http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Default.html smashey's Blog en-us Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:06:10 EST Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:06:10 EST Intralink Custom Development webmaster@u4prez.com webmaster@u4prez.com http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Rules-We-No-Need-No-Stinking-Rules.html In an effort to run the most ethical congress in history, House and Senate leaders are considering using a rules change to pass health care legislation that may not even have enough support within their own party to use the reconciliation process they were preparing to use to ram through a highly unpopular bill: House Democrats looking at 'Slaughter Solution' to pass Obamacare without a vote on Senate bill UPDATED! By: Mark Tapscott Editorial Page Editor 03/10/10 4:17 PM EST Would House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow House Democratic leaders try to cram the Senate version of Obamacare through the House without actually having a recorded vote on the bill? Not only is the answer yes, they would, they have figured out a way to do it, according to National Journal's Congress Daily: "House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday. "Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version. "Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. 'Once the CBO gives us the score, we'll spring right on it,' she said." Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor. In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself. Would that rationale fly with the public? Is it logical? Of course not. But remember, these folks have persuaded themselves that a majority of the American people really want Obamacare. A blog post on House Minority Leader John Boehner's blog described the approach as a "twisted scheme." How much fun will it be for Democrats representing congressional districts carried by John McCain in 2008 to be constantly reminded about the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the Slaughter Solution, the death panels, $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, individual mandates, etc.-------(end article) So, as the advocates of "we have to do something" applaud the efforts of a few top Democrats to skirt not only the will of the American people but of the Constitution of the United States as well, one can only ask.....Should we even have elections anymore? Do the rules even matter? It is obvious that the leaders of the Democrat party don't think so. Their willingness to make an attempt at doing away with the fillibuster as well as to change the rules so they can do what they wish with impunity against the will of their constituents shows that it's not by the people for the people anymore. Needless to say the political price will be high. But will what we get instead be any different? Not if we the American electorate keep telling the power brokers that we will keep being complacent with their 2 party politics and 1 party mentality. Not different by a long shot. Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Rules-We-No-Need-No-Stinking-Rules.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/U4Prez-Campaign-Video-Contest.html Since Gurr has went MIA, your duly elected administration has decided to follow through with a few of the promises that were made by the powers that be. Welcome to the 1st 2010 U4Prez Campaign Video Contest. Although we cannot bribe you to participate with cash prizes the winners will have bragging rights in which to shove in everyone's faces as they see fit. Here are the rules for submission of our video's: 1. Videos can be no more than 60 seconds in length. 2. Any video deemed offensive due to the use of profanity, nudity, racial or religious slurs, etc. will be disqualified immediately. 3. The video must be related to the candidates campaign on U4Prez or be used as a smear campaign against another candidate as long as it does not violate rule #2. 4. All videos will be judged based upon video quality, argumentative quality of subject matter, originality and entertainment value. 5. Videos will be open for submission Sunday, Feb. 28th through Saturday, March 6th. Judging will begin on Monday the 7th and winners will be announced on Wednesday, March 9th. 6. Submissions will be accepted by providing a link to your video in the comments section of this blog. Good Luck and please PM me with any questions.. Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/U4Prez-Campaign-Video-Contest.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Is-U4Prez-On-Auto-Pilot.html Is U4Prez on auto-pilot? As Vice President of this fake Presidential campaign website I have no power. None whatsoever. Never believed that I did and never believe that I will. It's all in fun, the debates, the campaigning, the runoffs, the general election. None of it means anything. It's entertainment after all. But as said and duly elected VP for the 2010 U4Prez election cycle I would at least expect the site moderators and ownership to show up. It is true and well documented that after the election and the new site modifications that interest, even from those who have been here since the sites infancy, died off. Another 'mock' site popped up in protest and any real debate left as well. Call it the "Twitter" effect if you will. The site became a one stop shop to drop a soundbite off and leave. The debates were taken off front and center and the quick snippet became the main focus. Add to that a search function that is non-existent and you have some issues that candidates want, and have asked, to be fixed. But that is not the reason I am writing this blog. I am writing this blog to address un-kept promises and un-opened PM's by site ownership and moderators. It seems as if U4Prez is on auto-pilot. Those of you that were here during the 2009 election may remember a few comments that were made as the site modifications were coming online. Promises of blog contests and the return of the video contests along with the return of the cash prizes to drive traffic to the site. More money invested in advertising the site and building a candidate base. Press releases....yada yada yada. But just like closing Gitmo, pulling out of Iraq and keeping unemployment below 8%, it has failed to materialize. Now I am one of the first to realize that these things take money and that if Eric Gurr doesn't want to invest in it, it is his right. It's his property and we should be thankful that he allows us to come here and play. And we are. However what I have been asking for takes no investment and costs nothing. All it takes is opening a PM and responding with a yes or a no. So far in the past month or so 4 PM's have yet to even be opened on the U4Prez profile. Hell, maybe i'm sending them to the wrong profile. Maybe that one has been abandoned. I have sent PM's there before and gotten rather quick responses but maybe there has been a change I was unaware of. If so then cool, I will send PM's to another one, just let me know which one is being used as the official U4Prez profile and I will communicate through that one. Blog and video contests would be a welcome addition back to the site. Hell, i'm not even asking for there to be cash prizes. Kempite has taken enough of Gurr's money. I'm merely asking for the site ownership and moderators to move forward with some of the things they threw out there when the new site was launched. If we have to do it on our own then so be it. I was just under the impression with the new site launch that someone other than the candidates on this site cared. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe I misread the gestures but I sure didn't expect to be put on auto-pilot. Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Is-U4Prez-On-Auto-Pilot.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Trade-War-Not-Good-For-GDP-In-2010.html BEIJING, Feb 5 (Reuters) - China will levy heavy anti-dumping duties on U.S. chicken products, its Commerce Ministry said on Friday, a move likely to aggravate trade relations and antagonise one of the few U.S. industries that profitably exports to China. The ministry's initial investigation showed that U.S. companies had dumped chicken products into the Chinese market, according to the ministry's website (www.mofcom.gov.cn). The preliminary tariffs were announced a day after China requested a World Trade Organisation ruling on European Union duties on shoes made in China. That was the most recent of many cases demonstrating China's embrace of the WTO to keep markets open to the exports on which it depends. The United States and China are engaged in a series of trade disputes, particularly over the value of the Chinese currency, with President Barack Obama this week vowing to get tough in dealing with complaints that U.S. exports are at a disadvantage. "The world needs strong U.S.-China economic engagement now, not a ratcheting up of trade tensions," said Michael Barbalas, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in China. Chicken wings and feet, virtually worthless in the U.S. market, are a delicacy in southern China. Many U.S. poultry producers count on the Chinese market to round out their profits. "Chicken feet and wings are not wanted in the U.S. so they sell them to China, they dump them below cost," said Wang Xiulin, president of the Chinese Poultry Association. "For over a decade, the U.S. has sent big volumes of chicken to the Chinese market, hurting producers here. Last year, the Chinese poultry industry was really hurting so we asked for this investigation." Tyson Foods (TSN.N), an active investor and lobbyist in China, got the lowest duty of 43.1 percent. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. (PPC.N) was hit with an 80.5 percent duty. Most other firms, including Sanderson Farms (SAFM.O), face a 64.5 percent duty. Those that did not appeal the finding would pay duties of 105.4 percent, the ministry said. Duties go into force on Feb 13, or Chinese New Year's Eve, ensuring the price of the popular delicacies remain steady for holiday shoppers already fretting about vegetable inflation. The rates could be adjusted in the final ruling, in several months. GAME OF CHICKEN The U.S. poultry industry had been lobbying for Congress to revoke a prohibition on U.S. inspectors certifying Chinese cooked poultry plants, a prohibition that China is fighting at the WTO. That prohibition is lifted in the latest Congressional budget, although U.S. inspectors have yet to tour Chinese plants. The author of the prohibition had cited food safety concerns if cooked chicken were imported from China, which has undergone a series of food safety scandals, including the delibrate lacing of milk with melamine, a chemical product that causes kidney stones. China began its investigation in U.S. chicken parts after the U.S. imposed safeguard duties on Chinese-made tyres, which China is fighting at the WTO [ID:nLDE60I1H8]. The new tariffs could close a lucrative market for the U.S. poultry industry, which supplie more than ¾ of China's imports. Chicken feet and wings fetch about 2 U.S. cents per pound in the U.S., but land in China at about 42 U.S. cents - a figure that Chinese rivals say represents the cost of the freight only. A flat import tax of 500 yuan ($73) a tonne and a 13 percent value-added tax mean U.S. wings and feet can enter the Chinese market at about 54 cents a pound - compared to the Chinese wholesale price of about 76 cents. Additional duties mean that U.S. imported chicken parts will cost about 5 cents per pound more than their Chinese competitors. (Writing by Lucy Hornby; Editing by Ron Popeski) Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Trade-War-Not-Good-For-GDP-In-2010.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Throwing-Down-The-Gaulntlet-To-The-Economically-Challenged.html I know we have all seen the statistics. Is it good? Is it bad? Is it temporary? Is it sustainable? Those who believe that the way out of our economic woes is to print and borrow money so we may fund temporary infrastructure jobs will say it is going great. Those who believe that inflationary printing of money, borrowing to add to the debt and artificially holding down interest rates to prolong market corrections and cause bubbles will say it is terrible. I happen to hold the latter of those 2 beliefs. I love the debate however with those who hold the other beliefs. It is good and it is healthy. It is how problems get solved. Through both sides arguing their points and coming up with the best solution for the country. That is.....if they truly believe their statements. It is well known on U4Prez that I will not back down from a good debate and will always back up what I believe with facts and statistics. It is also well known that I expect the same from those on the other side of the debate. However, as of late, it has become increasingly difficult to get those things from my colleagues on the other side. The response lately has been lackluster and non-responsive. In an attempt to challenge my debating partners I have begun to lay down the opportunity for them to show just how much they actually believe what they are saying (or regurgitating) in regards to our economy. Those challenges have been monetary in value and have received no response even after numerous prodding attempts at getting someone to take the bet and backup their beliefs. Now, I know times are hard and the amounts I have been laying down may have been a bit high. Taking that into account I wish to take a new angle on those challenges. I will issue those challenges and let my colleagues decide what amount they are comfortable with wagering on their beliefs. Their amount, whatever they are comfortable with. That way they can put their money where their mouth is and show just how sure they are that their print, borrow and spend method is the best way. We can argue all day long until we are blue in the face but putting up something of substance will separate the men from the boys and the women from the girls. That is if you believe in your statements. So here is the first challenge: My belief is the GDP growth in Q4 '09 is inflated due to increased production and inventory levels going into the holiday season. It is temporary and will not be sustained into Q1 '10. There it is. If you believe differently and think that the fiscal policy set forth by the President is to be lauded for GDP growth then name your amount. Also explain how if it is bad it is Bush's fault but Obama gets the credit for a false Q4 GDP gain? Sorry. LOL Couldn't help calling you out on that either. :) Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Throwing-Down-The-Gaulntlet-To-The-Economically-Challenged.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Spending-Freeze-and-Jobs-Bill-Don-t-Add-Up.html President Barack Obama has embraced a contradiction. He wants both a freeze of a lot of discretionary spending and a new “jobs” bill — which is made up entirely of new discretionary spending. Before the House of Representatives’ recess last year, it passed, by a narrow 217-212 vote, a $155 billion stimulus bill to fund more “shovel-ready” projects and jobs for state and local government bureaucracies. Its passage raised a serious question that still must be answered. The $700-plus billion stimulus package that was passed in February has proved a failure in just about every way a piece of legislation can fail. Why continue on with a second stimulus? Consider: 1. The stimulus failed politically. It is seen as ineffectual and wasteful. President George W. Bush had broken the budget. Obama’s stimulus shattered it. Cue persistent, predictable American fears about large budget deficits. That slowed the Democrats’ efforts to pass substantial legislation and may have finally killed health care reform. 2. It failed economically. The stimulus failed to pull off the Keynesian voodoo trick of substituting public for private demand. The Obama administration projected much lower unemployment than the 10 percent that currently worries most Americans as we enter this new decade. 3. It failed the laugh test. Jobs “created or saved” is now a punchline, with good reason. Estimates vary wildly, but the administration did not manage to create many new jobs, each one came at great cost and the reporting of these supposed new jobs has not been rigorous — to put it charitably. 4. It failed to help Democrats, mostly. Take one item that “worked” — the bill’s generous COBRA subsidies to help people between jobs keep their insurance. That robbed would-be health care reformers of all kinds of horror stories of workers losing both their jobs and their health insurance. So why double-down with more stimulus now? In a recent white paper, Heritage Foundation resident labor economist James Sherk persuasively argues that the real problem for the economy now isn’t mass layoffs but the dearth of job creation in the private sector. A second round of stimulus would do nothing to help this situation and arguably would hurt it. The short answer is that this is really about a handout for labor unions. Organized labor worked mightily to elect Democrats to Congress and the White House in 2008. While labor’s highest-stated legislative priority — card check, which would effectively end the private ballot for unionization elections — stalled in the Senate, that doesn’t mean labor has gone empty-handed. In fact, one way that the stimulus has been a success so far has been in shoring up unionized jobs. A lot of that subsidy to state governments has gone toward holding off mass layoffs in the states’ heavily unionized work forces, which now constitute a majority of unionized labor in America. Obama has privileged union shops above their competition for government contracts. He has threatened to withhold stimulus funds from states, such as California, that are trying to force cuts in union wages and benefits to balance their budgets. By pushing a second stimulus package so hard, Democrats seem to be conceding that a lot of the big things that labor wants simply are not likely to happen in what is shaping up to be a tough election year. That makes the bill less about jobs and more about payback. Jeremy Lott is editor of Capital Research Center’s Labor Watch newsletter and author of “The Warm Bucket Brigade.” Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Spending-Freeze-and-Jobs-Bill-Don-t-Add-Up.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/What-Iceberg-Full-Speed-Ahead.html What iceberg? Full speed ahead! - Michael Goodwin, New York Post The Thursday decisions to punish banks for making money and to exempt union workers from an onerous health-care tax appear to have little in common, but they actually share a vital link. Both are the spawn of rank politics, with Obama using government power to reward friends and punish enemies. First came the bank tax and, like so many other bad initiatives, his announcement was chock full of misleading arguments. It's an ominous sign when truth is the enemy. Even the name distorts, with the tax called the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee. Get it? It's not a tax. It's a fee. And it's got a moral basis -- hence "responsibility." "We want our money back, and we're going to get it," declares the greatest spendthrift ever to inhabit the White House. He was so full of self-righteous anger, I feared his teleprompter might explode. But who does he mean by "we" and "our money"? Certainly not "We the people." A clear majority of Americans opposes virtually every one of his policies and his disapproval ratings nearly match his approval. He responds by doubling down on partisanship as he tries to tap into the paranoid fringe that sees Wall Street as the fountain of evil. The truth is that most of the banks helped by bailouts have more than repaid taxpayers. The bailouts even turned a handsome profit, estimated at $52 billion last year. Shhhh -- don't tell anybody. Facts don't matter. Among other bailouts, it's Obama's to GM, Chrysler and the one started under George Bush to AIG that are still deepest in the red. So the logic of penalizing the banks that are prospering to get "our money back" doesn't pass the smell test. Even worse, the tax works against the White House goals of increasing lending and creating jobs. Because of reserve requirements, every dollar the banks pay in taxes means they have $10 less to lend to small businesses -- the engines of job growth. And what does Obama intend to do with the $90 billion the tax would raise? Why, spend it, of course. It won't be used to pay down the deficit or anything sensible. "Our" money will become another Chinese-financed slush fund for him. The second awful idea was the deal with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid to exempt unions, including those in government, from the 40 percent tax on so-called "Cadillac health plans." The tax had two aims: raising money to fund coverage for the uninsured and reducing the overall national health bill. But unions objected, threatened to scuttle the legislation -- and so were spared. The tax won't kick in for them until 2018 and even then will be less onerous than on non-union workers. Others will just have to pay more. It's a scandal that reveals the mind-boggling dimension of corruption in the health care horse trading. What the president pretends is "reform" is largely a patchwork of payoffs and bribes to favored interest groups, lawmakers and industries. Individual Americans will wonder what hit them if the package of scams ever becomes law. They sense as much, which is why only one out of three voters support the legislation. But who cares what they think? The agenda must be served. Michael Goodwin is a New York Post columnist. Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/What-Iceberg-Full-Speed-Ahead.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do.html Bloomberg the Bigfoot (in Carbon) by JIM DWYER Published: December 12, 2009 The average New Yorker uses one-half to one-third the electricity of other Americans. Our carbon footprints are just 29 percent of people who live outside the five boroughs, and City Hall has practical plans to reduce even that amount by nearly a third over the next two decades. No wonder that this month, in a talk at the New York Academy of Science, Rohit Aggarwalat, the mayor’s chief adviser on sustainability, said the city was “the most environmentally efficient society in the United States.” So it makes perfect sense that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is going to Copenhagen on Monday and Tuesday to address the international conference on climate change: his administration is working to head off problems that will not emerge until long after he is gone. A strong case can be made that when it comes to energy and climate issues, Mr. Bloomberg is the most visionary public official in the country. And a strong argument can also be made that on a personal level, he ranks among the worst individual polluters ever to hold public office. Mr. Bloomberg owns a helicopter and two jets, both Falcon 900s. He flies everywhere on private jets, by far the least efficient form of transportation on or above the earth. He takes his jet to Bermuda many weekends. He has flown around the globe on it. He uses it to go to Washington. He is planning to get to Copenhagen for the climate conference by private jet, too. The carbon math works out like this: by taking his Falcon 900 to Denmark, Mr. Bloomberg will be responsible for the release of 37 times the carbon dioxide than if he and his entourage flew on a scheduled commercial flight. The calculations were done at my request by Dimitri Simos, the developer of software used by the airline industry to assess aircraft emission and performance. Mr. Simos said that a Falcon 900 carrying eight people from Newark to Copenhagen would produce 21.6 tons of carbon dioxide. By adding eight people to the scheduled Scandinavian Airlines flight, the aircraft, usually an Airbus A330-300, would produce an additional 0.58 tons of carbon dioxide. Mr. Bloomberg’s routine trips to Bermuda are even more carbon costly: the private jet produces 130 times more emissions than going commercial. On those jaunts, Mr. Simos said, the Falcon produces 4.3 tons of carbon dioxide; putting another two people on an American Airlines Boeing 757-200 that flies to Bermuda would produce only 66 more pounds. This is not Bloombergian hypocrisy; it is a paradox, shared by most of humankind. I’ve lived within a block or two of a subway station since birth, yet owned a car since I got a driver’s license. There is a long list of public figures — from movie stars to politicians to journalists — who preach conservation for everyone else, while living in mega-homes and flying in Gulfstreams. It is probably not a good idea for the rest of us to look down our noses at people who cannot resist such temptations until we can afford them ourselves. In the case of Mr. Bloomberg, his addiction to private jets is striking because in so many other parts of his life, he appears fastidious about shared resources. The lighting and electronic gear in his family foundation building use 20 percent less energy than typical offices; the foundation recycles rainwater to irrigate a green roof; even most of the construction and demolition debris were recycled. Moreover, you can watch generations of elected officials — at all levels — come and go without having the nerve, wisdom or generosity to grapple with tomorrow’s tough problems. You see just the opposite with Mr. Bloomberg’s PlaNYC, a set of strategies to make the city habitable and more efficient in 2030, complete with goals that must be met each year. Those who have flown in private jets say they have much to recommend them — none of this arriving at the airport two hours ahead of time and taking off your shoes to get to the boarding gate. You drive up to the hangar, get on, and the flight attendant brings a glass of wine and a plate of sushi. The business aviation industry says that its jets are getting more efficient and that they account for a tiny fraction of human-made carbon emissions. They are very expensive to operate, but even when Mr. Bloomberg travels on official business, he always picks up expenses for himself, his staff and the police security detail. As it happens, Mr. Bloomberg is also a great public evangelist for high nutritional standards, but shakes salt on his pizza and loves a Big Mac. There is a lesson here for everyone, whether they are in Copenhagen or New York or elsewhere. Human beings will produce as many tons of carbon emissions as they can afford. And we’ll have the fries with that. Sun, 13 Dec 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Didn-t-This-Mess-Start-This-Way.html By EAMON JAVERS | 12/9/09 8:49 AM EST President Barack Obama will meet with chief executives of major banks on Monday and is expected to urge them face-to-face to lend more money to help promote economic recovery, banking sources tell POLITICO. A source familiar with the planning said invitations went out to CEOs last weekend for what will be a morning session at the White House. The CEOs expect to hear from the president about why banks ought to be lending more, why they shouldn’t oppose his financial reform initiatives, and why they ought to hold the line on bonuses and compensation, the sources said. The lending issue irks some in the industry. “The White House’s political people like [senior adviser David] Axelrod tell us to lend more,” said one banking official. “But the regulators are saying the exact opposite. They’re saying, ramp up your capital ratios, and if you see default risk on the horizon, cut back on lending.” The White House’s Jen Psaki said: “The president is looking forward to meeting with members of the financial services industry on Monday to discuss our shared interest in economic recovery, the need to increase small business lending and the Administration’s plans for financial reform.” Great. Back to loaning money to people who can't pay it back. All I can say about the economic policy of this administration is WHAT THE FUCK? Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Didn-t-This-Mess-Start-This-Way.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/The-Cash-For-Clunkers-Employment-Mentality.html $248,273.27. How much does it cost to create or 'save' someone's job? If you read the number at the beginning of this blog you will have the governments answer. At least the answer that falls in line with the amount of jobs they have claimed to have created or saved since the stimulus package went into effect. If you believe, as I do, that those numbers have been exaggerated then the cost is much higher. So what kind of job will $248,273.27 buy? By it's own admission the administration has claimed to have created jobs through infrastructure programs. The building and re-building of roads and bridges throughout the country. Sounds great doesn't it. I'm sure we have all been driving through our states and towns wishing that someone would come fix the potholes or widen the streets. It is a good thing to invest some funds in our infrastructure. However, as a job creation plan, it is a long term path for failure. If the states and municipalities could maintain these jobs on their own, they would have already. In short - as soon as the federal stimulus money stops, so will the job. $248,273.27 for a temporary position. Not a very economically sound fix for an unemployment issue that continues to rise. Also by it's own admission the administration has 'saved' many jobs as well. Most of these positions have also been on the state or local level in the way of municipal utility jobs, construction jobs and teaching positions. Jobs that would have been lost if not for the federal stimulus dollars rolling in to these states, cities and towns. Again we ask the same simple question: What will happen to these jobs when the federal stimulus funds are gone? If the recipients of the funding could fiscally maintain these positions long term on their own would they have needed saving in the first place? No. Once again, as soon as the federal funds run dry, so will the positions created or saved. Those who have the mindset that this economic plan will actually work long term will point to the fact that the economy only lost 110,000 jobs in October as compared to 250,000 in previous months. Those who know anything about the job market answer with a resounding, "DUH!" As we move into the holiday shopping season many industries including, but not limited to, retail, transportation, manufacturing, wholesale, package handling, etc. hire hundreds of thousands of temporary seasonal positions to keep up with the temporary increase in holiday traffic and spending. I will wager that January's unemployment figures will go back to the 250,000 plateau if not higher, depending on the holiday sales reports. So once again,we have a temporary spike created being touted s a long term success. Are we beginning to see a pattern here? As with Cash for Clunkers, the mentality of this administration seems to be to pay a large amount of taxpayer money that is quickly turning into deficit and debt, on small, temporary number spikes so it may have something positive to claim in regards to the economic cluster that is happening. We had a jobs summit between the government, the unions and a few big corporations to attempt to find a solution to the employment problem. The problem is, it is the government, the unions and a few big corporations that have caused many of the employment issues in the first place. And I thought this guy was supposed to be smart. Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/The-Cash-For-Clunkers-Employment-Mentality.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/The-Next-Job-Killer.html With health care debate, a war in Afghanistan and a unfaithful golfer taking up most of the news coverage as of late, let us not forget about the looming debate over the Waxman-Markey bill. Known more globally as Cap and Trade. The CBO's initial estimates of cost per household are by their own admissions, leaving out key economic data that would ensure the cost to be much higher. It leaves out the impact on the job market all together. The Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless. For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions. To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers. The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap." The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result. When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035. Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families. Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them. The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years. Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality. The other reality forgotten in this bill is the reality that the additional costs will hit not only families because of higher energy costs, but business and industry. Business and industry that have already made or are making job cuts in this fragile economic situation. More taxes = more job loss = less revenue = more deficit and debt. Not a smart economic model if you ask me. * source - The Wall Street Journal, page A12 JUNE 26, 2009 Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/The-Next-Job-Killer.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Are-Some-Democrats-Positioning-For-An-Out-In-The-Face-Of-An-Economic-Backlash.html By VICTORIA MCGRANE | 11/30/09 5:19 AM EST Is libertarian rock star and Texas Republican Ron Paul going mainstream? He’s got everyone from South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint to Minnesota moderate Democrat Collin Peterson to California liberal Barbara Boxer on his side in his audit-the-Fed crusade. He’s drawing liberal support in his push to rein in the cost of the war in Afghanistan. Senate candidates like Democratic Rep. Paul Hodes of New Hampshire are finding Dr. No’s populist economic anger to be useful in the campaign, echoing Paul’s criticism of the Federal Reserve. Even Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is delivering backhanded compliments, taking credit for merely allowing a vote on Paul’s amendment to audit the central bank. This convergence of odd bedfellows, and the economic angst that’s driving it all, is yet another signal that President Barack Obama is going to have more and more trouble keeping his traditional Democratic allies on his side as the economic debate continues. It seems that everyone is looking for something new to latch on to in the economic debate — even if those ideas belong to one of the more eccentric members of Congress. “This brought people together [from] the whole political spectrum, from progressives and liberals and libertarians and conservatives. ... they all came together. That, to me, is what is really so important,” said Paul, who has been introducing his audit-the-Fed measure since the early ’80s. After so many tries, this time Paul’s measure attracted 313 co-sponsors in the House, representing every possible point on the political spectrum. It also scored a strong vote in a key committee and has a companion in the Senate that’s supported by a bipartisan coalition of senators. And Paul’s economic views, long dismissed by the political establishment, seem to be resonating more broadly than just the audit-the-Fed measure, both in the larger financial reform debate and the growing concern about the cost of continuing the war in Afghanistan. To be sure, Paul’s bill to abolish the personal income tax or to end the United States’ membership in the United Nations still puts him well outside the mainstream. But lawmakers — and, more important, the voters they represent — are starting to believe that the financial meltdown and the dramatic government rescue effort seems to have gotten Wall Street back on its feet quite nicely while leaving regular folks on the curb, analysts say. “On financial regulation matters, most Americans sympathize with Ron Paul’s outrage,” said Cook Political Report House analyst Dave Wasserman. Take Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), a firebrand liberal who infamously declared that the Republican health plan is for people to die instead of to use the health system. Despite being on opposite sides of the political universe from Paul on a wide range of issues, Grayson paired up with Paul to help push the amendment version of the Fed audit bill in the House Financial Services Committee. The committee victory for the Paul-Grayson amendment came at the defeat of a weaker alternative offered by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) and backed by Frank. In normal times, the Watt amendment was just the kind of chairman-backed compromise Democrats would usually dutifully embrace. Instead the committee, including more than a dozen Democrats, opted 43-26 for the more intrusive Paul-Grayson measure. “So far, the Federal Reserve has refused to answer questions about special loans and deals for Wall Street banks. I support an audit of the Federal Reserve to provide answers for working families and to protect New Hampshire taxpayer dollars,” said Hodes, a Democrat who is running for Senate in New Hampshire and backed the Fed measure. Even Frank, who voted against the amendment, went out of his way during committee debate to associate himself with Paul’s effort. And a YouTube video of Frank’s remarks was quickly posted by a top pro-Paul website. “I do want to claim credit as chairman of the committee for being the first one in 26 years who gave the gentleman from Texas the chance to [offer] this legislation,” said Frank, an expert at reading the political winds. “I have never been a Fed worshiper,” Frank continued, before explaining his concerns that the amendment in its present form would raise inflationary expectations. But Paul isn’t stopping with the auditing measure. He sees the other financial reform proposals throughout Congress as adding, not subtracting, from the vast Fed powers. And he has allies in the heart of the Democratic Caucus. Democrats like Peterson and Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, along with liberals such as Ohio Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur echo concerns shared by Paul that the Fed gains too much power under the financial reform legislation authored by Frank and the Obama administration. Under Frank’s bill on systemic risk, the Fed would be the primary agent of a new council to regulate big, complex “too big to fail” financial firms, a position that would expand the central bank’s current oversight powers. “Why are we even thinking about giving more power and authority to the Fed?” Peterson, a rural Democrat, asked during a hearing. “It is one of the more unaccountable parts of federal government. Its governance is influenced more on the wishes of major banks and the American people.” And Sen. Chris Dodd, a liberal Democrat from Connecticut, surely wouldn’t credit Paul, but his sweeping financial reform draft legislation proposes stripping the Fed from bank oversight powers that the central bank has held since its creation. Paul’s long-standing critique of American foreign policy has also earned him some new allies. Paul joined Reps. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Steve Kagen (D-Wis.) on Nov. 18 in a series of House floor speeches to argue against committing more resources to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The members of this bipartisan team were all signatories of a Sept. 25 letter to Obama that carried 53 other Republican and Democratic names opposing sending more troops to Afghanistan. “I don’t think we can win the argument,” Paul recalled telling his three co-speakers as they planned the debate. “But eventually we’ll win — not because they’re going to listen to us and have another foreign policy. But we’re going to win because we don’t have any money, we’re broke and the troops will come home.” “All empires end through a flawed foreign policy,” Paul said at another point in his interview with POLITICO. For Paul and his vibrant grass-roots supporters, the next item on the legislative agenda is to continue pushing the Fed audit measure all the way to the president’s desk. Campaign for Liberty, a coalition of pro-Paul activists that grew out of the Texas Republican’s 2008 presidential campaign, has dropped hundreds of thousands of petitions on both sides of Capitol Hill in support of the measure. They and other online groups have been drumming up phone calls to congressional offices as well. “The Senate’s not as close to the people as the House is, so it’s a little harder,” Paul said. “It will take some work over there; there’s no doubt about it. Believe me, the defenders of the Fed are still around, and we’ll still hear a lot from them.” Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Are-Some-Democrats-Positioning-For-An-Out-In-The-Face-Of-An-Economic-Backlash.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/The-Open-Door-For-Another-Stimulus-Pitch.html WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration, battling a foreclosure crisis that shows no signs of relenting, will step up pressure on mortgage companies to do more to help people remain in their homes, officials said Saturday. The administration will announce its expanded program on Monday, Treasury spokeswoman Meg Reilly said. "We are taking additional steps to enhance servicer transparency and accountability," Reilly said. She said the goal was to increase the rate that troubled home loans were converted into new loans with lower monthly payments. Industry officials said the new effort would include increased pressure on mortgage companies to accelerate loan modifications by highlighting firms that are lagging in that area. The Treasury is also expected to announce that it will wait until the loan modifications are permanent before paying cash incentives to mortgage companies that lower loan payments. Under the $75 billion Treasury program, companies that agree to lower payments for troubled borrowers collect $1,000 initially from the government for each loan, followed by $1,000 annually for up to three years. The government support, which is provided from the $700 billion financial bailout program, is aimed at providing cash incentives for mortgage providers to accept smaller mortgage payments rather than foreclosing on homes. The program has come under heavy criticism for failing to do enough to attack a tidal wave of foreclosures. Analysts said the foreclosure crisis is likely to persist well into next year as high unemployment pushes more people out of their homes. Rising foreclosures depress home prices and threaten the sustainability of the fledgling economic recovery. A report last week from the Mortgage Bankers Association found that 14 percent of homeowners with mortgages were either behind on payments or in foreclosure at the end of September, a record level for the ninth straight quarter. The Congressional Oversight Panel, a committee that monitors spending under Treasury's bailout program, concluded in a report last month that foreclosures are now threatening families who took out conventional, fixed-rate mortgages and put down payments of 10 to 20 percent on homes that would have been within their means in a normal market. Treasury's program, known as the Home Affordable Modification Program, "is targeted at the housing crisis as it existed six months ago, rather than as it exists right now," the report said. Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, said the industry supported many of the changes Treasury was proposing. But he said the foreclosure problem, which began with heavy defaults on subprime mortgages, was expanding to more traditional types of mortgages because of unemployment which has now hit a 26-year high of 10.2 percent. "The subprime problem has regrettably morphed into an unemployment problem," Talbott said. He said there was no government program to help the unemployed who are in danger of losing their homes but "many private lenders are modifying loans for the unemployed on their own." Treasury's Reilly said the expanded program would, among other steps, make more aid available to struggling borrowers and expand the number of organizations providing help. Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/The-Open-Door-For-Another-Stimulus-Pitch.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Reaganomics-vs-Tax-and-Spend-A-historical-look-back.html With the new Administration set to allow the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, the proposed health care 'surtax' in the House and a proposed 'war surtax' all aimed at the highest earning Americans, the government is setting up a historically bad path for the economy and the job future of many Americans. Although the Bush tax cuts were ill timed with the massive increase in spending on 2 wars and rise in our debt, they did spur the business and investment sector to record heights, which is the backbone of the American employment numbers. If you read the book "The End Of Prosperity" by Arthur Laffer, Stephen Moore and Peter Tanaus you would see how the tax and spend Democrat economic plan is a recipie for disaster. Since you probably haven't read it I have posted a summation below from Paul Dykewicz. The book forecasts draconian economic fallout if tax rates soar and the tax cuts previously enacted during the administration of President George W. Bush expire. Indeed, the authors argue that the wrong federal policies on taxes could create something akin to a “perfect storm” that would ravage the economy and leave future generations of Americans paying for the profligacy of misguided lawmakers. Ironically, history shows that low tax rates generally spur economic growth enough to boost the government’s tax receipts more than can be achieved by raising taxes, the book documents. With support for tax hikes coming from President Obama and key members of Congress, the authors leave no doubt that adopting such a policy would doom the already weak U.S. economy. Reversing Supply Side Gains Rather than single out Democrats or Republicans for criticism, the authors take a bi-partisan view and spread the blame for excess tax-and-spend policies of both political parties. The book’s theme is that a clear connection exists between pro-business federal government policies and economic growth. For example, the supply-side economic policies championed by President Ronald Reagan preceded an economic recovery that was largely sustained during the succeeding years when the gross domestic product more than doubled from $5 trillion to roughly $12 trillion, the book explains. Between 1981 and 1989, the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs a year. The U.S. economy created another 20 million jobs in the 1990s. That robust employment growth shows that tax cuts spur hiring, the authors concluded During the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, obstacles to growth had been winnowed by limiting taxes, tariffs, regulations and inflation. Those policies contributed to stable prices, a dependable and strong U.S. currency, a lower and flatter tax rate, and freer trade. Until the advent of so-called supply-side “Reagonomics,” the Dow Jones Industrial Average suffered one of its worst bear markets in history by falling nearly 8% a year on an inflation-adjusted basis between 1966 and 1982. In the Reagan Administration, the stock market averaged a rise of 12% a year. Supply-Side Merits The authors’ ideas about the merits of supply-side economics are not new. Economist Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations that high taxes can reduce consumption of taxed commodities and government revenue that otherwise might be drawn from assessing more modest taxes. Opponents of supply-side policies often trumpet the views of British economist John Maynard Keynes, who urged the government to stimulate demand for products and services by deploying idle resources. The authors counter that Keynesian economic policies, government planning, and demand-side economics inhibit business investment and economic growth. They warn that, by 2010, America could be the nation with the highest tax rate on investment, savings, corporate profits and stock ownership of any country in the world. The result could be economic disaster. The authors cite the example of a 12-year economic slide that began in the 1930s during the Great Depression amid an era of trade protectionism, high taxes, and government-spending growth. The government’s funding of New Deal social programs during that time worsened rather than improved conditions, the authors write. The cold reality then was that one of every four Americans was unemployed, while the combined federal and state tax rates exceeded 80% in certain instances. Tax-Caused Recession The damage inflicted by new taxes also became glaringly apparent in recent decades. When President George H.W. Bush agreed to a compromise with liberal Democrats to raise taxes in 1990 in direct opposition to conservatives, the economy slipped into its first recession in eight years. The policy also failed to reduce federal deficits and increased government spending. Another example of a flawed tax policy cited by the authors occurred when President Bill Clinton and his then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, a former Goldman Sachs CEO, chose to raise taxes in hopes of reducing the budget deficit and spurring investment. The authors say that the resulting fallout may explain why Republicans gained control of the House and Senate in 1994, and President Clinton became a stauncher proponent of free-market policies thereafter. When free-market policies took hold, tax receipts averaged 10% growth starting in 1995. During the second half of Clinton’s first term, Clinton’s modified policies validated the supply-side economic model by promoting free trade and tight-fisted budgets, signing a capital gains tax cut, appointing Alan Greenspan twice to the Federal Reserve Board, and enacting welfare reform, the authors wrote. In addition, the number of Americans on welfare declined from 4.4 million to 1.9 million -- a 58% drop -- between August 1996 and December 2005. This dramatic improvement was a domestic policy equivalent to President Richard Nixon going to China, the authors wrote. They also declared that it affirmed a supply-side economics maxim that the best antipoverty program is a job. Two consumer-focused tax cuts during the administration of Clinton’s successor, President George W. Bush, proved ineffectual. But the latter leader’s supply-side initiatives provided incentives to stimulate the business sector. The supply-side strategies included cutting tax rates on: dividends from 49.5% to 15%; capital gains from 20% to 15%; personal income for the highest earners from 39.6% to 35%; and business investment in plant, machinery and equipment. Stocks climbed about 20% within two years of the Bush tax cuts. Overall asset values rose by $6 trillion between 2003 and 2007. Business spending advanced from declines of 4.8% in 2001 and 6.1% in 2002 to increases of 7.4% in 2004 and 9.5% in 2005 -- reflecting a “classic” supply recovery, the authors wrote. Indeed, the economy grew by 8 million jobs between 2003 and the end of 2007, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The largest four-year revenue increase in American history took place between 2004 and 2007, after George W. Bush’s tax cuts spurred revenue to rise by $785 billion. Once again, reduced tax rates created a virtual chain reaction of higher economic growth, more jobs, increased corporate profits, and, ultimately, more tax receipts, the authors opined. In 2008, the fruits of the Bush tax cuts preceded a drop in U.S. government interest rates on 10- and 30-year bonds to their lowest level in 30 years. Excessive taxation is detrimental to the poor and rich, women and men, and old and young, the authors concluded. If the tax cuts enacted during the administration of George W. Bush expire at the end of 2010, tax rates on capital gains, dividends, inheritance, and personal income will increase automatically. The heightened dividend and capital gains taxes would hurt the after-tax return on investment directly and trigger a fall in stock values, the authors warn. Since share prices are based on the stream of future earnings of a company after taxes are paid, the higher the tax imposed on the earnings, the lower the value of stocks. In contrast, when George W. Bush signed legislation to cut taxes on dividends and capital gains, the share value of U.S. stocks rose by 10% to 15% within just weeks of the new law’s enactment. Stock values also rose after the Bill Clinton-led 1997 capital gains tax cut. Although levying a tax hike on the richest Americans may sound good and fair to those who do not fall into that tax bracket, it is historically damaging to those Americans who rely on those who do to invest in American business. The Bush tax cuts obviously helped spur economic growth and revenue. Unfortunately the massive spending on 2 wars by the administration outweighed any gains the policies made. Which allows history to tell us, if we keep spending under control and allow Americans to keep more of what hey earn, revenue grows as well as each Americans opportunity to prosper. Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Reaganomics-vs-Tax-and-Spend-A-historical-look-back.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/The-Coming-Deficit-Disaster.html By DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN President Barack Obama took office promising to lead from the center and solve big problems. He has exerted enormous political energy attempting to reform the nation's health-care system. But the biggest economic problem facing the nation is not health care. It's the deficit. Recently, the White House signaled that it will get serious about reducing the deficit next year—after it locks into place massive new health-care entitlements. This is a recipe for disaster, as it will create a new appetite for increased spending and yet another powerful interest group to oppose deficit-reduction measures. Our fiscal situation has deteriorated rapidly in just the past few years. The federal government ran a 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion—the highest since World War II—as spending reached nearly 25% of GDP and total revenues fell below 15% of GDP. Shortfalls like these have not been seen in more than 50 years. Going forward, there is no relief in sight, as spending far outpaces revenues and the federal budget is projected to be in enormous deficit every year. Our national debt is projected to stand at $17.1 trillion 10 years from now, or over $50,000 per American. By 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of the president's budget, the budget deficit will still be roughly $1 trillion, even though the economic situation will have improved and revenues will be above historical norms. The planned deficits will have destructive consequences for both fairness and economic growth. They will force upon our children and grandchildren the bill for our overconsumption. Federal deficits will crowd out domestic investment in physical capital, human capital, and technologies that increase potential GDP and the standard of living. Financing deficits could crowd out exports and harm our international competitiveness, as we can already see happening with the large borrowing we are doing from competitors like China. At what point, some financial analysts ask, do rating agencies downgrade the United States? When do lenders price additional risk to federal borrowing, leading to a damaging spike in interest rates? How quickly will international investors flee the dollar for a new reserve currency? And how will the resulting higher interest rates, diminished dollar, higher inflation, and economic distress manifest itself? Given the president's recent reception in China—friendly but fruitless—these answers may come sooner than any of us would like. Mr. Obama and his advisers say they understand these concerns, but the administration's policy choices are the equivalent of steering the economy toward an iceberg. Perhaps the most vivid example of sending the wrong message to international capital markets are the health-care reform bills—one that passed the House earlier this month and another under consideration in the Senate. Whatever their good intentions, they have too many flaws to be defensible. First and foremost, neither bends the health-cost curve downward. The CBO found that the House bill fails to reduce the pace of health-care spending growth. An audit of the bill by Richard Foster, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, found that the pace of national health-care spending will increase by 2.1% over 10 years, or by about $750 billion. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's bill grows just as fast as the House version. In this way, the bills betray the basic promise of health-care reform: providing quality care at lower cost. Second, each bill sets up a new entitlement program that grows at 8% annually as far as the eye can see—faster than the economy will grow, faster than tax revenues will grow, and just as fast as the already-broken Medicare and Medicaid programs. They also create a second new entitlement program, a federally run, long-term-care insurance plan. Finally, the bills are fiscally dishonest, using every budget gimmick and trick in the book: Leave out inconvenient spending, back-load spending to disguise the true scale, front-load tax revenues, let inflation push up tax revenues, promise spending cuts to doctors and hospitals that have no record of materializing, and so on. If there really are savings to be found in Medicare, those savings should be directed toward deficit reduction and preserving Medicare, not to financing huge new entitlement programs. Getting long-term budgets under control is hard enough today. The job will be nearly impossible with a slew of new entitlements in place. In short, any combination of what is moving through Congress is economically dangerous and invites the rapid acceleration of a debt crisis. It is a dramatic statement to financial markets that the federal government does not understand that it must get its fiscal house in order. What to do? The best option would be for the president to halt Congress's rush to fiscal suicide, and refocus on slowing the dangerous growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He should call on Congress to pass a comprehensive reform of our income and payroll tax systems that would generate revenue sufficient to fund its spending desires in a pro-growth and fair fashion. Reducing entitlement spending and closing tax loopholes to create a fairer tax system with more balanced revenues is politically difficult and requires sacrifice. But we will avert a potentially devastating credit crisis, increase national savings, drive productivity and wage growth, and enhance our international competitiveness. The time to worry about the deficit is not next year, but now. There is no time to waste. Mr. Holtz-Eakin is former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. This is adapted from testimony he gave before the Senate Committee on the Budget on Nov. 10. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/The-Coming-Deficit-Disaster.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/If-we-did-that-we-d-be-in-jail.html Senator Harry Reid has given what has been referred to as $300 million in 'concessions' to LA Senator Mary Landrieu to gain her yes vote for moving the Senate health care bill to he floor for debate in what is being touted as the new Louisiana Purchase. So what is the difference between purchasing a vote on the floor of the Senate and purchasing a vote at the ballot box? At least the concession gained from the other holdout, AR Senator Blanche Lincoln, benefits everyone. A 72 hour window to review the legislation. Senator Landrieu was flat out purchased. She was even happy enough to tout that the reporters had the amount incorrect. To quote the very happy and seemingly unapologetic Senator, "I am not going to be defensive," she declared. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix." The Senator did go on to say that she would vote to proceed with the debate -- but that she'd be looking for much bigger concessions before she gives her blessing to a final version of the bill. Last I knew that was what the FBI referred to as a shakedown. She just should have came out and said, "And to get my final vote I want $600 million." It is a shame that this is what our political system has come down to. What ever happened to listening to your constituents? I guess even the people can be bought off with a new museum or new street lamps. If you or I would have offered Senator Landrieu $300 million dollars for her vote we would have been arrested and jailed for bribing a public official. I guess it is OK however when another Senator buys the vote. The crappy thing is Reid didn't use his own money, he used ours. It is the taxpayers who are handing over the $300 million. Do we even have a Senate anymore or should we refer to it as La Cosa Senta? Michael Corleone would be proud. Mary Landrieu was made an offer she couldn't refuse. And they didn't even have to put a horse head in her bed to do it. Pelosi was busy. ;) Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/If-we-did-that-we-d-be-in-jail.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Global-Warming-Leads-To-Prostitution.html ‘Climate change pushes poor women to prostitution, dangerous work’ JOSEPH HOLANDES UBALDE, GMANews.TV The effects of climate change have driven women in communities in coastal areas in poor countries like the Philippines into dangerous work, and sometimes even the flesh trade, a United Nations official said. Suneeta Mukherjee, country representative of the United Nations Food Population Fund (UNFPA), said women in the Philippines are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change in the country. “Climate change could reduce income from farming and fishing, possibly driving some women into sex work and thereby increase HIV infection," Mukherjee said during the Wednesday launch of the UNFPA annual State of World Population Report in Pasay City. In the Philippines, small brothels usually pop up near the coastal areas where many women perform sexual services for transient seafarers. Often, these prostitutes are ferried to bigger ships by their pimps. Based on the UNFPA report, there are 92 million Filipinos in the country as of 2009 and that number is expected to balloon to more than 146 million in the next 40 years. Of the 92 million Filipinos, about 60 percent are living in coastal areas and depend on the seas for livelihood, said former Environment secretary Dr. Angel Alcala. Alcala said that “we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of our marine environment." But as the sea’s resources are depleted due to overpopulation and overfishing, fishermen start losing their livelihood and women are forced to share the traditional role of the man in providing for the family. Alacala, who also heads the Angelo King Center for Research and Environmental Management in Siliman University, said some women often pick out shellfish by the coastlines, which exposed to storm surges. Women who can no longer endure this work often go out to find other jobs, while some are tempted to go into prostitution, Alcala added. In an interview with the Inter Press News Agency, Marita Rodriguez of the Centre for Empowerment and Resource Development, Inc. said women are taking the brunt of climate change. "Aside from their household chores and participation in fishing activity, they have to find additional sources of income like working as domestic helpers in affluent families," she said. The UNFPA noted that the temperature in the earth’s surface has risen 0.74 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years. The 10 warmest years globally since 1880 have also been recorded in the last 13 years. “Slower population growth, for example, would help build social resilience to climate change’s impacts and would contribute to a reduction of greenhouse gas-emissions in the future," the UNFPA report said. The UNFPA suggested five measures to mitigate climate change and overpopulation: * Bring a better understanding of population dynamics, gender and reproductive health to climate change and environmental discussions at all levels; * Fully fund family planning services and contraceptive supplies within the framework of reproductive health and rights, and assure that low income is no barrier to access; * Prioritize research and date collection to improve the understanding of gender and population dynamics in climate change mitigation and adaptation; * Improve sex-disaggregation of date related to migration flows that are influenced by environmental factors and prepare now for increases in population movements resulting from climate change; and * Integrate gender considerations into global efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Global-Warming-Leads-To-Prostitution.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/What-Takes-More-Energy-Putting-The-Toilet-Seat-Or-Bitching-About-It-For-3-Hours-Part-Deux.html In light of recent posts by certain candidates who wish to bitch, piss and moan about anything any other candidates attempt to do to make U4Prez a more enjoyable I felt it necessary to dig up my old toilet seat blog title to address it. We all know and have known for quite some time that the runoff system was easily manipulated. 4 votes per IP address is what we are allowed. Some people took advantage of it with fake profiles and some did not. They were breaking no rules in doing so, they were within the rules of U4Prez. We have had many fake profiles gain access to runoffs and a few actually win them. Again, a bit over the top, yes. But not against the rules laid out by U4Prez. There also were highly publicized instances of actual vote cheating and they were handled when uncovered. Then came "Votegate". A couple of candidates wanted to bring to light, in an extreme manner, how easy it was to manipulate the voting system on U4Prez. I 100% endorsed this method when it first took hold because I understood the point behind it. After a week of 100+ vote runoffs.......nothing changed. But the manipulation continued. This I didn't quite understand. You did it, it didn't work, what is the point of continuing it? But it happened. I would also like to state for the record that they broke no rules in doing so. Then came the 2009 GE. The 2 candidates in question claim to have hand picked their opponents for the general election. How much truth lies in that statement I do not know. I do know that if I hadn't switched parties in mid-year that I would have won the nomination. If they manipulated it to get Erock there after that happened then fine, whatever. Back to the topic at hand. They claim to have continued their manipulation right up until the general election. Then the results came out and Erock and I won. The candidates in question claim that Mr. Gurr allowed votes from his created profiles to stand for Erock and I while wiping out votes for the Lucky/BD ticket. That may very well have happened. I don't know. What I do know is that it certainly wasn't asked for or done with the knowledge of Erock or I. That is besides the point and that point is: What the hell did you expect was going to happen when you attempted to make the owner of the site look foolish with crazy runoff totals while calling him names all year long? If what you claim is true, he got pissed and beat you at your own game. Man up. He was better than you. Secondly, why attempt to tear down everything that other candidates are trying to do to improve the site? Is it because your own attempt failed or is it because not only did it fail but to top it off Gurr was lying in wait to knock you off your pedestal during the GE? It really doesn't matter why. What matters is that there are candidates on this site who are making legitimate attempts to make improvements. Yes it all depends on if Mr. Gurr is willing to spend a little. Some of it is also doesn't have a price tag attatched at all except for the time and effort certain candidates have put into it. So why does that irk you so? You can claim all you want that Gurr won't do anything and that we are all idiots and you may be right. However it cannot hurt to try actually being diplomatic and working WITH him instead of calling him a jackass and making a bigger farce of his site through the runoff manipulation. It didn't work to well for you guys in the end. We are going to try another method. If you don't like it, you are free to not participate. However the bitching and moaning about how the efforts of others are in vain is a bit pre-mature and a bit immature. I did not expect it from you at all and have been surprised at the hypocrisy of claiming all year to be fighting for the betterment of the site and then attempting to tear down other attempts just because yours failed. If the site is dead as you claim the feel free to run along to other ventures. There are some of us who wish to stick it out and see if we can drive legitimate traffic to the site. you can actually help us if you wish. We would welcome any and all input that is positive and free of the bitching that has been happening since the GE. If you used that energy to try and make positive changes instead of manipulating the system maybe we wouldn't be having to do what we are doing now. But you can continue to bitch if you want while others continue to try and make U4Prez better. It's up to you. It's of no matter to us. We are going to go forward with it regardless of your opinion. We choose to put the toilet seat down. You can choose to bitch about it being up. But that certainly isn't going to shut it. Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/What-Takes-More-Energy-Putting-The-Toilet-Seat-Or-Bitching-About-It-For-3-Hours-Part-Deux.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Endorsement-Of-The-Candidate-Site-Based-Improvement-Center.html The Erock/Smashey administration would like to announce it's official endorsement and use of the Candidate Based Site Improvement Center as the preferred way to compile all candidate site issues into one central location to allow better tracking and management of all candidate site issues on U4Prez. The site may be found at the following: http://www.u4prez.com/ProfileView.aspx?UserID=6196 One of the many ground breaking ideas from the mind of Republican candidate Kempite, the Candidate Based Site Improvement Center is a centralized location where all U4Prez candidates may debate site issues as well as ideas for site improvements. It is the belief of the Erock/Smashey administration that it would be a dis-service to the membership of U4Prez if we did not recognize and utilize the forum that Kempite has created as the best way to compile all issues and ideas for consideration by U4Prez moderators and ownership. We recognize a need to bring concerns, ideas and issues to U4Prez ownership on a united and coordinated front. It is our belief that Kempite and the Candidate Based Site Improvement Center provide this front. It is with great pleasure that we announce a coordinated effort with Kempite to utilize his Candidate Based Site Improvement Center as the official forum for getting candidates ideas and concerns passed on to site ownership for consideration. The Erock/Smashey administration thanks Kempite for his dedication to improving U4Prez for everyone and also for his allowing us to endorse his site as the 'official' site for issues and ideas to flow through. His effort and dedication to the site are greatly appreciated and are to be commended. If you have any questions regarding the Candidate Based Site Improvement Center please contact the Erock/Smashey administration or candidate Kempite. We will be happy to assist you in any way we can. Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Endorsement-Of-The-Candidate-Site-Based-Improvement-Center.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/We-Have-The-Power-To-Decide.html So the 2009 General Election on U4Prez is over. The winner has been chosen but not without the usual drama and accusations being thrown around. The arguments in the day since the GE was 'officially' decided have now turned away from the candidates and towards the powers that be behind the scenes at U4Prez. Regardless of whom the usual suspects on the site wish to blame for this or accuse of that one thing has been lost in the rush to the soap box. We have the power to decide what U4Prez is, will and can be. When I first came to the site in February of 2007 there were fewer candidates and political issues were the topic of discussion day in and day out. Kempite, Hawk, Jseagraves, Catbus, Hak, Erock, New Deal, Rightway, MDuminiak, Buckeye Kid, etc. were active members and the political debates were what drove the site. No one had to tell us to. We just did it because we all had a passion for it that brought us to the site. The race for President was secondary. The debate and the issues drove the site. Many of the things we see now on U4Prez were born in that era. The Liberty Caucus, the first caucus on U4Prez, was actually a profile made up of members of the GOP, Democrat and Independent parties whom tackled issues and talked them over to come up with legislation that would then be brought out to the scrutiny of the rest of the candidates. Many other issue based caucuses formed soon after and U4Prez seemed to be the place to be. Gurr allowed pretty much unfettered debate on the issues and let the candidates work their brains to help in the development of the site. Again, he never told us to. We just did it. Somewhere along the way, that focus was lost. Some say it began when Faustus took the money and didn't return. Some say it was when revelations about the validity of the voting came about. I don't blame Gurr for pulling the money from the election. The election and the money is what began the site down the path it has been on. All of a sudden winning became the focus and debate became secondary. When winning became the main focus and the 4 votes per IP address became public we began to see many fake profiles popping up and the vote manipulation we see now. The voting became the primary function of the site and the debate secondary. Here is the issue with that: Debate cannot be manipulated. Either you can argue your point or you can't. Another 3 votes wont help you in a abortion debate with Friday or a women's rights debate with KT or a constitutional debate with MDuminiak. You have to rely on your own merits to get by. The votes, as we are all very aware, can easily be manipulated allowing certain candidates to reach a level they would never be able to without the system. Now do we understand why new members don't stick around for long? The site states "start a virtual campaign for President". That is why we all were drawn here in the first place. We set up a profile, laid out our positions and debated them day in and day out. We had press releases and caucuses. We had moderated debates and radio shows. It was never about the votes back then, it was about the entertainment of the campaign and the political debate that came with it. I have heard the arguments the last 2 days that until Gurr cares enough to make changes that the site will die. I believe that to be a cop out stance to take. All Gurr has ever done is give us a forum. WE made of it what we wanted to and he let us. It is all he has always done. Nothing changed from Gurr's end, it changed from OUR end. We have the power to decide what the site becomes. We can continue to manipulate the voting system and piss and moan about why no one will fix it or we can focus on the entertainment aspect of a campaign and the debates that come out of that. WE used to have that. WE let it evolve into what we have now. Yes Eric and Matt have shown that if they want to invest the time that they can, to an extent, control the vote manipulation. I hope to see them continue it during the 2010 primaries. but that is up to them. It is Gurr's money and his empolyee's time. We don't control that. What we do control however is whether or not we choose to manipulate the system. What we do control is the direction of the site from a vote based mess to a debate driven politics site that happens to have an election at the end. WE have the power to direct U4Prez. We are the ones who decide if we choose to debate issues or whine about the system. The system never changed. We did. And we alone hold the power to change back. Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/We-Have-The-Power-To-Decide.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Friday-The-Final-Election-Frontier.html As we begin the final day of the 2010 U4Prez General Election I would like to take this time to lay out why I feel the Erock/Smashey ticket is the best decision. #1. As Wiz so eloquently asked a few days ago: Who the hell is on here more than Erock? The answer is simply - No one. Not one candidate has been more dedicated to U4Prez than Erock. It could be said, albeit unfairly, that Erock had time to dedicate as he was searching for employment. And while that may be somewhat true, name one other candidate who dedicated time when they had it. No one is as dedicated to U4Prez as Erock. He dedicates more time to debating issues on the site than any other candidate bar none. A part time President he will not be. #2. The other campaigns have been non-existent. Sure Brin wrote an issues blog before the vote even began suggesting that Lucky was bi-curious for BD but where has he been all week as issues were being debated? Maybe Nintendo is more important to him, I don't know. I like Brin but does he really want the responsibility of being the President of the site? I don't think so. KT has been on this week carrying the load for the campaign but has spent more time asking erock questions than answering them and the campaign has laid out no unified front on the issues. I just don't know if they have the time to mess with it. Sure Lucky finally put out an issues blog after I mentioned that Erock and I were the only ticket to do so and he has been on debating this week. That brings up the million dollar question: Where is BD? It seems like their campaign has been more like weekend at Bernie's. Lucky has been hauling BD's big heavy baggage around and trying to make his lips move but it's just not the same. It appears as if Lucky is Chippetto to BD's Pinnochio. I wont even get into the voting scandal. I supported it at first. I understood the premise when it first began but after no changes happened what was the point? #3. I read Kempite's blog about leadership and I must cordially disagree. Not all 3 tickets have shown lack of leadership. I pose this question to everyone: Who better to lead U4Prez than the most dedicated candidate for President and the VP that can reach across lines and bring together the masses to better the site or the President who has deferred all debate to his VP so far and the ticket who's claim to fame is running up vote totals to make a point that didn't change anything? I think it is obvious. And if all else fails I promise to assassinate Erock and rule alone!!!! ;) Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Friday-The-Final-Election-Frontier.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Erock-Smashey-Campaign-Views-on-the-Constitution.html The Erock/Smashey campaign believes that the Constitution of the United States is a literal document, meant not to give power to the federal government, but to limit the power the federal government has. According to the 10th amendment to the Constitution, all powers not delegated to the federal government by the states and not prohibited to the states in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people. It was a guarantee that any political decisions were made by localities rather than a distant central government that would be impossible for them to control as had happened under British rule. Below are our beliefs on the biggest debates of Constitutionality. War: In accordance with the Constitution Congress reserves the exclusive right to declare war. The President, as Commander in Chief, directs the war once it is declared. It is our belief that any war, not declared by Congress as outlined in the Constitution, is therefore unconstitutional. Congress has no constitutional authority to delegate a declaration of war to the executive branch. It is exactly what the framers were trying to avoid, yet exactly what we have allowed since Korea. The Erock/Smashey campaign holds strongly the view that all war must be declared by Congress. Social Policies: We believe that social policies such as abortion should not be decided by federal courts, but should be regulated to the states as outlined in the Constitution since such decisions were not given to the federal government. Article 3, Section 2 gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over broad categories of cases. By a simple majority, Congress could strip the federal courts of having jurisdiction over abortion and overturn Roe v Wade. At that point the issue would revert to the states where it constitutionally belongs. The Erock/Smashey campaign sees abortion as morally wrong and strongly advocates education and adoption as alternatives. We also however believe in following the law, whatever it may be. Americans have come to believe that it is normal for us to allow 9 judges in Washington DC to decide the social policies that affect every neighborhood and individual in the United States. One side hopes that the court will see it their way. The other side hopes they will see it their way. It is the belief of the Erock/Smashey campaign that every American neighborhood is not the same and that disputes over competing values should not be decided by a broad federal court. We believe that the constitutional approach is to allow the decisions that are not spelled out explicitly in our founding document to fall to the states. Let the neighbors decide for themselves. Which brings us to our next belief: Removing politics from politics. The Erock/Smashey campaign believes that if the citizens of the United States were faithfully bound to the Constitution , we would have no need or desire to be especially concerned when someone of a differing political philosophy is elected. Our Constitution relegates very few tasks to the federal government so it should be of almost no consequence as to who is elected. We would not have to worry if a policy that we disapprove of will be imposed on our neighborhood by a new President or Senator and their appointed federal judges. We would also no longer have to sit by and watch as those with the monetary power to donate large sums and hire numerous lobbyists decide what direction our government takes. The Erock/Smashey campaign believes this: The more power we allow the federal government and explicitly the executive branch to have will also be available to whomever takes office next. We believe both sides should remember that small detail as that person or philosophy may not be one in line with your own. Are you willing to give the other side that power? Once we believe that the Constitution is a living document to be interpereted how the courts and federal leaders see fit, we must be willing to accept it and the decisions that are made when the other side is in control. The Erock/Smashey campaign believes that respecting a literal Constitution is the best way to ensure that we have a power of the people, by the people and for the people. Not for the whim of the few at the top of a centralized government. Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Erock-Smashey-Campaign-Views-on-the-Constitution.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Core-Beliefs-The-Erock-Smashey-Ticket.html These are the core beliefs from which the Erock/Smashey campaign will operate. They are beliefs that promote freedom, prosperity and choice. They are based on constitutional values, personal freedom and opportunity. We will be writing blogs throughout the week detailing each of the core beliefs outlined below. Please feel free to question, advocate or debate any of them as the election winds on. We will be happy to entertain any debate and speak to as why we feel our core beliefs will bring a happy, successful society. 1. Economic Responsibility: The Erock/Smashey campaign holds the belief that the only way to ensure economic prosperity for ours, as well as generations to come, is to end budget deficits, pay down debt, and balance the federal budget. Spending, borrowing and printing money has led to a devalued dollar, a huge debt and budget deficits that continue to grow. We believe that we cannot sustain this path. We believe that you cannot spend your way out of debt at home and that the government cannot operate that way either. We hold the belief that the United States government must live within it's fiscal means and not burden future generations with taxation that takes money out of the pocket of it's citizens, so it can continue to spend. 2. Taxes: Although no taxes would be the perfect scenario, we believe it to also be one that is unrealistic. With that in mind, the Erock/Smashey campaign holds the belief that a flat tax will put more money into the hands of the Americans that earned it. We believe this to be central to economic recovery. We also hold the belief that we need to repeal the death tax as well as the capital gains tax to spur investment and to not punish those who are willing to take the risks to invest in America. We also hold the belief that lower taxes for businesses means more investment in jobs. We believe in not punishing those who have gained success by burdening them with an unfair taxation. We believe in promoting success by allowing everyone to keep more of what they earn and spend it how they see fit. 3. Scope of Government: The Erock/Smashey campaign holds the belief in a small federal government as outlined in the Constitution of the United States. We believe that any power not specifically given the federal government in the Constitution is there by relegated to the individual states. We hold the belief that the federal beauracracy is outgrown it's means and that many government entities are un-necessary to the operation of the government. 4. The Constitution: The Erock/Smashey campaign holds the belief that the Constitution of the United States is a literal document not a living one. We believe that the founders designed the Constitution to protect the citizens of the United States from the very power they left behind to form our great nation. We hold the belief that if it is necessary to change our constitution or the literal meaning of it, there is an amendment process built in that allows us to do so. We do not believe in translating and legislating from the bench. 5. Freedom: The Erock/Smashey campaign believes that personal freedom is the greatest asset one can have. We hold close the belief that people make the best decisions for themselves. We believe that everyone should be allowed the utmost freedom to do as they wish as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others to do so. We believe that the individual has the power, not the government. We believe that everyone has an opportunity to succeed. Thank you for taking the time to read the core beliefs of the Erock/Smashey campaign. We look forward to debating these issues throughout the election week. We will be posting blogs throughout the week detailing these beliefs. Thank you for your time and we welcome any and all debates. Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Core-Beliefs-The-Erock-Smashey-Ticket.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/A-Living-Constitution-Lives-For-Both-Sides.html The Constitution. The law of the land by which the United States of America is granted it's freedoms. Freedoms that our founders did not have before leaving on their journey to the new world. Freedoms that they wished to live under and wished for their children to live under. Freedom from the rule of one leader to rule by the people. The Constitution. There have been many arguments regarding the Constitution and the many political interpretations therein. Some see it as a literal document, meant to be followed to the letter and only changed when amended to do so as laid out in it's pages. Some see it as a living document, meant to be interpreted with the times by those in power at the time. It is the latter vision of the constitution that I desire to address in this blog. Not because I carry the literal vision of the Constitution, but because some that carry the living vision have forgotten one small detail that makes their view a hypocritical one. A living Constitution must live for BOTH sides. Case 1: War. According to the Constitution, Congress is to declare war and the President, being the commander in chief, is to direct the war once it is declared. This premise was followed to the letter up until the Korean war. Now the belief that the President has the sole authority to take the country to war has become conventional wisdom on both sides. When Ron Paul asked that Congress declare war on Iraq in 2002, he was told by the Chairman of the International Relations Committee that, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them." Liberals were up in arms to the fact that the Republican administration went to war without following the letter of the law as laid out in our founding document. The cries of "illegal" and "unconstitutional" were loud and frequent throughout the Bush administration. Case 2: Health care. This is the debate that sparked my feeling the need to write this blog. It came up in a debate about the AG of the United States being publicly against a law he was sworn to uphold. Keeping right with the times, the subject soon turned to health care and the belief from the left that the government forcing everyone to carry insurance was the best thing to do. This premise was questioned on constitutional grounds which brought up the term "living document" from the gentleman who was advocating the right of the government to force citizens to purchase health care. Who knows if it will pass. However, that is not the point here. This is: The same side that was against a "living" interpretation of the Constitution when it involved going to war was now advocating a "living" Constitution to allow the government to force insurance upon it's citizens. On he other side, the same individuals on who advocated a "living" interpretation of the Constitution going to war with Iraq was arguing about the unconstitutional "living" interpretation in regards to health care. It's called having your cake and eating it too. You cannot have it both ways. If you advocate a "living" document in one instance, you must advocate it when the shoe is on the other foot. That is why I am strongly against giving any additional power to the federal government. Those powers can also be used by whomever takes power next and that person may not be to my liking. If interpreted literally, that possibility will be taken out of play. If we follow the constitution to the letter, amending it if we see necessary change to be inevitable, it shouldn't matter who is in power. the Constitution delegates very few powers to the federal government so who is in office should be indifferent. The founding fathers came to this great nation to escape the rule of monarchs and tyrants. Interpreting the Constitution as a "living" document grants powers to those in charge that our founders were trying to avoid. Just remember this when advocating your sides interpretation of the Constitution: The opposing side will also get it's chance to interperate it as well. Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/A-Living-Constitution-Lives-For-Both-Sides.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/The-Monetary-Economics-of-Halloween-Candy.html The Candy Economy Dale Steinreich once wrote that Halloween has a "socialist tenor" because "menacing figures arrive at your door uninvited, demand your property, and threaten to perform an unspecified 'trick' if you don't fork over. That's the way the government works in a nutshell." And yet, for overall kid excitement, Halloween seems to surpass Christmas, at least from what I can observe. The kids spend months preparing their costumes, and thrill to ever detail of the ceremony: pumpkins, scary things, and of course candy. For the children, too, there is the attractive fact that parents are not all that happy about Halloween with its goblins, gore, and gluttony. But, a deeper lesson to be drawn is that there is also an economic dimension to Halloween that goes far beyond simply demanding property with menaces, however light-hearted. Unlike at Christmas, where kids must only be good little citizens all year in order to be showered with gifts from their beneficent Guardians, at Halloween, kids must actually work in real time for their candy. Because there is no taboo in place about trading one's proceeds, the kids also have a chance to participate in genuine market experiences. For starters, they work hard on their costumes, under the very real expectation that those who hand out candy tend to be more generous to those with better costumes. Nor is the labor done there, for it clearly continues with the long walk around the neighborhood, with the prospect that each house visited will yield a gain of only one or two candies, at most. This in itself forms an interesting feature of the ritual, since all of these same kids have lots of candy back at home that is being given out to other kids even as they tramp through the cold October evening. What could be the point of seeking out abroad what you already have at home? There are two reasons: first, though the kids may not consciously recognize it, they surely appreciate the candy more if it represents something they have to go seek out for themselves, and second, by mixing their labor with the process of candy acquisition, they have a greater sense that the candy partakes of qualities of duly earned, private property. No child really believes that the bowls of candy at home really belong to him or her, but, by contrast, the candy that the child collects from the neighborhood is said to be his or hers exclusively, even if mom or dad still oversees the overall patterns of distribution. The candy you collect is yours, a product of your own efforts, and nothing can quite replace that feeling of merited ownership. And yet, the real thrill is far from over. What children truly adore about Halloween is what takes place after the candy has been brought back to home base: the trading. Here is where the excitement begins. No child can fully control what he or she is given, so it is up to that child to make exchanges with others in order to obtain what he or she really wants, and to do so in a strategic manner so that overall wealth is enhanced. This process of trading began at our house at 8pm and lasted for about 30 minutes, at which point, the children concluded that they had come as close as was possible to what they wanted most and so, that there was no more trading left to do. During the 30 minutes of active haggling, nine kids sat around the dining room table and participated in a hectic, yet orderly — if complex — interchange, bearing a good deal of resemblance to a Wall Street trading floor. Some traders shot up and shouted prices, deals, proposals, results, changes in preferences, new resource discoveries. Other traders remained quiet and moved with great subtly and surprise. The more strategic the plan, the more impressed the other kids were by it. It was fascinating to watch as the trading began slowly and as the first barter relationships began to form. One for one; two for one; three packages of Nerds for one popcorn ball; two Snickers for one candy necklace; a Blowpop for two pieces of caramel; and so on. All children brought to the table their own subjective sense of what was valuable — a sense which was strongly influenced by the corresponding opinions of the other players, but one which also added to it a degree of prediction concerning just how the subjective values of others would stack up. It wasn't long before barter relationships, even those involving 3 or 4 simultaneous transactions, did not suffice. What those around the table needed was some means to achieve indirect exchange. They needed to hit upon a good which everyone would desire to posses because of its more certain, onward marketability among all the other kids. This entity did not need to be highly valued from the outset by everyone present. What the kids only needed to notice was that there was something which a sufficient number of their group tended to want more than any other competing candy on offer. It was a short step from there to the dawning of a realization would occur to one or two kids. These would then try to acquire that particular candy, not to consume it themselves, but to use it to trade it for whatever other candy they really wanted to enjoy. As more and more of the participants copied them, this one candy would come to play a role in more and more indirect exchanges. Child A would accept it from Child B for a less desired kind of candy and would instantly swap it again with Child C who happened to have the goodie he or she really preferred, but who hadn’t wanted any of A’s originally proffered treats. This way, this one candy would come to posses a quality none of the others had. It would come to be money. In general, money, whatever specific form it takes, tends to have a high value per unit of weight and yet it should be spilt into units small enough to cope with any scale of exchange. It should ideally have a fixed supply. Above all, it must be the one thing most readily accepted in settlement of a trade because the acceptor knows it is something which can, with the highest available degree of certainty, be used to facilitate additional future trades. There is no way to know ahead of time what will fulfill this role; only the market process itself will reveal make this choice. In our house, the popcorn ball would not work since there were only four of them and these were not divisible into smaller units. The Twizlers did not pass the test because only one child had any knowledge of what they tasted like and hence no one else had any concept of their value. Though this problem might seem an intractable one, as it happened, it only took a few minutes for everyone to discover what would become money for the evening: a micro-size Three Musketeers bar. Before people realized the true measure of its usefulness, a 3M would trade for as little as a Smarty package. But, then, it began to rise in value — selling for the Smarty and a Tootsie Roll. Once it became clear that 3M was the commodity of the most use in exchange, it didn't matter whether you actually liked it or not. You were happy to trade the candies you didn’t much care for in order to obtain a 3M simply because this could then be traded again for something which really did make your mouth water. Once the 3M became money, its own value was seen to rise as a consequence. What was occurring was that this extra property of "tradability" was being added to the underlying demand for it as a consumption item. Indeed, by the end of the session, this value reached such a height that it became an instant legend as, at its peak, one solitary 3Mcase changed hands for no less than three Tootsie Rolls and a tootsie Pop! Once this money was settled upon, it became much easier to price such candies as Reese's and KitKats, which had previously had an illiquid and uncertain market. Now they began to sell for one-half and one-quarter of a 3M, despite the fact that they had started out with much the same intrinsic value as a snack item. From there on, their prices hovered within a narrow trading range, roughly comparable to that of a small Tootsie Roll, while Snickers did slightly better than all of them. Extreme scarcity led to very high prices — anything up to four 3Ms in the case of JollyRancher hard candy. Skittles, too, were highly prized and sold for as many five 3Ms. Reese's "Inside Out" sold at a premium over the plain variety. However, showing that scarcity is not just a numerical concept, the parents of all these kids had long discouraged gum chewing, so despite the gum’s similar rarity, no-one wanted it. In fact, the price quickly fell to zero where it was eventually given away free to the one child who was permitted to chew it. Thankfully for the future of civilization, even that child soon lost interest in it! Interestingly, the advent of money also encouraged the kids to think beyond the immediate trading round. Instead, they began to acquire a surplus, to be saved for successive rounds where it was hoped better terms might be on offer. The kids soon adopted different strategies. Some started saving ("hoarding") 3Ms to trade them in at the end of the trading session, speculating that the goods price of 3M would continually rise. Others would acquire this valuable thing solely in order to consume it (this money, after all, originated as a consumable good and so it remained). But mostly — and this was the satisfying part for those anxious to observe the entrepreneurial discovery of money — kids would acquire 3Ms solely to facilitate other exchanges. Outside observers of a Misesian bent imagined the following: let's say someone arrived at the scene and threw down 100 3Ms on the table. All kids know precisely what would happen. The goods-price of 3Ms would tumble. Each one would purchase far less than it had before. The "inflation" might be so extreme that 3Ms might even cease to be money—the good everyone wants to acquire in order to acquire other goods—and some other candy might take its place instead. Imagine the chaos that would ensue, as the kids came loudly to bewail their recent exchanges of worthwhile candy for this now devalued commodity. Imagine the loss of innocence as they saw honest bargains frustrated and vowed to be more cautious of extending their trust upon the market. Imagine the general loss as trading once more became scattered and choices were again restricted as the idea of money fell into disrepute. But, fortunately, no Halloween bogeyman from the Federal Reserve Candy Factory came to ruin their game. So the kids could remain free to trust in the soundness of their candy unit. At last, the kids became exhausted by this frenzy and the market closed — not because someone sounded a bell, but simply because, in general, everyone came to see that each was as satisfied as they were likely to be with what they had. This was the Misesian "plain state of rest." In Mises's words: "people keep on exchanging on the market until no further exchange is possible because no party expects any further improvement of its own conditions from a new act of exchange. The potential buyers consider the prices asked by the potential sellers unsatisfactory, and vice versa. No more transactions take place." Once the trading had ended, the status of the 3Ms promptly reverted to that of a purely consumable item, since the end of the trading game signaled the loss of their monetary properties, leaving them just a plain candy, much like any other. Some kids left with a far lesser quantity of candy than when they first arrived, but that did not prevent them feeling far wealthier because now what they owned was a much closer approximation to their ideal mix. As for the other kids, well, they were astounded to discover that their own bags were far heavier than before, that they too felt wealthier — and that nobody was complaining to mom about the fact! Indeed, all children left the table with smiles and happiness, each feeling as if he or she had gotten a great deal after all. What a stunning achievement! After all, the available physical resources were unchanged. Nor had anyone planned or policed the trading. It had all happened spontaneously. One was left wondering at the true magic of that Halloween — namely, at the transforming effect of something as simple as the opportunity for free exchange, for the chance to derive mutual benefit from the difference in tastes between individuals. In this, at least, Halloween was all about treats, and, despite what the opponents of the exchange economy will tell you, there was no trick about it anywhere you looked. By Jeffrey Tucker Published 10/31/09 Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/The-Monetary-Economics-of-Halloween-Candy.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Economy-Grows-In-3Q-But-Is-It-Sustainable.html WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy grew in the third quarter for the first time in a year, beating market expectations, as consumer spending and new home-building rebounded, signaling the end of the worst recession in 70 years. The Commerce Department, in its first estimate of third-quarter gross domestic product on Thursday, said the economy grew at a 3.5 percent annual rate, the fastest pace since the third quarter of 2007, after contracting 0.7 percent in the April-June period. The growth pace in GDP, which measures total goods and services output within U.S. borders, was above market expectations for a 3.3 percent rate. The economy last grew in the second quarter of 2008. "Better than expected GDP is confirming that the Great Recession has ended," said Kevin Flanagan, fixed-income strategist for Global Wealth Management at Morgan Stanley in Purchase, New York. "The question going forward is, is this more of a statistical recovery or are we going to get some meaningful momentum on a sustained basis." U.S. stock index futures prices rose after the economic data. The dollar rose against the yen, and U.S. government debt prices extended their decline on the better-than-expected reports. Recessions in the United States are dated by the National Bureau of Economic Research and the private-sector group often takes months to make determinations. The economy slipped into recession at the end of 2007 and has been in the worst downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The third-quarter recovery was generally broad-based, with solid gains in consumer spending, exports and home construction. It was also driven by government programs like the popular discount on some new motor vehicle purchases, which stimulated auto sales and production, and a $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers. The auto discount program ended in August and the home tax credit is due to expire next month. In the absence government support, there are fears that the sprouting economic recovery could falter, with rising unemployment also inflicting damage. Consumer spending, which accounts for over two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, surged at a 3.4 percent rate in the third quarter, the fastest advance since the first quarter of 2007. Spending fell at a 0.9 percent rate in the previous quarter. Residential investment, which was the main force behind the downturn, jumped at a 23.4 percent rate in the third quarter, contributing to GDP for the first time since 2005, after declining 23.3 percent in the April-June period. The surge in consumer spending and residential investment was likely driven by government stimulus programs. The economic recovery in the third quarter was also supported by a sharp moderation in the pace of inventory liquidation by business. Business inventories fell $130.8 billion, slowing from a record $160.2 billion plunge in the second quarter. The change in inventories added nearly 1 percentage point to real GDP in the third quarter. Analysts are hoping that the slowdown in the inventory decline by businesses will continue to support the economy in the fourth quarter, even as consumer spending is expected to retreat under the weight of the worst labor market in 26 years. Excluding inventories, GDP rose at a 2.5 percent rate compared to a 0.7 percent increase in the second quarter. The weak dollar boosted exports, but a rise in imports subtracted from real GDP during the quarter. Federal government spending contributed to growth, but both state and local governments were a drag. Business investment fell at 2.5 percent pace, with investment nonresidential structures dropping 9 percent, a reflection of ongoing problems in the commercial property market. A separate report from the Labor Department showed the number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless benefits dipped by 1,000 last week to 530,000 last week. Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast claims to fall to 521,000 last week from 531,000. Continued claims of people still on jobless aid after an initial week of benefits slid by 148,000 to 5.797 million in the week ending October 17. It was the lowest reading since March. Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Economy-Grows-In-3Q-But-Is-It-Sustainable.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Hiring-Retention-Bill-of-2009.html I cannot seem to post bills at this time so I am posting this as a blog. Please feel free to comment. THE SMASHEY HIRING/RETENTION BILL OF 2009 MISSION: The Smashey Hiring/ Retention Bill of 2009 seeks to make incentive for good, viable businesses to hire and retain new employees, spurring job growth and helping the economy and the American public. This bill seeks to accomplish it's mission through the following manner: * Provide every business, with a viable and strong balance sheet, a $2,800 tax credit for each full time employee hired that is retained for at least one calendar year. * Each business will have to provide legal documentation of each employee hired including but not limited to - photo I.D., 1-9 documentation, pay and hours worked records. * Upon providing legal documentation regarding each individual employee hired and retained, said business can apply for the $2,800 tax credit which will be applied to the next fiscal year proceeding the employees one year anniversary of employment. This bill is designed to provide an incentive to hire new employees instead of cutting costs to drive stock price. The largest controllable expense any business has is payroll. The cost cutting has helped the stock market but hurt the employment of millions of Americans. This in turn hurts revenue to the federal government and results in borrowing and printing of money as well as an increase in debt, deficit, taxes and inflation. We believe the key to America's economic success is employment. This bill seeks to spur job growth and to assist in the economic recovery of all Americans and the country as a whole. Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Hiring-Retention-Bill-of-2009.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/A-Good-idea-From-Obama-IF-and-only-if-There-Are-No-Strings-Attatched.html "These are the very taxpayers who stood by America's banks in a crisis, and now it's time for our banks to stand by creditworthy small businesses and make the loans they need to open their doors, grow their operations and create new jobs," Obama said. "It's time for those banks to fulfill their responsibility to help ensure a wider recovery, a more secure system and more broadly shared prosperity," said Obama. The President said the administration will "take every appropriate step to encourage them to meet those responsibilities." He did not specify what those steps might be. Those were the words of President Obama in his radio address. Sounds good. Small businesses need loans and capital to expand and create jobs. I can not and will not disagree with that. It seems on the surface that someone in the White House is finally understanding the the road to economic recovery is paved with jobs. But are there strings attatched to the small businesses that take loans from banks who received bailout money? We are all very aware, as are the companies that took federal bailout or stimulus money (see GM's 'former' CEO), that taking and spending those funds came with strings attatched. Strings that allow the federal government to dictate pay, jobs, facilities, production, etc. at the 'behest' of the taxpayers. Some of the strings were tied to necessity, some were tied to nothing. Banks are still failing and bankruptcies still happening in companies that took the government golden egg. CEO's were fired from the oval office and profitable dealerships shut down. Many jobs were still lost and control over some companies fate went from their shareholders to the government. The price you pay for doing business with the taxpayer money and a government bent on control. As I read the transcript of the Presidents address I was optimistic that maybe finally the light bulb went on over someone's head. I also remain skeptical because once again, they offer no specifics on how to make it happen. Being both optimistic and skeptical creates a new word, "Optikal". I relate it to the saying "I will believe it when I see it". But for a brief moment I will at least have hope that this is a job creation gesture and not a move for more control. Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/A-Good-idea-From-Obama-IF-and-only-if-There-Are-No-Strings-Attatched.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Ignorance-Is-Bliss.html With all of the talk of economic "recovery" there is one underlying factor that keeps getting pushed under the rug by our leaders and ignored by us. The article below is the best one I have read so far outlining the impending issues our economy faces despite the talk of "recovery": Ignorance Is Bliss By Peter Schiff Published 10/17/09 While all the talk at present is about economic corners turned and markets charging ahead, no one is paying much notice to an American economy deteriorating before our eyes. These myopic commentators seem to be simply moving past the now almost-universally held conclusion that before the crash of 2008, our economy was on an unsustainable course. If these imbalances had been corrected, then perhaps I too would be joining in the euphoria. But evidence abounds that we have not veered at all from that dangerous path. Last week, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that consumer spending as a percentage of U.S. GDP has risen to 71%, a post-World War II record. This level is notably higher than other wealthy industrialized countries, and vastly higher than the levels sustained by China and other emerging economies. At the same time, our industrial output is contracting, our trade deficit is expanding once again (after contracting earlier in the year), and our savings rate is plummeting (after an early year surge). The data confirms that government stimuli are worsening the structural imbalances underlying our economy. The recent ‘rebound’ in GDP is not resulting from increased economic output, but merely from the fact that we are borrowing more than ever. That is precisely how we got ourselves into this mess. An economy cannot grow indefinitely by borrowing more than it produces. Not only is such a course untenable, but the added debt ensures a deeper recession when the bills come due. This soon-to-be-called depression will not end until the pendulum of consumer spending habits swings violently in the other direction. This will be a jarring change, but it is the splash of cold water that we need to return our economy to viability. I believe that consumer spending as a share of GDP will need to temporarily contract to roughly 50% of GDP, before eventually moving toward its historic mean of 65%. Such a move would indicate a restoration of our personal savings, a decline in borrowing and trade deficits, and an increased industrial output. That would be a real recovery. In the meantime, the higher the spending percentage climbs, the more painful the ultimate decline becomes. Consumers and governments must spend less so their savings can be made available to businesses for capital investments. Businesses, in turn, will produce more products and employ more people — increasing domestic prosperity. However, rather than allowing a painful cure to return our economy to health, the government prefers to numb the voting public with a toxic saline-drip of deficit spending and cheap money. The primary factor that enables our government to peddle economic snake oil is the dollar’s unique role as the world’s reserve currency, and our creditors’ willingness to preserve its status. By buying up dollars and loaning them back to us through Treasury debt, productive countries give American politicians carte blanche to play Santa Claus. Ironically, as foreign governments finance our spending spree, they are simultaneously scolding us for our low savings rate. At the recent G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, all agreed — including President Obama — that resolving the global economic imbalances was a top priority. By definition, this would require Americans to spend less and save more. However, with foreign central banks continuing to buy our debt, the President has shown no political will to encourage this change. Normally, if politicians run up the government deficit, voters soon suffer the unpleasant consequences of higher inflation and rising interest rates. Yet, if foreign central banks keep supplying the funds, these consequences are indefinitely postponed. As a result, there is no need for American politicians to ever make the tough choices required to solve our problems. Instead, the burden may fall squarely on the citizens of those governments doing all the lending. The conflict is that within the creditor states, a vocal minority actually benefits from this subsidy (owners of Chinese exporters, for example) while the overwhelming majority fails to make the connection. Thus, foreign politicians have the same incentives as ours to keep playing the game. The bottom line is that foreign governments can lecture us all they want about the need for prudence but if they keep lending, we’ll keep spending. Any parent knows that if you give your child a curfew yet never impose any penalties when it’s violated, it will not be respected. My gut feeling is that foreign governments are tiring of our conduct and on the verge of finally imposing some discipline. That means the dollar’s days as the world’s reserve currency are numbered, and the days of American austerity are about to begin. Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Ignorance-Is-Bliss.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Harry-Reid-Uses-The-New-Math-In-Responding-To-Polling-Numbers.html I try and refrain from posting the works of others but this was too good to pass up. Harry Reid, despite trailing in all polls I could find, touting that he is 'polling well' in his re-election bid. If anyone can find a reputable poll that has him winning the general election please feel free to correct my blog but I couldn't find one in the land of Google. October 15, 2009 Categories: Reid: "All of my polling numbers are good" Harry Reid, who in a tough re-election fight, was asked today if he thinks his recent focus on health care in DC will cost him his job in Nevada -- and responded with the surprising assertion that his poll numbers are "good." "I don't answer hypothetical questions. Everything is going well," said Reid, despite recent public polls showing him trailing potential GOP opponents Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian by a significant margin. "As far as all the work we've done, all my polling numbers are good," said Reid, speaking in the Capitol. "All my polling numbers are good, and I'm doing the best I can for the people of this country and the people of Nevada." A Mason-Dixon Poll released last week found Reid trailing Lowden by a 49-to-39 percent margin; and trailing Tarkanian by a 48-to-43 percent margin. Reid might have been referring to unreleased internal campaign polls that reportedly show him leading all comers. Come on Harry. Do you actually think that people are THAT stupid? Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Harry-Reid-Uses-The-New-Math-In-Responding-To-Polling-Numbers.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Wynning-Proposition.html I have never been a fan of Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts Las Vegas, but during a recent interview he hit the nail on the head in describing the incorrect focus of the government in regards to actually 'stimulating' the economy: "I think that the priorities of the administration should have been more directly focused on job creation. From the day of the inauguration forward, the priority should have been job creation. And the most powerful weapon and the tool that the government has for that is its tax policy. If the government had used its power to restrain its tax collection they would have given everybody who runs small businesses, large businesses, a chance to hire more people and that could have been done an entirely different way. With eight or $900 billion we could have created four or five million jobs, which would have made a big difference." "I'm saying that the source of government revenue, the source of well-being in this country is employment. That allows companies to pay taxes, employees to pay taxes. That's the source here and it's gotten out of focus." "Government has never increased the standard of living of one single human being in civilization's history. For some reason that simple truth has evaded everybody. The only thing that creates an increased standard of living is giving someone a job, the demand for their labor -- whether it's you and I, Chris, or anybody else. The people that are paying the price for this juggernaut of federal spending are the middle class and the working class of America." "And soaring rhetoric and great speeches with or without a teleprompter aren't going to change the truth, and the truth is: The biggest enemy, the biggest obstacle that working middle-class America has is government spending." How true will that last quote ring in the near future. With unemployment continuing to rise, revenue continuing to fall and the government continuing to spend, print and borrow at a record pace, there will be only 1 way out. A tax increase for each and every American. Can the middle class afford a tax increase in current conditions? I don't think so. How strange that in these economic times a man who employs 20,000 people in a state with the second worst unemployment rate, and who self-insures 150,000 employees family members, is the only one that seems to get it. But of course when 'saving' jobs is your priority, you probably didn't get it fromthe start. Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Wynning-Proposition.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/The-Erock-Joker-Act-of-2009.html The Erock/Joker Act Of 2009 The Erock/Joker act of 2009 is an act designed to raise the value of the dollar through attrition and a big ass bonfire. The Erock/Joker Act of 2009 will be carried out in the following manner: 1. The Federal Reserve will recall all monies printed since 2007 equal to the amount spent on the TARP act, the Omnibus spending bill, the bank bailouts, the GM and Chrysler bailouts and purchase and the stimulus bill. 2. Those funds will then be stacked no higher than 2 stories on the second Tuesday of every month in front of the Washington Monument. 3. Nancy Pelosi will wear a joker mask (or at least paint her face) while members of Congress wear Erock masks and sing "nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, Goodbye". 4. Speaker Pelosi will then hand a lit match to the weekly winners of each runoff on U4Prez to throw on the pile of money, igniting it into a large bonfire. 5. U4Prez members will then commence to have a large marshmallow roast and drink beer while congress continues to wear Erock masks and sing. *The Erock/Joker Act of 2009 in no way implies that Erock is a joker. That is to be implied by individual members only. It does however imply that the Speaker of the House and Congress are jokers. Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/The-Erock-Joker-Act-of-2009.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Obama-for-Heisman.html Now before the left gets all bent out of shape about this let me start by saying it was not President Obama's fault that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this morning. What it does do however is show that the nomination process, which ended a mere 2 weeks after he took office, is more of a political process than an actual award for those who work for peace. It is under that premise that I hereby begin a write in campaign for President Obama to be awarded the Heisman Trophy. He did about as much to win the Heisman as he did to get nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in the 2 weeks after his nomination or during the campaign leading up to it, so I figure I have a shot. I have sent an e-mail to the White House notifying them of my intentions and have asked that the President strike the Heisman pose every time he leaves the podium for the next 3 months. He may actually have a chance as the 3 front runners for the award are not really doing so well this season. Tebow is injured. Sam Bradford is injured and Colt McCoy isn't playing very well. I believe Obama may actually have a shot. Keith Olbermann used to work for ESPN and still does NFL work for NBC so I figure if I can get him on board, he can talk to the sports writers that vote on the award and get our foot in the door. Think about it, the President will be honored with the same award as Ernie Davis, Marcus Allen, Tim Brown, Tim Tebow, Bo Jackson and OJ Simpson! What an honor for all he has done in college football. Call your local sports desk. Call your neighbors. call the New York Downtown Athletic Club. Show your support for Obama for Heisman 2009! Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Obama-for-Heisman.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/The-Fish-Story.html 'Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.' Somewhere within the daily grind that is the entity of U4Prez, I saw this statement being debated within a blog thread. The debate was more of it's origins being biblical or not than the actual statement itself so I decided to take a look at the "Fish Story", as it was referred to, in relation to what it means in our time. Literally it makes sense. If you give a man a fish, he has food for that day. What happens past that is not known, but for that one day he has a fish to eat. If you teach him how to fish not only will he have a fish to eat but he will have the knowledge and skill necessary to catch another fish for the next day and beyond. Pretty simple concept and I believe undeniable in it's wisdom. In modern times the story gets related more often than not to our welfare system. The basic premise of our welfare system is a good one. Assistance to those who cannot physically do for themselves or who have fallen on difficult times due to circumstances beyond their control. I don't think there is anyone who disagrees with doing such. We need to help those who are unable to help themselves permanently as well as help those who have fallen on hard times until they can get back on their feet. Temporary assistance. The "Fish Story" as it relates however points out a grave flaw in our system. The loss of the word 'temporary'. Many of those who have lost their jobs have to rely on existing programs to pay the bills they no longer can afford. Many of them are very proud, hardworking people who just need a little help until they can once again find gainful employment to support themselves and their families. On the other side of those individuals are the individuals who could find gainful employment and are physically capable of doing so, they simply do not know where to start or are void of a marketable skill to do so. Then there are those that simply refuse to make an attempt. They are content with eating the fish they are given on a daily basis. I know the argument will be that "we need to help those people as well. We can't just let them starve." I agree with that statement totally. But the question we need to ask ourselves is are we actually helping them? As the "Fish Story" points out, are we helping them by merely giving them a fish to eat? Or would we be better served by teaching them to fish so they could help themselves? Some see giving them a fish as helping them. They are fed, they are alive. But is their standard of living any better? Did we help their quality of life by handing them a fish? Wouldn't a better form of help be to give them a fish while we are also teaching them how to catch their own? I believe the latter would be the better route. Why just help them eat when we could help them feed themselves and better their entire life, not just their stomachs? I have my own alternative to the "Fish Story" called "The Hole". If you found a family living in a hole would it be better to help them so that they could survive in the hole or would it be the better option to help them get out? Our current system allows them to survive in the hole. If we are serious about actually helping them we would stop using the bucket to lower them help into the hole and we would use the rope the bucket is tied to to try and pull them out of the hole. So ask yourself again, does the current system help? Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/The-Fish-Story.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Leading-By-Example.html Congressman John Fleming's House Resolution 615: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)and agree to enroll under that public option. Will it happen? Rep. Fleming's website has a list of those Representatives that have signed on to the resolution. If you read the names you will find one party is conspicuously absent. So if the advocates truly believe that the plan is the best for everyone why should there be any names absent from this resolution? Does it seem funny to anyone else that the names that are absent are all advocating the plan for you and I? Hmmmmmmm. Good enough to force on you but not quite good enough to sign on to themselves. And they wonder why public support is dropping. Could have something to do with a little thing called credibility. Rep. Fleming made the following statement to explain his resolution: "Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration's proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, I believe this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan. Under the current draft of the Democrat health care legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating. Together we will work to ensure that any plan that is good enough for American families is good enough for every member of Congress." Whether you are against the plan or are for it, it is very difficult to deny the Congressman's statement. There should be no hesitation to sign up for the plan if it is truly the best option for the American public. Or at least you would think so. To check out the resolution for your self: http://fleming.house.gov/images/FLEMING%20HEALTH%20CARE%20RESOLUTION.pdf Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Leading-By-Example.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Values-and-Ideology-In-America-And-The-Myth-Of-Bi-Partisanship.html Freedom. We have all used the word at one time or another to describe what the United States of America is about. "The land of the free..." as described in our national anthem. We have 'freedom of speech'. We have 'freedom of religion'. We have 'freedom of the press'. America is synonymous with the word 'freedom'. But exactly what is freedom? How does one define the word "free" and what leads us to accept our definition of freedom as the true meaning of the word? The answer to the question is a simple one. Our ideology does. Now I know there are those rare people out there who claim to have no ideology. They claim to vote issue by issue, beholden to neither side of the political spectrum. But what drives you to see the side of the issue you see? Everyone of us has a core set of values. Values that we base our decisions upon. Those values unequivocally drive us to choose one side of an issue or another. That is what molds our ideology. There is no such thing as the political center. There is left leaning and right leaning but the center is a fallacy that does not exist. Let me give you an example. You are either pro-choice or pro-life in regards to the abortion issue. There is no center on a single issue. You may have half left leaning values and half right leaning values but when you break it down issue by issue, there is no center. We all choose a side in regards to individual issues. Your core values that drives your ideology. Lets take a look at 2 separate ideologies in the perspective of defining the word "freedom". For the sake of argument lets look at it from the perspective of the Progressives and the Conservatives. I think it is safe to say that both ideologies dearly love America and truly want what they believe is best for the country. They both have different perspectives of the Constitution that drive those beliefs. Progressives believe that the Constitution is a living document and believe that the state can define rights and freedom on an as needed basis if it believes it to be for the better good of the group. Equality = Freedom. The Conservatives believe that the individual trumps the state and that the Constitution is a literal document meant to guide personal freedom and protect the individual from the infringement of his rights by the state. Personal Liberty = Freedom. Two ideologies, two definitions of freedom. Definitions driven by a perspective that was born from a set of core values each individual possesses. As I hear many people who claim to be 'in the center' talk about their beliefs I chuckle slightly and ask them about their stances on individual issues. There is no gray area in regards to that. Can you have half left and half right stances on the issues you hold dear? Yes you may but in regards to each individual issue, each of us has a perspective where the center doesn't exist. Try as some will to hold to the center as a whole, their beliefs on issues drive them to one side or the other. The myth that is bi-partisanship holds true to that statement. True bi-partisanship would be both sides agreeing on an issue. As we all know in Washington there is no agreement. Only trade offs. Quid- pro -quo. You scratch my back and i'll scratch yours. Each side has it's beliefs based on it's personal set of core values. True agreement can never be met. Only compromise. Not that compromise is bad. It is a great thing, but do not confuse compromise with bi-partisan agreement. Bi-partisanship is a word used by both sides to fuel the fire of division. You never hear of a true bi-partisan agreement. Only the 'want' of each side to reach one. Only if it weren't for the other side keeping it from happening. ;) Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Values-and-Ideology-In-America-And-The-Myth-Of-Bi-Partisanship.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Remember-This.html Remember this? President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries. “We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.” Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.” So what has the administration done since these revelations by President Obama that we cannot sustain the current path? Over the next decade, Obama's budget plans to borrow another $9 trillion ... more than doubling our national debt. This year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household. The breakdown goes something like this: about $17,000 from taxes and $13,000 from borrowing. That is an increase of 22% in federal spending this year and a record 26% of the GDP. So you are saying, "Ah well this is just an extraordinary year and Obama inherited Bush's mess and blah blah blah." Well Obama's budget permanently keeps spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it was under George Bush. Now don't get me wrong. Bush spent like a frat boy in a liquor warehouse with his daddy's platinum AMEX card. I did not support that spending and I will not support this spending. However I will support the notion that it is time for President Obama to man up and take some of the blame instead of placing it. While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the "stimulus" was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it stop the recession. This suggests that even if the President had not inherited a big deficit, he would have created one as a matter of anti-recessionary policy. The public national debt--$5.8 trillion as of 2008--is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined. The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush. Now i'm sure this blog will get attacked as a pro Bush economic policy piece. I assure you it is not. Once again, I did not support Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and it is a big reason for the (L) behind my name. What it does do is bring up the question of the Presidents fiscal policy. If you take the time to hold a "Fiscal Responsibility Summit" you would think one would practice some form of fiscal responsibility would you not? Blaming the previous administration is not a bad thing nor is it totally out of line. President Obama did inherit a debt and deficit. What is wrong about it is the failure to point out he has expanded on it since his "Fiscal Responsibility Summit". Republicans did not practice fiscal responsibility during the Bush administration. They ran up an unparalleled debt and deficit while preaching they were the fiscally responsible party. That is, unparalleled until now. While the current administration may want to blame the previous for the current fiscal debacle and rightly so to an extent, it must also realize it is one in the same if not a little more so. Preaching responsibility and practicing it are 2 different things. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and the current administration has no business invoking the mistakes of the latter when it is running at breakneck speed to overtake it. Both sides can preach all they want. Practice is what lends credibility. Something our government has been lacking for a while. Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Remember-This.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/So-Are-Conervatives-Greedy-Rich-Old-White-Men-Or-Poor-Ignorant-Hillbilly-Hicks.html Ah, the name game. We have all played it at one time or another. Lost our cool and fallen into the trap of just lashing out at someone by calling them less than desirable things. Libby is exceptionally adept at it and has come up with some of the best. Let's be real here, no one can compete with him. But Libby's profanity laced rants aside, why can't anyone decide what to label conservatives? It's one thing to use different profane words to describe someone but lately I have seen them getting referred to as complete polar opposites. Is it that hard to choose one side or the other? On one hand you hear conservatives referred to with the old Democrat favorite - "Greedy, rich, old white men." The rich man always trying to keep the middle class and poor man down. Vote for us we are working for you and not for tax cuts for the rich. They just want to steal your money through their greedy corporations and tax shelters. They keep getting richer while you keep getting poorer. On the other hand you hear them referred to as "poor, ignorant, hillbilly hicks". They don't know what they're talking about. They are clinging to their guns and religion. They are uneducated rednecks who don't know what's best. So my question is.......which one is it? Are conservatives the greedy, rich old white man or the poor, ignorant hillbilly? I mean, they can't be both. At least not in all aspects. I guess they all always have a couple of things in common. They go to church, are racist, and listen to talk radio but other than that you are trying to label them as two totally separate entities. I mean i'm sure there could be some, but i've never met a greedy, rich, ignorant, poor, old hillbilly white man. And I live in Arkansas. Shit, I forgot Bill Clinton. Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/So-Are-Conervatives-Greedy-Rich-Old-White-Men-Or-Poor-Ignorant-Hillbilly-Hicks.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/A-Few-Questions-That-Remain-Regarding-Health-Care.html In watching the Presidents speech last night I heard some very good points. The covering of pre-existing conditions. Not allowing insurers to drop you if you get sick, etc. I was also left with some of the same questions I had before he began. As we have many bright liberal minds on this site who are advocates of the health care bill the President wants passed, I will pose my unanswered questions again in the hope of maybe finally getting some answers. 1. The President, as many on this site as well, failed to address the rationing concerns held by the public. The question he did not answer was: How will this system keep from rationing care when 47 million (he dropped it to 30 million last night) new people are injected into the system without a proportionate amount of caregivers being injected as well? There are many estimates from the AMA and others that place our current health care provider shortage at 20,000 and rising. How will we not have the waiting lines and rationing of care that exist in other similar systems when we already have a shortage of caregivers? Simple question, can't get an answer. 2. In your proposal to fine businesses 8% of their payroll if they do not provide health care options to their employees, how do you explain that the rolls for the public plan will not grow, hence growing the cost, if the businesses health care expense is above 8% of their payroll? Simply, if it costs them less to pay the 8% fine, and they drop their employee plans, how will the cost not rise with all of the unforseen workers that were once covered, entering the public system? Simple question, no answer. 3. How specifically does mandating everyone carry some form of coverage actually drive down costs? If it is mandatory is it actually competition? Did auto rates fall when some states made it mandatory for all drivers to carry auto insurance? Simple question, no specific answer. These are just some of the questions I was left with after the Presidents speech. He did address some concerns although again not with specifics, but he did address them. The opening statement was very good and in true Obama style he delivered it well. The same can be said about his summation. Very motivational and inspirational words. He always delivers those well and for that I give him kudos. So he had the beginning. He had the end. But the middle still left many questions. The same questions that made August a very trying month for the Democrats. He had the 2 pieces of bread, but the body of the sandwich didn't have much meat. Just a little peanut butter that was left stuck to the roof of my mouth. The President may get a small bump amongst those that already support him and his plan. However, he failed to answer the questions that were posed by those who are unsure about his plan. Without specifics, I am unsure if the blue dog democrats that are holding the bill back will feel good enough to change their minds as the President didn't say much to change the minds or answer the questions of their constituents. Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/A-Few-Questions-That-Remain-Regarding-Health-Care.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Where-Were-You.html Where were you when you heard about the WTC attacks on 9/11/2001? Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Where-Were-You.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Dick-Morris-Is-Only-3-Weeks-Behind-But-That-s-OK.html The fundamental question that the Obama Administration has never answered is a simple one: How can they treat 50 million new patients with no extra doctors? A new report from the American Association of Medical Colleges underscores the urgency of this concern. The Association notes that the United States now suffers from a shortage of 15,000 doctors - a shortfall that is expected to grow to 125,000 in fifteen years. And, the Association reports, if universal health insurance is passed, the shortage will grow to over 150,000 by 2025. While the number of elderly people in the U.S. is expected to grow by 60% over the next decade and a half, the number of doctors will increase by only about 6%. (Total U.S. population will rise by about 17% over the same period). This shortage of doctors will, inevitably, lead to the rationing of medical care, more quickly and drastically if the Obama plan is passed. In Massachusetts, where universal health coverage was enacted under Governor Mitt Romney in 2006, the Medical Society found that the number of patients who reported difficulty in getting care has already risen by 50% up to a quarter of the patient population. The New York Times reports that "a main reason for the logjam was long waiting times for appointments." In 1949, when President Harry Truman first proposed mandatory health insurance, he coupled his initiative with an expansion of federal aid to medical schools. But Obama makes no provision for an expansion of the pool of doctors, even as he grows the population of patients by up to 50 million. Indeed, by cutting medical fees by dropping the reimbursement rates under Medicare, he likely will hasten the retirement of many medical professionals worsening the underlying shortage. The Times quotes medical experts as predicting that the three years specified in the House bill as the time by which universal health insurance coverage will take effect "is not nearly enough time to build the supply of doctors needed to care for the additional tens of million of people who would become newly insured." Because there will not be enough doctors, nurses, and medical equipment for the massive influx of patients under the Obama plan, there will be rationing, more draconian year after year. As in Canada, it is this fundamental discrepancy between the number of patients and the population of doctors that will lead to rationing. From there, the inevitable consequence will be cutbacks in care for the elderly. Optional procedures, vital to quality life but not to survival, are likely to be limited. Hip replacements, new knees, hearing aids, and such are less and less likely to be approved. And, medical administrators will be less likely to OK surgery or expensive medical treatments for the elderly who they perceive to be at the end of their "quality" years. It is the shortage of doctors, not any specific language in the text of the legislation, that makes rationing and the so-called "death panels" cited by Sarah Palin inevitable. We all agree that everybody should have health insurance, but let us precede this step by expanding the number of doctors and nurses so that we can cover everyone without sacrificing the care for anyone. Otherwise, we are not giving 50 million new people medical care. We are consigning 300 million, and particularly the elderly among them, to long waiting lists. Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Dick-Morris-Is-Only-3-Weeks-Behind-But-That-s-OK.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/I-Want-Proof-Of-Created-Or-Saved-Jobs.html As the new jobless claims came out with a much higher than expected increase to 9.7%, Vice President Joe Biden was touting a claim at the same time that the stimulus package has "created or saved" 1 million jobs. Damn, 1,000,000 is a LOT of jobs. I thought the number of 216,000 jobs lost last month was a big number but 1 MILLION "created or saved"? Wow. With a number like that you would think jobless claims would be falling or at least stagnant. Within those 216,000 jobs lost I actually saw statistics pointing to where they were lost. Which industries were responsible for cutting the workforce and by how many. As I searched for some form of statistical evidence to the Vice President's claim that the stimulus had "created or saved" 1,000,000 jobs I came upon a fact I found to be very strange......there isn't any statistical evidence to back up his claim. I thought to myself, ok, maybe you aren't looking in the right place. I checked the Dept. of Labor. Nothing there. The Bureau of Labor Statistics? Nothing. Treasury department? Nothing there either. Department of Commerce? Not one statistic. So I ask you Mr. Biden, with all due respect, where the hell do you get the numbers that you go on tv and use to tout the success of your stimulus package? I sure can't find them anywhere. I know I don't have the access to the type of communication systems that you do as the Vice President, but I just can't find them anywhere. But i'm sure you will go on using these numbers every moth that a new jobless report comes out. Never mind that no one -- not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- actually measures "jobs saved." As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama's jobs claims are "based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs". Oh, so now I get it. There is no way to actually know if you "created or saved" 1 job, let alone 1,000,000. Next month maybe try having some statistics as to exactly where you "created or saved" these jobs with your stimulus money. Hell, last month I hired 10 people and didn't let any of my current staff go so I guess I can claim that I "created or saved" 110 jobs last month. And I did it without using any taxpayer funds. Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/I-Want-Proof-Of-Created-Or-Saved-Jobs.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Why-Can-They-Not-Just-Answer-The-Questions.html You see it happen at town halls time and time again. A citizen asks a question and a legislator gives a vague answer or none at all. The citizen gets upset and the legislator wonders why. The advocates of the plan wonder why there is outrage against it and the public wonders why they can't get answers. Well the same happens on U4prez. I have posed 2 specific questions to proponents of UHC and/or NHC over 10 times on this website. Specific answers received - ZERO. There is the one advocate of the system who just flat ignored me and acted as if he didn't see the question. At least he has an excuse that maybe, just maybe he didn't see it after it was posted 3 times in a thread during a debate and once on his comments page, but you never know. Another said he needed time to read the question and 'promised' to get back with me. A week later when I confronted him again his answer was that he didn't have time to answer questions from people he didn't even know and we were all ignorant hicks. A third advocate of the system answered that if doctors didn't do face lifts for 'rich cunts' or something to that effect, we would be ok. Cool, I guess we will start letting plastic surgeons do triple bypasses. So there you have it, 3 advocates of some form of UHC, NHC or single payer plan......Zero answers to honest questions. So here we go. I'm gonna try it one more time in blog form. Didn't work well for MDuminiak but i'll give it a shot: 1. How does the government keep from having to ration care when it injects 40 million new people into the system without injecting a proportionate number of caregivers and facilities to meet the increase in demand? 2. If the government has to ration care because of the above reason what is the difference between them rationing it because of supply and demand, and the insurance companies rationing because of price? In short, is no from the government the same as no from the insurance company? So there you have it. 2 specific and simple questions about a proposed UHC/NHC/single payer health care system. Any bets on whether I get specific answers? Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Why-Can-They-Not-Just-Answer-The-Questions.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/I-Agree-With-Imagine-Let-The-Bi-Partisanship-Go-On-The-Healthcare-Bill.html I just read Imagine's blog and I have to tell you, I agree with him. President Obama needs to pass his health care reform without any bi-partisan support what-so-ever. I mean come on, the Democrats don't actually NEED any Republicans to vote on the bill. They have enough votes to pass it on their own. They got a mandate in 2008, remember? They could just take it and ram it through by themselves. All the glory of passing this great piece of legislation will belong to the Democrats. America will be happy and they will cement their power for decades to come. I mean come on, if it is the single greatest reform one could pass to help America wouldn't you want to take all the credit for it if you could? What's the holdup? If this bill is so fantastic why not just give it to us? Screw the Republicans. You don't need them. Lay it on us! Give us the great health care reform that lies within it's over 1000 pages. Pass it without them and change the scope of every Americans health care for the better. It's a gold mine. Be the heroes. If this bill is as great as you are telling us it is then take charge. If it is so fantastic you should never get voted out of power. I mean come on, why would we vote out the party that passed the greatest health care bill in the world? It's all there for your taking. just do it and TAKE ALL THE CREDIT! Unless of course you are worried about having to take all the blame? Hmmmm? Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/I-Agree-With-Imagine-Let-The-Bi-Partisanship-Go-On-The-Healthcare-Bill.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Reality-Check.html In honor of my good friend Ron Sawyer. Killed in action in Afghanistan on Tuesday, August 25th. RIP. Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Reality-Check.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/If-There-Is-No-Tort-You-Must-Abort.html With the finger of the public on the pulse of healthcare reform, Americans have been inundated with news shows, talk shows, reports, townhall meetings and blogs regarding the Obama administrations proposed health care reform plan. As should be expected when a plan of this magnitude is proposed, many arguments have been made and many questions have been raised regarding the specifics of the plan. I have heard many questions the most prevailent being: How are we going to pay for a plan of this scope? Who will make the decisions that effect my health and quality of life? What will happen to my private insurance? And the list goes on and on. Every news anchor, talk show host, political pundit and politician has weighed in with thier resons why we must take a closer look at the plan before pushing it through the congress. "It will add to the debt and increase the deficit". "Who will want to pay for a private plan if there is a free one?" Bureaucrats will be making health decisions instead of doctors." "Private insurance companies will go out of business.", and that doesn't even touch the surface of the arguments I have seen regarding the plan and the concerns it raises. All good points and cause for taking a closer look but I had yet to hear one very important question regarding the plan. That is until today. As I was making the 8 hour trip home from my class reunion this afternoon I finally heard one man address the issue that I had yet to hear. I did not catch his name or even catch what show he was on, but what I did catch as I was hitting the scan button on my radio were the 2 words I had been waiting to hear. Tort reform. The backers of the Presidents hetlth care reform plan have thier own ideas as to why our health care costs are high. Most however lead to the word they love to throw around when they don't do thier homework, "Greed". Greedy doctors, greedy insurance companies, greedy employers. All trying to make billions of dollars off the poor and un-insured. Is there greed in the world? Yes there is. But is it a valid excuse as to why the costs are so high? No it is not. If those who love the word "Greed" want to lay that label at the feet of anyone when it comes to the high cost of medical care they need to research more deeply and lay it where it needs to be. At the feet of those who allow out of control lawsuit awards to prevail. Until there is tort reform there can be no health care reform. Lets face it, one good thing about the proposal is that more Americans will be covered and able to go to the doctor. But with that comes the chance that more lawsuits will be filed. With that comes the chance that more lawyers will manipulate the system to get multi-million dollars awards for thier clients and a larger percentage for themselves. With that comes the chance that premiums for malpractice insurance (already $40,000 to $60,000 annually)will go up as well. How many doctors will be able to stay in business if that happens? Far fewer that we already have, and with more Americans seeking care that is a recipie for disaster. So as the battle rages on regarding health care reform we have to ask ourselves, are we asking the right questions and is the reform covering all aspects of why the costs are high to begin with? Or are we simply laying the blame and playing the greed card at the feet of those who directly set the costs without thinking about those who are indirectly involved in the price of our health care. One thing is for sure, the cost of this proposal will be high. But not as high as it will be if it does not address tort reform first. Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/If-There-Is-No-Tort-You-Must-Abort.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Debunking-the-Obama-Blame-Game.html And so it goes in the big town of D.C. - When a policy is questioned or a bill has difficulty passing through or public sentiment falls there can be only one strategy: The Blame Game So when President Obama tripped on his sprint to the finish line of health care reform due to a very loud and very public outcry for answers to looming questions, he shifted to a new strategy. Rather than examine the public’s concerns, the plans’ inconsistencies or the sheer irresponsibility of trying to ram something this big and complicated through Congress without reading it, the administration is pointing many fingers. And the list of culprits is no big surprise. First there are the town hall protestors. When liberal activists, including Acorn, MoveOn.org and Code Pink, protested against anything and everything President George W. Bush said or did, it was called grassroots democracy. When conservative groups encourage supporters to attend town hall meetings and question their congressmen, it’s called un-American, disruptive and the work of right- wing extremists. Not grassroots but astroturf. Where was Nancy Pelosi when President George W. Bush was being compared to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis? She was a “fan of disrupters” in those days, as she told anti-war protesters at a January 2006 town hall meeting in San Francisco. She must have developed this thin skin when the Democrats took control of the government. Next in line is Sara Palin. The recent governor of Alaska and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate, created a controversy with a reference to death panels on Facebook. Palin said she didn’t want her parents or Down-Syndrome baby to “have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide” what kind of medical care should be allocated to these less productive members of society. Is this the same Sarah Palin whose foreign policy experience was summed up by Democrats during the campaign by her ability “to see Russia from land here in Alaska.”? Is this the same Sarah Palin credited with changing the terms of the debate? According to the Democrats she isn't smart enough to do that. What gives? Besides, there’s a kernel of truth in what she said. Like all goods and services, medical care is a scarce resource that must be rationed. The only question is how: by the market (price) or by government mandate. If government is doing the rationing, what exactly will they use to determine who gets what care and who doesn’t? And then the is the Media. WHAT? The president, defending the White House’s fishing expedition for “fishy” e-mails on health-insurance reform (suspended this week by popular demand), blamed the media for “distorting what’s taken place.” Again, WHAT? Is this the same media that was in the pocket for Obama and waltzed us through the honeymoon? Sorry Barack but you have no idea what it means for the media to distort what’s taken place. The long-gone Bush administration is getting more negative press than you are, STILL. Last but certainly not least is the insurance companies. Demonizing insurance companies does resonate with the public. After all, these are the faceless bureaucrats who deny or pay claims in a seemingly arbitrary manner and refuse or cancel coverage if you cost them too much money. The President makes a good and believable argument that insurance companies are gouging the American public. The big, bad, evil profit mongers. If insurance companies were gouging the public, the evidence would show up in one of two places, according to Graef Crystal, a compensation expert in Santa Rosa, California: excessive executive pay or excessive returns to shareholders. His analysis of five major health insurers shows just the opposite: below-market pay and below-market shareholder returns. “There’s no case here for undue enrichment of shareholders” or over-compensating CEOs, Crystal finds. I don't think you will find an argument against the fact that health care needs a major overhaul, but that’s no reason to make scapegoats out of insurance companies with false rhetoric. Why not address tort reform in the insurance industry? Or would that not be good for the Democrats trial lawyer voting block and donation base? And then there is the truth: Opposition to fast-track health-insurance reform is coming from Obama’s own party. Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and one of six Finance Committee members involved in bipartisan negotiations, said on Fox News Sunday that the goal is to “get this right,” not meet some “specific timetable.” And he is not the only one. The House has a 40 seat majority. More than enough to pass any bill. The Senate has a 60 seat, filibuster proof majority and does not require one single GOP vote to pass whatever it wants. The President doesn't need public sentiment on his side if he wants the bill passed. He doesn't need the media either. According to his party, Sara Palin is too stupid to do anything so she's a non-factor. He doesn't need the insurance companies either. His public option would pretty much kill them anyway. The truth is he needs his own party on board. They have the votes to do what they want....if they ALL wanted to do it. Time to place the blame for his health care quagmire where it actually belongs - Squarely on the shoulder of the Democrats. After all, didn't they win? Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Debunking-the-Obama-Blame-Game.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/The-Democrats-and-the-Nuclear-Option.html With the health care debate still at a fever pitch, the Democrats are swaying every which way in order to save a health care reform bill that has seen a drop in public support. According to a summation of the latest NBC/WSJ poll: A plurality believes Obama’s health plan would worsen the quality of health care, a result that is virtually unchanged from last month’s NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. What’s more, only four in 10 approve of the president’s handling of the issue, which also is unchanged from July. And a majority — 54 percent — is more concerned that the government will go too far in reforming the nation’s health care system, while 41 percent is more worried that the reform will not do enough to lower costs and cover the uninsured. With public discourse at town hall meetings making some Democrats weary of passing the legislation in the face of a re-election bid, the White House threw out the idea of dropping the public option in favor of more voter friendly 'insurance reform'. Though a bit more popular with the American public, talk of dropping the public option has fueled anger from the far left progressive base, many of whom voted for the President on the basis of his activist roots. This has led to talk of a 'nuclear option' in the Senate, which admits it doesn't have the 60 votes to block a almost certain filibuster. This 'nuclear option', known as reconciliation, allows certain legislation to pass the Senate with a 51 member vote. Most legislation in the Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but certain budget-related measures can pass with 51 votes through a parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation. In recent days, Democratic leaders have concluded they can pack more of their health overhaul plans under this procedure. They might even be able to include a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers, a key demand of the party's liberal wing, but that remains uncertain. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the key decision-maker on whether to use the tactic, but several congressional aides said White House officials are being kept abreast of the talks. "We will not make a decision to pursue reconciliation until we have exhausted efforts to produce a bipartisan bill," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid. "However, patience is not unlimited, and we are determined to get something done this year by any legislative means necessary." So despite falling support amongst the American public could the Democrat leadership be willing to ignore the voice of the majority of Americans and force unpopular legislation through using a parliamentary tactic? It appears they are at least leaving that option open. As Democrats continue to use the word bi-partisanship in passing legislation it begs one simple question. If they have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, why would they need to use Reconciliation to pass a bill? The answer is they wouldn't if they had full support from members of their OWN party. Does it really have to do with bi-partisanship if you are willing to force it through anyway? You can decide that for yourself. But will using Reconciliation reconcile with the American public in 2010? That is the big question and one the Senate Majority Leader may be willing to risk, along with some seats in blue dog states. Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/The-Democrats-and-the-Nuclear-Option.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Is-HR-3200-Dead.html Now this is change. President Obama late last week hit the stump to press the issue on the dying support for his health care plans. One observation I made was that he had changed his verbiage from 'health care reform' to 'insurance reform'. Was it a signal that he had changed his plans on having a public option in the health care bill? On the surface it seemed so. Leading Democrats began saying that the public option was never the most important part of the legislation. HHS Secretary Katherine Sebilius said it. Dick Durbin said it. President Obama said it. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated he doesn't have the Democrat support in the Senate to pass it. On the other side, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said that the House will not pass a bill that doesn't include the public option. So in lies the big question. What will happen to HR 3200? The House seems destined to pass the legislation that the Senate admittedly doesn't have the votes to pass in it's current form. The Senate Finance Committee is attempting to work out some form of insurance co-op in lieu of the public option but as Friday has pointed out, that is still government control of the industry and will unlikely have anymore support as it did in it's original packaging. Republicans signaled Tuesday that dropping the public option would not garner additional GOP backing. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the second-ranking Senate Republican leader, criticized an alternative idea of creating a private insurance cooperative, calling it a "Trojan horse" that was effectively the same as the public option. The Democrats have enough votes in the Senate to pass any legislation they wish without any support from across the aisle. But even with a filibuster proof majority are finding it difficult to gain support amongst their own party to do so. The current polling showing support for the plan wavering and the prospect of re-election looming in the face of unpopular legislation has the Democrats in a tight situation. A situation which may have them scrapping their own bill or face a growing constituency of unhappy voters in 2010. Either way HR 3200 is now fully owned by the Democrats. What they decide to do with it has yet to be seen but it will definitely remain at the forefront heading into Sept. and beyond. Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Is-HR-3200-Dead.html http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Is-A-Compromise-On-The-Horizon.html As I watched the President's town hall meetings this week I made one observation that perplexed me. He had changed his verbiage from referring to "Health Care Reform" to calling his plan "Insurance reform". Could he be hinting that the scope of his plans have changed? Could Democrat's be preparing to dump the public option? Jettisoning the public plan has always been one option, and even Obama has signaled for weeks that he would consider alternatives to a government insurance plan, which moderate Democratic senators have yet to embrace and nearly all Republicans oppose. And in the face of public resistance to Obama’s plans, some top Democrats have begun to talk more openly about the possibility of compromise on a bill. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)said twice this week that he was open to dropping the public plan to pass a bill. “We are determined to get a bill to the floor. It doesn't have to be a perfect bill. I don't want this process filibustered to failure,” he said. White House health reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle said recently the president was willing to study replacing the government-run plan with non-profit insurance cooperatives – a compromise under consideration in the Senate Finance Committee. In two town halls so far, Obama has spent far more time talking up the need to reform the insurance system than making a full-throated pitch for the public insurance option. On Friday in Montana, the president praised Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) – whose bill is almost certain to go with consumer cooperatives over the public option. Obama mentioned Baucus eight times during the town hall meeting in Belgrade, Mont. A congressional source said, “Democrats can count to 60 and know that what plays in blue states doesn't always play across America. Everyone has learned the lesson of the failures of Hillarycare and knows that getting health care done is more important than drawing a line in the sand.” Indeed, the whole notion of a public plan makes some moderate Democrats so nervous that they won’t even talk about it. Asked whether he supports the public option, Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb said, “Depending on what else is in, yeah I do at the moment. I don’t want to talk about it anymore.” So does the change in the Presidents verbiage mean a compromise is looming? It will remain to be seen but his focus in his recent town halls and his change in wording leave a lot of questions on the table. The biggest one being, is the public option on the shelf? Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26137_Page2.html#ixzz0OI8MXgaS Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:00:00 EST http://www.u4prez.com//Blogs/smashey/Is-A-Compromise-On-The-Horizon.html