Wagging the dog

(originally posted September 29, 2008)

The financial institutions want this bailout. They want an estimated trillion dollars (every adult should know by now that the $700B figure is a low ball) to get themselves out of this financial mess.

I don't. I am willing to suffer along with the rest of the country if the results lead to an investigation of what happened and why it happened.

The Democrats and other skunks buried up to their eyebrows in the filth they created don't want an investigation. As a matter of fact they have spurned responsible requests to look into the shady accounting and dubious practices for years.

As a matter of fact, the Democrats and RINOs are all looking for a reason not to investigate. The Democrats because they are guilty of ramming through legislation for decades that forced banking into the position it is, RINOs because they were asleep at the switch for the last half decade of their majority in Congress.

This year alone Pelosi, Reid and Waxman held investigations on steroid use in baseball, videotaping football games, and held kangaroo court investigations into the operations of the White House whose sole purpose is not to find fault but to raise the specter of guilt simply by having an investigation... but they DON'T WANT to investigate the circumstances that led to a world wide financial crisis.

The least popular and even less effective Congress in history has the chance to make history in it's waning weeks by getting to the root cause of the financial crisis and making sure that the same mistakes never happen again... but since they have taken billions from financial institutions they have the responsibility to govern they will abdicate their authority and continue their slide into being complete failures.

You see most responsible adults are suspicious of the bailout plans. It is being rushed through and summaries, not complete details of the latest plans, are being considered for a vote.
The FDIC took two actions in the last few days that demonstrate the market will take care of itself. First, the weakest bank, Washington Mutual was sold off to JP Morgan Chase, on Wednesday night, in the morning depositors heard on the news that WaMu no longer existed as a bank and Chase would be operating the bank. Depositors keep their money, the FDIC doesn't have to bail out a failed bank and tax payers aren't on the hook for the underfunded FDIC debt had WaMu defaulted.

Then on Sunday the big news was Wachovia, the bank most laden with crappy mortgages, was sold to Citi in a deal brokered by the FDIC. Unlike the WaMu sale, there was a bidding war for Wachovia. This morning Wachovia customers awoke to find their bank was now part of Citigroup. Again the FDIC noticed a potential problem and averted it... and it cost the taxpayer nothing.

The investment houses and Wall Street say that this bailout is imperative if we don't want to see more market disturbance. If the US wants to avert another Great Depression we need to give unchecked authority to Paulson so he can dole out the money as he sees fit...
But wait!!!

The majority funds won't be available immediately, so Paulson, a Treasury Secretary who is an administration appointee, will most likely be replaced in four months, with a new Secretary who may have other plans for the bulk of a trillion dollars.

So to issue this money without a plan in place is the most insane legislation in the history of a body who has a revered history of passing insane legislation.

Right now investors have yanked their money out of the market, and are taking it out of oil and are backing the commodities markets. This is bad because it causes food prices to rise and that is a direct hit against the consumer. But the fact remains investors, 401K, retirement plans and states all have their money tied up in investments, it is just now where Wall Street wants it.

And putting more money into the financial sector before Congress sees that they are the reason things are so jacked up, with the mandating loans of riskier and riskier mortgages, is not where taxpayer money should go.

Democrats (and RINOs like McCain) are lying and saying that this is a crisis caused by lack regulation. They are wrong, this is a crisis caused by too much regulation and a lack of confidence.

The financial "experts" that earned their fortunes on Wall Street are predicting major problems if they don't get more free money now. But economists are not 100% behind them. Many favor letting the market work out things on its own. The US may have a rocky time of things but the markets will be on a stronger base than if they get this hand out. Because like Pavlov's dogs, after this plan every time the markets face a correction Wall Street will clamor for more bailouts.

The only thing holding up credit is the lenders. They are holding it up waiting for the government bail out. If the idea of a government bailout was never raised it would have been a crisis that lasted a few months and then the spigots would have opened again, this time a bit more responsibly. Now the US treasury is being held hostage by the financial institutions who are predicting horrible things, unless they get a trillion dollars. The lenders don't earn money if they don't lend. They have to open the spigots if they are to survive... they know that. But why not wait until they receive the never ending supply of our tax dollars first???

Its a sad day when the pirates holding a ship loaded with weapons and hostages are honestly calling their demands ransom, while the financial markets are telling us it is for our own good.

I half expect Billy Mays to appear telling me the credit crisis will end if we send $700B now... and if I act in the next 20 minutes he'll double the offer.

The proposed bailout is a bad idea

(originally posted September 25, 2008)



I am as opposed to corporate welfare as I am personal welfare. Yes, there needs to be some safeguard in place for when disasters happen, as we saw with Katrina and many other natural disasters. But in most instances that safety net should come in the form of proper insurance, people taking responsibility for themselves. We need to help those incapable of helping themselves, something the government is stupendously unsuccessful at accomplishing and a task that private charities do quite expertly.

The bail out plan runs contrary to everything capitalism is about. It will introduce unrescedented government intrusion into private business and equally unprescendented levels of national debt. The government has no money to provide companies with bailouts... it is you and I, the taxpayer ponying up for this.


However, since Washington never backs away from an opportunity to grow exponentially, and the crop currently there has a particular affinity for federalism. So lets try to mitigate their plans, since the DC juggernaut cannot be stopped.

First, it is not a bail out. It is not a gift. The amount determined to be necessary to steady the economy must be repaid. To that end the companies that accept help will be getting it in exchange for shares of stock or bonds. That is called investing.

The government should re-examine the SEC and FEC rules on the books and determine which ones are necessary for a free market economy and which ones hamper growth and act accordingly. The government should also establish an agency that will govern the shares held by the government. While the Senate will have oversight responsibility over the agency it will act independently, much as the Post Office does. Much, if not all of the current problem is not caused by a lack of government oversight, but rather by too much dischordant government interference.

These loans will have a 10 year term. Companies that participate will be obligated to buy back at least 10% of the outstanding shares every year. Stock will be repurchased at current market value, but never less than the amount paid by the agency when the loan was issued. Companies may purchase more than 10% of the outstanding debt but if they are incapable of purchasing at least that much the agency can auction off the difference. Even if a company is current in it’s repayment, after 5 years the agency can review bids to purchase the government’s portfolio of stocks, again with the stipulation that any transaction be at or above the price the agency paid.

The agency will not name members to the board of directors of the companies involved. They are to remain independent of corporate management. However, if the agency feels the company's board of directors is not acting with the best interest of the stock holders in mind they can ask the company to buy its stock back within 90 days and cancel participation in the program.

Keep in mind the companies standing to benefit from this bailout are listed prominently in the Forbes 50. The average profit margin earned by the insurance companies, banks and investment houses in 2007 was in the range of 18 to 20 percent, double that of the oil industry.

For the American taxpayer, many of who live paycheck to paycheck, with a substantial number who live paycheck to almost the next paycheck, cannot be expected to bail out corporations without reaping some of the profits. So I also propose that the agency direct any “profits” derived for the sale of shares of stock, and any dividends, be dedicated for solely one purpose, paying down the deficit (by repurchasing their shares or bonds).

It should not be used to fund more government programs; it should not be used to expand the scope of government. The sole purpose should go to deficit relief.

And speaking of not expanding government, the agency should be established with a clear sunset date. It needs a defined purpose and should have a predetermined date of termination. Since the program I propose will run for 10 years the agency should have one more year to complete all sales of stock and compete all other business transactions. Then run an additional year to complete all record keeping functions and prepare a report on the success or failure of the agency and the bailout project.

And speaking of reports… one condition of acceptance of the federal money means all companies involved must submit 100% to an investigation into the real reasons behind the collapse and what went wrong. Congress must establish a non-partisan investigation to determine what mix of government policies and corporate practices led to the crisis. Was it a mix of greed and incompetence, or some sort of misfeasance or malfeasance on the part of both parties?

You see it is not merely good enough to put a bandaid on the problem. The circumstances that led to it must be investigated so they can be avoided in the future.

Sarkozy needs to look in his own backyard first

(originally posted September 23, 2008)

French President Nicholas Sarkozy has said that there needs to be an investigation into the world economic crisis and those responsible punished.

Nice idea, and I would love to see Congress try to wriggle off the hook as the blame for creating the environment that allowed the foundation to exist is pointed squarely at them. It is the US congress that mandated banks lend money to people who were bad risks. The banks were encouraged to give loans for upwards of 100% of the (hyper-inflated) values of the houses by Congress. The banks were instructed that they needed to get aggressive in creating financial instruments that would put people into houses, so they dreamed up the interest only mortgage and the zero down mortgage.

Even the fed stepped in with one of Alan Greenspan's last official acts (aside from his resignation) being a statement saying that adjustable rate mortgages were great investments for people buying houses. With mortgages at near record low prices why anyone in their right mind would consider an ARM totally flew in the face of reality. But if "The Oracle" Greenspan said it was true, well then it must be true, after all he IS the financial genius.

Now remember what I have been saying long before it became popular with the financial pundits trying to explain things to the lay people... the economy is, generally speaking, a house of cards. The base, the table the house is built on, is confidence in the market. No matter how carefully you build the house, it doesn't matter how solid they are stacked, regardless of how high it goes, it is only as stable as the base it is built upon. Until about 11 months ago it appeared the house of cards was built on a solid slab of marble. Nothing seemed to rock it and it was growing despite the first signs of trouble. People who understood the economy were amazed but up until last November the economy had one thing that economists and other financial experts will never understand; confidence. People had an unwavering confidence in the market, and foreign investors were enamored as well.

Then suddenly, out of nowhere, it appeared the house of cards we call an economy was built not on a solid slab, but rather a three legged stool, and one leg was a foot shorter than the others.
And if one is to look at the reasons why it crashed, and it was sudden and harsh. One has to look not in the US, but overseas... at France in particular. A large French banking institution had a rogue trader who potentially bankrupted the company and would have been a financial disaster not just in France but one the rippled throughout Europe and could have devastated the Euro compared to the dollar. Remember Iran and Russia had recently started accepting Euros for oil and gas instead of the standard US dollars.

But the bank discovered these rogue trades themselves and quietly "undid" the trades that their employee had conducted. Cautiously slipping the stocks back onto the market so as not to create a run and instigate a margin call by the world's markets. As rumors of the rogue trader leaked out into the French financial system they looked at their own holding and what would happen when the news was officially released. They banks were all holding one very speculative, high risk investment instrument and one bank in particular decided that if things were going to get ugly it didn't want to be holding these junk mortgages, so it dumped them all in one night.

That one French investment house's actions created the worldwide dumping of the sub-prime mortgage industry investments was the first action that lead to the worldwide economic crisis that Sarkozy wants investigated. One small/medium investment house knew the news about the rogue trader at a larger house was about to break and wanted to shore up it's portfolio by dumping a large percentage of the high risk sub-prime investments stated the avalanche that would cause the US economy to lose 10% of its value, and the European and Asian markets to lose almost 15% of their value, over the next six months.

But if one excludes the policies that not only established, but encouraged, the sub-prime mortgage market, and one wants to find the reason behind the world's economies devaluating so precipitously, one must decide if it was the actions of the rogue trader, or the investment house he worked for that undid the trades to avoid their collapse due to their out malfeasance.

There are other factors that contributed, not the least of which is the Democrats in congress talking down the economy with their public relations division, the main stream media helping. And the regulators not enforcing the rules regarding short selling, the markets themselves for allowing not just naked short selling, but naked trading in all markets, the stocks and commodities, also contributed. Congress not just mandating bad loans be issued, but guaranteeing those loans with money they didn't have is also partially to blame.

But if Sarkozy wants to punish those at fault he would have to look in the mirror at his own country, because that is where is started.

Parting shot: there is another reason the economy is all jacked up but the media won't talk about it... an additional reason the US economy is out of kilter is because investors are afraid of a Democrat president being in the White House. Every time Obama and/or Biden talk about paying more taxes, raising taxes, new taxes, etc, the economy shakes again. It is no coincidence.

(I will post links to my previous blog naming the French bank as the prime instigator of the crisis later when I have more time, I forget when I posted it, but it is there somewhere.)

Putting Chavez' lunacy in perspective

(originally posted September 12, 2008)



When gas prices where passing $4/gallon people watched the news daily hearing how the price for crude oil broke through the $100/barrel mark and kept racing towards $150/barrel.

Then President Bush and a large number of Republicans started saying we need to reexamine our drilling policy, and once some Democrats agreed with them and Bush removed the Executive Order concerning drilling the price started to plummet. The high price also caused people to take "staycations" which reduced the normal summer demand, dropping prices further yet.

But with the Presidential election, Hurricane Ike, and the MSM lunacy surrounding Sarah Palin there was no mention of what happened briefly today... the price of crude for October delivery dropped below $100.

At OPEC this week the Saudi minister walked out to express his dislike for Iranian and Venezuelan proposals and the men making them, and the men who run those countries.
On the diplomatic front Chavez incited Bolivia and Honduras to create diplomatic waves with the US, while the US retaliated in kind and launched a salvo at Venezuela directly. This however, garnered the attention of the media not because of their relative importance on the world stage but because it helps the MSM in their new mission of trying to assassinate Sarah Palin. (The media can use these events to highlight the need for a VP experienced in foreign relations while ignoring the Democrat Presidential candidate has none at all.)

Why would Venezuela stir the pot now? Why would Venezuela and Iran demand OPEC cut production quotas now when they are making obscene amounts of money?

The Iran issue is simple, they have the highest production costs of any oil producing country and their infrastructure is so old they can't produce their export quota making them a net importer of oil and gas. Plus they hate the US.

Venezuela is losing money since they mostly nationalized the oil production and stopped development. Chavez not only subsidize oil costs to his own citizens but Chavez gives crude, virtually at cost, to many Latin American counties he is trying to unite in his bid for a communist union of countries in this hemisphere. When crude was at $140/barrel Venezuela could sign multi-billion dollar weapons deals with Russia and still have plenty left over to lavish upon fellow left leaning leaders in South and Central America.

The media isn't pointing out that oil dipped below $100 today (before ending for the day at $101). The MSM isn't telling you that the average price of gasoline is retreating back to $3/gallon. The MSM isn't asking why this is happening when Hurricane Ike has virtually shutdown all gas and oil rigs in the Gulf, and literally shut down 16% of the gasoline refinery capacity in the US. The media is ignoring that some regions of the country are experiencing gas at almost $5/gallon when the US has a 60 day surplus of gasoline.

But most importantly, the thing that the main stream media won't tell you is the Venezuelan power play at OPEC (which failed) and the Chavez orchestrated political disturbances in Bolivia, Honduras and Venezuela (which are minor annoyances at best) is Chavez trying to help his fellow socialist Obama. And Obama's lackeys in the MSM are jumping all over the opportunity to try to turn the momentum away from McCain/Palin.

The media is so busy trying to find dirt on Sarah Palin to help get their candidate elected that no one is asking why the price of oil dropped today, and every day this week as this disastrous hurricane that has killed more than 100 people moved through the US offshore gas and oil field shutting down production and shipping as well as shutting down one sixth of the country's gasoline refinery capacity. Past events have caused prices to jump at the mere thought of any disruption in production or at refineries, in the case of Ike whose destructive capacity is a known factor crude prices have dropped, and continue to do so.

I thought the days of yellow journalism had past. My communications professor owes me a refund.

So you're a woman and still voting Democrat???

(originally posted September 10, 2008)

You're stuck on stupid!

The Democrats, the historical party of segregationists, sexists and opposers of civil rights laws, have always talked about how they help minority groups, and point to FDR and his system of ingrained entitlements as how they have "progressed".

If you have half a brain and have seen how politicians determine who gets entitlements and how they brainwash, I mean indoctrinate, the recipients you would realize that these entitlements are designed to enslave, not empower the those they are intended to help. It forces people to rely on the government, disenfranchising people from the mindset of individual determination and self reliance that built the US from a set of British colonies to the greatest nation on the planet.

The Democrats love to talk about how they nominated the first woman to be VP for a major party. And they did so knowing this fairly unknown congresswoman would lose as she was teamed with Walter Mondale, the weak vice-president of the worst president in modern history, and perhaps the nation's entire history. And who were they running against? A wildly popular President running for re-election who won every state except Minnesota, Mondale's home state. Ferraro couldn't even deliver the solid Democrat enclave of New York.

However, despite nominating the first back man on a national ticket for the presidency, when push comes to shove they revert to their racist/sexist/hate-filled roots.

Barack Obama chose Joe Biden... or rather Joe Biden was chosen for Barry, for two reasons. B.O.'s flip-flopping inconsistencies on Israel/Palestine/Middle East and Biden's self-proclaimed expertise in this area... and of course Biden was a white man deeply entrenched in the Democrat party. So entrenched, when he was introduced as the VP he was surrounded by his whole family... except his son the Washington lobbyist, who, lest you feel the need to dissemble and say he might have been too buy, was never even mentioned by Plugs. Contrast that to Sarah Palin who was surrounded by her whole family, including the 17 year old pregnant daughter the Democrats had no hesitation to smear all over the media.

Early in the DNC primaries Hillary Clinton accused Obama and the media of sexism. Many people agreed with her, many of these people were "Hillary's Women" who decided after Obama was granted the nomination by the DNC super delegates that they would likely not vote for Obama. The insertion of the repugnant Joe Biden did nothing to win these people over, Joe was assigned to Obama to cancel the "Lieberman Factor".

But McCain, chose instead a name that was once mentioned by Fred Thompson prior to him announcing his short lived primary campaign, Sarah Palin. An up and coming member of the GOP, a conservative governor with a reputation for pissing people off and bucking established norms for what she felt was right. A person he was sure would appeal to conservatives but at the risk of distancing himself from GOP insiders. Strategically it could not have been a better pick. The worst he is doing in the polls of likely voters is a statistical dead heat, the best it a 7 point lead, and this is from a campaign that has been trailing or tied the entire summer.

The reaction to Gov. Plain was as expected. The DNC insiders, the media and the Obama campaign all lost their freaking minds. Surprised by the selection of Palin they reacted by attacking her gratuitously, slamming her even as they admitted they know nothing about her. In one weekend the media scrutinized Sarah Palin more thoroughly than they have Obama since he announced his primary exploratory committee 21 months ago.

By the time she gave her speech at the RNC convention most still knew little about Mrs Palin, but they knew plenty of lies and false rumors. But I am going to focus on one rumor as I truly believe that if Obama loses, despite the Soros billions, despite having black churches urge their members to send every available dollar to B.O.'s campaign, and the coup de grace, having the main stream media supporting him, and only him, he can look at his fervent supporters and thank them for torpedoing his campaign.

That is the lie that Sarah Palin's youngest son was really her daughter's. That led to the truth that at the time the baby was born Bristol herself was a few weeks pregnant. This set off a fire storm of a media frenzy as the media jumped from their created story to one they found they could use to attack Palin, one that back fired horrendously, but one that the MSM just wouldn't let go despite Obama saying "families are off limits" yet again.

So pro-life Sarah Palin, put her arm around her daughter's shoulders and said she supported her child's position to keep the baby and marry the father. The left wing blogs and MSM tried to insinuate that the moose hunting Palin was forcing a shot gun wedding. Then the "life by the poll, die by the poll" Democrats took another survey and saw that not only was Palin helping the ticket in all demographics but the attacks on Palin were backfiring and the all coveted independent and women's voters were supporting Obama, and many of the dedicated Obama supporters were saying the attacks were making people sympathetic to Palin.

In the meantime people were questioning Palin's ability to govern when she had five children and a grandchild on the way. "How will she have time?" "Is it fair to the children?" "Children need their mothers, even if the father stays home." And in one week the Obama camp and the leftards in the media and blogosphere angered or alienated every independent woman, feminist and mother they could.

But Obama can't just thank the media and blogosphere, if he loses this election, one even Newt Gingrich himself declared three years ago would be the Democrat's to lose, he said a few things wrong in the fracas as well. But the potential suicide shot may have been his use of a phrase he is now spinning as a common phrase, although anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature knows was one of his smarmy, faux-intellectual comments.

In response to the attacks on her and her family Sarah Palin said at her speech to the RNC, that she was a hockey mom a few times. She later said, and I paraphrase, "Do you know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? The lipstick."

Well yesterday Obama gave in speech and said: "As the old saying goes , you can't put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig." It should be noted that he screwed that up as well, that is not how the "old saying" goes. Apparently he never used the phrase prior to his speech.

In light of Palin's amazingly successful speech to the RNC there is little doubt this was a jab directed at Palin. Once again showing the ignorance and sexist attitude Obama, and the Democrats, have always displayed. For all their talk, Democrats do astoundingly little to change Washington. Throughout the course of his Presidency, the man who liberals hate so much it can be classified as a mental disorder, Bush Derangement Syndrome, has appointed far more women, blacks, latinos, and other minorities to high positions within his cabinet and government position than any of his predecessor. And even Bush 41 appointed more than his successor did.

So if you're a woman or minority and you're looking for handouts, entitlements, and a condescending attitude, vote Democrat. If you are a woman or minority and you want to be treated on equal footing and given a fair chance McCain/Palin is your ticket.

Leftard Hypocrisy

(originally posted September 2, 2008)

NOW denounces Sarah Palin's Nomination as the first woman with a chance of being Vice-President.

The haters of feminism, a/k/a National Organization of Women, have denounced Sarah Palin's nomination as the first woman nominated to the Vice Presidency on a major ticket who had a chance of winning.

Yes, Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman nominated to represent a major party as the VP, but she ran in 1984 with Walter Mondale. The very unpopular VP of the least popular President in US history running against Ronald Reagan, the most popular President in US history. They barely won Mondale's home state of Wisconsin, and lost the other 49 decisively.

However, Sarah Palin represents the first female ever nominated with a chance of winning the election. Feminists should be thrilled that there is a chance of a woman on the ticket, instead They are playing partisan politics and saying she is against woman's rights. Women have more rights than the court issued privilege of abortion.

Actually, the argument could be made that abortion limits a woman's freedom by making her the one responsible for birth control. Prior to Roe v. Wade the couple worked together on making sure conception did not occur. Now the prevailing opinion is "it's her problem".

How exactly does that "empower" women?

NOW does not represent women or their rights, it represents the narrow view and political goals of a small sampling of women.

Ray Nagin: Delusional Asshat

(originally posted September 1, 2008)

In response to the Republican Governor of Louisiana declaring the Gulf region of that state a disaster area almost a week prior to Gustav nearing the area and in response to the Republican POTUS changing his plans to stage at the federal government's FEMA HQ in Texas the incompetent Democrat Mayor of New Orleans (and the man who personally contributed to the death of 1500 people three years ago) praised Jindal and Bush by saying:

"It's amazing. It makes me feel really good that so many people are saying, 'We as Americans, we as the world, have to get this right this time,'" New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin said. "We cannot afford to screw up again."

He just doesn't get it. Just like when Katrina hit and HE failed to act in time.

As the chief executive of NOLA it is his responsibility to protect his citizens. It is not the job of the state, and it most certainly is not the job of the federal government. But his egregious incompetence, and track history of contributing to the deaths of his citizens through his bumbling inaction, led the state and feds to usurp his authority... and he feels this is a good thing.
It is the culture of entitlements and generations of people used to looking to the government to meet their basic needs. In NOLA, Nagin and the residents were quick to blame the Army Corps of engineers for the levees failing, but it is the levee commissions who collect levee tax (more appropriately, a levee levy) in the protected parishes that is designed to go towards the maintenance of the systems of levees and pumps. Instead the largest expense the levee commission had in 2005 was a $200K fundraiser for Ray Nagin.

While the Governor of Mississippi issued evacuation orders for the MS gulf coast three days before Katrina hit, Nagin and LA governor Kathleen Blanco waited until 24 hours before the storm made landfall and never mandated evacuations, only suggested them. They also waited to declare an emergency, so no federal assistance was possible (at the time). And of course the pinnacle of the incompetence demonstrated by Nagin and Blanco occurred the day after Katrina hit when in the midst of the infamous conference call President Bush asked them what hey needed and how the levees were holding, and Blanco replies the levees were holding fine and they didn't need assistance as the levees were in fact collapsing.

So what I find "amazing", even more so than Nagin's reelection, is that Nagin once again waited for other people to do his job for him. And thanks to his bungling and chronic incompetence the state and federal government are empowered to declare disaster areas and state of emergency even if local governments have not requested assistance. Prior to Katrina the federal government could not usurp that authority from local and state governments, now they can.

Prior to Katrina FEMA was primarily responsible for handing out insurance documents. Now thanks to Ray Nagin (and the 9-11 AQ bombers) FEMA can be sent by the President to "take control" of local resources, such as the police, fire and EMS services through their new ICS system. They also can take control of a city's (and a state's) government by appointing an Incident Commander to whom local authorities ultimately would report.

So once again through his inaction and inability to lead the state and federal government usurped Nagin's power over his own city... and amazingly he is happy about it.

The federal government has specific deliniated powers, running states and cities is not one of them.

Look up the 10th Amendment. Our founding fathers tried to save us from federalism.