Maybe we citizens should get with the program and adopt today's prevailing political tactics. Under the Blagojevich Doctrine, if we must accept a tax cheat in charge of the IRS, we should get something juicy in return. Quid pro quo, right?
Beltway wisdom insists that Timothy Geithner, confessed tax cheat (he says he's sorry) and architect of the stupid TARP program, is "not just the best, but the only" choice for Treasury Secretary. Remember that TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) was/is the plan to open the tax dollar fire hose on the flailing economy to the tune of $870 billion. This was to get all the "toxic" mortgage loans off the market for awhile, restoring the US economy as a safe place for investors to play. Right.
Let me further get on your last nerve, dear reader, by reminding you that the original TARP budget was $750 billion but it didn't have the votes until enough legislators were brought on board with the siren song of an additional $110 billion or so in pork.
See how that works? "You need my vote? Sure. What's in it for me?"
So now Geithner is on track to be confirmed by the Senate to guide our economic salvation. There is so much wrong with that, I don't know where to begin. His father, Peter F. Geithner, heads the Asia program at the Ford Foundation in New York, which once employed Obama's mother.
As far as TARP goes, lots of reelection mojo is invested in the economy, so it is almost understandable that politicians would want to keep throwing your money at this problem until you decide to start spending and investing again.
But bailing out the same greedy jackals who bankrupted us is unjust and forestalls the inevitable, making it worse. Maybe Frank Borman said it best: “Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell.”
All that said, maybe citizens can accept Geithner under the right circumstances. But it should be worth something really, really nice. How about this?:
Get the IRS out of our lives, period. Abolish federal income taxes, both corporate and individual, forever. Corporations don't pay income taxes anyway; they only collect them with higher prices. Let's be sure and abolish the 16th Amendment, too, so the income tax is dead, dead, dead. Ditch the capital gains tax and payroll taxes, too. Whoever says the US tax system is "progressive" has no idea how much more payroll taxes hurt wage earners than salaried folk.
Now we still have to fund government services, so let's put a revenue neutral sales tax on all retail sales, just like the Texas Governor does. And, to ensure our new tax system is not a burden on the poor, let's offer each citizen a monthly rebate of all taxes on poverty level spending. That's right; now government sends YOU a check - every month.
Like this idea? Me too. You know who else likes it? Nearly every big job-producing CEO on the planet. Studies suggest that if the US replaced federal income taxes with a national retail sales tax it would recapture $12 trillion dollars in assets and good manufacturing jobs that our tax code previously chased overseas. Remember "Made in the USA?"
We wouldn't need TARP or the IRS either. Tax returns would evaporate into a bad memory. With a super-majority required to adjust the tax rate, lobbyists would have to find something constructive to do besides trade campaign contributions to Congress in exchange for tax loopholes. Of course lobbyists hate this idea.
The idea is called "The Fair Tax" (H. R. 25) and it's been languishing in the Ways and Means Committee for over a decade now, so call and ask Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) about it. Be aware that he may not have time to reply since he himself is being investigated by the House for tax fraud.
Trust me. The Fair Tax is the only thing that could possibly make it worthwhile to place a failed financial genius and tax cheat like Tim Geithner in charge of the Treasury Department. Quid pro quo.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Expose The Fed
The idea for the Federal Reserve Bank may have been hatched at a very secret and exclusive tycoon's retreat held on Jekyll Island in November 1910, but it was codified in 1913 under the Federal Reserve Act. By creating this private organization, Congress shunted its constitutional authority to print, mint and regulate US currency to an organization independently operated by a bunch of big, private banks.
This is what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802 about just such an arrangement:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Sound familiar? The Fed was created 17 years before the onset of the Great Depression expressly to avert that kind of financial calamity as well as the one we are in today. Despite that the Fed has repeatedly failed in its fundamental task, neither citizens nor their representatives in Congress are allowed to examine Fed operating records.
Congress fostered today's economic disaster by forcing banks to make mortgage loans to people who could not afford them. The Fed failed to detect and correct this financially incompetent policy as surely as the Securities Exchange Commission failed to scuttle Bernie Madoff's colossal Ponzi scheme.
So the "Troubled Asset Relief Program" was sold to taxpayers as an absolute necessity intended to excise these "toxic assets," such remedy to be dispensed by the Federal Reserve. But as soon as he got the TARP money, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke unilaterally changed his mind and simply threw hundreds of billions of US dollars at a bunch of banks. Who gave him the latitude to do that? Congress.
In December 2008 many of the TARP-fortified banks declined to say what they'd done with the money. About the same time, the Fed refused to divulge what happened to an additional two trillion US dollars, to whom it was lent and what, if anything, was accepted as collateral.
Now, right after China expresses concern about buying any more US debt, the Fed decides to print yet another trillion bucks, coincidentally on the very same day that Jimmy "Double-digit Inflation" Carter is photographed skulking out the back door of the White House. This trillion will be filtered into the banks through Treasury bills, bonds and mortgage-backed securities. I'm not sure how that works. It has something to do with water boarding the banks with cash until they agree to resume extending credit.
However, I do know that the national debt, squarely the responsibility of Congress and the Fed, now tops 11 trillion US dollars and must be repaid, literally, by generations of Americans yet to be born. Why? Because at 36,000 US dollars for every American soul alive today, no single generation could possibly pay off that debt themselves in the absence of slavery.
In a refreshing turn of events out of Washington, Rep. Ron Paul is sponsoring a bill, HR 1207, "The Federal Reserve Transparency Act," which seeks to open the Fed to Congressional oversight.
Dr. Paul says, "The Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments, and the GAO is prohibited from auditing or even seeing these agreements. Why should a government-established agency, whose police force has federal law enforcement powers, and whose notes have legal tender status in this country, be allowed to enter into agreements with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions with no oversight?" Why, indeed?
Signing this bill should be a litmus test for any federal official intent on reelection. And this should be only a first step toward rescuing our country from the utter debasement we are suffering at the hands of an amateurish government in bed with financial predators. Now that is the kind of change I could believe in.
This is what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802 about just such an arrangement:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Sound familiar? The Fed was created 17 years before the onset of the Great Depression expressly to avert that kind of financial calamity as well as the one we are in today. Despite that the Fed has repeatedly failed in its fundamental task, neither citizens nor their representatives in Congress are allowed to examine Fed operating records.
Congress fostered today's economic disaster by forcing banks to make mortgage loans to people who could not afford them. The Fed failed to detect and correct this financially incompetent policy as surely as the Securities Exchange Commission failed to scuttle Bernie Madoff's colossal Ponzi scheme.
So the "Troubled Asset Relief Program" was sold to taxpayers as an absolute necessity intended to excise these "toxic assets," such remedy to be dispensed by the Federal Reserve. But as soon as he got the TARP money, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke unilaterally changed his mind and simply threw hundreds of billions of US dollars at a bunch of banks. Who gave him the latitude to do that? Congress.
In December 2008 many of the TARP-fortified banks declined to say what they'd done with the money. About the same time, the Fed refused to divulge what happened to an additional two trillion US dollars, to whom it was lent and what, if anything, was accepted as collateral.
Now, right after China expresses concern about buying any more US debt, the Fed decides to print yet another trillion bucks, coincidentally on the very same day that Jimmy "Double-digit Inflation" Carter is photographed skulking out the back door of the White House. This trillion will be filtered into the banks through Treasury bills, bonds and mortgage-backed securities. I'm not sure how that works. It has something to do with water boarding the banks with cash until they agree to resume extending credit.
However, I do know that the national debt, squarely the responsibility of Congress and the Fed, now tops 11 trillion US dollars and must be repaid, literally, by generations of Americans yet to be born. Why? Because at 36,000 US dollars for every American soul alive today, no single generation could possibly pay off that debt themselves in the absence of slavery.
In a refreshing turn of events out of Washington, Rep. Ron Paul is sponsoring a bill, HR 1207, "The Federal Reserve Transparency Act," which seeks to open the Fed to Congressional oversight.
Dr. Paul says, "The Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments, and the GAO is prohibited from auditing or even seeing these agreements. Why should a government-established agency, whose police force has federal law enforcement powers, and whose notes have legal tender status in this country, be allowed to enter into agreements with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions with no oversight?" Why, indeed?
Signing this bill should be a litmus test for any federal official intent on reelection. And this should be only a first step toward rescuing our country from the utter debasement we are suffering at the hands of an amateurish government in bed with financial predators. Now that is the kind of change I could believe in.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Losing the War on Drugs
I think supporters of the War on Drugs must be, well, on drugs.
We can no more "defeat" controlled substances than Brer Rabbit could hope to subdue the tar baby. If governments were really serious about it, why not restrict hydrochloric acid imports into South American countries? You can't make cocaine without it.
A panel of three federal judges in Sacramento, CA recently ruled that prison overcrowding deprives inmates of adequate healthcare. The justices might reduce the prison population by up to 57,000 inmates, i.e., "open the gates."
The Justice Dept. says 52% of all federal inmates were sentenced on drug convictions. If you include people who were arrested drunk or stoned, or trying to get money for same, that number could be 80%.
Drug abuse impact outside the penal system is even worse. Consider an example from an LA Times series, "Mexico Under Siege." Santiago Meza Lopez was arrested as the "pozolero" (hole digger) who dissolved the bodies of victims for the Arellano Felix drug cartel. He admits packing 300 bodies into barrels of lye, casually concealing remains on a hillside outside Tijuana.
The powerful, diamond-studded hand of Mexican drug traffickers reaches far into our borders, deep into what we consider our "safety zone." Earlier this month, Starr County Sherriff Reymundo "Rey" Guerra was arrested for alleged participation in Mexico's Gulf Cartel. He would not be the first Sherriff to succumb to such temptations.
And if you haven't heard of the Zetas, eventually you will. According to Jane's Information Group, they are the armed forces of the Gulf Cartel, formed from "army defectors possessing considerable military expertise, training and experience in combat, guerrilla and urban warfare." The Zetas has declared war on our Border Patrol.
It may be optimistic to think Mexico is on the verge of collapse into a narco-state. The demise of the Mexican Republic may be a fait accompli that we retail news consumers just can't see yet.
Even the most conservative-minded among us must see that simple prohibition and imprisonment is not working. Prohibition only works if you can enforce it.
The Drug Enforcement Agency's Website provides plenty of cause for a sober review of US drug policy. DEA Stats & Facts says, "The amount of cocaine available in domestic drug markets appears to meet user demand in most markets, without observable shortfall." Meanwhile, DEA annual budget has increased more than 260% since 1991 from $875 million to $2.3 billion.
A long-term study, "Monitoring the Future" (linked on the DEA site), is operated by the University of Michigan. It suggests several prevailing trends: 1. Many, but not a majority of high school seniors try pot. 2. The great majority of 18-yr-olds disapprove of regular marijuana use. 3. Interdiction efforts are almost useless.
Comparing such data with DEA budgets since 1991 suggests that usage of all kinds of illicit substances, from alcohol to heroin, remains pretty flat no matter what taxpayers spend on law enforcement and swelling prison populations.
Try this for drug policy hypocrisy: Kellogg's "fired" Michael Phelps after a photograph of him smoking marijuana hit the press. What if it were a beer bong? Actually, in 2004, Phelps, then 19, was arrested for drunk driving. Kellogg's never balked at that, even though drunk driving consistently kills about 40,000 people in the US every year.
Wasn't organized crime the reason we amended the Constitution to reverse alcohol prohibition? What is the practical difference between consumption of alcohol and marijuana? Is that distinction enough to justify expending massive human and financial resources on interdiction programs that are ineffectual at best and possibly futile?
About 40% of US citizens over 18 have tried marijuana. That statistic stays pretty consistent year-to-year. Do we expect to change that or should we treat marijuana like alcohol and focus our attention on the 3% cocaine problem and the 1% heroin problem? If pot is a "gateway drug," which is debatable, can that be because pot dealers usually also offer harder substances?
2008 Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says we are incarcerating people who just need rehab. Whatever the solution, we must find a way to take the money out of the drug trade and stop funding organized crime. We should consider turning the DEA into the Drug Education Agency and diverting enforcement resources to border security before the alliance between drug cartels and terrorists gets too strong.
It is time to re-think our wrong-headed approach to drug abuse. The truth is, a War on Drugs can only be won by drug lords. We must accept that and act on it. Tell Congress to earn their pay and address drug abuse realistically.
We can no more "defeat" controlled substances than Brer Rabbit could hope to subdue the tar baby. If governments were really serious about it, why not restrict hydrochloric acid imports into South American countries? You can't make cocaine without it.
A panel of three federal judges in Sacramento, CA recently ruled that prison overcrowding deprives inmates of adequate healthcare. The justices might reduce the prison population by up to 57,000 inmates, i.e., "open the gates."
The Justice Dept. says 52% of all federal inmates were sentenced on drug convictions. If you include people who were arrested drunk or stoned, or trying to get money for same, that number could be 80%.
Drug abuse impact outside the penal system is even worse. Consider an example from an LA Times series, "Mexico Under Siege." Santiago Meza Lopez was arrested as the "pozolero" (hole digger) who dissolved the bodies of victims for the Arellano Felix drug cartel. He admits packing 300 bodies into barrels of lye, casually concealing remains on a hillside outside Tijuana.
The powerful, diamond-studded hand of Mexican drug traffickers reaches far into our borders, deep into what we consider our "safety zone." Earlier this month, Starr County Sherriff Reymundo "Rey" Guerra was arrested for alleged participation in Mexico's Gulf Cartel. He would not be the first Sherriff to succumb to such temptations.
And if you haven't heard of the Zetas, eventually you will. According to Jane's Information Group, they are the armed forces of the Gulf Cartel, formed from "army defectors possessing considerable military expertise, training and experience in combat, guerrilla and urban warfare." The Zetas has declared war on our Border Patrol.
It may be optimistic to think Mexico is on the verge of collapse into a narco-state. The demise of the Mexican Republic may be a fait accompli that we retail news consumers just can't see yet.
Even the most conservative-minded among us must see that simple prohibition and imprisonment is not working. Prohibition only works if you can enforce it.
The Drug Enforcement Agency's Website provides plenty of cause for a sober review of US drug policy. DEA Stats & Facts says, "The amount of cocaine available in domestic drug markets appears to meet user demand in most markets, without observable shortfall." Meanwhile, DEA annual budget has increased more than 260% since 1991 from $875 million to $2.3 billion.
A long-term study, "Monitoring the Future" (linked on the DEA site), is operated by the University of Michigan. It suggests several prevailing trends: 1. Many, but not a majority of high school seniors try pot. 2. The great majority of 18-yr-olds disapprove of regular marijuana use. 3. Interdiction efforts are almost useless.
Comparing such data with DEA budgets since 1991 suggests that usage of all kinds of illicit substances, from alcohol to heroin, remains pretty flat no matter what taxpayers spend on law enforcement and swelling prison populations.
Try this for drug policy hypocrisy: Kellogg's "fired" Michael Phelps after a photograph of him smoking marijuana hit the press. What if it were a beer bong? Actually, in 2004, Phelps, then 19, was arrested for drunk driving. Kellogg's never balked at that, even though drunk driving consistently kills about 40,000 people in the US every year.
Wasn't organized crime the reason we amended the Constitution to reverse alcohol prohibition? What is the practical difference between consumption of alcohol and marijuana? Is that distinction enough to justify expending massive human and financial resources on interdiction programs that are ineffectual at best and possibly futile?
About 40% of US citizens over 18 have tried marijuana. That statistic stays pretty consistent year-to-year. Do we expect to change that or should we treat marijuana like alcohol and focus our attention on the 3% cocaine problem and the 1% heroin problem? If pot is a "gateway drug," which is debatable, can that be because pot dealers usually also offer harder substances?
2008 Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says we are incarcerating people who just need rehab. Whatever the solution, we must find a way to take the money out of the drug trade and stop funding organized crime. We should consider turning the DEA into the Drug Education Agency and diverting enforcement resources to border security before the alliance between drug cartels and terrorists gets too strong.
It is time to re-think our wrong-headed approach to drug abuse. The truth is, a War on Drugs can only be won by drug lords. We must accept that and act on it. Tell Congress to earn their pay and address drug abuse realistically.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
What if Obama/Soetoro IS a usurper?
Apparently a lot of people think (or want to pretend) that no one could possibly ascend to power by fraud via Chicago politics. (!?)
WHAT IF...?
IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING POINTS IS TRUE, THEN BARACK OBAMA (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro) IS A USURPER, INELIGIBLE TO HOLD THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
WHAT IF...?
... anyone born with dual citizenship (as Barack Obama asserts) is not constitutionally eligible for President, even if born in the US?
... his legal name remains "Barry Soetoro," as shown on his Indonesian school records, because it was never legally changed back to "Barack Obama" after his Indonesian step-father adopted him?
... he did lie about is identity on his college applications?
... he did lie about is identity on his bar application?
... he did lie about is identity in each election he entered?
... the reason he is concealing the original "vault" version of his birth certificate is because it proves that he is not eligible to be President?
... the reason he is concealing his college records is because they prove that he is not eligible to be President?
... the reason no Hawaiian hospital will officially confirm that he was born there is because he was not born in any Hawaiian hospital?
... the reason no Hawaiian hospital proudly displays a plaque proclaiming "birthplace of Barack Obama" is because he was not born in any Hawaiian hospital?
... he was born in Kenya, as Kenyan family members and the Kenyan ambassador, Peter Ogego, have suggested?
Many US citizens legitimately suspect that at least one of the above points is true.
AGAIN, IF JUST ONE OF THESE POINTS IS TRUE, THEN OBAMA IS A USURPER.
And if Obama is a usurper, then every official action he has taken as President is INVALID and subject to reversal.
Suspicions of all these allegations remain at issue and were officially submitted to state and federal courts as well as members of the US House and Senate before the 2008 general election - but none of the points has been addressed on its merits.
So far, no one with the authority to enforce the Constitution's requirements has either demanded that Obama properly document his eligibility or agreed to swear that they have seen such documentation.
An original vault birth certificate and college records are historic biographical documents of the background of the alleged President of the United States. Why is such a simple thing as documenting our President's legitimacy being so ardently and widely avoided?
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND DEMAND THAT THE CONSTITUTION BE UPHELD BY THE RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS!
Monday, December 08, 2008
Natural Born Conundrum
By now the Supreme Court of the Unites States (SCOTUS) has conferred to consider whether to hear a growing number of claims that Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to become President. The Constitution says, "No Person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President." The only exception is those who were alive when the Constitution was signed.
There are more than a few opinions on this issue, partly because the courts have apparently never defined "natural born Citizen." For weeks the consensus among the media and various state and federal courts was that this claim didn't pass the kookiness sniff test.
The other end of the spectrum says something stinks. Some say Obama knowingly defrauded the public and was never even eligible for the Senate seat he recently resigned. The suit faults various state and federal officials for neglecting their duty to confirm candidates' eligibility.
One case, Berg v. Obama, questions Obama's birthplace. Obama says he was born in Hawaii. The suit says Kenya. If born in Kenya, Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements for President.
Obama's campaign has offered a scanned image of a short-form "certification of live birth" from Hawaii. This form does not name the attending doctor or hospital. Detractors say it is inadequate documentation for a passport or even a driver's license, much less the Presidency. Some suggest that the certification image itself is a forgery, demanding that only an original "vault" copy of a birth certificate should be considered.
Thus far, all witnesses on record, including Obama's paternal grandmother and Ambassador Peter Ogego of Kenya have asserted that Obama was born in Kenya. Obama refuses to provide his original birth certificate and has hired attorneys to have his birth, medical, and scholastic records sealed. Maybe Obama has concealed these records for good cause.
Berg, a life-long Democrat, claims that, even if Obama were born in Hawaii, he lost his US citizenship when he was adopted by his Indonesian step-father. His suit further asserts that Obama must have visited Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport, since Pakistan did not allow US citizens into the country at that time. If true, this indicates a possible dual citizenship problem for Obama.
Another case, Donofrio v. Wells, claims that Obama could not qualify as President even if he were born on the Washington Mall. Obama's father was a native of Kenya, a British colony at the time of Obamas' birth. Even Obama's camp agrees that Obama held dual citizenship at birth. If SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, they must decide whether "natural born Citizen" allows for dual citizenship. Donofrio further argues that a military base is not US soil but merely a US jurisdiction, meaning that McCain, born on a US military base in Panama, is also ineligible.
The easiest but perhaps worst outcome might be for SCOTUS to refuse this case since the issue is unlikely to just fade away. Our country could use some unity right now, especially a break from the "not my President" undercurrent of resentment that has marked these past eight years.
I hope and expect that SCOTUS will hear the case and resolve it based on the facts, giving no consideration for any potential social or political fallout and I'm confident that we citizens can handle that. SCOTUS ruled boldly when they decided that 100 years of segregation after the Civil War had been quite enough. That is the kind of courage and faith in American's sense of justice that we need right now.
There are more than a few opinions on this issue, partly because the courts have apparently never defined "natural born Citizen." For weeks the consensus among the media and various state and federal courts was that this claim didn't pass the kookiness sniff test.
The other end of the spectrum says something stinks. Some say Obama knowingly defrauded the public and was never even eligible for the Senate seat he recently resigned. The suit faults various state and federal officials for neglecting their duty to confirm candidates' eligibility.
One case, Berg v. Obama, questions Obama's birthplace. Obama says he was born in Hawaii. The suit says Kenya. If born in Kenya, Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements for President.
Obama's campaign has offered a scanned image of a short-form "certification of live birth" from Hawaii. This form does not name the attending doctor or hospital. Detractors say it is inadequate documentation for a passport or even a driver's license, much less the Presidency. Some suggest that the certification image itself is a forgery, demanding that only an original "vault" copy of a birth certificate should be considered.
Thus far, all witnesses on record, including Obama's paternal grandmother and Ambassador Peter Ogego of Kenya have asserted that Obama was born in Kenya. Obama refuses to provide his original birth certificate and has hired attorneys to have his birth, medical, and scholastic records sealed. Maybe Obama has concealed these records for good cause.
Berg, a life-long Democrat, claims that, even if Obama were born in Hawaii, he lost his US citizenship when he was adopted by his Indonesian step-father. His suit further asserts that Obama must have visited Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport, since Pakistan did not allow US citizens into the country at that time. If true, this indicates a possible dual citizenship problem for Obama.
Another case, Donofrio v. Wells, claims that Obama could not qualify as President even if he were born on the Washington Mall. Obama's father was a native of Kenya, a British colony at the time of Obamas' birth. Even Obama's camp agrees that Obama held dual citizenship at birth. If SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, they must decide whether "natural born Citizen" allows for dual citizenship. Donofrio further argues that a military base is not US soil but merely a US jurisdiction, meaning that McCain, born on a US military base in Panama, is also ineligible.
The easiest but perhaps worst outcome might be for SCOTUS to refuse this case since the issue is unlikely to just fade away. Our country could use some unity right now, especially a break from the "not my President" undercurrent of resentment that has marked these past eight years.
I hope and expect that SCOTUS will hear the case and resolve it based on the facts, giving no consideration for any potential social or political fallout and I'm confident that we citizens can handle that. SCOTUS ruled boldly when they decided that 100 years of segregation after the Civil War had been quite enough. That is the kind of courage and faith in American's sense of justice that we need right now.
Friday, November 28, 2008
How to count your blessings
Some of us may feel challenged to count blessings these days. In life's difficult moments I take a strange comfort from knowing that things can always be worse. Applying this practice with the slightest imagination makes blessings easy to spot. I'll illustrate:
Not too long ago, and certainly not long enough, I'm walking the dogs in the woods and notice Coonhound Bob has disappeared. This isn't unusual. After all, that's why we're there. Soon he comes trotting up, grinning and obviously pleased with himself. Bob stinks to high heaven and back. From his jowls to his flanks, Bob's coat bears a sickly green slime he has acquired from very ripe deer carcass.
I get queasy. As we head back to the car and I insist that Bob remain downwind. I get my lovely wife on the cell phone and gasp, "Bring the pickup. There's no way Bob is getting in my car."
Once home I begin dousing, scrubbing and cursing Bob in the yard while Lovely Wife starts dumping cans of tomato products into a blender. Though Bob gets fully treated he still stinks. I put two nylon leashes on him, each secured near the juncture of a chain link fence, his naughty nose pointed toward the corner to keep him stable and standing.
From the neighbor's house the tomato goop must look like we are field dressing the dog. Bob is left to contemplate his misbehavior while the tomato goop does its magic. I go in to check email.
Five minutes later Lovely Wife screams like she herself is being slaughtered. In the next room both she and Bob are frozen in time. Bob really hates to be chained, having used super canine strength to rip through both nylon leashes, he has entered the house through the dog doors. He is tip-toeing onto the white living room carpet beside the wood paneled walls where my prized big screen TV and home entertainment components and speakers are enshrined.
You can see the wheels turning in Bob's head. He's conflicted. He so wants to shake stinky tomato goop all over our vulnerable interior. However, he is confronted from across the room by Lovely Wife, silent and motionless as a statue, a cooking utensil in her hand and terror in her eyes. Someone carefully and forcefully commands, "No. Stay."
Here's where the elusive blessings come in. Sure, Bob's stench made me gag. And yes, he interrupted our afternoon in the most unpleasant way possible. On the upside, Lovely Wife and I have cell phones and a pickup, the neighbors did not report us for slaughtering our dog, and Bob's understands "no" and "stay," preventing him from strewing disgusting tomato goop onto countless valuable and difficult-to-clean surfaces.
Sometimes blessings are hard to find, but they are almost always there. If you will have a Thanksgiving dinner, that's a conspicuous start. If loved ones will share it with you, life doesn't get much better than that. In my personal situation, I live in a beautiful corner of a relatively free country, most folks I meet are friendly, kingfishers still find our river fit enough to skim it for dinner, and proper dog training inevitably pays off.
Happy Thanksgiving to us all!
Not too long ago, and certainly not long enough, I'm walking the dogs in the woods and notice Coonhound Bob has disappeared. This isn't unusual. After all, that's why we're there. Soon he comes trotting up, grinning and obviously pleased with himself. Bob stinks to high heaven and back. From his jowls to his flanks, Bob's coat bears a sickly green slime he has acquired from very ripe deer carcass.
I get queasy. As we head back to the car and I insist that Bob remain downwind. I get my lovely wife on the cell phone and gasp, "Bring the pickup. There's no way Bob is getting in my car."
Once home I begin dousing, scrubbing and cursing Bob in the yard while Lovely Wife starts dumping cans of tomato products into a blender. Though Bob gets fully treated he still stinks. I put two nylon leashes on him, each secured near the juncture of a chain link fence, his naughty nose pointed toward the corner to keep him stable and standing.
From the neighbor's house the tomato goop must look like we are field dressing the dog. Bob is left to contemplate his misbehavior while the tomato goop does its magic. I go in to check email.
Five minutes later Lovely Wife screams like she herself is being slaughtered. In the next room both she and Bob are frozen in time. Bob really hates to be chained, having used super canine strength to rip through both nylon leashes, he has entered the house through the dog doors. He is tip-toeing onto the white living room carpet beside the wood paneled walls where my prized big screen TV and home entertainment components and speakers are enshrined.
You can see the wheels turning in Bob's head. He's conflicted. He so wants to shake stinky tomato goop all over our vulnerable interior. However, he is confronted from across the room by Lovely Wife, silent and motionless as a statue, a cooking utensil in her hand and terror in her eyes. Someone carefully and forcefully commands, "No. Stay."
Here's where the elusive blessings come in. Sure, Bob's stench made me gag. And yes, he interrupted our afternoon in the most unpleasant way possible. On the upside, Lovely Wife and I have cell phones and a pickup, the neighbors did not report us for slaughtering our dog, and Bob's understands "no" and "stay," preventing him from strewing disgusting tomato goop onto countless valuable and difficult-to-clean surfaces.
Sometimes blessings are hard to find, but they are almost always there. If you will have a Thanksgiving dinner, that's a conspicuous start. If loved ones will share it with you, life doesn't get much better than that. In my personal situation, I live in a beautiful corner of a relatively free country, most folks I meet are friendly, kingfishers still find our river fit enough to skim it for dinner, and proper dog training inevitably pays off.
Happy Thanksgiving to us all!
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Failed Financial Geniuses
Five weeks ago Wall Street joined various federal officials in sounding a fire alarm to convince taxpayers to support more than $700 billion to buy up the bad mortgage loans that caused the economic mess we're in.
I am not old enough to remember the crash of 1929. I had to learn from history books not to borrow money to buy stocks. Too bad today's financial geniuses skipped those lessons. They leveraged bundles of bad loans to invest in other securities, diluting the value of the mortgage bundles and over-inflating the value of the other assets.
Now Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has changed his mind about how to use the bailout funds. Apparently Paulson figures the best thing to do is give the bailout money directly to the same failed financial geniuses who got us into this mess.
And now the Federal Reserve refuses to disclose what they did with more than $2 trillion in additional taxpayer dollars or to disclose what assets provide collateral for the loans. Bear in mind that Congress chartered the Federal Reserve in 1913 specifically to avoid exactly the same kind of massive bank failures we have seen in recent months. And now they refuse to account for two trillion dollars?
These reports come immediately after 80% taxpayer-owned AIG is caught trying to conceal a third post-bailout executive bash at a posh resort in Arizona which cost AIG, and therefore taxpayers, $334,000. AIG execs justify these lavish events by explaining, essentially, that this is how they are accustomed to doing things.
Meanwhile, since US auto manufacturers haven't managed to make competitive products for 20 years, Congress wants to open another bailout fire hose for them without even waiting for any bankruptcy filings.
Is it just sheer gall that qualifies these fat cats for their exalted positions? Will we bailout Hollywood next? Is there no pattern of brazenly irresponsible practices that our elected officials are not willing to reward at taxpayers' expense?
What about responsible citizens who lived within their means and planned for a future which has now been shredded by these failed financial geniuses? They didn't buy stock on margin, like the fools who caused the 1929 crash. What should prudent Americans learn from this? What can we do to avoid this kind of debacle in the future?
Some say, "Nothing; there's nothing we can do." But that is wrong.
The ultimate culprit here is Congress. Congress deregulated the financial industry, then strong-armed lenders to make risky loans to unqualified homebuyers. It is Congress which can't think of any solution that does not involve confiscatory tax rates and profligate spending. Congress gave Paulson the power to override Congress itself. Congress empowers the Federal Reserve (which is neither Federal nor a reserve) to defy the people's will for federal governance conducted with transparency.
Yes, we are another marathon two-year reelection cycle away from our next opportunity to toss these jackals out on their ear. Meanwhile, voters should begin now to invest time, talent and treasure toward building a third party into political viability to permanently eliminate any single-party majority. That is our lesson. That is the only way to ensure that the two major political parties cooperate to serve taxpayer's interests rather than those of big campaign contributors.
Until then, elected officials in Washington deserve all our calls and letters explaining how we feel about bailing out failed financial geniuses.
I am not old enough to remember the crash of 1929. I had to learn from history books not to borrow money to buy stocks. Too bad today's financial geniuses skipped those lessons. They leveraged bundles of bad loans to invest in other securities, diluting the value of the mortgage bundles and over-inflating the value of the other assets.
Now Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has changed his mind about how to use the bailout funds. Apparently Paulson figures the best thing to do is give the bailout money directly to the same failed financial geniuses who got us into this mess.
And now the Federal Reserve refuses to disclose what they did with more than $2 trillion in additional taxpayer dollars or to disclose what assets provide collateral for the loans. Bear in mind that Congress chartered the Federal Reserve in 1913 specifically to avoid exactly the same kind of massive bank failures we have seen in recent months. And now they refuse to account for two trillion dollars?
These reports come immediately after 80% taxpayer-owned AIG is caught trying to conceal a third post-bailout executive bash at a posh resort in Arizona which cost AIG, and therefore taxpayers, $334,000. AIG execs justify these lavish events by explaining, essentially, that this is how they are accustomed to doing things.
Meanwhile, since US auto manufacturers haven't managed to make competitive products for 20 years, Congress wants to open another bailout fire hose for them without even waiting for any bankruptcy filings.
Is it just sheer gall that qualifies these fat cats for their exalted positions? Will we bailout Hollywood next? Is there no pattern of brazenly irresponsible practices that our elected officials are not willing to reward at taxpayers' expense?
What about responsible citizens who lived within their means and planned for a future which has now been shredded by these failed financial geniuses? They didn't buy stock on margin, like the fools who caused the 1929 crash. What should prudent Americans learn from this? What can we do to avoid this kind of debacle in the future?
Some say, "Nothing; there's nothing we can do." But that is wrong.
The ultimate culprit here is Congress. Congress deregulated the financial industry, then strong-armed lenders to make risky loans to unqualified homebuyers. It is Congress which can't think of any solution that does not involve confiscatory tax rates and profligate spending. Congress gave Paulson the power to override Congress itself. Congress empowers the Federal Reserve (which is neither Federal nor a reserve) to defy the people's will for federal governance conducted with transparency.
Yes, we are another marathon two-year reelection cycle away from our next opportunity to toss these jackals out on their ear. Meanwhile, voters should begin now to invest time, talent and treasure toward building a third party into political viability to permanently eliminate any single-party majority. That is our lesson. That is the only way to ensure that the two major political parties cooperate to serve taxpayer's interests rather than those of big campaign contributors.
Until then, elected officials in Washington deserve all our calls and letters explaining how we feel about bailing out failed financial geniuses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
