Tag Archives: Politics

Yesterday Seems so Far Away……

Posted on January 18, 2010 | Leave a comment

WOW!

Look at this!  This is intrade’s odds of Brown winning the Senate seat in Mass.


Price for Winner of Massachusetts Special Election (to replace Ted Kennedy) at intrade.com

Just 8 days ago betting had him at 10% chance to win!

Go AMERICA!

Leave a comment

Posted in Politics: National

Tagged , , ,

Brand New Day

Posted on January 15, 2010 | 2 comments

I still think that we’ll lose this, but my oh my, this would be HUGE!

Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.

Does this mean Brown is gonna win?  No way.  This is too big for the Dems to lose for them not to rally.  But serious, this guy was down by 30 3 months ago.  He is surging and surging huge.

Why?  Because no one wants this health care to pass.  Not even those in Kennedy’s home state:

…it appears Kennedy’s quest for universal health care has fallen out of favor, with 51 percent of voters saying they oppose the “national near-universal health-care package” and 61 percent saying they believe the government cannot afford to pay for it.

Further, this race has massive a massive impact in Washington politics.  It is so big that Obama doesn’t know what to do about this race.  He can not afford to support a Democrat that loses a major race; see Jersey Govna’.  Yet, he desperately needs to support the winner.  And right now, he’s stuck.  Does he fly to Massachusetts and risk losing or does he stay home and risk winning without him?

Gotta tell ya, this is an interesting time.  Who woulda thunk that the Senate seat held by royalty could go Red?

2 Comments

Posted in Health Care, Politics: National

Tagged , , ,

Freedom Fries

Posted on January 7, 2010 | Leave a comment

As always, I have Brad and Britt on the radio for the morning commute.  I listen because they are local and because I need to convince myself that I listen to both sides.  As such, I normally am shaking my head at the discussion and the mind-set I get from Greensboro.

This morning was different.  The subject was France and whether or not it’s better to live in France or the USA.  Normally, the left says that the French model is better but given the choice, they don’t wanna live there.  As if they subconsciously understand that you don’t get both the “good life” France offers and the freedom and benefits of such that America offers.

Brad and Britt both agreed that it is much MUCH better to live in America than France.  Again, this isn’t surprising, this follows the leftist road map.  But as the conversation continued, I was pleasantly surprised at WHY they would not like to live in France.  For example, they idea of “strikes and riots when the price of milk goes up a by a nickel” was pure genius in its simplicity in capturing the French culture.  But it got even better.  When describing the summer break, Britt correctly wondered “who is gonna do the work?”.  And not to leave Brad out, he weighed in with this “given the chance to make a life in America vs being taken care of but tracked, I would take America ANYDAY!”

This was just a wonderful way to start the morning.  It gave me hope that we ARE a center-right nation.  That we know the chance, the opportunity, to strike out and make our way is a fundamental and uniquely American principle.  That we get freedom.  That being provided for has its price.

Yet it’s this wonderful news that frustrates me from the marketing side of me.  I am convinced that a conservative approach to finance and economics is the way to prosperity and advancement.  But the right is SO poor at spreading the message that we get painted as greedy industrialists.  And we never EVER learn from that.  No one wants to hear that minimum wage laws should be abolished.  “How greedy can you get?  Slave wages for the poor!”  It resonates.  It sticks.  Never mind that unemployment goes up, cost of goods go up and innovation and choice are restricted.

And who doesn’t wanna provide less expensive yet better medical care to everyone?  We ALL do.  The problem is, there is a wrong way and a right way.  Restricting that market is the wrong way.  Opening it up is the right way.

But we never get the message out.  We just sit back and “can’t be bothered by that”.  It’s the same reason you never see serious economists enter into debate about the most commonly accepted financial principles; because it is so basic and understood, that to debate it is beneath all serious members.  It would be akin to debating that 2 is greater than 1.

Anyway, Brad, Britt….well said.  And welcome to the center-right society!

Leave a comment

Posted in Economy, Politics: North Carolina

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Quote of the Day

Posted on January 6, 2010 | Leave a comment

From The New Yorker discussing John Mackey:

In the early eighties, Mackey told a reporter, “The union is like having herpes. It doesn’t kill you, but it’s unpleasant and inconvenient, and it stops a lot of people from becoming your lover.”

(That quote, to Mackey’s dismay, won’t go away, either.) His disdain for contemporary unionism is ideological, as well as self-serving. Like many who have come before, he says that it was only when he started a business—when he had to meet payroll and deal with government red tape—that his political and economic views, fed on readings of Friedman, Rand, and the Austrians, veered to the right.

If it were up to me, we should force EVERY American to meet payroll and deal with government red tape.

Hat Tip: Carpie Diem

Leave a comment

Posted in Quotes

Tagged , , ,

Government Regulation at Work

Posted on January 4, 2010 | 2 comments

As the Obama administration becomes more and more involved in the day-to-day business of more and more businesses, you have to wonder what his real goal is?  If it is to drive the best and brightest from the industry in question, well, then this should be seen as a sign of success:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A top executive at American International Group Inc has resigned because of pay curbs imposed by the Obama Administration’s pay czar, the insurer said on Wednesday.

Anastasia Kelly, AIG’s vice chairman for legal, human resources, corporate affairs and corporate communications, resigned effective December 30 for “good reason” and is eligible for severance pay under the terms of the company’s executive severance plan, the insurer said.

Kelly stands to be paid about $2.8 million in severance, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Kelly’s resignation comes after Kenneth Feinberg, who is charged with monitoring pay levels at companies that received taxpayer funds, imposed pay caps for AIG’s top executives.

Earlier this month, Feinberg set the compensation structures for the 26th through 100th highest-paid employees at four firms, including AIG, limiting most cash salaries to $500,000.

And she’s not the only one.  Apparently there are other top execs ready to walk:

She was among five executives reported by The Wall Street Journal to have notified the insurer that they were prepared to resign and collect severance benefits if their pay was cut sharply by Feinberg. Chief Executive Robert Benmosche separately also had considered quitting because of the pay constraints, the Journal has reported.

And the impact to the bank:

Cornelius Hurley, director of the Morin Center for Banking and Financial Law at Boston University, said no AIG employee was irreplaceable.

“We have been duped into thinking that these AIG employees have some kind of secret code that no other employee could discover if they were hired to replace them and therefore they are able to basically hold the company ransom,” Hurley said.

Imagine if the government bailed out the Minnesota Vikings.  And then, in order to make them competitive, demanded that the team could only pay their QB $500,000.  Brett Favre walks.  The Vikes finish 3-13.  As it stands today, they are the number 2 seed and a decent bet at playing in their 5th Super Bowl.

Hope for Change.

2 Comments

Posted in Economics, Economy

Tagged , , , , , , ,

California: Part V

Posted on January 4, 2010 | Leave a comment

What do you do when you’re short money?  Do you spend less?  Go try and earn more?  Or do you go and hold your hat on the street?

California can’t t spend less.  They won’t do what it takes to earn more.  The only option left open to them is to ask you and I for money:

California’s political leaders, who are facing the daunting challenge of closing an estimated $20.7 billion budget deficit this year, are looking to Washington for help. Just don’t call it a bailout.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said he plans to head to the nation’s capital “early and often” seeking federal assistance. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger already has put the federal government on notice that he wants billions he says the state is owed. And outgoing Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Baldwin Vista (Los Angeles County), said she would head east as soon as this month.

Awesome.  California continues to drive themselves deeper and deeper into debt and insolvency.  And then, when the well is dry, they come running to the Federal government for help.

Only in America.

Leave a comment

Posted in Economics, Politics: National

Tagged , , , , ,

Profile: Who's In and Who's Out

Posted on January 4, 2010 | Leave a comment

We are spending a lot of time talking about profiling.  Who should be profiled and who shouldn’t.  There’s even talk about NOT profiling at all.

I have to wonder why.  Why would we NOT use all the information we have?

For example, without even talking about nationality, race, religion or sex we could profile on:

  1. One way ticket purchases bought day of.
  2. One way ticket purchases bought with cash.
  3. Passengers boarding without either checked or carry on luggage.
  4. People who are on ANY watch list.
  5. Passengers who board International flights WITHOUT passports.
  6. If the age of the passenger is between 17 and 40, bump up suspicion quotient.
  7. If the passenger is boarding without family, bump up suspicion quotient.

Then, after building a list of who we SHOULD profile, we could build a list of people we could rule OUT:

  1. Anyone aged 65 or more.
  2. Anyone aged 18 or less.
  3. Women traveling with children.

There is a LOT more that we can do.  There is more we SHOULD do.

Leave a comment

Posted in Politics: International, War

Tagged , , ,

War on Terror

Posted on January 4, 2010 | 2 comments

Brad and Britt opened the New Year with an interesting question this morning:

Is President Obama serious about the War on Terror?

Good question.

My take and short answer?

I don’t think that he thinks this is a War.  I think that he views this as a criminal matter.  As such, he feels that the method or path to resolution is diplomacy first and foremost with any type of military action secondary; if even secondary.

My reasoning for this?  The fact that he prohibits the term “War on Terror”.  He won’t even call it war.

Further, I think that Obama is more of a Social ills kinda guy.  I think the things that keep him awake at night, and hold his interest, are things like reducing homeless, fighting poverty and extending rights to all people regardless of color, race, religion……

I don’t think that international diplomacy, national defense and terrorism are in his natural DNA.

Is this bad?  I dunno.  Is it good?  Again, I dunno.

All I DO know is that Obama doesn’t think that we are at war and he doesn’t think this is as important as I wish he would.

2 Comments

Posted in War

Tagged , , , ,

"This One Time…..In Band Camp…"

Posted on January 2, 2010 | Leave a comment

I’m relatively new to really REALLY watching politics.  I guess, in the past, I didn’t care.  Mostly I was single, renting and didn’t make enough money to care about taxes.  The last decade has seen that ALL change.  I am no longer single, I have children, own a home, make more money and am seriously considering starting my own business.  I also spend more time at home than I used to spend before all the changes aforementioned.   Combine this with the very compelling story of last year’s election; first time in many years that a  President or Vice President wasn’t running, and you have good drama.  AND we would have the opportunity to see America’s first woman or black Presidential candidate.  All good political drama.

Back to my point.  I am really pretty new to political theater.  So, maybe as I say this, it’s really not so unusual.  Could even be par for the course.  But to me, this is absolutely stunning.  Not only in the hypocrisy of it all, but in the sheer ignorance of any semblance of economic thinking.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration pledged on Thursday to back beleaguered mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac no matter how big their losses may be in the next three years.

Serious?  Banks are paying BACK their TARP funds and these guys are asking for, and getting, more money?  At least they’ll have to be smart in their use of it, right?

It also jettisoned a demand that the two companies cut the size of their mortgage-related investment portfolios next year, allowing them to provide even more support in the near term for a housing market recovering from its worst slump in decades.

Nope.  Business as usual; continue to sell money to people who can’t afford it.

So, how is it that some businesses are capped and controlled and can’t WAIT to get out from under government control while others seem unable to even WANT to get out?  Is it political or is it simply a way of life?  Is it really possible that the Obama administration is giving political favors to supporters or, perhaps, does he simply think that a fascist* banking system is the most effective method by which to establish financial systems?

The Treasury’s announcement came just hours after the companies said their chief executives would be paid up to $6 million on an annualized basis for 2009.

…

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are congressionally chartered companies that buy up mortgages from banks and other originators to keep mortgage markets liquid. Some of the debt is repackaged as securities and sold off to investors, and the government has been buying an increasing share.

Sadly, for Liberty loving people, it would seem that the answer is “Both”.  Obama is both paying political favors, $6 million to the CEOs, AND feels that economic fascism is the preferred method of financial systems.

Like I said, I am new to this.  Maybe this is business as usual.  But from the cheap seats, this is ugly.

*   From wiki:  Fascists promoted their ideology as a “Third Position” between capitalism and communism.  Italian Fascism involved corporatism, a political system in which the economy is collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at national level.  Fascists advocated a new national class-based economic system, variously termed “national corporatism”, “national socialism” or “national syndicalism”.  The common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.

Fascist governments exercised control over private property but did not nationalise it. They pursued economic policies to strengthen state power and spread ideology, such as consolidating trade unions to be state or party-controlled.

Leave a comment

Posted in Economy

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

HealthCare: Price vs. Cost

Posted on January 2, 2010 | Leave a comment

I wish that I could say that I said it.  But I didn’t; Mr. Munger did:

…

Right now, our attempts at reform are doomed by a law of accounting physics: Insurance can’t cost less than the health care it insures.

…

Consider: I have car insurance. But my insurance doesn’t pay for oil changes.

Instead, I go down to the Happy Lube, without an appointment, get a diagnosis of the needs of my car, and choose services based on a price list published online. Some of these services are complex, and require large expensive machines and equipment. But I don’t have to pay a separate bill, or go wait in another line, at another office or lab.

…

… compare it to car insurance, for two people. Imagine neither of us has to pay for our car repairs, from accidents or engine wear. We can go to the garage as often as we like, and get whatever service we want, for free. The car repair shop can charge our insurance whatever they want, because insurance pays everything. An oil change would bill out at $600; an alignment would bill our insurance $2,200, with another $800 tacked on to pay for micro-digital wheel axis imaging.

Of course, the services aren’t really free. At the end of every year, we sum the total repair costs for both people, and each of us pays half of that total.

The cost of that free car care would be enormous, because of all the unnecessary and overly expensive charges. Of course, the government could subsidize the final bill; would that help? The answer is no, for two clear reasons.

First, having the government (meaning taxpayers) subsidize the total would do nothing to reduce the runaway cost increases. Buyers won’t shop around if they don’t know or care about real costs. Subsidies mean I don’t pay if I spend, and I don’t save if I’m frugal.

Second, let’s expand the example from two people (each paying half) to 300 million people getting free care (but paying an equal share of total costs). We have met the public option, and it is us! Once we are all paying ourselves, there is no one else to hit up to help with the costs. We are simply taking each person’s money in taxes, then giving some of it back in subsidies. There is no saving, even to individuals.

Just good stuff.

Leave a comment

Posted in Economics, Health Care, Politics: North Carolina

Tagged , , , , , ,