RINO charge

(originally posted January30, 2008)

The stampede has begun!

Slow at first but now picking up steam. More and more RINO's are publicly backing McCain now that Giuliani - an avowed moderate - dropped his half hearted run and endorsed McCain.
The Governator is the latest big name politician to jump in bed with McCain. Not really unexpected because like McCain and Giuliani, Arnold is an overall moderate, albiet he leans further right than Maverick and Rudy.

I don't dislike these politicians because they don't follow GOP dogma, neither do I. But as a conservative I hate to see the only viable alternative to a conservative party abandon the principles I agree with.

Liberals, with the help of their winged monkeys, the main stream media, are dictating who our candidate for President should be. If McCain wins the nomination the media will be clamoring over the end of "conservative stranglehold" on the Republican party and how control of the GOP has "finally" returned to moderates.

Of course moderate Republicans are also referred to by the unflattering term RINO, or more accurately as Democrats. Self proclaimed moderates like McCain, or populists like Huckabee, are not conservatives. And while they may think that they are conservative at heart they display liberal tendencies... and being "a little liberal" is like being "a little pregnant."

Sometimes politicans have to compromise what they want to reach an accord, and that may mean finding a middle ground. But McCain and Huckabee don't just look for a compromise, they turn their back on conservative principles and endorse liberal, big government, tax and spend, amnesty, open borders policies.

Ron Paul is now the most conservative Republican running, but his isolationist, bring every troop home now platform, coupled with his looney toon conspiracy theories make him a non-starter.
If McCain wins the nomination the media will try their best to make conservative a dirty word, and for good cause. 23 of the 33 Senates seats up for re-election are currently held by Republicans. If the party does not stay true to their conservative values there will be no coattails for any Senate candidate to ride. And of course all House seats are up for election meaning the Congress and the White House could be controlled by liberals.

More food for thought, chances are Stephens is going to retire at the end of the next Supreme Court term. I predict he will wait until either the very end of Bush's term or the day after to announce his retirement. Stephens is a liberal, activist justice and the person who wins the White House probably be nominating his replacement. Ginsberg and Souter are also reaching retirement age as well, Scalia and Kennedy are only a few years behind them, so it is possible that the next president, if he/she wins 2 terms could be making 3 to 5 appointments.

The RINO's are looking at a Republican winning the White House... conservatives see it is not the party, but the person, that is important. The RINO's are thinking electability, conservatives know that values and a strong message will get the candidate elected. Liberals, Democrats, and RINO's worry about winning at all costs, conservatives understand the principles and responsibilities of the office.

This is not the homecoming king or queen getting elected, it's not about the most popular or even the most likable, it is about who will be the next President of the United States.

We are not talking about a particular party winning, we are talking about a country losing. With so much at stake I am concerned about principles, values and ability, not likability and Q ratings.

Jingle Mail

(originally posted January 28, 2008)

On Sunday I blogged about the run on the sub-prime market... it was not intended to focus on the collapse of the market but rather the circumstances behind it. The reason foreign investors liked sub-prime investments was they paid high returns and the US economy was so strong, besides, they were houses, people will do whatever they can to keep their homes. Besides the common knowledge was that real estate in the US never goes down.

It overlooked a few small details. The competition between loan companies was so strong they were offering amazing deals to get people to sign with them, not so much for the interest, but to get more investments by having more loans in effect. The interest is nice, but loans increased the value of the mortgage house, making it look more attractive to investors.

These banks, along with their winged monkeys, real estate companies, conspired to drive up housing costs by convincing people there were so many buyers and just a limited number of houses available. In order to help the Realtors make their commissions the mortgage houses began giving out no money down loans to anyone who had enough to pay for the first month's payment and the closing costs. They even resorted to interest only loans where the first few years people only paid off the interest on the loan, the payments would later balloon as principal was added in, and shortly after that go up again as the interest rates adjusted.

This in fact caused a run on the housing market, where people were selling fixer uppers for well above their actual value and receiving multiple offers above their asking price.

As with any housing boom comes the foreclosures. There is a pretty constant rate between foreclosures and housing sales. However, the foreclosure rate will appear to go up or down if you compare the number of foreclosures from year to year with no regard to increases or decreases in housing sales.

What I didn't know until I started looking into this, was the number of foreclosures in areas of California and Nevada where land speculating had been going on. Areas of San Bernadino County, Stockton, and Las Vegas, were being descended upon by speculators banking that there would be phenomenal growth. One of the commenter in my Sunday blog mentioned that no one was being thrown out of their homes. While not entirely true, there are some people being dispossessed due to a failure to pay anything for months at a time or failing to communicate with the bank, (foreclosure is a legal process, not an automatic one) the majority of foreclosures are on investment properties, not primary residences.

What amazed me were the number of uncontested foreclosures and "jingle mail." Jingle mail is the term used by the banking industry to describe when home owners chose to mail the keys to the house instead of making payments. The vast majority of this jingle mail is by people who I will assume watch too many late night infomercials and believe you can flip a house in less than 30 days and make a profit. The key is to buy a house, no money down and limited or no closing costs, paint the exterior, mow the lawn, and sell the house before the first mortgage payment is due.

There are other speculators who don't necessarily look to flip, they buy a house where it looks like there will be a spike in demand. They buy cheap, wait for the property value to increase and sell it (often to people who are looking to flip the houses). The long term speculator is not looking at the house as a short term money maker but can afford to sit and wait for the market to catch up. Some speculators do not have the resources to wait for the demand to increase and are walking away from these investments.

Don't get me wrong, there were quite a bit of bad loans given to bad risk customers, and some people bought the house in bad faith knew they would not be able to make payments when the interest went up. But also there were a number of people who were promised that when the payments increased they could refi but the mortgage writer knew there would be no appreciable equity to make a refi realistic.

So the real victims are not the people who were taken advantage by the "big bad banks", or the poor banks that just wanted to help people realize the "American Dream". The real victims are the taxpayers who will be acting as underwriters to bail out the banks.

You see Hillary's Universal Housecare is not about protecting homeowners facing foreclosure, its about bailing out the banks who have so many houses they are virtually worthless as collateral.

Why can't I buy this is a coincidence?

(originally posted January 26, 2008)

Less than a month ago the longest sustained period of economic growth that the US has seen in the past 50 years came to a screeching halt. The only thing that changed was confidence, but that is the difference between putting your money in the market (or spending it at the market) and stuffing it under your mattress.

The whole house of cards that forms a solid economy came crashing down when all of a sudden investors began pulling their money from the sub-prime market. The lure of the sub-prime market is that it is risky, but generally pays off beyond the dreams of avarice. The run on the sub-prime market began when "foreign investors" began withdrawing their money. While widely reported that the investors were foreign, what is less widely commented upon was it was one French bank in particular that was heavily leveraged in this risky, but well paying investment, that started the run.

That started the other lemmings running from sub-prime. That led to news articles pointing out that the assets the US banks held, houses, were worth less and less because it was becoming harder and harder to sell them. That really shook consumer confidence and investor confidence because while the media was widely reporting on 60% increases in foreclosures and how the housing bubble had popped they never reported about the unprecedented growth of the housing market and millions upon millions of first time house buyers in the preceding half decade.

But I digress...

Fast forward to last week, a French investment house admitted one of their traders had hacked around security safeguards and made a number of unspecified risky investments using bogus accounts that ended up costing the bank more money that it was valued at. That sort of disclosure, especially with the knowledge that it was a French bank that began the run on the sub-prime made me think, "Wow, what a coincidence!" Except I don't believe in coincidences, especially when more (albeit limited) facts are disclosed.

The bank admits they knew of the rogue trades "days before" disclosing them, and "quietly unwound" the trades. And the bank is careful to say that the trades involved only European markets.

The bank's story certainly is sound... until you start scratching at the surface and then, while it doesn't exactly unravel, it does leave more questions than it answers. My bet is they knew about this prior to "unwinding" the rogue trades, perhaps weeks in advance. This would allow them to cover major portions of their losses and it is conceivable, perhaps even likely, that they, or one of the other banks dealing with them, began to sell off risky international investments to shore up their portfolio.

The proof isn't there linking the sub-prime sell off to this French bank, and while I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories I have a healthy dose of cynicism that prevents me from believing in coincidences either. Especially in light of France's centuries long policy of protecting their economy at all costs. It is not out of the realm of possibility that the bank, acting alone or in concert with France's government, coordinated a run on the sub-prime after moving it's portfolios to more stable investments to minimize what has been a world wide deflation of most markets, with the France tanking the least.

Normally paranoia like this would indicate a straight jacket, or at least a tin foil hat, is needed, but read about this in the articles in the Financial Times and WSJ and paranoia quickly fades into a healthy skepticism for the commonly distorted... I mean reported accounts in the main stream media.

All that is missing is a tie in to George Soros... and coincidentally he commented on the US economy just this past Friday, warning about how fragile the US economy was. And then Chavez said South American countries should divest themselves of US holding. A true conspiracy nut would say this is Soros' third and latest run on the US economy... good thing I'm not one of those!

Pennies from heaven

In a grand show of bi-partisanship the House and administration cobbled together an economic stimulus plan to try to avert an economic meltdown that could possibly lead to a recession.

The plan is that 165 billion in tax rebates will stimulate the economy and turn things around. In order to come up with this lukewarm package the right had to sacrifice their key component which was making the roll back on capital gains taxes permanent. The liberals had to give up on their key to the plan, giving more money to the lowest income and non-wage earners who don't pay taxes, making this an election year handout, and turning their back on "pay-go".

Upon announcing this plan Harry Reid reminded them that the Senate will still have their say and he has plans to "perfect" it. You can count on that meaning more taxes "on the rich", such as Obama's asinine proposal to reinstitute capital gains taxes, and more handouts to non-investors. Neither of which will serve to "stimulate" the economy, it serves their socialist "Robin Hood" mentality, but it will not help the economy.

The plan as it is still includes limited handouts to non-taxpayers but this is the one group guaranteed to turn their handout right over to Walmart, injecting it directly into the economy. But this is the same effect as an athlete taking a one time vitamin B-12 shot, it gives a one time shot of energy... what the economy needs is a regimen of steroids. It needs permanent capital gains tax cuts; it needs a reduction in corporate taxes. Those are the steroids that will build value in the market and allow companies to create jobs.

Creating jobs increases tax revenue by adding tax paying employees. It also injects money into he market by increasing the number of people in 401K and other retirement savings accounts. It is a cycle that continues to contribute to strength and growth.

The main problem with the proposed "tax stimulus package" is that it will be a one shot deal and will create an artificial spike in consumer confidence. Despite the billions of dollars being thrown in the economy in a one shot deal, it will not create a single job, and the increase in consumer confidence will last as long as the rebates do, and since many will use them to pay off existing debt the effects will be minimal at best.

Demand side economic packages can work, as they did in 2001 but the rest of the economy needs to be up and running. The problem now is the consumer confidence AND the investor confidence is shaken. Something needs to be done to address both key confidence factors.
The plan as proposed will add to the inflation rate, not add to the economy. It could help however, since it will cause a spike in consumer confidence, and if reported it could lead to people believing the blip in the economy is over and hence restoring confidence. But as you can see there are a lot of qualifiers... "if, could, should, etc".

Demand side stimulus can work short time, it can help turn around a shaky economy quickly, especially when the problem is one of perception. However, supply side stimulus has been proven to work. The problem with supply side economics is the people, who help supply the economy profit, and the socialists in congress have two faults, they see people and corporations prospering and want that money, either to grow their government or to satisfy their dreams of distribution of wealth... or sometimes both. Of course the main reason behind this strategy is to build a base of voters dependent, or otherwise beholden, upon the government.

The drop in the stock market is caused by shaky confidence on the part of investors... if a stimulus program does not address this the economy will limp along unless the bargain hunters swoop down and drive resurgence. The country has just experienced 5 years of unparalleled growth and prosperity; it was shaken by a few random events and quite possibly greed on the part of the investment community looking for an even lower prime interest rate. Although the lower prime means lower ARMs and other adjustable loans, it also means higher returns on fixed rates.

One overlooked aspect of this economic downturn is that it is a worldwide correction… most major international markets have lost 20% and more of their value, the US market is down around 15%, so we are doing better than most other markets. A simple demand side cash infusion may help avert a recession, but it alone will not guarantee results, what holds more promise is corporate and investor tax relief to help stimulate long term growth.

Job creation and building the tax base will work; a spring visit from Santa only addresses one piece of the puzzle. But with everyone rushing to put a plan in place and more importantly, take credit for it in this election year, no one is taking time to look at the big picture.

Playing politics with the economy is a foolish mistake and everytime it has happened in the past the problems are delayed, such as Jimmy Carter's malaise, and FDR who extended what should have been a two year recession into a decade of misery.

China finally solves their air pollution problem.

[This picture compares downtown Beijing the day after a rainfall and a "normal" day.]
.
After decades of air quality problems that have recently begun to haunt them as the Olympics are due there this summer and the IOC has warned that some events may have to be cancelled because of the poor air quality.

Chinese officials were under the gun to fix the problem and instituted a trend used in Mexico City, banning motorists from using their personal vehicles on certain days of the week. This made moderate improvements traffic but as far as air quality is concerned there was no significant change… except in the way Beijing now classifies pollution.

Beijing reported in December that they finally reached their goal of 245 “blue sky days.”

Meteorologists estimate there were actually in the range of 65 “blue sky days” the other 299 would have received air quality alerts, except the government ordered that the air be clean.
So China cleaned the air simply by labeling smog and haze as fog. Now the brown and gray haze that hangs in the air is not smoke or smog, it is simply fog.

(And if you get to the end of the attached story you’ll see they are blaming the fog as causing the air quality to deteriorate. I love delusional people, they are so funny.)

.
Fog slows China’s power supply - SHANGHAI 11 January – Fog continues to hinder all traffic in the Yangtze delta. Several hundred vessels are out at sea, waiting for the fog to clear so they can enter the ports. With visibility below 100m on some stretches, the fleet of ageing barges that sail without navigational equipment is not allowed to leave port – which has led to a major problem for the city’s coal-burning power plants. To ensure supply, the Marine Safety Administration has given priority clearance to coal transport, opening special channels, whether there is fog or not. The fog has been blanketing large parts of China, both coastal and inland, with visibility sometimes below 50m for long periods. Since last week, ferries have repeatedly been ordered to shore, while most flights to and from both Shanghai’s and Nanjing’s airports have been delayed. Highways have seen a multitude of bloody pile-ups, forcing authorities to shut them to avoid further accidents. Air quality is rapidly deteriorating because of the continuing fog.

McLame

When the reason a Republican fails to win a primary is because the Democrat/Independent voters did not want to drive in the snow to vote for him is telling.

Maverick is depending on non-Republicans to win the GOP nomination.

McCain is in the same boat as Hillary and B. Hussein, they talk about everything except the issues. when push comes to shove McCain will talk but he tries to skirt specifics.

His method of "reaching out" to the Democrats in congress in order to "find common ground" has been a policy of appeasement and surrender.

He considers himself a conservative, but that is because he compares himself to his leftist allies in the Gang of 14. Being a populist is a great way to win an election, but it is a horrible way to lead... and the Presidency is about leadership. As a naval commander you'd think he would understand that basic concept.

The countdown to ZERO commences

Yesterday the 110th congress began the second session... and their inexorable slide to 0% approval ratings under the stewardship (I can't bring myself to say leadership) of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Just before they reconvened the public spoke and gave congress a 13% approval rating, dangerously close to the margin of error.

A quick review of the first session ended up with the sole accomplishments of congress being a suspension of the Alternative Minimum Tax for 2007 (because most members of congress would fall prey to this trap), and of course they displayed extreme audacity in repremending the military because the Iraqi government hasn't met the benchmarks established by the US congress.

So Reid and Pelosi are establishing the agenda for the weakest congress in history and they have the stones to criticize the Iraqi government for not meeting benchmarks established by the US congress... perhaps they should worry about their own weakness and inadequacies and let the Iraqis progress without their "expertise".

Just in case you didn't already know it is bullcrap

From The Sunday Times
January 13, 2008
Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study
Brendan Montague

A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.

The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.

New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.

“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.

The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.

His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households.

Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute.

Roberts said this weekend: “In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant. I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research.”

The Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose Soros’s sponsorship.

In the name of the prophet

(originally posted January 7, 2008)

Jordanian Charged in Honor Killing of Dating Daughter

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

AMMAN, Jordan — A Jordanian man was charged Tuesday with premeditated murder for allegedly killing his 30-year-old daughter because she was dating, government officials said.

The man was arrested near the Israeli border after Monday's killing, and will be detained for 14 days for questioning, said an official close to the investigation. He spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing.
The suspect, whose name was not released, confessed to the crime and told authorities he had "cleansed" his family's honor, according to a police official who requested anonymity in line with police regulations.

The father suspected his unmarried daughter was dating, because she went out frequently but told her parents that she was socializing with female friends, the police official said.

"Her father refused to allow her to step a foot outside the house," he said. "In the evening they had an argument, so he grabbed his gun and sprayed her with several bullets, killing her instantly," the official said.

The killing occurred in Shuneh, a town in western Jordan inhabited by conservative Bedouin tribes. According to local Bedouin custom, women are not permitted to speak to male strangers, and men have strict control over female relatives.
Monday's killing was the first suspected "honor killing" in Jordan this year.

The kingdom sees an average of 20 women killed by male relatives each year.

Like in other tribal-oriented societies across the Mideast and Muslim world, many Jordanians consider sex out of wedlock an indelible stain on a family's reputation.

International human rights groups have condemned such killings in Jordan and appealed to the country's ruler, King Abdullah II, to do more to quell the practice.

Subsequently, the government abolished a section in the penal code that allowed suspects convicted in honor killings to get sentences as lenient as six months. Judges often commute sentences in honor killing cases, especially if family members drop the charges.

Hey Mo thanks for your message of peace and love. And by the way, for those who missed the apologist AP spin, he didn't allegedly kill her, he actually killed her, he confessed; what is alleged is that she was dating.

Another Global Warming scaremonger

(originally posted January 7, 2008)

In order to prove his theory Sanford University researcher Mark Jacobson makes a valid assessment in his research, that increasing pollution may lead to additional deaths in the future. But in order to feed the global warming cultists propaganda machine (and get his snout into the trough of money encompassing the global warming farce) he twists his valid research to blame carbon dioxide, not the actual pollutants.

Keep in mind that scientists have not declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant since mammals, most insects, and bacterium discharge it in some form or another. It was the US Supreme Court that deemed carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, after a cursory review of their educational backgrounds I noticed that they all held juris doctorates, but curiously, none had scientific degrees.

But back to Jacobson the scare monger. His own research demonstrates it is the pollutants that will aggravate asthma and other respiratory diseases and yet he blames the global warming myth.

.

Study Links Carbon Dioxide Emissions to Mortality

A Stanford University scientist said he has outlined the direct links between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increases in human mortality, using a state-of-the-art computer model of the atmosphere that incorporates scores of physical and chemical environmental processes.

According to Mark Jacobson, the new study details how, for each increase of 1 degree Celsius caused by carbon dioxide, the resulting air pollution would lead annually to about 1,000 additional deaths and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma in the United States. Worldwide, upward of 20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas, the researcher stated.

"This is a cause-and-effect relationship, not just a correlation," said Jacobson of his study, which on Dec. 24, 2007, was accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. "The study is the first specifically to isolate carbon dioxide's effect from that of other global-warming agents and to find quantitatively that chemical and meteorological changes due to carbon dioxide itself increase mortality due to increased ozone, particles and carcinogens in the air."

Jacobson said that the research has particular implications for California. This study finds that the effects of carbon dioxide's warming are most significant where the pollution is already severe. Given that California is home to six of the 10 U.S. cities with the worst air quality, the state is likely to bear an increasingly disproportionate burden of death if no new restrictions are placed on carbon dioxide emissions, according to the researcher.

Jacobson said his work stands apart from previous research in that it uses a computer model of the atmosphere that takes into account many feedbacks between climate change and air pollution not considered in previous studies. The model incorporates principles of gas and particle emissions and transport, gas chemistry, particle production and evolution, ocean and soil processes, and the atmospheric effects of rain, winds, sunlight, heat and clouds, among other factors.

Universal Sales Tax

Mike Huckabee is the latest in a line of politicians to raise the Fair Tax issue. The difference being that the other people rarely get elected to office since citizens figure out that the Fair Tax plan Huckabee is pitching, the same one that appeared in congress in 2005, is not a solution.

The proposal counts on no one looking beyond the catchy it “eliminates the IRS” and “makes people pay on what they can afford to buy” bumper sticker slogans. It also appeals to everyone with the monthly prebates and since it is not income based the richest people will see their tax liability decline.

The Fair Tax is a loosely woven tapestry and once a few holes are poked in it the whole concept becomes unraveled.

1. Fair Tax. If it were a fair tax they would call it a national sales tax, or a universal sales tax; but they don’t. As a matter of fact it is a comprehensive sales tax since in order to make it work all goods and services must be taxed, phone bills, restaurant checks, a six pack, tires, cars, plane tickets, gas, everything except (perhaps) food and other essentials.

2. Percentage. The name is not the only lie. Huckabee and others, most notably, are using 23% as the sales tax amount, however, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out they are misleading people. The tax rate would be 30%, increasing the cost of a $1 item to $1.30. The retailer would forward that 30¢ to the Treasury Department, 30 ÷ 130 = 23%.

3. I.R.S. That brings us to the battle cry of the fair taxers, "No more I.R.S." There is still a need to collect, audit, and enforce the tax laws. It may have a new name, but there will be an I.R.S.

4. The 16th Amendment. The sixteenth amendment enables the US to collect an income tax. If the amendment is not repealed prior to enacting a fair tax it will be a scant few years before the Income Tax returns since the “prebates” can only grow so much to help pay for the tax increases necessary to enable those on a subsistence level to continue paying the Fair Tax that will have to increase to keep up with government spending.

5. Government Spending. The Fair taxers tally government spending by saying this is how much the government needs because this is how much they spent last year. Not including the deficit or the mounting interest on the deficit, nor does it subtract the 28% of the 2007 spending allocations (to date) that are pure pork; unnecessary projects.

6. Constitution. If the fair taxers want to save people money they should reexamine the scope of the government, compare it to it’s constitutional scope and slough off the unnecessary layers, including the need for a full time legislature earning more than 5 times the poverty rate. The constitution is a pact that limits the scope of the federal government, not the powers of states or rights of the individuals. Once the size of the government is manageable, then determine a budget. Abolishing the blank check granted by the 16th amendment is a good start to reigning in the government’s expansion.

7. Budget. Establish a zero sum budget. Determine how much they plan on spending and don’t spend over that amount, just like most households are forced to do. If there is a surplus between the planned income and the budgeted expenses the difference goes directly to paying off the debt. If the difference exceeds 10% of the estimate don’t add to the budget, lower the tax by a fraction of a percentage. The money is the property of the people, it is not the property of the government. Major expenses would be accrued for, just like in real life.

8. Revenue Neutral. Every independent arbiter agrees that 30% is too low, 34 to 39 is the estimate most economists who have bothered to study Fair Tax estimate would be the point at which it becomes revenue neutral (because they are factoring in all government spending, not just the published budget.) Using the concept of “prebate” everyone will get a check for the projected poverty spending level. Those below the poverty level will get a premium, the wealthy will see a decrease in their overall tax liability (based upon their optional spending). Those at the poverty level and the lower middle class who will not see this as revenue neutral at all since they are making up the difference. It is like the AMT in reverse, the AMT inadvertently caught the upper middle class, this will catch the opposite end of the socio-economic scale.

9. Progressive tax. Of course it is not a progressive tax (in the leftard mindset). In order to deflate the fair criticism that the Fair Tax is regressive since it in essence gives a tax break to the wealthy, the good folks at fairtax.org have introduced the concept of a “prebate”. That is a rebate in advance so people can pay their sales tax, it would be based on family size, but in order to get it one must apply for it, and it is assumed that the wealthy will say no to it since they don’t need it. This demonstrates they don't understand the means by which people became wealthy, by saving it. The amount of the prebate will be determined to cover the cost of the tax up to the poverty level. The only people to benefit are those below the poverty level and the wealthy, the hardest burden (from a progressive standpoint) are those at and just above the poverty level and perhaps much of the middle class.

10. Models and assumptions are not proof. Science is science, and economists love to tout themsleves as scientists. Every independent economic model done by economists has failed, unless they include some assumption or other unknown to force the data to give them the desired outcome. When push comes to shove the fair taxers have a lot in common with global warming scientists, they use faulty data and assumptions to make their data fit their desired results and disregard all other logic and facts to the contrary.

11. State and local sales taxes. The Fair Tax, a/k/a, national sales tax will not replace state and local sales taxes. The danger in this, and the reason it will fail politically, is that people will be able to add up the sales taxes on everything they buy and see just how much they are giving to the government. If you want a revolution give the people their whole paycheck, then take it away in 37 to 41 percent increments everytime they go to the store.

Most people don't notice how much they pay in taxes because it is taken from their paycheck. Once the government stops taking it from their paycheck and starts taking it from their wallet there will be another Boston Tea Party... except of course no one will be able to afford the tea.

Universal Pre-K

(originally posted January 6, 2008)



Hillary Clinton is not the only liberal pitching Universal Pre-K, although she is the most prominent proponent of it. Here in the Garden State our governor, another multi-millionaire unaffected by such trivialities as having to decide between pay the heating bill or buying food, is looking at spending more taxpayer funds to set up a system of universal pre-K in NJ.

And this despite the fact that in the 31 specially funded school districts studies have conclusively proved that there is no benefit to pre-K, to the contrary, there is anecdotal evidence it may associated with behavioral problems. In a majority of reports surveys show a marked increase in socialization and certain skills in the first years of public schools (K, 1 and 2). What is often not reported is that by grade 2 or 3 most non-pre-K students have surpassed the pre-K students on many of the levels used to evaluate the students.

Private day care and pre-K schools are a growing phenomenon across the country, with many of the employees of these establishments working with the title of teacher and even getting certified in kindergarten and pre-K education. These establishments not only pay taxes on tuition but also the mandatory payroll taxes for the thousands of people being employed by them.

So why would the government want to shut off a veritable fountain of cash in the way of taxes generated by private pre-schools and force people to use the "free" government pre-K? Well, that answer can be summed up in one word... the NEA.

The National Education Association wants to force mandatory... um, I mean Universal pre-k on the taxpayers of each state. They are doing so by misusing data indicating the benefits of pre-K and spreading horror stories about children being left unattended while their parents (usually a single mom) works. The main benefit (to the NEA) is that it forces schools to hire more (union) teachers to cover these classes.

Universal pre-K will be sold as an option to taxpayers, parents will be able to chose to send their children to public pre-K, private pre-K, or to not use pre-school at all. As most people send their children to public pre-K since they are paying for it anyway, private opportunities will become more limited, forcing more people into the system. And all will be well and good until more studies come out and the law changes to force parents into sending their children to pre-K.

Ask most women what their idea of the American dream is and they will not say that home ownership is the first item on their list (despite what realtors tell you)... it is to be a stay at home mother.

And on that note, can you remember about 8 to 10 years ago when Hillary was first lady and pushing government initiatives and programs to get low and moderate income families mortgages so they can live the American Dream? We see now that perhaps dangling these people in front of mortgage lenders like so many bloody steaks in front of a pack of tigers was not a good idea. As a matter of fact, when the government steps up to "solve" a problem it usually creates more problems that the one they invented in the first place.

Nowhere does anyone pitching universal pre-k mention the estimated tax revenues to start the program, not to mention how much it will cost annually. But simply hiring teachers and buying the equipment is not the biggest immdiate expense. Schools throughout the country are already in a dilemma for space because after the baby boomers graduated many boards of education sold off extra property when the student rolls contracted and after the last housing boom there are few urban or suburban tracts of land large enough to build schools. So towns will be left with limited choices, they will have to use eminent domain to seize the adequate property, buy property at market value, or convert parks to school property where available. None are good solutions, all are expensive.

And who pays for this? Us the taxpayers. All because liberals are owned by the unions even though they represent a small fraction of US citizens. Concepts such as universal pre-K sound honorable until you start peeling the onion and see the true reason behind them.

Bhullshit

(originally posted January 1, 2008)





Controversy and drama surround the killing of Benazir Bhutto, and the media, in the Alex Jones method of modern reporting, seem happy to not let facts get in the way of a good story.

Several liberal American politicians blamed Bush for "not doing enough" to protect Bhutto, despite the fact that the CIA was actively providing her security detail with threat information, to the extent it risked exposing intelligence sources on the ground. Joe "the Plagiarist" Biden went so far as to suggest Bush should be investigated for not protecting Bhutto... making him the second Democrat running for President to suggest the US should have troops in Pakistan, despite the fact they are an ally.

Benazir Bhutto was PM of Pakistan before being removed in a coup because of corruption and fled into "self-imposed exile" (ran from the country to escape prosecution) lest she face the same fate as her father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, a former President and PM of Pakistan who is still to today considered the most corrupt leader of that country, who was executed for his crimes.

Upon returning to Pakistan Benazir Bhutto regained control of the political party established by her late father, the Pakistan People's Party, it is now being headed by Bhutto's husband who hopes that his wife's fanatical cult celebrity and the fact he is a widower allow people to forget he too was deeply involved in corruption.

Before returning Bhutto was warned by US State Dept and intelligence communities and Musharraf that her security is in jeopardy and will be difficult to ensure. During the ride from the airport to her home there were two attempts on her life and she was then placed under house arrest by Musharraf for her own protection. The remnants of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and their sympathizers were doing a good job chipping away at Musharraf's reputation and political clout and they didn't need Bhutto to upset their plans to take over the country.
On Thursday, December 27, Benazir Bhutto opted for another ill-advised public appearance.

The appearance took place in a heavily secured area, entrants had to pass through metal detectors and their were multiple snipers ringing the area. The assassination occurred when her motorcade was leaving the park. Her private security detail has chosen to allow her to open the roof of her car, without the bullet and shrapnel resistant guard fitted for it (a la the Popemobile), and took her through the crowd gathered outside the secured park.

There is a video of a sniper, and a report of an explosion. At first the government reported that she was killed by a VBIED placed near the side of the road, news reports at first said she was shot by a gunman in the crowd, and Bhutto's husband said she was killed by a military sniper on a rooftop... meaning the military. After her cursory examination at the hospital where she was pronounced dead the team of doctors were not able to identify the actual cause of death without an autopsy... and the family did not consent to one, and the government didn't order one... so the actual cause will remain a mystery unless they exhume her remains for an autopsy. But the official cause of death was listed as severe head trauma, military officials say it happened when the explosion took place and she was knocked down striking her head on the handle that controls the retractable roof. After viewing video of the event the government said there was a gunman and a suicide bomber, but Bhutto had not been shot and x-rays demonstrate no debris (read bullet or shrapnel) caused the head wound.

While her death is tragic, it is not the end of democracy in Pakistan. As a matter of fact, had she won the Presidency (an almost certainty) it could have led to some short term stability. But her roots in corruption are so deep, unless she stayed clean and above reproach there remained the probability that hardliners or terrorist sympathizers could gain a foothold over time.