is only a "down payment". With the deficit nearing $2,000,000,000,000 more will be needed.

The Obama Administration can't even get giving money away right. Its much haralded effort to reduce home foreclosures by strongarming mortgage and servicing firms is failing. It's a product of katrinazation, or excess governmental bureaucracy. Everyone involved seems to be confused so the Obama Administration has summoned 25 company executives to probably blame them for its own incompetency. (The Obama plan in essence bribes companies with taxpayer cash to reduce payments of people in trouble and others "at-risk" as they say.) The confusion and lengthy wait for final interim federal guidelines of hundreds of pages and differing messages contribute to the failure so far.

Here's the Obama philosophy. Industrial production down (13+%, lowest since the '40's), tax receipts down (23%), government spending up (18%), slower growth, jobs being shedded at record rates, non-government unemployment up, government jobs up. Regulations up, taxes up, minimum wage up. Legislate success, legislate wealth, legislate, legislate. And get the anti-trust going...who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of business?

And to that end, the Obama administration is being filled by union bosses, those verysame people who elected him. Joseph Main, 20-years in the United Mine Workers, will oversee the Mine Safety and Health Administration; Jordan Marab, advocate for Democrats and the AFL-CIO, will be #2 at OSHA.


[May 23, 2009: mortgage modifications don't work. The linchpin of Obama's recovery initiatives doesn't work. Fitch Ratings reports that between 65% and 75% of modified subprime pooled mortgages fall 60 days into delinquency within one year of modification. Ignorance reigns.]


When effective chief executive officers -- in the private-company sector -- newly take over, many generally take a few or six months to get a lay of the land before jumping in with changes. Not so the CEO of the United States, President Barack Obama; he jumped right in, yes, blindly. With no executive experience. And little knowledge of the free-enterprise system. He should read, listen and learn, but, of course he won't, being too self-absorbed to admit he doesn't know everything. America will suffer. America is suffering. Guatamala's experience resonates, see below: "Finally, a Real Revolution. California's experience managed by Democrats with similar ideological dogma also resonates, see below: "California Reckoning". With Obama's Change mantra, America is headed down the toilet.


"Finally, a Real Revolution" The Wall Street Journal, Monday, May 18, 2009, page A15.(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260191911428369.html).
"California Reckoning" The Wall Street Journal, Monday, May 18, 2009, page A16 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124259847829628121.html) and
"Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich" The Wall Street Journal, same issue, page A 17 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html)

Riddle: what do those three articles have to do with one another?

Obama and FDR created revolutions. Hitler saved America before FDR's activities could sink America. What's with Obama? Can't he read history? Who will save America this time around?

California is an analog to what America will become. Democrats' spend to get re-elected, borrow then tax. And it drives out industry. Aerospace anyone? California had 140,000 aerospace workers in 1990; now? Under 40,000. Movies anyone? Q 1 2009 saw the lowest number of feature-film days of production ever measured. And, of course, unemployment in California is one of the nation's highest at 11.4%. On Tuesday, May 19, 2009, California voters resoundly vetoed this spend, borrow and tax approach that has virtually killed its competiveness and solvency. Voters said, "no"; they are the citizens of "no". But, of course they said, "no, almost 30 years ago with the Gann Amendment which limited the growth of California government spending. But later the politicians neutered it. And neutered California's growth. And the rest is history: lousy economic growth, hugely higher taxes which force out high-net-worth investors and companies, and a $21 billion deficit. California voters did pass limits to politicians' compensation.

Remember health insurance which priced policies based on ridiculous things like someone's health? No longer. Politicians get paid by constituents (campaign contributions) to add mandates for virtually everything under the sun, then some. And prices for insurance go up. Doesn't matter someone's health or personal risky activities. Now President Obama has appointed someone who does what health insurance companies used to do. Select out those people who do health-risky things like smoke and get fat. But through government action, and more government employees, not the free markets where individuals can choose and pay. The man, Thomas Frieden, also gives out free condoms, increased colon-cancer screenings (one diagnostic tool that Medicare is reducing because of cost. Hmmm. Who will win this one?) He banned french fries that are crisp (trans fats, once the answer to butter's high cholestrol).

"Silicon Valley Girds for New Antitrust Regime" The Wall Street Journal ("WSJ"), Monday, May 18, 2009, page B 1. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260263059528447.html). Why would President Obama attack the most productive element of American society? I remember when the Clinton Administration filed an antitrust suit against poor Microsoft, which then had NO -- ZERO -- people lobbying in or not in Washington DC. I believe last year is spent nearly $30 million. That is the goal of antitrust, to grab money from companies. Could this be prima facie evidence of either 1) his ignorance and inexperience or 2) his desire to throw America down the toilet? Or what?

And while the country is an a nasty recession, what to do? Punish companies so they won't have any money to create jobs. WSJ, Monday, May 18, 2009, page A3 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260337667928567.html). "The [Obama] administration has proposed changes that would generate a total of more than $400 billion in new tax revenue [from business]." This article discusses only one.life insurance companies.

Then Friday, May 15, 2009, WSJ Front Page: "U. S. Slates $22 Billion For Insurers From TARP" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124234565889921705.html). Let's see the article above discusses taxing life insurance companies around $12.7 billion, while this article says Obama is going to give the same companies $22 billion. Huh? I am betting on Obama being ideologically stuck in communism ("You don't need no dang capitalism") AND stupid.

All this brought to you by goverment, owner and manager of the U. S. Postal Service which lost $1,900,000,000 for the second quarter of its fiscal year (it lost only $400,000,000 Q 1) and should run out of money by year end. So it increased prices t0 $.44 per first class mail.

Racism by president

President Obama has displayed for all to see the chip on his shoulder because he's half-black. He must be jealous of white-skinned people and want to hurt them (us). Without facts, he excoriated the police department of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Why? Because his good buddy, African American studies guru Gates (no relation to high-achiever Bill) said he was racial or is it racially? profiled. Obama's knee-jerk reaction was that his black friend was right and the white policeman was wrong ("acted stupidly").

I have been 100% right about the character (or lack thereof) of Mr. Obama. He apoligized to the world about America being a negative, power-mad, killing, unequal, greedy, polluting, war-mongering, racist country. He apologized for the way we won World War II. For Vietnam, for Iraq. But he did not apologize for his racist stand with respect to Mr. Professor Gates.

No more needs to be said.

Brilliant New Gas Tax Idea

The Wight Floating Consumer Gasoline Tax

I have conceived what I believe to be a brilliant idea. And an effective antidote to the "Cap-and-Trade-and-Tax" bill that just passed the House by a sliver.

The federal gas tax would be increased to some set number that increases the price of gasoline at the pump. The price could be set at, say, $4.00 a gallon. That price would be fixed by means of a floating federal gas tax. The tax would change periodically say, monthly, as the wholesale price fluctuates in the market, so the retail price of "regular" gasoline at the pump would be $4.00, set for some period of time, say two or three years, barring some unforeseen emergency.

The advantages would be overwhelming.

Consumers could budget based on a gasoline price they could count on staying the same. Operating businesses the same. This would relieve such incredible fluctuations we have been experiencing over the past. It is obvious no one can accurately predict gasoline prices, perhaps only the producers can impose some pricing, but even that is far from certain.

Higher prices, as has been demonstrated, will curtail miles driven and diminish the foreign oil purchased. This scheme would continue what has been started, but would stop the tendency for Americans and its politicians to devolve into our old ways. In the 1970's we all meant well with cutting driving, but when gasoline prices sunk, we began driving and driving bigger and bigger cars; SUVs were "invented" and purchased by the millions. It sometimes takes a stick along with a carrot to cause social change. This is a stick.

Now, the rest of the story.

Innovative ideas for alternative energy technologies could also count on an umbrella price to use when costing out the technologies. This could open vast market opportunities, based on a consistent market price. Inventors and innovators would come out of the woodwork. Entrepreneurs would jump at the opportunities and venture capitalists could invest based upon realistic business plans not wild guesses. The millions of jobs our politicians espouse could actually be created. Immense new wealth could be created.

Because of all these individuals creating technologies and companies, the government could concentrate on basic and applied research and let the ultimate successes be based on free-enterprise. Our government intends to use huge amounts of tax monies on alternative energy, raised, it seems from income taxes supported by both parties and candidates. With my plan, success and failure would be based on hundreds or thousands of possibilities, without politics and centralized control inserting itself to select winners. The tax money will be raised anyway, so why get it from users of energy?

To the extent the tax dollars pile up, government could more properly use motor vehicle taxes rather than income taxes for the desperately-needed infrastructure repair, update/replacement, and maintenance and rapid transit.

Would this be some burden on citizens? Yes. But it would be a more direct burden and one somewhat controllable by users. But it would point out problems to consumers and would not allow Democrats to pick and choose what companies and "alternative" energy technologies from which to extort campaign contributions. It would put power in the hands of citizens as a whole and not those who believe they should command citizens to do as they say. Political royalty. So this concept will NEVER be accepted by power-mad Democrats. End of sad story.

He's Not a Socialist, He's a Pathetic, Needy Man

He's Not a Socialist, he's a pathetic, needy man with the reins of the greatest country ever invented in his inexperienced hands. President Obama is so predictable. Once he's taken power, he is a whirlwind of activity. Save Citibank; punish executives who get bonuses; reward the United Auto Workers union; announce you don't want to control General Motors while you seek to control General Motors; stiff the hundreds of retiree General Motors bond holders; stiff the Chrysler Corporation retiree secured-debt holders; get a "stimulus" package passed and borrow a trillion dollars to do so; give away Chrysler to a foreign auto manufacturer and, once again, reward the United Auto Workers; reward the Teamsters; propose a trillion-and-a- half-dollar "reform" -- actually takeover -- of the entire United States healthcare industry, arguably the largest industry in the world, after 100 days of thinking about it; spend a trillion dollars to "balance" the budget later on; change the emphasis of anti-trust to mirror that of Europe; take your First Lady to a Broadway show; dis Israel; suck up to Europe and the Middle East Muslims; boost the very unionism that sunk GM and Chrysler; bow to the Saudi king; print trillions of crisp electronic dollar bills and use them to "monetize" our debt by buying treasury securities; ambitiously attempt to overhaul the U. S. financial markets; ambitiously attempt to overhaul the U. S. healthcare market to mirror the failing European monopolies; ambitiously attempt to singlehandedly cool off the world (global warming that it) by restructuring through crippling and thoughtless regulations and onerous new taxes, all the while ignoring any scientist who disagrees witht he notion of man-made global warming; oh and it's just June 1.

Mr. President, you are so predictable. Are you afflicted with ADD? ADHD? Freneticity? Or are you simply an amateur, inexperienced person who confuses activity with achievement. You have been active, you have achieved nothing. And you say, "What we are not doing, what I have no interest in doing, is running GM." Huh? In the immortal words of Transgender Geraldine, "The Devil made me do it."

Good luck, sir. And welcome to the world of other romantic fools, David Buick, Ransom E. Olds, Louis Chevrolet, Robert and Louis Hupp, the Dodge brothers, the Studebaker brothers, the Packard brothers, the Duesenberg brothers, Charles W. Nash, E. L. Cord, John North Willys, Preston Tucker, William H. Murphy (of Cadillac fame, it originally designed by none other than Henry Ford); they join modern day failures like John DeLorean and Malcolm Bricklin.

While I posted this originally June 1, Peggy Noonan in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece mirrored my thoughts (June 27-28, 2009, page A 13: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124596573543456401.html] ). "To-Do List: A Sentence, Not 10 Paragraphs". Adding to hers, President Obama is a whirling dervel of activity, not understanding that activity is NOT accomplishement, of which he has little except spending to re-elect Democrats and calling it "stimulus". And it is clear that he listens to no one except his political advisors and drive to completely change America to become more "fair" -- as defined by neo-dictators.

The following is a post from July 1, 2009, which I am editing for brevity's sake. It is
Paul Rahe: Obama's tyrannical ambition [http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/07/023937.php?dsq=12039274#comment-12039274]

We have invited political historian Paul Rahe to write something for us on the themes of his timely new book Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect. Professor Rahe writes:

President Obama has one distinguishing feature. He is a man of rigid self-discipline. Politicians are a lot like actors: they tend to be vain; and, more often than the rest of us, they are presented with the temptations to which the vain are prone. Many--one thinks of Bill Clinton, John Edwards, John Ensign, and Mark Sanford--succumb. If, however, in his personal life as an adult, Barack Obama has strayed from the straight and narrow, we have heard nary a word.
It is, in fact, a sign of his astonishing self-discipline that we know next to nothing about his life apart from what he chose to impart in the two autobiographies he published. For a long time now, for longer than we can perhaps imagine, every move he has made has been carefully calculated, calibrated, and choreographed. In this regard, he is in the fullest sense what every politician aims to be: a self-made (one might even say a self-invented) man. It is easy to see why someone like Evan Thomas should think him a god.
Once in a while, however, when Obama gets separated from his teleprompter, the mask slips a tad. On the hustings, Joe the Plumber caught the candidate off guard and got him to admit the truth about his plans to effect a redistribution of wealth. Something of the sort happened again last week--when, at a carefully staged rally for the administration's health care proposal, to which the flacks who run ABC News tellingly invited no one who regards the current healthcare arrangement as even remotely satisfactory--President Obama responded to a question by acknowledging that his plan aimed to reduce medical costs by aligning "incentives" in such a fashion as to discourage the sick and the dying from undergoing "additional tests" or taking "additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."
Obama's choice of words was, as always, soothing. But anyone familiar with the healthcare debate will immediately recognize what he left unsaid. We all know that, wherever there is socialized medicine, there is rationing. Cutting costs is, in fact, its rationale, and this end is achieved by a refusal on the part of the government to pay for care that the bureaucrats judge uneconomic. Already now, in the semi-socialized system to which we have been made subject, those consigned to HMOs come up against gatekeepers charged with shaving costs by restricting care.
Why, we might ask, should one have to wait months or even years for a hip-replacement operation? Why should one be denied a cataract operation if one is over a certain age? What business is it of Barack Obama's whether I choose to spend my own hard-earned money on procedures thought to have only a limited chance of success? What gives him--or, for that matter, anyone else--the right to make decisions that are for me a matter of life and death?
Defenders of Obama's proposal will reply that I am misrepresenting his proposal. No one, they will say, will be forced to give up the health insurance they have. Technically, of course, this is true. But what President Obama calls the "incentives" will be structured in such a way that employers will no longer have to offer coverage, and to save themselves the expense (which is considerable), they will seize the opportunity to opt out, and then we will have no choice.
Perhaps we will then be left free to spend as we see fit the money left to us after we have paid for the government-run insurance program. Perhaps we will be able to go into the private market and pay for a hip-replacement operation, a cataract operation, or for tests and procedures that our doctor recommends but that the government-run insurance program refuses to pay for.
Here is where Obama's "incentives" reappear. The government-run insurance program will, for all practical purposes, be a monopsony--the sole purchaser. It will be in a bargaining position enabling it to dictate the price that it will pay, and, of course, it will pay very little. You, as an individual purchaser, will have no leverage at all; and, like those not covered by employer-sponsored insurance plans today, you will have to pay through the nose. Unless you are filthy rich, you may well have to wait your turn for that hip-replacement operation, forego that cataract operation, or do without those expensive tests and procedures. In sum, you will not be in the driver's seat.
To grasp what is at stake, one must step back and consider what sort of thinking underpins the drive for what is called "health care reform." There was a time in the United States when we lived under a regime of individual rights, and as individuals we assumed responsibility for our own welfare. We worked; we saved; and we took pride in looking after ourselves. Many of us still think in this fashion, but this is not the manner in which our masters now think. We may be the heirs of the men who adopted the Declaration of Independence; those who rule us are the offspring of the Progressives, and men of this temper have dominated our political life for almost a century now.
Back in 1912, when Woodrow Wilson successfully ran for the presidency, he told his compatriots, "We are in the presence of a new organization of society." Our time marks "a new social stage, a new era of human relationships, a new stagesetting for the drama of life," and "the old political formulas do not fit the present problems: they read now like documents taken out of a forgotten age." What Thomas Jefferson once taught is now, he insisted, quite out of date. It is "what we used to think in the old-fashioned days when life was very simple." Above all else, he hoped to persuade his compatriots to get "beyond the Declaration of Independence." That document "did not mention the questions of our day," he told them. "It is of no consequence to us. It is an eminently practical document, meant for the use of practical men; not a thesis for philosophers, but a whip for tyrants; not a theory of government, but a program of action"--once of use, outdated now.
For Montesquieu--the only figure, apart from Jefferson, whom he mentioned by name--Wilson had no use, and the constitution drafted under the influence of the Frenchman's great compendium of political wisdom The Spirit of Laws--with its separation of powers, checks and balances, and distribution of authority between nation and state--he regarded as hopelessly passé. "Government," he argued:
is not a machine; but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living things can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick co-operation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. . . . There can be no successful government without the intimate, instinctive co-ordination of the organs of life and action. . . . Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. All that progressives ask or desire is permission--in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word--to interpret the Constitution according to Darwinian principle.
What Wilson and his heirs have accomplished is a surreptitious substitution of Hegel for Locke and of the modern adminstrative state with its vast array of administrative agencies (each combining the legislative, executive, and judicial powers) for the regime of self-government imagined by Montesquieu and brought into being by the American Founding Fathers. What our masters aim at--whether they be Republicans, like Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Thomas E. Dewey, and Richard Nixon, or Democrats, such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Barack Obama--is what FDR termed "rational administration"; and over the years, in pursuit of this, they have adopted Wilson's convenient notion that ours is a "living constitution" subject to reshaping by the courts, and they have been willing not only to abandon federalism, the separation of powers, and checks and balances, but to run roughshod over the rights of individuals.
When "scientific racism" was the rage, Woodrow Wilson segregated the civil service, gave "The Birth of a Nation" his imprimatur, and thereby promoted Jim Crow in the North. He campaigned on behalf of the sterilization of criminals and insane asylum inmates, and the progressive jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes conferred judicial sanction on this gross violation of individual rights. All of this was done in the name of the public good. The rights of individuals were made to give way to a utilitarian calculus.
Scientific racism is no longer in fashion, at least for the time being; and we have thankfully become chary of sterilizing those who reside in our mental hospitals and prisons. But we have no principle restraining us from succumbing to either propensity, for our masters are still inclined to sacrifice the rights of individuals to what elite opinion at any given moment understands as the public good. There is no other way to explain their embrace of affirmative action and of the redistributionist ethic.
"To take from one," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" It was on this foundation that Abraham Lincoln objected to slavery, and it is on this foundation that one can object to the health care reform proposed by our President. For this proposal is designed to take from those who have earned and to give to those who have not bothered to do so; and, by way of constraining "incentives," it will take from us the right to manage our own lives in a matter most dear to each and every one of us, and it will confer this responsibility on experts empowered to decide whether, given the cost of care, it is of greater value to society that we suffer or are cured, that we live or die.
It is easy enough to see why progressive doctrine should be attractive to our masters. Tyrannical ambition is nothing new, and throughout human history it has nearly always presented itself to men in the guise of idealism. We are all inclined to meddle in other people's business; we are all inclined to think that we know better; and higher education tends to inflate our vanity and to make us more inclined to lord it over those who are less well-instructed. Never for a moment does a Barack Obama stop to ask whether depriving us of responsibility for our own well-being is demeaning. He and his supporters know that they know better, and their putative wisdom in this regard constitutes for them an absolute claim to rule. The logic unfolding within the progressive impulse requires that there be a class of Guardians empowered to supervise our lives in every particular, and to an ever-increasing degree this is the reality with which we live.
It is less easy to see why ordinary citizens should find the administrative state and the progressive doctrine underpinning it attractive. It is less easy to understand why they should regard what Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, called "soft despotism" as alluring. To explain why the tyrannized should savor tyranny will require, I fear, another post.
Professor Rahe holds the Charles O. Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in the Western Heritage at Hillsdale College. Some of the material in this post is adapted from Soft Despotism, which was released on April 16, the 150th anniversary of Tocqueville's death. Professor Rahe's book has been the subject of witty and learned reviews by Mark Steyn in The New Criterion, by William Voegeli in National Review, and by Harvey C. Mansfield in The Weekly Standard.

E D U C A T I O N ? (No!)

These posts will concern education.

Democrats are certainly on the side of the students their union workers teach. Of course, that's why in Democratic-controlled New York City hundreds of public school teachers accused of myriad offenses from insubordination to sexual misconduct are being paid to...sit around or do whatever they want...because their union contract makes it almost impossible to fire them. They are sent to, not the hall, but off-school-site offices to wait for disciplinary hearings which take months even years. 700 or so of them get their pay of $70,000 or more, holidays, weekends and summer vacations. Union boss Ron Davis of the United Federation of (228,000) Teachers says teachers cannot be neglected on their due process. Indeed. New York's 1,100,000 students don't pay union dues or vote.

Since government has become fully involved in higher education, costs have blown up. The law of supply and demand. Pour government money in and prices go up. Total college costs are up 67% over the last decade at private colleges and 84% at public 4-year universities, that's 6.6% a year, 2.4 times U. S. consumer price increases. Did that money go to better teaching? Not at all. With administrators in charge of all this money, administration costs have skyrocketed twice that of teaching costs: the money went to empire building, bureaucrats' salary increases, student services (non-classroom), but not teachers. Actually most of the new instructor jobs created have been part-timers, "adjunct" faculty.

Especially the declining achievement in the United States and the vehement opposition to "reform" in the sense of chartering non-public schools ("charter sachools") in competition to public schools. Teachers unions bosses who, it seems, care first about retaining union-dues-payers by getting them public money and easier working conditions, and remotely about the success of the students themselves. All this speaks to the abuse of money and power by the unions and the Democratic Party, which depends on union bosses obtaining workers' dues to "invest" in the election of Democrats to enable union bosses to keep their cushy jobs.

While there are some isolated support of charter schools by Democrats, when that happens the unions do their best to shut them up. The mayor of Democratic forever Boston, Tom Menino actually changed and now supports "what works" -- privately chartered schools which accomplish increased achievement of students. Yes, predictably the union bosses went beserk. But for now Mayor Menino is firm, in part because of instances of abuse by crippling union-boss monopoly control over public schools. When ExxonMobil gave a struggling school a grant to reward teachers for their students' excelling, the union bosses sued and effectively killed the bonuses and the grant. This might put pressure and Democrat Governor Deval Patrick who, like President Obama, throws out words of support for charter schools with no mandates, no money to actually perform. Polls say his re-election in 2010 could be in jeopardy...THAT'S the only thing that could get a Democrat to act.


California has the highest teaching salaries in the U. S. And the second-LOWEST math and reading scores. Answer: (from the unions) get rid of testing. Answer: (from rational human beings) get rid of unions.

Most states have educational-union monopolies.

How does America stand up to its foreign competitors? Great, it's number 20 of 30 other countries, lagging Finland, Japan, Germany, Belguim and 19 others. But it's better in math, scoring 25 of 30...meaning only 4 are worse. Oops, I mean worse.

THEY WORK FOR US?

Members of Congress and employees of government should have the same healthcare as we do, not better. They work for us. Write, call or email your Congress members and 5 of your friends and demand equivalent healthcare for all of us Americans. It's an outrage, Congress is not royalty.

Well, now that I've started, I've noticed that Congress and federal agencies are expected to spent upwards of $60,000,000 on a little-known perk unavailable to us common Americans. Old student loans taken out by Congressional staff people, and other government employees, can be paid off by...us, the taxpayers, disguised as "the government". It started as a little perk costing $1,000,000 in 2002. Steadily increasing, staff people working for Congress now get a maximum of $10,000 a year repayment of their student loans (primarily, of course, for law school) with a lifetime maximum of $40,000. This is, of course, in addition to "educational" programs paid for by us taxpayers for...Pilates and yoga and...the Senate's Vice-Presidential Bust Collection, whatever that is and haven't all the Veeps been men? Their busts are collected? Huh?

Congressman Jim McDermott (U. S. Rep, Dem, WA) earmarked $250,000 of "Obama's Stimulus money (oops, strike that, it's not Obama's money it's ours, the taxpayers!) to fix up the Rainier Club, exclusive enclave for the rich and famous because its rich members didn't want to...Jimmy Congressman, get real you bozo!

Well let's add perks. Congress' taxpayer-funded junkets rose ten times (1,000%) since 1995, with the Democrats taking control of Congress in 2007 and increasing them 50%. And spouses fly free but only on government planes, if they fly commerical spouses pay. You might wonder why the government has planes for Congress when airlines fly the same places. PERKS is the answer, cushy jobs that contribute to them fighting tooth and nail to keep the jobs. All with taxpayer money. Sixteen U. S. Airforce planes are dedicated to the lawmakers, and apparently one for Speaker Pelosi alone!

"Wall Street Critic Inspired New Consumer-'Protection' Agency"

President Obama's idea for a new consumer-protection agency came from this one woman, Elizabeth Warren. She's another Harvard Law School professor who seem to have impregnated the Obama administration. But part of what she wants is to force banks and other financial institutions to offer simple, understandable instruments to the public. These would be "plain vanilla" and easily compared as to price and terms. It is a great idea. I would support something that is simple and understandable to the common person, unlike Medicare and the Federal Income Tax Code. And if Congress could keep their nit-picking, dirty hands off adding incremental items to grab campaign contributions. I am certain that is impossible for Congress to do, given history.

Butmy mantra: "Educate, don't regulate" could apply here if they weren't Democrats.

Ms. Warren's idea of simplicity should be extended to the healthcare industry. Medicare has over 150,000 pages of regulations. No wonder healthcare is so high priced (and growing 35% faster than other healthcare) and oblique. No one can understand its rules and regulations, most of which are wrong-headed attempts to legislate honesty, which in the end is impossible. Dishonest people will steal. Laws need to be clear and understandable unlike Medicare and the IRS). And punishment must be certain and tough. But Congress cannot stop putting in changes to benefit those who give them campaign contributions. Each change perverts the marketplace. ObamaCare or KennedyCare will simply add to all this gobblygook and continue increasingly expensive and increasingly unavailable healthcare. Their idea of cutting costs is cutting physicians' income and revenue from hospitals...certainly that's "reform".

Simplicity. Education not regulation. Important philosophies of rational beings.

Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat from Oregon has a markedly better idea for healthcare than either Obama's or Kennedy's. Read about it here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124545885464333145.html. If you care about the upcoming healthcare clusterfxxk read this article carefully.

And Safeway has used a market-based approach to make its non-union employees more healthy and keep their healthcare costs flat. An important strategy that our politicians will not read. Don't bother the Democrats with facts...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536722522229323.html and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476804026308603.html

Judge Sonia Sotomayor...Justice? Spineless Republicans

An article in the Wall Street Journal On-line, June 29, 2009: "The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race. The ruling reverses a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals-court judge." So much for her "unbiased" racial decision making. Thrown out!

[http://online.wsj.com/home-page#mod=djemalertNEWS]

A newspaper article Saturday, June 20, 2009 indicated that Republicans were going to let the fact that Judge Sotomayer belongs to an all-influential-women's group pass and slide her nomination along. My response was a letter to the (unnamed) editor:

"So Republicans don't plan to object to Judge Sotomayor because she's a member of a discriminatory group which is apparently against the Judicial Code of Ethics. Judge Sotomayor cleverly described the group, Belizean Grove, as not being "invidious" in its discrimination. However the code apparently doesn't mention "invidious" but simply being discriminatotory, which an all-influential-women's club certainly is. It discriminates against men and un-influential women. By passing on this important issue, Republicans are approving of the double standard where Republican members of the Bohemian Club would be rejected out of hand. Republicans, if you want to get elected ever again, stand up for principles. Too many times you are apparently afraid of left-leaning media criticism (which comes anyway). You allow liberals to get away with chipping away at the rule of law, when they don't give conservatives an inch. That is why Barack Obama is president and Democrats controll Congress. Reject the judge and do it loudly. Americans want leaders!"
Superamerican


UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. President Obama, with his selection of "empathy", "compassion" and "understanding" over, or at a par with, the Rule of Law in nominating Judge Sotomayer is showing an ignorance in abstract thinking. It is easy to sympathize with the downtrodden, the victim, the innocent and make a decision based on those emotions. But that directly leads to the destruction of the rule of law, under which the success of the United States of America has in part been based. Emotion equates to arbitrariness, and the rule of law was embraced to rid the newly-formed United States of America of the arbitrary decision-making of kings, nobility and bureaucrats. I feel sorry for a home-owner who can't make his mortgage payments. But the contract he signed under the rule of law is more important than his sad loss. Without the rule of law, one bureaucrat could feel sorry for the person and change his contract, another might not. Arbitrary. A company cannot make a contract not knowing if it will be held to be valid or not. Obama's ignorance, or, more charitably, naivety in not understanding the unintended consequence of this arbitrariness stunning.


Well what did you expect? President Obama is 100% a political animal, power is his life. Of course he'd politicize the Supreme Court. More troubling to me is the thought…the possibility that Judge Sonia Sotomayor might get there in order to shake things up. Meaning, perhaps that she'd use her apparently well-known temper and sometimes-scattered thought to disrupt, scramble, confuse, obstruct the workings of the court. Emotionalize it. Might she cause conservative justices to consider retirement as a result? Just a thought. But no doubt she'll be confirmed. Republicans are running scared that liberals will criticize them. Paint them as anti-Hispanic. Geeze, maybe the New York Times won't like them for thinking she's a non-Constitutional activist. But they'll shrink turtle-like into their shells and after she's confirmed, they'll spout out. Same old, same old losers! Where's the "Party of No!" Remember the Cheney. HE got Obama on the run. Go for it or stop complaining.

And Judge Sotomayer believes women, especially minorities, especially especially Hispanic women can make better decisions than white males. Roe v. Wade anyone? Brown v. Board of Education anyone?

While President Obama poses as a post-racial, race-neutral president, his actions -- Judge Sotomayer being case in point -- speak with forked tongue. (See that post for more.) She represents racism at its worst. It is her race and gender which make her attractive to Liberals. And that alone. See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124442662679393077.html

Here we come, the rule of emotion.

Oh, yes, she is a member of an elite all-women's club: the Belizean Grove. Federal judges pledged a code not to join any organization that descriminates by race, sex, religion or nationality. Of course SHE get a pass because she's empathetic. Be she a conservative, it would be all over for her nomination! But Democrats are above the law.

Superamerican

"This (Late) Bloomer Isn't Going To Apologize"

Ditto this (late) boomer, who isn't going to apologize:



OPINION: DE GUSTIBUS

JUNE 19, 2009

This Boomer Isn't Going to Apologize

Article

By STEPHEN MOORE

"Last weekend I attended my niece's high-school graduation from an upscale prep school in Washington, D.C. These are supposed to be events filled with joy, optimism and anticipation of great achievements. But nearly all the kids who stepped to the podium dutifully moaned about how terrified they are of America's future -- yes, even though Barack Obama, whom they all worship and adore, has brought "change they can believe in." A federal judge gave the commencement address and proceeded to denounce the sorry state of the nation that will be handed off to them. The enemy, he said, is the collective narcissism of their parents' generation -- my generation. The judge said that we baby boomers have bequeathed to the "echo boomers," "millennials," or whatever they are to be called, a legacy of "greed, global warming, and growing income inequality."
And everyone of all age groups seemed to nod in agreement. One affluent 40-something woman with lots of jewelry told me she can barely look her teenagers in the eyes, so overcome is she with shame over the miseries we have bestowed upon our children.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that graduation ceremonies have become collective airings of guilt and grief. It's now chic for boomers to apologize for their generation's crimes. It's the only thing conservatives and liberals seem to agree on. Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana, told Butler University grads that our generation is "just plain selfish." At Grinnell College in Iowa, author Thomas Friedman compared boomers to "hungry locusts . . . eating through just about everything." Film maker Ken Burns told this year's Boston College grads that those born between 1946 and 1960 have "squandered the legacy handed to them by the generation from World War II."
I could go on, but you get the point. We partied like it was 1999, paid for it with Ponzi schemes and left the mess for our kids and grandkids to clean up. We're sorry -- so sorry.
Well, I'm not. I have two teenagers and an 8-year-old, and I can say firsthand that if boomer parents have anything for which to be sorry it's for rearing a generation of pampered kids who've been chauffeured around to soccer leagues since they were 6. This is a generation that has come to regard rising affluence as a basic human right, because that is all it has ever known -- until now. Today's high-school and college students think of iPods, designer cellphones and $599 lap tops as entitlements. They think their future should be as mapped out as unambiguously as the GPS system in their cars.
CBS News reported recently that echo boomers spend $170 billion a year -- more than most nations' GDPs -- and nearly every penny of that comes from the wallets of the very parents they now resent. My parents' generation lived in fear of getting polio; many boomers lived in fear of getting sent to the Vietnam War; this generation's notion of hardship is TiVo breaking down.
How bad can the legacy of the baby boomers really be? Let's see: We're the generation that spawned Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Google, ATMs and Gatorade. We defeated the evils of communism and delivered the world from the brink of global thermonuclear war. Now youngsters are telling pollsters that they think socialism may be better than capitalism after all. Do they expect us to apologize for winning the Cold War next?
College students gripe about the price of tuition, and it does cost way too much. But who do these 22-year-old scholars think has been footing the bill for their courses in transgender studies and Che Guevara? The echo boomers complain, rightly, that we have left them holding the federal government's $8 trillion national IOU. But try to cut government aid to colleges or raise tuitions and they act as if they have been forced to actually work for a living.
Yes, the members of this generation will inherit a lot of debts, but a much bigger storehouse of wealth will be theirs in the coming years. When I graduated from college in 1982, the net worth of America -- all our nation's assets minus all our liabilities -- was $16 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. Today, even after the meltdown in housing and stocks, the net worth of the country is $45 trillion -- a doubling after inflation. The boomers' children and their children will inherit more wealth and assets than any other in the history of the planet -- that is, unless Mr. Obama taxes it all away. So how about a little gratitude from these trust-fund babies for our multitrillion-dollar going-away gifts?
My generation is accused of being environmental criminals -- of having polluted the water and air and ruined the climate. But no generation in history has done more to clean the environment than mine. Since 1970 pollutants in the air and water have fallen sharply. Since 1960, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and Pittsburgh have cut in half the number of days with unsafe levels of smog. The number of Americans who get sick or die from contaminants in our drinking water has plunged for 50 years straight.
Whenever kids ask me why we didn't do more to combat global warming, I explain that when I was young the "scientific consensus" warned of global cooling. Today's teenagers drive around in cars more than any previous generation. My kids have never once handed back the car keys because of some moral problem with their carbon footprint -- and I think they are fairly typical.
The most absurd complaint of all is that the health-care system has been ruined by our generation. Oh, really? Thanks to massive medical progress in the past 30 years, the chances of dying from heart disease and many types of cancer have been cut in half. We found effective treatments for AIDS within a decade. Life expectancy has risen and infant mortality fallen. That doesn't sound so "selfish" to me.
Yes, we are in a deep economic crisis today -- but it's no worse than what we boomers faced in the late 1970s after years of hyperinflation, sky-high tax rates and runaway government spending. We cursed our parents, too. But then we grew up and produced a big leap forward in health, wealth and scientific progress. Let's see what this next generation of over-educated ingrates can do."

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page W13, Friday, June 19, 2009

The World Needs a Policemen

Think carefully of your city. Wherever it is. (Mine is Seattle.) Think of it without policemen. Truly think. Walk out the door heading to, say, the grocery store. Pass a big guy and he decides to take your purse. Maybe he pushes you, hits you, whatever, and simply takes your purse. (My former mother-in-law was mugged and had her purse stolen a couple months ago. Age? 92. The police found the guy and took him off the streets.) Then think if there were no police. Who would you call? What would you do? You could call a meeting of your friends, or, say, the others in your apartment building. Get together and form a committee. And talk. And talk. And talk. Then put up a note for the perpetrator not to do it again. Done. Feel better? But what will stop him from walking the streets in search of his next victim?

Now let us consider the world. It had a policeman with the United States of America. Fresh from winning World War II for the world, crushing fascism, Nazism and the Axis; we were the power. Then came Korea. I guess it was a truce, but it put North Korea and China in check. Next was the domino theory in Vietnam. Many Americans didn't think it was appropriate to attempt to put those Communists in check. Our citizens demonstrated, rioted, sat in, be-ed in (or be-ined), and so on and forced the United States out of that conflict. And ever since that internal conflict, our uncivil-war, the United States has withdrawn from the role of policeman. Except Ronald Reagan as world policeman stared down the Soviet Union, shattering it in 1991. Then came 9/11. And once again the United States became the policeman to try and force Saddam Hussein out of power for fear he was near to producing weapons of mass destruction. (He had used poison gas on his countrymen in the past.) Our country was pretty unified. But the invasion was poorly managed. And the Left struck. Some now argue that President Bush and his advisors lied about the whole matter. Others think that Iraq was the wrong target. But there was deja vu Vietnam all over again. Barack Obama became president of the United States in part based on the war in Iraq. OurHe is continuing the emasculation of our country by the Left. Why? Women don't like masculinity? Minorities are afraid of power abused? What is wrong with strength? The United States mostly has used it for good. Obama has power and is using it to completely restructure the society of the United States. Why is that power good, and similar power used as the international policeman bad?

Senator Obama also ran, and since becoming president, has speechified that the cause of the "greatest recession since the Depression" was caused by free markets. Free markets in finance and mortgages with a lack of regulation. No effective policeman. We need a policeman, he says.

Well Mr. President, there is now a free-market in nuclear weapons and missiles capable of delivering them. But no policeman. Yes, there's the United Nations, a gaggle of committees that can't commit. Bureaucrats bloviating. Sending notes to potential perps. North Korea, Iran, Taliban-Pakistan, Syria, Libya, wherever. They could be perps who don't read notes. The United States has withdrawn into its turtle shell, peeking out and asking friends to get together and form a committee to...write a note, send a "message"? There is no regulation. No policeman. But the consequence you can't grasp or acknowledge is that at some point a nuclear weapon might be dropped on, say, Israel, to pick a name out of a hat. Then what, Mr. President? What then? Why is the Left afraid of power?

There is no policeman, and the United States now doesn't have the will to be it. To the danger of the world. You think global warming is a century in the future, Mr. President? A nuclear weapon will hasten that up. Please think carefully of your city, your country, your world.

Superamerican.

Global Warming and Other Fortune Telling

Our government forecasters can't forecast weather a year ahead to spot hurricanes.

"Cap and Trade" was rammed barely through the U. S. House of Representatives: Last week, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (the 'Cap and Trade Energy Bill'), or H.R. 2454, was 946 pages long. Over the weekend, it ballooned to 1,201 pages with no explanation for how or why. Then on the day of the vote, Pelosi's House added another 255 pages to the bill at 3:00 AM (EST) and limited debate to three hours before passing this massive "national energy tax". Did each Member of the House read and carefully analyze the bill? Not a chance. Even so, myraid Democrats chose not to go along and only 8 Republicans boarded the Democratic ship of fools. Be clear: this has nothing to do with "global warming" and all about power...raw power of Democrats over others: us.

A recent (May 2009) Associated Press article stated that because of unusual circumstances, the government projections of when minorities will become the majority were wrong. By as much as a decade to more than three decades from now, so says David Waddington, the Census Bureau chief of projections. Whatever figures it projected are now subject to revision. So much for fortune telling. Global warming projections are just that. Projections by computers from keyboard inputs fingered in by humans. And I'd guess mostly humans who could be registered Democrats! And out a century. Get real, global warming is a method by which liberals gain and retain power over others. To many it has become an ineluctable belief in the end of civilization. Thomas Malthus thought the same thing. He was dead wrong! So are they. But who'll know, it's out a century and power is now! And see my post about a world policeman or lack thereof, which says that since there's no world policeman to keep nuclear weaponry and delivery systems under control a nuc dropped on, say, Israel would hasten global warming rapidly. Why has America neutered itself?


Well, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is now fiction. Or at least only on-line. I thought the Seattle Post-Intelligencer wasn't supposed to print fiction. The article "Less water, more heat forecast for state" is nothing but fiction. I mean, do you really think anyone can forecast 90 years ahead about anything? Anything? The national weather forecast can't even forecast hurricanes a year ahead. Give me a break, the only way you'd print this piece of garbage is to influence the spending of our tax dollars (my money) on programs to counteract these computer programs developed by liberals with agendas. Ladies and gentlemen, we are in the worst economic times in twenty years and we should be looking ways to save money not throw it away on hallucinations.

Superamerican

The article about which I write (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Wednesday, February 11, 2009, Front Page):


Less water, more heat forecast for state

Report details climate change in Washington
By ROBERT McCLUREP-I REPORTER
Fewer cherries and apples -- but possibly more wheat.
More summer days when streams grow dangerously warm for salmon -- and worse winter floods flushing away or burying their eggs.
More people dying in King County from heat stress. Less drinking water in the summer. A quadrupling of the acreage burned statewide in summer wildfires.
But more electricity to heat our homes in the winter.
Those are a few of the effects projected for Washington by the first comprehensive look at how climate change is likely to affect the state by the end of the century.
Released early Wednesday, the study was ordered by the Legislature and carried out by 64 scientists, many affiliated with the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington.
"This is the most detailed description of the effects of future climate change that we've ever had for any of the Northwest states," said Philip Mote, a report author and the outgoing Washington state climatologist.
On Thursday, the scientists plan to huddle with state officials to brief them on actions that can be taken to prepare for climate change and -- they hope -- blunt its worst effects. Many of the impacts outlined in the new report assume continued use of fuels whose emissions trap heat in the atmosphere. Those effects could at least theoretically be lessened through technological innovations or reduced fuel use.
The new study delves into some areas not researched thoroughly for Washington in the past: How a changing climate will affect agriculture, human health and the systems that carry away rainwater to prevent flooding.
"There's more work to do, but this is a first step," said Jeremy Littell, a forest ecologist who helped organize the report.
The picture is not uniformly grim. For instance, because winter storms are likely to bring more rain and less snow, we should see higher stream flows in the winter. That means we can make more hydropower -- a plus, since winter heating sometimes requires importing electricity.
But the flip side of that coin is that there will be less snow left around in the summer -- when we count on it to melt slowly, recharging reservoirs and dropping stream temperatures enough to keep salmon healthy. Plus, more people will be cranking up the air conditioning in the summer -- the very time Northwesterners now profit by selling the juice to sweltering Californians.
That kind of if-then-but scenario is played out in a number of sections of the report. For example, increased carbon dioxide, or CO2, and the increased productivity that comes with warmth should help forests grow more vigorously. On the other hand, the drier, hotter climate is likely to mean more fires -- not to mention increasing the range of the forest-shredding mountain pine beetle.
And it looks like overall, forests will grow better in the early decades of the century, as CO2 increases, but then show worse growth as the climate dries and warms, particularly in Eastern Washington. There are likely to be wide variations among sections of the state, though.
"It's one of those issues that, it very much depends on where you look," Littell said. "When you take it statewide, that's what we're looking at."
The report, titled "The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment," pulls back from previous projections on whether we're likely to see more of the intense winter storms that caused flooding the past three years.
That's because when scientists examined whether intense downpours had increased over the last few decades, they saw little difference. However, the analysis did not include the storms that sparked state-of-emergency declarations the last three years. Also, two computer-based projections showed increases in intense storms are likely -- but disagreed on how much, and where, they are likely to occur.
So while on balance scientists still expect more of these cats-and-dogs downpours, they're not nearly as confident about that as, say, their projection that wildfires will increase from burning an average of 425,000 acres annually to 800,000 in the 2020s and 2 million in the 2080s.
Or look at agriculture. Dryland wheat farming is likely to benefit, because a major climate-warming gas is carbon dioxide, which helps plants grow more vigorously. That same CO2 benefit holds true for cherries and apples, but because the warming stands to exacerbate water shortages in the Yakima Valley, where many are grown, overall the state is likely to see lower yields.
For salmon, the picture is bleak -- but it depends on the species and its location.
"The stream conditions in the summertime are just looking to be deteriorating," said Nathan Mantua, a fish researcher who helped produce the report. "It's hard to see it any other way."
For sockeye and chinook that return to spawn in the summer, that could mean big trouble. Currently they seek deep water or other spots that stay cold longest. But some of those are likely to disappear as temperatures increase. And even fish that make it to cold water refuges may not be able to leave in time to swim to their spawning grounds before exhausting themselves and dying, Mantua said.
We already saw an example of the kind of thing that's likely in the extremely hot summer of 2004, Mantua said. Workers counted some 300,000 sockeye salmon swimming past the Ballard Locks on their way to Lake Washington. Biologists estimated only 100,000 made it to the spawning grounds. Maybe 20,000 or so got caught by anglers, Mantua said. The remainder presumably died, probably because of extremely warm temperatures in the Lake Washington Ship Canal.
Coho and steelhead are also likely to be affected, but at the other end of their lives, when they spend summers in fresh water before heading to sea.
On the other hand, pink salmon, chum salmon and fall-returning chinook aren't likely to be affected very much, because they're out at sea in the summer.
Human health is also likely to be affected. And while the picture in Washington may not be as dire as some other regions, "Climate change in Washington state will likely lead to larger numbers of heat-related deaths," the report says. "The greater Seattle area in particular can expect substantial mortality during future heat events due to the combination of hotter summer and population growth."
At the meeting Thursday to discuss courses of action, officials hope to begin sketching out steps to prevent as much damage as possible.
"Adapting to climate change must be seen as a continuous series of decisions and activities undertaken by individuals, groups, and governments rather than a one-time activity," the report says.
P-I reporter Robert McClure can be reached at 206-448-8092 or robertmcclure@seattlepi.com. Read his blog on the environment at datelineearth.com.

Thank You Dick Cheney / The Party of "NO!"

Dick Cheney delivered a speech last night (Thursday, May 21, 2009). He was forthright, unafraid, proud of what he did for his country and of his country and fiercely outspoken. Thank you, Mr. Cheney. Republicans seem to be afraid to speak out. They are defensive when attacked by the Left, rather than accepting it and attacking back. For example, when the left-leaning media and liberals labelled Republicans "The Party of No", Republicans blathered on about how they really weren't, blah, blah, blah, and hurriedly put out initiatives to prove they weren't. Defense is exactly where the Left wants Republicans. And they fall in lockstep like little Stepford Liberals. The "Party of No!" Yes we are, proudly.

Party of NO!

I am a proud member of the “Party of NO!” I have been joined by the citizens of the formerly-great State of California. Just say “NO!” Speak up loudly and proudly, Republicans.

No to Big Government
No to High Taxes
No to Huge Deficits
No to Crippling Regulations
No to Robbery of Freedoms
No to Empathetic Supreme Court Justices
No to the Democratic Party

(And from Californians, a resounding:
"No" to tax increase
"No" to supplemental educational payments
"No" to borrowing from the state lottery
"No" to taking money from adult mental-health programs
"No" to shifting tobacco tax money from kids
“Yes” to banning raises for state officials, which is a “no” to the raises
And at May 22, 2009 California Leads State Job Losses: 44 states lost jobs in April, led by California where employers slashed 63,700 positions)

Liberals label the Republican Party the "Party of “No!” Let’s proudly accept it.

A proud Member of the Party of “NO!”

Superamerican.
Seattle.

Taking from the MANY to Enrich the FEW

This is a new, never-ending blog post. "Taking from the MANY to Enrich the FEW".

This will highlight steps, orders, laws and so on which takes money -- and rights -- from the many of politically-weak citizens and gives it to the few of Obama-favored, or perhaps to be more fair, Democrat-favored people, or special-interest groups, who can support, finance or otherwise re-elect Democrats, especially President Barack Obama.

Yesterday, the president ordered rigorous new federally-mandated gas mileage dictates for automobiles sold in the United States. 35.5 miles for each gallon of gasoline used by 2016. In part this was to preempt a smorgesbord of individual states rights. Many states, notably California, have established their own stringent standards by statute or threatened litigation. Obama-government-owned car industry entities agreed to the certainty of a single national diktat, as did others. That the technology isn't extant, nor consumer acceptance assured didn't matter; car companies can certainly simply make the cars lighter, thus killing more drivers. Of course, cars'll cost American consumers upwards of $1,300 more per car.

On the other hand, taking from consumers and giving to hugely-wealthy, jet-airplane-travelling trial- or tort- and class-action lawyer-supporters is Obama's order to allow exactly what the single auto-mileage standard stops: a gaggle of individual state laws to encourage said rich lawyers to sue companies. Oh, yes, to give our money to his supporters, Obama supports states' rights. Article, The Wall Street Journal, Thursday, May 21, 2009, page A 3:(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124285702885340713.html), "Shift Toward State Rules..." In a two-page order Obama reversed former-president Bush's 10-year encouragement of single federal standards on a variety of issues for simplicity's sake. Happily celebrating was the lobby for trial lawyers, the humorously-named American Association of Justice (for lawyers).

Maybe the grandest money redistribution scheme is the "American Clean Energy and Security Act". Which will take money from companies -- Democrat-leaning farmers are already exempt from emissions caps, but looking to grap some dough -- such as dirty oil refiners, coal miners, steel producers and distribute it where the most campaign contributions flow (in my belief). One such entity will doubtless be the General Electric Company, whose Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt sat next -- not sure if left side or right -- to god (President Obama) at a White House meeting May 20, 2009, of President Barack Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. General Electric owns the former National Broadcasting Company (NBC) and MSNBC both inarguably propaganda arms of the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration. (In other news, President Obama is backing an agreement for the U. S. to share nuclear technology with the United Arab Emirates which, if it passes Congress, could mean billions of dollars for bidder the General Electric Company. Abu Dhabi has renounced its right to make weapons materials and agreed to U. N. inspections. Could this spark a Mideast nuclear arms race? Who cares as long as NBC gets supported.) Back to the "cap and trade" bill. This could dwarf FDR in its ambition to re-engineer United States social behavior and economy; President Obama stated he's "excited about the opportunity."

Obama's further Hollywood ties

Endeavor Agency run by Ari Emanuel, the brother of Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, and the William Morris Agency, Jim Wiatt, CEO, will merge to become an organization that will bring further Hollywood muscle to the Obama Administration.

Dictator Wannabe Obama?

Our president, as has been widely publicized, believes America is a nasty, dirty, unfair nation that, apparently has never done anyone any good. Look at what America has done to the world's great Democracies, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua at the same time former president Bush diminished his new best friends, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega. It seems possible that the president of the United States looks up to these gentlemen and would like to be like them. They are widely loved in their countries, clearly. Or is it feared? Not too certain. We could go to their jails and ask. One thing is clear, Democratic-run states such as California and New York have replicated the successes of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua and let's throw in Argentina. Is the United States of America far behind?

Just asking.

Pirates from Somalia and Washington, D.C.

An uncharacteristically strong president allowed the United States Navy SEALS to kill three Somalian pirates who kidnapped the captain of the U. S. merchant ship Maersk Alabama and free the captain, Richard Phillips. The anarchical country of Somalia is controlled by independent warlords with no central government. Rampant crime is driven by poverty and virtually no commerce or industry. The start-up service industry of capturing and holding for ransom ships and crews has proven profitable, thus bringing it hockey-stick-like growth as ship owners pay millions of dollars in ransom to regain their ships, cargos and crews. A lack of defense mechanisms extend the safe operations of the pirates. It is easier and cheaper for the ship owners to pay rather than resist. Payment of ransom leads to more piracy, the costs of which are paid for ultimately by consumers...sort of taxation without representation.

An analogy might be trial lawyers extort business executives, and they pay and it gets worse.

Another analogy might be union bosses extort business executives, and they pay and it gets worse.

Another analogy might be Congress extorts seekers of favors, and they pay and it gets worse.

And the world gets corrupted.

Think about it: the world needs be rid of all pirates.

"Gregoire: Raise tuition 14%"

From the Seattle Times Front Page Wednesday, April 8, 2009. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009001043_apwaxgrgregoirehighered2ndldwritethru.html)
Headline: "Gregoire: Raise tuition 14%"

I sent to the Seattle Times the following Letter, which hasn't been published:

The Return of the Company Store


Little understood is the relationship between increasingly higher college costs and government participation in higher education. In today's article, "Gregoire: Raise tuition 14%" it becomes starkly evident. Coming before Gov. Gregoire's proposal were "increases to federal Pell grants and education tax credits" from which, according to the article "families earning up to $160,00 would be no worse off" after the tuition increases "for the first year anyway". So here's how it works. The federal government takes some of the income tax money from citizens of Washington and turns around and offers some of it back for higher education. The state government seeing this "new money" coming into the state for higher education, raises the prices for said higher education. Everything's hunky dory except for the second year. Then perhaps grants aren't sufficient, so students and their families borrow from the government to pay for college. They become indebted -- financially and emotionally -- to the government. Like a company store. So think of the cause and effect (supply and demand) for the huge inflation in college costs, and remember it began when our federal government started interfering in higher education. This is the government we want?

http://www.periodictablet.com

Tax the Rich, Tax the Poor, and Lie About It

President Obama who promised only to tax the "rich" (as he defines it) is now dictating the largest federal tobacco tax increase ever. Everyone knows that such a tax hits poorer people far more than the middle class or rich people. New York Times, do you care that poor people are taxed much more than rich people? At least his tobacco tax won't go into the hands of trial lawyers. Now get this, Obama's "stimulative" Make Work Pay gives eight bucks a week to workers (and CEOs alike I guess) which will be burned up in a two packs a day smoker's lungs. So Mr. Obama thanks for stimulative cigarette smoking and burning the poor guy, ince slightly more than half of today's smokers (53%) earn less than $36,000 per year.
(Article in The Wall Street Journal, Monday, March 30, 2009, page B5:)

ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- Tobacco users are facing a big financial hit as the largest federal tobacco tax increase ever takes effect Wednesday.
Tobacco companies and public-health advocates, longtime foes in the nicotine battles, are each trying to turn the situation to their advantage. Major cigarette makers raised prices in recent weeks, partly to offset any drop in profits once the per-pack tax climbs from 39 cents to $1.01. Medical groups, meanwhile, see a tax increase in the middle of a recession as a great incentive for smokers to quit.
President Barack Obama signed a health initiative soon after taking office to increase the tobacco taxes to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children. Other tobacco products, from cigars to pipes and smokeless tobacco, will also see similarly large tax increases. For example, the tax on chewing tobacco will go from 19.5 cents per pound to 50 cents. The total expected to be raised over the 4½ year health-insurance expansion is nearly $33 billion.
Separately, Congress is considering legislation to empower the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. That could lead to reformulated cigarettes. President Obama, who has struggled with his own cigarette habit, said he would sign such a bill.
Prospects for reducing the harm from smoking are better than they have been in years, said Dr. Timothy Gardner, president of the American Heart Association. "Every time that the tax on tobacco goes up, the use of cigarettes goes down," he said.

And speaking of taxes. Today is April 15, 2009. Tax Day. Let's see I have, of course, read the 70,320 pages (up 2-1/2 times, or 44,020 pages from 1984) that is almost 4 million words (up from 1.4 million in 2001!) and spent nearly the average 24 hours on the 1040 and related schedules...well, no, as with 60% of Americans I hired it out. The total cost: $90 billion a year. No, that's not just me, it's everyone. Now simplification so the average person knows what he is paying on, how much and where it goes. The flat-rate tax? The consumption tax? No so fast, say the politicians. Now I can reap campaign cash for making or only threatening to change the tax code. Why should I change that gravy train? And they don't. Extortion, you say?

Bumper Stickers For Sale, Proceeds to the U. S. Government

THE FOLLOWING BUMPER STICKERS ARE AVAILABLE FOR SALE. $1.00 EACH. MINIMUM QUANTITY 1,000,000,000,000 ALL PROCEEDS WILL BE DONATED TO THE U. S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

You have to fail to succeed, Barack Obama, 2009

______________________________________________

A Pretty Face, Silver Tongue, Empty Head and Black Heart

Barack Obama, America's First Quiche President

________________________________________

Beat a Liberal

Start a Company

_________________________________________

Want a Raise?

Drop the Union!

__________________________________________

Trickle-up Poverty

Cut up the Pie

Trickle-down Wealth

Grow the Pie

________________________________________