http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_re_us/seat_belt_laws
At least the government finally admits what we have known all along--traffic laws are not about safety, but about squeezing even more money out of law abiding citizens.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Friday, November 7, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Top Stories
After browsing Yahoo Financial, I noticed a little section entitled, "Top Stories."
Such phrases were present as:
"Wall Street tumbles..."
"Rapid response to crisis..."
"Bank meltdown..."
"Financial shield..."
These truly are turning into some scary times for everyone.
http://biz.yahoo.com/top.html
Such phrases were present as:
"Wall Street tumbles..."
"Rapid response to crisis..."
"Bank meltdown..."
"Financial shield..."
These truly are turning into some scary times for everyone.
http://biz.yahoo.com/top.html
Sunday, September 21, 2008
3 Percent!!!
"3 percent in the poll said they would support someone else"
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/09/21/news/breaking_news/doc48d5b05a90f91577330741.txt
Must have been no option for the third party voters such as *cough* Bob Barr *cough*.
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/09/21/news/breaking_news/doc48d5b05a90f91577330741.txt
Must have been no option for the third party voters such as *cough* Bob Barr *cough*.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Government take-over
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now under control of the government.
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/09/07/news/breaking_news/doc48c4445632064440291992.txt
After a long day of work, I get home, fire up the internet and read this...
"The Bush administration announced Sunday it was taking control of the two institutions to avert the potential for major financial turmoil."
The first thing that I could think of was...wow we really are on our way to Socialism.
These were two privately owned businesses that are now under complete control of our government. My new career goal is to create a trillion dollar business, do whatever I want and then if I ever make a mistake, the government will step in to help me out! Wow, what a business model.
"Both companies were placed into a government conservatorship that will be run by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the new agency created by Congress this summer to regulate Fannie and Freddie. The executives and board of directors of both institutions are being replaced."
I wonder what other companies will be put under control of our government?
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/09/07/news/breaking_news/doc48c4445632064440291992.txt
After a long day of work, I get home, fire up the internet and read this...
"The Bush administration announced Sunday it was taking control of the two institutions to avert the potential for major financial turmoil."
The first thing that I could think of was...wow we really are on our way to Socialism.
These were two privately owned businesses that are now under complete control of our government. My new career goal is to create a trillion dollar business, do whatever I want and then if I ever make a mistake, the government will step in to help me out! Wow, what a business model.
"Both companies were placed into a government conservatorship that will be run by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the new agency created by Congress this summer to regulate Fannie and Freddie. The executives and board of directors of both institutions are being replaced."
I wonder what other companies will be put under control of our government?
Friday, August 29, 2008
McCain fights inexperience with inexperience
John McCain has announce his VP running mate:
Sarah Palin....
what? who?
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/08/29/news/top_story/doc48b80db69010d962639386.txt
Thoughts?
Sarah Palin....
what? who?
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/08/29/news/top_story/doc48b80db69010d962639386.txt
Thoughts?
Thursday, July 31, 2008
I.O.U.S.A.
As has been widely reported, Congress last week passed H.R. 3221, a "comprehensive" housing bill, with our favorite fiscally irresponsible 4th District representative voting in favor of it. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will cost about $37 billion next year, and it provides $25 billion over the next two years in "relief" for failed semi-governmental institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, the CBO states that the cost of this "bailout" for Fannie and Freddie could be as high as $100 billion. These estimates do not even include the $300 billion that the bill authorizes the Federal Housing Administration to spend on guaranteeing loans through 2011. This bill ultimately could cost as much as $500 billion.
Never mind the considerable cost of the bill and the borrowing it will entail at a time when the Administration projects the budget deficit next year to be near $500 billion. Or the fact that, by allowing Fannie and Freddie to purchase mortgages as high as $625,000 and giving borrowers and lenders alike a free ride, the bill will do absolutely nothing to address the problems in our mortgage markets and our financial markets in general. The real shame about this horrendous piece of legislation is a provision that has absolutely nothing to do with mortgages at all, but does have everything to do with the most pressing economic issue we face. The bill increases the public debt ceiling, which is the amount of debt that the government can "legally" have, to $10.6 trillion.
This limit has had no real meaning historically, as Congress has increased it periodically from $43 billion in 1940 to now $10.6 trillion. This trend over time reflects an absolute lack of willingness of our representatives in Washington to stop increasing spending at such a blinding rate and to make the hard decisions necessary to reduce the debt and prevent the economic collapse it will bring if left unchecked. In addition to the economic issue at hand, the debt and the conscious increasing of its limit by our representatives is a moral issue. In pushing more and more of the costs of their excesses on to future generations, our representatives, including David Price, show themselves to be individuals of truly repugnant moral character.
But while our representatives are to blame for their behavior, we the people are to blame for electing them and not holding them accountable for their behavior. Much of this is likely due to what appears to be a genuine lack of concern for the debt, as a recent Pew Research Poll finds that deficits rank behind the economy, education, jobs, health care, energy, Social Security and Iraq. What many voters fail to realize is that most of these issues are directly tied to the deficit and our future fiscal outlook, particularly the health of the economy. It is absolutely essential that voters learn about deficits, debt, our long-term imbalances, and their horrifying consequences, so that we may elect responsible representatives who will take action to resolve what has truly become a crisis.
Thankfully, we have a golden opportunity before us to educate voters on the issues. Documentary films have shown to have tremendous impact in raising awareness and public profiles of issues, and a new documentary about the debt will be released in August. The film is appropriately titled I.O.U.S.A. and will be debuting on August 22. There will be a special screening the night before on August 21, which will be accompanied by a live discussion featuring former Comptroller of the Currency David Walker, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffet, and Blackstone Group Chairman and former Commerce Secretary Peter Peterson. As the trailer states, "You can't afford to miss this film."
Never mind the considerable cost of the bill and the borrowing it will entail at a time when the Administration projects the budget deficit next year to be near $500 billion. Or the fact that, by allowing Fannie and Freddie to purchase mortgages as high as $625,000 and giving borrowers and lenders alike a free ride, the bill will do absolutely nothing to address the problems in our mortgage markets and our financial markets in general. The real shame about this horrendous piece of legislation is a provision that has absolutely nothing to do with mortgages at all, but does have everything to do with the most pressing economic issue we face. The bill increases the public debt ceiling, which is the amount of debt that the government can "legally" have, to $10.6 trillion.
This limit has had no real meaning historically, as Congress has increased it periodically from $43 billion in 1940 to now $10.6 trillion. This trend over time reflects an absolute lack of willingness of our representatives in Washington to stop increasing spending at such a blinding rate and to make the hard decisions necessary to reduce the debt and prevent the economic collapse it will bring if left unchecked. In addition to the economic issue at hand, the debt and the conscious increasing of its limit by our representatives is a moral issue. In pushing more and more of the costs of their excesses on to future generations, our representatives, including David Price, show themselves to be individuals of truly repugnant moral character.
But while our representatives are to blame for their behavior, we the people are to blame for electing them and not holding them accountable for their behavior. Much of this is likely due to what appears to be a genuine lack of concern for the debt, as a recent Pew Research Poll finds that deficits rank behind the economy, education, jobs, health care, energy, Social Security and Iraq. What many voters fail to realize is that most of these issues are directly tied to the deficit and our future fiscal outlook, particularly the health of the economy. It is absolutely essential that voters learn about deficits, debt, our long-term imbalances, and their horrifying consequences, so that we may elect responsible representatives who will take action to resolve what has truly become a crisis.
Thankfully, we have a golden opportunity before us to educate voters on the issues. Documentary films have shown to have tremendous impact in raising awareness and public profiles of issues, and a new documentary about the debt will be released in August. The film is appropriately titled I.O.U.S.A. and will be debuting on August 22. There will be a special screening the night before on August 21, which will be accompanied by a live discussion featuring former Comptroller of the Currency David Walker, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffet, and Blackstone Group Chairman and former Commerce Secretary Peter Peterson. As the trailer states, "You can't afford to miss this film."
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
America: A nation of debt
Yesterday, newspapers and wire services across the country reported that the U.S. government's deficit is expected to surge to an astounding half-trillion dollars next year. Here's the kicker. That figure doesn't include billions more dollars that will likely, nay most definitely, be spent on the Iraq War. And if the economy doesn't pick up, that figure will undoubtedly grow even bigger as Washington officials try to correct our economic woes by pumping artificial money into the hands of unsuspecting Americans.
Folks, this is big. We are facing the largest deficit in terms of dollar amounts in U.S. history and no one seems to care -- at least our presidential candidates don't seemed shaken by the bleak news.
Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain are proposing any budget cuts. Rather, Obama is promising to expand social programs, health care and education initiatives. McCain is promising tax cuts across the board and will keep troops in Iraq. Without budget cuts in other sectors, both candidates' campaign platforms are a recipe for disaster.
Officials reported yesterday that the record high deficit is being driven by the economic downturn and the government's attempt to boost the economy by providing 130 million households with stimulus checks. What the mainstream media has failed to mention is some of the other reasons why the Land of the Free is up to her ears in debt.
Who do you think is bailing out all those mortgagors hit hard by the tumbling housing market? What about the failing banks? The corporations who made bad investments?
Well, obviously it's the government bailing these people out. Wrong. You are bailing those people out! Yes, that's right. You, the taxpayer. Your tax dollars, my friends, are going to pay for the mistakes, irresponsibility and misjudgment of others.
When will the madness stop? Will the government soon start footing the bills for compulsive shoppers who are months behind on their credit card payments? This sounds absolutely absurd of course and rightfully so.
Our politicians need to realize that there is no "quick fix" to this economic recession. Printing more money doesn't solve our financial problems. While it may create more physical money, it decreases the purchasing power of what's in our wallets.
Spending billions of dollars that we don't have is only going to worsen our predicament, not aid it. You don't have to be an economist to figure that out.
Folks, this is big. We are facing the largest deficit in terms of dollar amounts in U.S. history and no one seems to care -- at least our presidential candidates don't seemed shaken by the bleak news.
Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain are proposing any budget cuts. Rather, Obama is promising to expand social programs, health care and education initiatives. McCain is promising tax cuts across the board and will keep troops in Iraq. Without budget cuts in other sectors, both candidates' campaign platforms are a recipe for disaster.
Officials reported yesterday that the record high deficit is being driven by the economic downturn and the government's attempt to boost the economy by providing 130 million households with stimulus checks. What the mainstream media has failed to mention is some of the other reasons why the Land of the Free is up to her ears in debt.
Who do you think is bailing out all those mortgagors hit hard by the tumbling housing market? What about the failing banks? The corporations who made bad investments?
Well, obviously it's the government bailing these people out. Wrong. You are bailing those people out! Yes, that's right. You, the taxpayer. Your tax dollars, my friends, are going to pay for the mistakes, irresponsibility and misjudgment of others.
When will the madness stop? Will the government soon start footing the bills for compulsive shoppers who are months behind on their credit card payments? This sounds absolutely absurd of course and rightfully so.
Our politicians need to realize that there is no "quick fix" to this economic recession. Printing more money doesn't solve our financial problems. While it may create more physical money, it decreases the purchasing power of what's in our wallets.
Spending billions of dollars that we don't have is only going to worsen our predicament, not aid it. You don't have to be an economist to figure that out.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Help the President with Law Enforcement! Stop the Feds from Criminalizing Everything
I have an old metal sign, framed and hung on my office wall.
It says: Help the President with Law Enforcement! Repeal the 18th Amendment....for Prosperity!
Lots of stuff is illegal just because it happens to be against the law. Or to paraphrase the old gun slogan: If everything is criminalized, then all citizens will be criminals.
Interesting conference at Heritage; MP3 here.
Thanks to William G. Atwell, Prison Fellowship Ministries, for sending it along.
But...I have to ask: Ed Meese? Ed MEESE? I accept that big Ed has it right on the federalism (return police power to the states) issue. But yikes.
By itself the pure "return power to the states" perspective is only a half measure, or quarter measure. Here is my view.....
The ideal is self-ownership, and self-responsibility. I drink too much, I have an accident, I owe very large restitution, and since I committed violence, I go to jail. I have violated, egregiously, my promise not to initiate violence against others.
In most matters, I would like for the "policy" choices (say, do we smoke marijuana?) to be "local." Meaning, I decide for me, and you decide for you. My mind decides for my body. That's local control.
Once politics gets into it, then I start deciding for you, and you start deciding for me. Not good, but less is better. Better if these choices are local, made at the small town level than at the county level. Better at the county level than the state level. And better at the state level than the federal level. And better at the federal level than at the North American Union level. (EEK!)
So, sure, moving from the fed level down to the states is a small improvement (although the states abused that right in Jim Crow, and resisted basic human rights for blacks for decades).
But the real problems is criminalizing everything. It's not FEDERAL criminalizing everything, it's making crimes of consensual behavior at ANY level. Moving from fed to state control simply makes it easier to get some states to do the right thing, the opposite of Madison's argument in Federalist #10.
I don't see that it matters that much if you are in fed prison, or a city jail. In both cases, you might as well free your mind, 'cause your ass ain't goin' nowhere.*
Help the President, the Governor, the Mayor, and the traffic cop with law enforcement. Get rid of a bunch of laws.
(*Plagiarized from Jon Stewart)
It says: Help the President with Law Enforcement! Repeal the 18th Amendment....for Prosperity!
Lots of stuff is illegal just because it happens to be against the law. Or to paraphrase the old gun slogan: If everything is criminalized, then all citizens will be criminals.
Interesting conference at Heritage; MP3 here.
Thanks to William G. Atwell, Prison Fellowship Ministries, for sending it along.
But...I have to ask: Ed Meese? Ed MEESE? I accept that big Ed has it right on the federalism (return police power to the states) issue. But yikes.
By itself the pure "return power to the states" perspective is only a half measure, or quarter measure. Here is my view.....
The ideal is self-ownership, and self-responsibility. I drink too much, I have an accident, I owe very large restitution, and since I committed violence, I go to jail. I have violated, egregiously, my promise not to initiate violence against others.
In most matters, I would like for the "policy" choices (say, do we smoke marijuana?) to be "local." Meaning, I decide for me, and you decide for you. My mind decides for my body. That's local control.
Once politics gets into it, then I start deciding for you, and you start deciding for me. Not good, but less is better. Better if these choices are local, made at the small town level than at the county level. Better at the county level than the state level. And better at the state level than the federal level. And better at the federal level than at the North American Union level. (EEK!)
So, sure, moving from the fed level down to the states is a small improvement (although the states abused that right in Jim Crow, and resisted basic human rights for blacks for decades).
But the real problems is criminalizing everything. It's not FEDERAL criminalizing everything, it's making crimes of consensual behavior at ANY level. Moving from fed to state control simply makes it easier to get some states to do the right thing, the opposite of Madison's argument in Federalist #10.
I don't see that it matters that much if you are in fed prison, or a city jail. In both cases, you might as well free your mind, 'cause your ass ain't goin' nowhere.*
Help the President, the Governor, the Mayor, and the traffic cop with law enforcement. Get rid of a bunch of laws.
(*Plagiarized from Jon Stewart)
Sunday, July 27, 2008
John McCain: Cold Warrior?
Ellen Goodman thinks McCain is stuck on Vietnam. While I think she has a good point, I think he's just stuck in an overall Cold War state of mind. He is constantly agitating towards Russia, even suggesting we kick them out of the G8, as if the Bush administration hasn't done enough of that by placing a missile defense system on their doorstep. This hasn't produced the best results - Russia recently declared its right to strike preemptively, Russian planes are making more regular and provocative flights near US ships, and there are rumors that Russia is going to start basing nuclear bombers in Cuba again. In addition to all that, the so-called foreign policy expert has shown that he might not really be as on top of things in the Middle East as he'd like us to think he is. For example, he completely botched the timeline of the Sunni Awakening and the Surge (after he'd already shown us that he doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites). He also seems to have forgotten his geography - he stated that there was an "Iraq-Pakistan border" in an interview recently (possibly a Freudian slip illustrating his plans to erase Iran?). And finally, he has shown disdain for the troops by opposing Senator Webb's GI Bill and advocating unequal and inadequate care for veterans depending on where they served.
McCain says he would only ever consider reinstating slavery in the case of World War III. You be the judge as to whether he might just be crazy enough (or senile enough) to start it.
UPDATE: Charley Reese has a good article on LRC today about McCain being unfit to be President. Lew posts this addendum from the blog as well.
McCain says he would only ever consider reinstating slavery in the case of World War III. You be the judge as to whether he might just be crazy enough (or senile enough) to start it.
UPDATE: Charley Reese has a good article on LRC today about McCain being unfit to be President. Lew posts this addendum from the blog as well.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Seriously, Rudy
Rudy Giuliani was featured today on one of the morning talk shows criticizing Barack Obama in an attempt to suck up to John McCain. Giuliani, seemingly eyeing up the vice presidency, praised McCain's position on his support for the surge of troops in Iraq. Rudy went on to say that if it were not for the surge there would probably be a civil war in Iraq. Hmm, does Rudy know what's been going on in Iraq the past few years? It looks pretty much like a civil war to me.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board
Here is an interesting letter I received today about my previous campaign:
"The attached documents were sent into the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board as they did not contain a "paid for by" attribution statement as required by Iowa Code section 68A.405.
At this point I would appreciate your written response to the following:
1. Did you pay for the costs of these materials?
2. If not, do you know the name and address of who did?
3. Is there any other response you would like to make to help resolve this matter?
...here is where it gets interesting...
At this point you are under no obligation to provide a response. If you prefer, I can seek a subpoena to obtain testimony or documents. If you do choose to respond, please be aware that the Board will review any such response when making determinations concerning this matter. I would appreciate your response or a statement that you prefer I seek a subpoena on or before August 7, 2008."
---------------
Apparently someone paid for a mailing in my name that was sent to Cedar Falls, Iowa voters. I did have a pamphlet that I had made with the help of campaign donations, it had the "appropriate insignia" on it.
Apparently people aren't allowed to practice the freedom of expression..."to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used."
Now granted I knew about the campaign disclosure laws, and had followed them. I am just kind of mad that some independent citizen or organization spent there hard earned money on dispensing a message, their message to fellow citizens.
If I know who it was I am supposed to cry foul to the state government.
Bah hum bug.
"The attached documents were sent into the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board as they did not contain a "paid for by" attribution statement as required by Iowa Code section 68A.405.
At this point I would appreciate your written response to the following:
1. Did you pay for the costs of these materials?
2. If not, do you know the name and address of who did?
3. Is there any other response you would like to make to help resolve this matter?
...here is where it gets interesting...
At this point you are under no obligation to provide a response. If you prefer, I can seek a subpoena to obtain testimony or documents. If you do choose to respond, please be aware that the Board will review any such response when making determinations concerning this matter. I would appreciate your response or a statement that you prefer I seek a subpoena on or before August 7, 2008."
---------------
Apparently someone paid for a mailing in my name that was sent to Cedar Falls, Iowa voters. I did have a pamphlet that I had made with the help of campaign donations, it had the "appropriate insignia" on it.
Apparently people aren't allowed to practice the freedom of expression..."to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used."
Now granted I knew about the campaign disclosure laws, and had followed them. I am just kind of mad that some independent citizen or organization spent there hard earned money on dispensing a message, their message to fellow citizens.
If I know who it was I am supposed to cry foul to the state government.
Bah hum bug.
Indoctrinate U
Check out this eye opening documentary film about the lack of diversity in opinion and politics in our American colleges and universities:
http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/welcome.html
The film even includes a few interview snippets from Michael Munger. Sign up and get this film screened in your college hometown!
http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/welcome.html
The film even includes a few interview snippets from Michael Munger. Sign up and get this film screened in your college hometown!
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Not a Dime's Worth of Difference
In case it wasn't hard enough to distinguish the policy differences between McCain and Obama, President Bush is doing all he can to neutralize the few foreign policy differences that exist between the two candidates. By accelerating the withdrawal of forces from Iraq and contemplating intervention in Darfur, President Bush may just be able to sever the MoveOn crowd from Obama (their relationship is already on the rocks because of Obama's sell-out on FISA). Given that the "Far Left" was Obama's foundation of support during the primaries, losing them may make McCain's life a lot easier. Just goes to show that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, and they'll do anything to stay in power.
Welcome, Emily!
Emily is a Journalism and Political Science Major at Ohio. She is currently interning at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. She's got a fantastic blog running, which I've added to my blog roll. I'm very excited to have her on board, as she is a talented and insightful writer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
