Safuto.com

A Case For Building Wealth

2008-10-26T16:40:15Z

The United States has a progressive Federal tax system. The more money you make, the more taxes you pay as the image below illustrates.

You can see that the bottom rate is 10% and the top rate is currently 35%. The long and short of this system is that people are punished for their success. In my post titled fairness and taxes I give a simple example of the difference in tax liabilities between a couple earning $50,000 and a couple earning $250,000. That comparison speaks for itself.

Some people believe that with every additional dollar that a person earns that there is an incremental responsibility to support the rest of society. There are people who have little and those who have more should sacrifice what they don't need to help others. That's one argument for a progressive tax structure and the same argument for ever higher taxes on people earning $xxx,xxx (fill in the number that feels good to you) per year. I've got a few arguments against that approach.

Freedom

There's a thing we call freedom in the United States. And financial wealth building is supposed to be one of the benefits of a free society. If someone earns an honest living, plays fair, and doesn't break the law, they are entitled to build wealth. Most people aren't misers racking up cash for me, me, me! Most people have families in multiple generations that they may need to care for. Most people have other needs (and dare I say wants) that the tax policies don't account for. So when money is lifted directly from a person's paycheck there's a certain tyranny in having to wonder if you may or may not get a small pittance of it back from the government someday.

Efficiency

The government does nothing in an efficient manner. Most people assume that $1 taxed that is earmarked with a social program will end up in $1 going to a social program. Ha! If you believe that then you need to grow up a bit. Our money gets filtered through a massive bureaucracy that probably burns at least 70% before something comes out on the other side. So if you're of a redistribute wealth (aka socialist) mindset when it comes to taxes then just know that you're encouragingwaste and helping a lot fewer people than you think you are.

]]> Rainy Days

It takes an amazing amount of hubris for the government to decide what a person does and doesn't need to live on. A business person could be making $300,000 per year for a couple of years and then see their industry go flat. They could be back making $50,000 in a flash. Ask some mortgage brokers about this. Wouldn't it be nice for all these out of work contractors, mortgage brokers and investment banker to have been able to keep more of their money when times were good, so they could at least save some for when times are bad? These progressive taxes welcome you to success by penalizing people and assume that this is all the money they will ever need.

Imagine the abject humiliation when the person who was formerly financially successful has to wait on the government to send them some relief via a social program. Rainy days come for everyone. And if high earners continue to be taxed into oblivion the government may end up having to assist people who should have never needed it in the first place.

Family

The vast majority of people who are building wealth from their income do so to help their families. Health care, education and housing are three huge issues for families. How does the government know what a person needs to sustain their family? Someone making $300,000 per year with four kids isn't set for life folks. There are mortgage payments, medical premiums, college tuition payments, grocery bills, gas bills. And maybe at the end of it all the person who makes this kind of money would want to pass on the wealth that they've earned to help their children.

By allowing families to build more wealth we prevent them from needing services from the government now or later. In the event that a bad medical situation comes up they will have more money in their pockets to deal with it. And we also help them to do things like invest, start businesses, get better educations and create more jobs.

Entrepreneurship

At some point in the lives of many people, even after they have become financially successful in the corporate world, they get the desire to start something of their own. These people could be doctors, lawyers, plumbers, corporate executives, whoever. Maybe they want to do something different in their chosen field or a whole new area. They're going to need money to do it. If we insist on taking more and more of their money now we're reducing the chances that these people will have the means to do it later. Or maybe these people have gotten to a point in life where they want to go to school to continue their education. They're going to need money to do so.

The first place people look to when deciding to build a business or continue their education is to their savings. For most people who have had early successes that savings will be quite a bit smaller due to the progressive nature of our tax system. So there they go right back to the government for small business or educational loans. And here we are lending people their own money back and charging them interest to boot. If people are allowed to keep more money in their pockets all along such needs will be greatly reduced. And people will be spared the indignity of going hat in hand to the government for support.

Retirement Savings

The government throws us a bone an allows a $14,000 per year employee before tax contribution to the 401K program to build wealth for retirement. The government also allows employer contributions. It's a good plan but it doesn't go far enough. Both high and low income earners should be allowed to save much more money for their retirement. We have Presidential candidates talking about allowing people to withdraw money from 401Ks early without penalty. Gee thanks. It's our money folks. Why is the government penalizing anything? We pay regular taxes on that money when we take it out. The progressive tax also ends up being a form of regulation that increases the retirement age and may reduce a person's lifestyle when they retire. People who have sent more than their share of money to the government could end up having the indignity of shorter and less comfortable golden years as a result.

Don't worry folks. You can wait for your Social Security Check and Medicare and all the other dehumanizing programs that the government has in place to usher us from retirement to the grave. Once again, if people are allowed to keep and save more money that they earn in their prime years they will be less likely to have to rely on the government for retirement income and health care in their later years. Does that concept not register with our legislators? Please don't answer that one.

Hard Work

I know it's a popular belief that everyone in the higher tax brackets is just living the life, cruising into the office ala Don Draper (see Mad Men on AMC), getting paid cash by the bucketful and laughing at the little people. The reality is that most high earning people work very long hours at jobs that vary from legal work to investment banking to farm work and construction contracting. How about medical doctors and surgeons? You think they don't earn their living? For every A-Rod there are a hundred people who put in fifty to sixty hours a week a work that pays well and they deserve it.

Other Taxes

If Federal income taxes were the only taxes people needed to pay we would all feel a lot better. But there are progressive state income taxes, local taxes, property taxes, sales taxes. There are taxes on energy, highway tolls, mortgage origination taxes, capital gains taxes and on and on. As a people we are taxed into oblivion. People at all levels are getting pummeled by the bureaucracy and inefficiency of government. I feel like I've walked into a McDonald's and said, "Super size me!"

The Next President

The next President of the United States needs to take steps to promote the growth of business and investment in this country. Lower capital gains taxes for everyone promotes investment in good companies whose stocks have been hammered lately. Lower income taxes for all, combined with reduced Federal spending, will help to strengthen the American balance sheet, put more money in the pockets of workers and increase investment by millions of small businesses around the country.

The next President needs to defend the U.S. dollar and eliminate deficit spending. If the country doesn't have enough money then we need to do what every family who faces a budget crunch has to do. We need to increase revenues and reduce spending. Deficit spending devalues the dollars that Americans save and causes the price of commodities (like oil) based on the dollar to rise.

Taxes are a crucial part of the American system of government. They are intended to fund the critical operations of the government. Increased txes are not efficient as a mechanism to raise the quality of life of one segment of the population at the expense of others. We have a capitalist business system to meet those needs. That system will work if we let if work.

John F. Kennedy Said

"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."

- President Kennedy, Radio and Television Address to the Nation, September 18, 1963

A Plumber's Life

2008-10-17T22:53:47Z

One of my favorite movies of all time, and definitely my favorite movie geared towards children is called A Bugs Life. In the film, a perpetual dreamer named Flik invents a device that harvests grain (Flik is an ant) that his colony must collect for the evil grasshoppers.

Flik does not seem to be very highly regarded by the rest of his colony at the start of the film. They are focused on collecting enough food to satisfy the grasshoppers so they can then begin to pick enough food for themselves to make it through the winter. Flik's fellow ants would rather do what is safe than risk using new methods to collect food. And so the colony is amused, at best, with Flik's attempts to do it faster.

What the rest of the ant colony does not understand is that what Flik is doing is not just about getting done quicker because he is lazy. Flik is sick of the tyranny of the grasshoppers and the fear that it instills in his fellow ants. Flik wants everyone in the colony to be more free and have a better life. Some would dare to call what Flick is doing the pursuit of a dream. I call it the American Dream.

Early on in the story Flik makes a mistake that causes him to end up face-to-face with the leader of the grasshoppers (appropriately named Hopper) as the entire ant colony looks on. In the face of Hopper Flik gets scared, clams up and steps back into line. The moment when Flik steps back is a sad moment in the film but it is only the beginning of the story.

Sometimes life imitates art. And this week life definitely imitated art when a plumber from Ohio stepped forward to challenge Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the question of taxes. The man now known as "Joe The Plumber" queried the Democratic candidate on his tax plan that would raise the liability for people and small businesses earning more than $250,000 per year. During the exchange Senator Obama mentions that a tax on higher earners serves to help others by spreading the wealth around. The comment from Obama represented a rare moment of candor in what has been a amazingly long campaign.

]]> Normally such exchanges would go unnoticed in a political campaign. There are so many of them after all. But video of the interaction became a hit on YouTube and was picked up by national TV news programs. And all of a sudden Joe from Ohio was a familiar face. The discussion about the exchange carried over to the final Presidential debate with both Senators McCain and Obama appealing to Joe. This question about raising taxes and how the money should be used undoubtedly struck a chord with the electorate and threw a monkey wrench into Senator Obama's campaign that had previously been set on cruise control.

Joe the Plumber reminds me of Flik. He's a dreamer who steps from the shadows to challenge an authority figure who wants to collect what Joe has gathered for his colony. Joe questions the wisdom of punishing financial success and stunting economic expansion via progressive tax policies. In the movie Hopper instructs Flik to get back in line. Senator Obama did no such thing. He instead gave a fine answer, that also happened to reveal something about the Senator's true beliefs about where the money earned by the successful belongs.

I'm very sure that the gravity of the situation dawned on the Obama campaign in the hours after the debate. Joe the Plumber had challenged the ideals of the campaign. And not only that. By challenging Senator Obama to his face while on camera he also showed the Senator up. These types of things aren't supposed to happen to a man preparing to take his place of honor on Pennsylvania Avenue.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch too think that the delayed reaction from the Obama campaign and the media to this situation was similar to Hopper's reaction later in A Bugs Life. Hopper has to explain to his gang, which is reluctant to return to ant island for a second time, that the grasshoppers are outnumbered by the ants. And if they let one ant stand up then all of the ants will stand up. And if all the ants stand up then the gravy train is over.

On Thursday morning the war in earnest against Joe the Plumber began. It started with Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden asserting that he doesn't know any plumbers who make $250,000 per year. Later in the day at a rally Senator Obama mocked (to hearty laughs from the crowd) John McCain's support of Joe's views and raised the question of whether or not a plumber could earn $250,000 per year.

Media investigators also went to work, hell bent on destroying the myth of Joe the Plumber. Adhering to the highest tenets of journalistic integrity it was reported that Joe wasn't registered to vote. But Joe is registered to vote as a Republican. No matter. Then they charged that Joe doesn't really own the company and he doesn't earn $250,000 per year. The man never said he owned the company or earned that salary. He said he hoped to do both someday.

Then came the charge that Joe is not a plumber because he is listed in state records as an apprentice plumber and doesn't even belong to a union. It's evidently no matter of consequence that Joe performs the duties of a plumber on a daily basis. I also heard somewhere that you can't force a person to join a union if they don't want to be in one.

The damning evidence against Joe was finally revealed. He owes $1200 in taxes to the State of Ohio. And therein the whole truth was revealed. Joe is not an important person in this society. He's just a worker ant, dreaming his life away while cheating the government to boot. So why should we listen to him? What difference does he make? He's a joke. I guess that also means that Congressional Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel is a joke too. He's been filing false tax returns for the last decade.

In truth I know nothing more about Joe than what I've seen reported. I'm in the same boat as everyone else. But I do know that none of what has been dug up by the media to discredit Joe changes the debate about the value of increasing the taxes of those who earn more in order to pass the money to those who earn less. Just as irrelevant is the attempted marginalization of plumbers (and in effect all trade workers) by both members of the Democratic ticket.

Shouldn't any citizen be able to express a point of view on the merits of progressive taxation? After all, it was Senator Obama who walked down Joe's street. He wanted to discuss the issues with real people. It's a situation that falls into the "be careful what you wish for" category.

This is an issue of the attitude towards working people who dare speak truth to power. The media are going to do what they want. But the candidates on the other hand should know better. The mocking and laughing at Joe as a mere plumber is downright hurtful not just to one man, but to working people who feel a fear that if they speak up in an important situation that the same thing will happen to them.

I don't know if the combination of hard work and circumstances will help Joe to pay his tax lien and build the business he dreams of. But I do know that in America every voter should be treated with respect (to their face and afterwards) when they rationally express their point of view to a candidate for President. And those people shouldn't be mocked and the subject of witch hunts by the media for asking a question. Joe has been subject to both.

Some in the media have called Joe's quest to own a business a fantasy. I don't think it is. In America people have the opportunity to elevate themselves in so many ways. Joe can do it too.

The courage of the Flik character in A Bug's Life lead everyone in the ant colony to a greater understanding of the value of courage, freedom and entrepreneurship. I do believe that the actions of Joe are having a similar effect on many people. They're starting to think about how important it is for ordinary people to have a voice in the government. And if that's the only thing people learn from this situation then we're ahead of the game and have Joe the Plumber to thank for it.

Fairness and Taxes

2008-10-15T12:35:32Z

There's a lot of talk during this election cycle about fairness and taxes. John McCain says that everyone should pay a little less. Barack Obama says that people who make $250,000 per year and up should pay more.

The interesting thing that rarely gets spoken about is the fact that the United States has a progressive tax system. Taxes aren't based on a fixed percentage of income but on a scale that gets progressively higher as income increases.

There are currently five Federal income tax brackets in the system: 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%. A married couple earning $50,000 per year are in the 15% bracket and a married couple earning $250,000 per year falls into the 33% bracket. At first glance you might think that this is unfair because it appears that a family earning five times the income only pays a little more than double the taxes. Let's do the math and see if that is true.

Married Couple Earning $50,000

Earnings   Rate  Taxes
$16050       0.10   $1605
$33950       0.15   $5092.5
$50000                $6697.5

Married Couple Earning $250,000

Earnings   Rate  Taxes
$16050       0.10   $1605
$49050       0.15   $7357.5
$66350       0.25   $16587.5
$68850       0.28   $19278
$49700       0.33   $16401
$250000              $61229

* Based on the brackets detailed here.

The numbers here don't lie. The couple earning $250,000 has a Federal tax liability that is nine times the Federal tax liability of the couple earning $50,000 per year, not the two to three times that many people assume.

Actual tax paid will vary based on deductions. But it is an undeniable fact the taxpayers who Barack Obama says should pay more, in the interest of fairness and spreading the wealth, already incur a very large percentage of the tax liability in the United States. If we still think thay they should pay more then the following question needs to be asked. How much is enough?

Fall!

2008-10-12T22:14:59Z

Fall is here in full force and I'm raking.

A Question of Judgment - Part II

2008-10-12T15:02:07Z

This is part II in a series of two posts that detail some of the more troubling associations of Presidential candidate Barack Obama. In my previous post I highlighted his relationships with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the activist group known as ACORN.

Interestingly enough, in the day since I published the first post, news has broken that ACORN voter fraud may have occurred in yet another state. In what I hope is an isolated incident, a 7 year old girl has shown up on the voter registration rolls in Connecticut. The form that registered the girl to vote was fraudulently submitted by ACORN workers.

It is very clear that Senator Obama cultivated his associations with Wright and ACORN in order to gain acceptance and trust in the local community in Chicago. Entry into Chicago politics required further assistance and more money. Senator Obama was able to find the assistance he needed, financial and otherwise, via friendships with Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers.

Tony Rezko

Tony Rezko is a very powerful man in the world of Chicago politics with the ability to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for political campaigns. Tony Rezko has been a longtime friend and associate of Barack Obama. In a story published today by the Associated Press the link between Obama and Rezko is confirmed.

"Rezko also was friendly with Obama -- offering him a job when he finished law school, funding his earliest political campaigns and purchasing a lot next to his house."

Mr. Rezko did a little more than just purchase the lot next to Senator Obama's house. When Senator Obama purchased his million dollar mansion in the Hyde Park section of Chicago, the sale price was for $300,000 less than the asking price. The lot next door was purchased by Tony Rezko's wife at full asking price. Later on Senator Obama purchased a parcel of the lot next door back from Mrs. Rezko in order to expand his own yard. Call the situation what you like, but the whole deal looks like a favor. This favor occurred while Mr. Rezko was under investigation for the crimes he would eventually be convicted for.

Tony Rezko is now a convicted felon. He was convicted in June 2008 of fraud in attempting to get millions of dollars in kickbacks on state funded real estate deals. Tony Rezko is also a slumlord. And Barack Obama was connected to some of the housing deals whose costs were forced onto the backs of taxpayers when Mr. Rezko stopped making payments on the projects.

An investigation by the Chicago Sun-Times titled, "Obama and His Rezko Ties" makes the connection between Obama and Rezko's real estate deals.

"Obama was an attorney with a small Chicago law firm -- Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland -- that helped Rezmar get more than $43 million in government funding to rehab 15 of their 30 apartment buildings for the poor."

The same Sun-Times report also reveals that while residents of Rezko's buildings were freezing without heat in the winter of 1997, Tony Rezko somehow scraped up $1000 to donate to the campaign fund of a new State Senator named Barack Obama.

Another report by the Sun-Times titled, "8 Things You Need To Know About Obama and Rezko," details a relationship between Obama and Rezko that lasted for years, long after everyone knew Tony Rezko was using state money to refurbish and then neglect Chicago housing for the poor for his own personal gain.

How could someone with good judgment maintain such a long relationship with an individual who not only wasted taxpayer money but also engaged in criminal behavior? How could a U.S. Senator do a real estate deal with a man under deep investigation for crimes that were well known in the Chicago community? It's a question of judgment.

I think it's more accurate to say that it's a reflection of poor judgment by Senator Obama who aligned himself with a slumlord that wasted the state taxpayers money in order to forward his own political career. Senator Obama should have denounced Tony Rezko and demanded that he make restitution to the citizens of Rezko's slums as well as to the taxpayers of the state. Instead, after years of devastating results in Rezko's housing projects, Senator Obama allowed Rezko to raise funds for his campaign for U.S. Senate.

As always, Obama claims ignorance, telling the Chicago Sun-Times the following.

"While I was a state senator, he had buildings in my district that apparently were not managed properly. I had no knowledge of that at the time.''

As a state Senator Barack Obama could not keep track of neglected housing projects in his own district. And now he wants people to believe that he can keep track of the entire United States. An even more troubling question is this one. What favors does Barack Obama owe to Tony Rezko? And what would a President Obama do to repay those favors?

]]> Bill Ayers

Bill Ayers is a friend to Barack Obama. He's the kind of friend that you need to get ahead in the world of Chicago politics. And Bill Ayers indeed helped Barack Obama get ahead by appointing him to serve on foundation boards and hosting Obama's political coming out party.

Mr. Ayers comes from a powerful family. Bill Ayers' father Tom Ayers was the head of the power company Commonwealth Edison. According to a blog post by Tom Ayers' grandaughter, Tom Ayers was extremely influential in the world of business and politics in Chicago.

"Mr. Ayers headed Commonwealth Edison for seven years, ending in 1980. Before assuming the top job, he helped negotiate the first labor contract between the energy giant and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. He served on many boards, including that of G.D. Searle, Chicago Pacific Corp., Zenith Corp., Northwest Industries, First National Bank of Chicago and Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune, his family said."

And while Tom Ayers performed his work in the light of day his son Bill preferred to lurk in the shadows. Today people will call Bill Ayers many things. He's called an educator. He's called an activist. He's called a radical or ex-radical. Many would also call Bill Ayers a terrorist.

In the 1960s Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn founded a violent organized crime syndicate known as the Weather Underground. The Weather Underground positioned themselves as a group of people who were against the Vietnam war. But the Weather Underground didn't make their case via peaceful protests and legal action. They made their case via violence, intimidation and terror.

Bill Ayers had the means and the opportunity to conduct reasonable, peaceful dissent against the war. He simply chose another direction. And that direction included setting bombs at the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, New York Police Headquarters and the home of a judge in New York City.

John Murtaugh was nine years old on February 21, 1970 when woke to a frantic household that was on fire. Mr. Murtuagh recounted the tale earlier this year in an article titled, "Fire In The Night."

"I still recall, as though it were a dream, thinking that someone was lifting and dropping my bed as the explosions jolted me awake, and I remember my mother's pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn't leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. Sunlight, the next morning, revealed three sentences of blood-red graffiti on our sidewalk: FREE THE PANTHER 21; THE VIET CONG HAVE WON; KILL THE PIGS."

The young Mr. Murtaugh's father was a judge involved in the Panther 21 trial. No one doubts that the Weather Underground was behind the bombing of Mr. Murtaugh's house. They were very active in the area. A few weeks later, on the morning of March 6, 1970, a townhouse in Greenwich Village was reduced to rubble. The New York Times reported the following item years later.

"On the morning of March 6, 1970, Cathy Wilkerson stumbled onto 11th Street in tatters, bleeding and her clothes all but ripped off her body. Her father's town house, 18 West 11th Street, which she had borrowed on a ruse, had just been blown to pieces, killing three members of the Weatherman group who were building bombs in the basement."

These are but two of the many stories from across the country that involved acts of violence by the members of the Weather Underground. The New York Times reports that, "Between 1970 and 1974 the Weathermen took responsibility for 12 bombings..." Actions of members of the Weather Underground continued until 1981, when members of the organization robbed an armored car in Rockland County, NY. Two Brinks guards and a police officer were killed.

For many years Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn were fugitives from the law. Bernardine Dohrn was supsected of involvement in a murder in San Francisco while on the run and was on the FBI's ten most wanted list. Ayers and Dohrn eventually turned themselves in. Afforded the best legal counsel money could buy Ayers and Dohrn were able to escape the most serious charges against then. It's not that they weren't guilty. They were guilty. They just had the means and political muscle behind them to kill the case.

In an August 2001 Chicago Magazine article titled No Regrets, Bill Ayers proudly proclaimed himself, "Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country."

Today Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are respected members of society in Chicago. They are very well off, living in a mansion in Barack Obama's Hyde Park neighborhood. Assimilation back into society was relatively easy for a couple whose family was one of the most powerful in the Midwest. They champion the social cause of education and hobnob with respected world leaders such as Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

There are no regrets and no repentance from the people who killed, maimed and otherwise terrorized Americans on their own soil. Ayers presented his attitude in an article titled "No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives," that appeared in the New York Times on September 11, 2001.

"I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough."

These revelations beg the following question. Are these the sort of people that any reasonable person would want supporting them in a quest for political office? I say no. Barack Obama felt differently. Bill Ayers was (and still is I believe) Barack's kind of guy. Bill gets things done after all, and he's got a lot of money to boot.

The connections between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers are well documented. A Chicago Sun-Times report titled, "Who Is Bill Ayers," documents the Obama-Ayers relationship.

"In the mid-1990s, Ayers and Dohrn hosted a meet-and-greet at their house to introduce Obama to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate. In 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's campaign. Ayers also served alongside Obama between December 1999 and December 2002 on the board of the not-for-profit Woods Fund of Chicago. That board met four times a year, and members would see each other at occasional dinners the group hosted."

The questions that have lingered throughout Senator Obama's Presidential Campaign are these. What did Barack Obama know about Bill Ayers' violent past? When did he know about Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and the Weather Underground? How does Senator Obama feel about the fact that Ayers and Dohrn have never expressed an ounce of remorse for what they did?

The only real answers we've ever gotten from Senator Obama came in the debate footage embedded below. Senator Obama describes Ayers as,"... guy who lives in my neighborhood who is a professor of English in Chicago." Senator Obama also categorizes the relationship between himself and Mr. Ayers as "flimsy" in his response.

But we know that the relationship between Obama and Ayers was more than flimsy. It was more than two guys saying hi to each other while walking their strollers down the street. Bill Ayers and Barack Obama are friends, were business associates and partners in Obama's political ambitions.

The question I ask myself is this one. If I knew someone that was trying to help me had committed anything close to the acts of Bill Ayers, what would I do? I tell you what I would do. I would say, "No thanks." Because if I'm going to get ahead in this life it's not going to be with the support of people who disavow themselves of the rule of law and common decency. And it won't be with help from people who fail to realize the pain and anguish they chose to cause people via their acts of terror.

It's a question of judgment. And Barack Obama's judgment in aligning himself with the Ayers family was very poor. More very chilling questions should be asked. What favors did Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn do for Senator Obama? How will Senator Obama repay those favors when he is President? The American people deserve answers before electing Barack Obama to be President.

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?
- Mark 8:36

Too Many Questionable Associations

As I stated in the first post in this series I don't agree with Senator Obama on any issue. But even without the issues there exists too many questionable associations with people who have done harm to the people of the United States. Reverend Jeremiah Wright, ACORN, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers. These are opportunistic associations which reveal values that a person will bring with them to higher office.

In his rise to political power Senator Obama was not the change agent that he professes to be. He went with the flow. He befriended those who were in power. He championed their causes. He did not question their motives or challenge their beliefs. That's not change. That's more of the same.

A Question of Judgment - Part I

2008-10-11T17:04:16Z

Those who are very close to me know very well that I'm a person who adheres to very conservative political values. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in smaller government that runs on a realistic budget. I believe in a strong national defense to deter our nation's enemies. I believe that unborn children have rights. I believe that it is better to teach a person than to give to a person. Those are just a few of my very strong core beliefs that guide my view on politics.

It should not come as a surprise to anyone who knows me that I support the John McCain - Sarah Palin ticket for President of the United States. I don't support Obama - Biden chiefly because I don't agree with them on any major issue. But I'm also moved by what I see as Senator Obama's blind ambition that has brought him to where he is today.

Senator Obama has indeed engineered an impressive ascent through American politics. From the streets of Chicago as a community organizer, to the State Senate of Illinois to the U.S. Senate. And now who knows? He may just be the next President of the United States. Senator Obama's ascent is an example of how the American dream is truly alive and well.

But now I dare to ask a question. Does the path to the American dream matter when evaluating a person's readiness for the highest office in the land. Should we only acknowledge the titles, Community Organizer, State Senator, U.S. Senator? Do we dare ask what good a person actually accomplished? Do we dare evaluate the ethics and beliefs of the individuals that helped Senator Obama get where his today? I think we should.

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?
- Mark 8:36

During his ascent through the ranks of Chicago politics Barack Obama associated himself with a roster of questionable individuals and organizations. These associations enabled Mr. Obama to more easily make the ascent he has made. These associations represent the establishment in Chicago politics. I profile these associations one-by-one below.

]]> The Reverend Jeremiah Wright

Over twenty years ago Barack Obama joined the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright in south Chicago. At the time Mr. Obama was an outsider looking for a way in to the community. Rev. Wright's church was the "in" that Mr. Obama needed and he embraced the church an Rev. Wright for many years. But the message of Rev. Wright is not one of unity and peace. It is a message of division and anger, promulgating racial stereotypes and feeding hatred based on an anti-American point of view. Why else would a man of the cloth, speaking from the pulpit utter the words, "God damn America." What kind of a man brings people together by pointing out from the pulpit, when young children are in the audience, that America is the "US of KKK A."

Mr. Obama strongly defended Reverend Wright earlier this year, but the following video report from ABC News appears to reveal the true nature of the teachings of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

The video does not lie. Reverend Jeremiah Wright frequently preached hate and division from his pulpit. And all along Barack Obama was there. Reverend Wright performed his marriage. Reverend Wright baptized his children. And now Senator Obama claims he never heard anything like what is seen in this video. How is that possible? I don't think it is. How is it possible that Senator Obama who paints himself as a post-partisan uniter could listen to the ravings of Jeremiah Wright and think those teachings were worth absorbing?

The are two answers that make sense to anyone. One is that Senator Obama believes that we live in the United States of KKK. And he believes that with 9/11 our chickens came home to roost. Or maybe Senator Obama doesn't believe it but associated himself with Jeremiah Wright because it was convenient and beneficial for him to do so. Because it must be very hard for a Hawaiian-raised, Ivy League educated person to insinuate themselves into the lives of the people in a city he knew nothing about.

So I believe that Mr. Obama embraced the marriage of convenience in order to gain acceptance in a community where he was a stranger. But in doing so Mr. Obama sold out his principles to a man whose highest principles are sowing the seeds of division and hatred in order to cement his own power.

Senator Obama finally distanced himself from Jeremiah Wright after Rev. Wright continued to make divisive comments at a National Press Club appearance. The Senator is way beyond the streets of Chicago so he doesn't need the Reverend's support any more. It is worth noting that Rev. Wright recently retired to a million dollar mansion and even found himself a new lady friend. Things seems to be going well for both Senator Obama and Rev. Wright. I guess all's well that ends well.

ACORN

Barack Obama has a longstanding relationship with the activist group known as ACORN. The name ACORN (it stands for Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) sounds harmless enough. But their track record is questionable at best. It's pretty easy to understand why Senator Obama has a past with ACORN. The Senator is famously known as a community organizer. And while no one questions the work that Senator Obama did for ACORN I wonder why Senator Obama would ever align himself with a group whose tactics are so questionable.

ACORN's primary functions involved voter registration and local activism. ACORN's local activism has long included the practice of pressuring banks to make loans to those who could not afford them. A New York Times report titled Fading Red Line details the efforts of ACORN, aided by the Bill Clinton Justice Department, to force banks to make loans to low-income borrowers. A quote from that report follows with emphasis added by myself.

In blighted North Philadelphia, where gutted homes intersect with broken dreams, the banking industry is meeting the inner city.

Prodded by Federal laws and an aggressive community-action group called Acorn, banks here and in other cities across the country have started making mortgage loans in neighborhoods they have traditionally avoided.

In Philadelphia, bankers are setting the rules for this kind of lending. So far, $60 million has been lent in a widely watched program. It matters little if an applicant has a small income, an irregular job pattern or collects welfare or food stamps. He or she might still qualify for a mortgage, bankers here say -- a radical departure from tradition banking practices.

There is no doubt that ACORN, and other groups like them, played a very prominent role in creating the current financial crisis. Banks made loans and did business that they would not otherwise engage in because they feared being tagged as discriminatory. The actions of ACORN amount to cultural extortion. We see now, that the long term results of the efforts of ACORN have lead to financial devastation for much of America.

Barack Obama has recently made attempts to distance himself from ACORN. But if Senator Obama wasn't practicing the ACORN doctrine then what was he doing as a community organizer? What agenda did Obama adhere to that was different from the ACORN agenda?

Whether or not Senator Obama ever worked directly for ACORN is a point of contention. But no one disputes that Senator Obama sympathizes with the group and supports their causes. Stanley Kurtz of National Review says that, "...a bit of digging into Obama's years in the Illinois State Senate indicates strong concern with Acorn's signature issues, as well as meetings with Acorn and the introduction by Obama of Acorn-friendly legislation on the living wage and banking practices. The Cleveland Leader also recently published an article about Obama and ACORN that provides more details on the relationship and states that, "Attempts to hide evidence of Obama's involvement with ACORN have included wiping the web clean of potentially damaging articles that had appeared, and were previously publicly accessible."

What makes this association very important is the fact that ACORN is a very powerful group in Chicago politics. But they are also very powerful nationally and have pushed ideas and utilized tactics that have been damaging to the United States on many levels. Senator Obama never questioned these ideas or tactics, even as members of the group have been arrested and convicted across the country.

Today the strong ties between Senator Obama and ACORN continue. His campaign made an $800,000 payment to an ACORN subsidiary earlier this year. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that, "An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. -- a subsidiary of ACORN -- worked in "get-out-the-vote" projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary."

Just this week we have the news that ACORN helped one person register to vote 72 times. the FBI has raided ACORN's Las Vegas offices to investigate a number of alleged offenses including, "...submitting fraudulent voter-registration forms -- including for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys."

Senator Obama's longtime association with ACORN raises serious questions about his judgement. Does he condone pumping up the voter registration rolls with fake documentation? Does he condone people voting multiple times? Does Senator Obama condone the extortion of business from banks under the threat of public shame? Does Senator Obama think that loans should be made to people who can't afford to pay the money back?"

I don't know the answers to the previous questions for sure. But I do know that if nothing else, an association with ACORN meant stronger political support from the power brokers in Chicago politics, as ACORN's causes are championed by those who feed at the federal and State troughs of taxpayer dollars. Two of those power brokers are a convicted felon named Tony Rezko and a domestic terrorist named Bill Ayers.

In Part II of this series I will explore Senator Obama's deep and troubling connections to both Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers.

Reality On Access To Health Insurance

2008-10-09T22:35:43Z

This video makes what I think are very good points on the issue of access to health insurance. The fact is that health insurance is available and affordable to many people who don't have it. Some people choose to spend their money on other things that are less of a necessity. One guy in the video forgoes health insurance while he spends $300 a month on vitamin supplements.

One point not mentioned in the video is the fact that many larger states have programs that allow those who are working, but not covered by their employer, to purchase coverage at group rates that are far less than the individual premiums. The plan in New York State is called Healthy New York.

Get Some: How To Fix America's Health Insurance Crisis

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac: Thanks Democrats In Congress

2008-10-04T18:41:36Z

Is there anyone who can make a case that the video embedded below does not constitute a smoking gun in the case of the current credit market meltdown? Here we have calls for increase oversight on a quasi-government organization that was already known to have cooked the books.

A New York Times story on June 23, 2003 titled, "Fannie Mae's Accounting Finds Critics Of Its Own," states that, "Regulators, lawmakers and investors have battered Freddie Mac, the country's second-largest mortgage financier, since it fired its president two weeks ago, after the company said he failed to cooperate with an internal inquiry into its accounting."

The hearing shown below took place in 2004.

Perhaps this one should be filed under, things that make you go hmmm.

It's The Debt Stupid

2008-09-22T21:42:57Z

"In the sudden rush to blame the crooks in DC and on Wall Street, we should first take a long look in the mirror."
- Victor Davis Hanson

While Congress ponders a $700 billion bailout of financial firms I can't help but think that things could have been different today. I have long believed that America is too much in love with the concept of debt as a tool to build wealth. Today the chickens created by those beliefs are coming home to roost.

About 18 months ago I lamented America's lust for debt on another blog with a post titled, Where There Are Long Term Loans There Are Problems. I completed that post with the following statement.

"Here's the bottom line. Everyone makes choices. Sometimes we make bad choices. You can't always blame the companies that make the risky loans available. And you can't always curse the system. But somewhere there needs to be the intersection of personal responsibility and corporate consciousness that makes sense. Given the financial situation that many people are in today I have to say that we're not there yet."

The situation we're in today is a result of many aforementioned bad choices at all levels. Many citizens have accumulated too much debt, relying on risky and expensive financial products to pay for things that they can't afford. Small business owners have long been in the habit of racking up debt as a way to artificially grow their businesses. Ironically the thing that most small business owners think helped them grow, also helped them to fail as well.

Corporations have faltered as well. The financial companies that we see failing today are where they are because they bought debt with debt. Only the corporations either didn't know what they were buying or knew but simply bought more than they could afford. This turns into a vicious cycle because as the debt they bought goes bad, the people who lent the corporations money to buy the debt in turn want their money. It's a real house of cards.

Let's not leave the government out of the fools party either. The government sponsored enablers of this mess are called Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Bloomberg columnist Kevin Hassett weighs in with a very simple opinion that gets right to the point.

"Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves."

"The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them."

Consider the house of cards officially down. Fannie and Freddie, whose unlawful accounting wizardry is the stuff of legends, did their part to wreck the system. Aunt Fannie and Uncle Freddie bought junk debt from financial institutions so that financial institutions could buy more junk debt. We might as well call the Fan/Fred monster and the financial institutions dumb and dumber.

So how do we turn the ship around? I think step one involves taking steps to reduce the thirst for debt at all levels. Individuals should not look to credit cards, home equity loans, student loans and risky mortgages as a solution to remedy getting things they want. Businesses need to learn to build slowly and grow organically on revenue rather than loans. Financial institutions need to lend and invest in a way that considers all the risks involved. And the government needs to shut down Fannie and Freddie. The government should not be enabling private industry to take on more debt, period.

Can we turn the ship around? I really don't know. Real positive change requires discipline and a desire to learn. Real positive change also requires good teachers who can show everyone how to survive, and ultimately thrive, without using debt as a tool. The best teacher I know on this subject is a guy named Dave Ramsey. Dave sells books and seminars but you can also download the first hour of his radio show as a free podcast every day.

I do know one thing. The proposed government bailout of lenders treats a symptom but doesn't eradicate the illness. Most people who get bailed out when their debts go bad turn right around and get back into debt. We hope that people would learn lessons. But how can people, businesses or governments learn lessons when there's always someone there to rescue them before the consequences of those mistakes are felt?

Maybe there's a greater irony in play here. America's thirst for debt has lead to the government requiring that Americans support the people that sold and guaranteed the debt in the first place buy purchasing the bad loans.

The situation reminds me of a quote from the movie Boiler Room where a young stock salesman says to a client something like this, "I liked this stock at $10 and I love it at $5." Well, I didn't like the debt they were selling at $10 and I hate it at $5. I say don't buy it at all.

America Votes At The Box Office

2008-09-14T15:43:50Z

A few weeks ago I heard an interview with an author and screenwriter named Andrew Klavan. Mr. Klavan put forth a very interesting theory that I had never considered. Klavan was talking about how the new Batman film, The Dark Knight, contained a hidden metaphor related to George W. Bush.

Klavan's theory is a simple one. The Batman character in this most recent film is in fact modeled after our current President. I haven't seen the film but Klavan classifies the character in the movie as one who sacrifices his popularity in order to do what is necessary to fight evil. Klavan also takes note of the fact that films with similar themes (like 300) tend to do very well at the box office.

I took a look at the U.S. box office numbers for The Dark Knight and 300. 300 grossed $210 million and The Dark Knight has grossed $514 million.I also found that Iron Man, a film directed by Jon Favreau (a known Republican) and starring Robert Downey Jr. (said to be a strong Conservative) has grossed $318 million to date.

I also checked on a few popular films that toe the Democrat party line with respect to the Iraq war to see how they fared at the box office.

Redacted - $65,000
Stop Loss - $10.9 million
Lions For Lambs - $15 million
In The Valley of Elah - $6 million

Andrew Klavan makes an interesting point when it comes to the respective approaches of Democratic and Republican film makers. Democrats produce films that hit the issues head on. And Republicans wrap their films in allegory. Some would argue that the reason for the difference in box office take can be found in the fact that the Republican themed films are just simply more entertaining.

Many people I know who have seen Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 disagreed with the premise of the film but found the film making approach to be an entertaining one. Fahrenheit 9/11 grossed $119 million at the domestic box office. Moore's next offering titled Sicko didn't fare as well, grossing $24 million at the U.S. box office. But Sicko still did better than the four anti-Iraq war movies mentioned above.

So if you wanted to make the case that people are buying into the entertainment value rather than the message you might have an argument. So why don't more Democratically oriented films go for more entertainment value. Perhaps the writers and directors are so serious that they just cant' help themselves.

I pondered writing about this topic for awhile but it wasn't till I saw the movie Juno on Friday night that I decided to do so. Juno is a very cute and heart warming film that has grossed $143 million in the United States. The movie features a very strong pro life message. The main character, Juno, is a high school age girl who gets pregnant and considers having an abortion.

Juno knows that she is too young and immature to raise a child. She actually goes to the abortion clinic. Once there she finds a friend from school picketing the clinic while shouting, "Your baby wants to be born." The scene painted inside the clinic is anything but a pretty one. Juno decides right there that she will not abort the baby.

I doubt that most people who watched the film Juno immediately thought that the movie was pushing a pro life message. But the fact is that the decision to keep the child to term was made very quickly without any resistance from friends or family to do otherwise. So I certainly feel that the performance of this film lends credence to Mr. Klavan's theory that the performance of Republican oriented films is an indicator of the true societal values in the U.S.

If this topic interests you I highly recommend that you watch this video where Mr. Klavan explains his beliefs on this topic.

The Long Road To 9/11

2008-09-11T16:52:49Z

Today is a day that holds many horrible memories for many Americans. I include myself in that group. On 9/11/2001 I lost friends and acquaintances. I nearly lost a family member. Every one of my friends knew someone who was killed. In addition to people we also lost one of the most significant architectural presences in any city in the Twin Tower of the World Trade Center.

On the day the World Trade Center opened in 1973 my Mom took myself and my brothers to the observation deck. Here's a picture from that day.

Twenty eight years later I found myself with some friends from New Zealand sunning (and recovering from a hangover) in the grass in Battery Park with the towers looming behind us. The next day I hopped on a plane out of LaGuardia airport headed to Houston, TX on a business trip. The plane took a route that crossed New York Harbor and in the morning sun I admired the buildings that framed the downtown New York City skyline for me and millions of other people. It was the last time I would ever see the Twin Towers standing. The date was September 10,2001.

We all know what happened the next morning. The truth is that most people who remember what happened won't forget it. Unfortunately many people do seem to forget the circumstances that lead to 9/11/2001 in the first place.

The terrorists attacks were not an event detached from history. They were in fact the exclamation point on a long sentence spelled out over three decades by Islamic extremists hell bent on destroying western society. The United States, in our wisdom, power and righteousness should have put a period on that sentence somewhere at the start.

Unfortunately we did not. Some would say that we never saw 9/11 coming. To those people I say, "You should have opened your eyes."

1983 - Marine barracks car bombed in Beirut. 243 U.S. Marines dead.

1988 - Pan Am flight 103 blown up over Lockerbie Scotland. 259 dead.

1993 - World Trade Center bombed. Six dead, more than a thousand injured.

1993 - The battle of Mogadishu. In October U.S. Army Rangers battle forces of Somali warlord Farah Aidid. 18 U.S. troops dead, 75 wounded.

1996 - Explosion at Al-Khobar Towers military housing complex in Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. troops dead.

1998 - U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed simultaneously. 258 dead, thousands wounded.

2000 - USS Cole bombed while in port in the country of Yemen. 17 American sailors dead, 39 wounded.

Prior to 2001 there was a pattern of actions against the United States that was directly attributable to the actions of Muslim extremist groups like Al Qaeda. Knowing that this threat existed the U.S. Government chose to pursue a policy that hinged on very limited response with a focus on criminal prosecutions. The fruits of that policy turned out to be rotten as we all know.

Here are a couple of quotes from a New York Times story from December 2000 titled Two Primary Figures Emerge in Bombing of the Cole.

"The Clinton administration has been careful not to assign blame for the bombing of the Cole to Mr. bin Laden or his organization, saying that the investigators have not found a smoking gun that directly links the bombing to either the Saudi millionaire or his militant Islamic network."

"A former counterterrorism official in the Clinton administration said it was important not to assume the White House would endorse military action against Mr. bin Laden or the Taliban if direct evidence of firm links continues to mount."

The previous quotes and many more like them were the hallmarks of President Clinton's attitude toward Islamic terrorism during his administration. I served in the U.S. Army from 1993 - 1998 and I can say that the military was well aware of the dangers of Osama Bin Laden and networks like Al Qaeda. It's a simple fact that the U.S. military was never ordered to do anything about it save blindly launching a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan. The Clinton administration preferred that Justice Department lawyers handle the work that was meant for soldiers. And you see where that got us.

There are some who charge that the U.S. is less safe today than we were before 9/11/2001. They say that we're less safe because we went to Iraq and because we went to Afghanistan. The facts prove otherwise. We were not in Iraq or Afghanistan between 1993 and 2001. Yet the attacks against our people and interests continued. Now that our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are deployed forward, taking the battle to the enemy we are much safer.

The Al Qaeda network has been severely degraded. Terrorist attacks, while still a threat, are way down.

On October 21, 2001 an article in the NY Times stated, "More than a month after the September terror attacks, the United States and its close allies are still intercepting communications among Osama bin Laden's associates and are convinced more attacks are coming, intelligence officials in several countries say." Later in the article it is stated, "Now the United States and its allies find themselves in a similar quandary. They know something is coming but not when or where."

Seven years later Al Qaeda has been unable to follow up with an attack that everyone else though was a foregone conclusion. It hasn't happened because the U.S. went and stayed on offense. thank you to all of those who have served and sacrificed during this time.

The Real Story Of The Bridge To Nowhere

2008-09-09T02:08:20Z

The Gravina Island Bridge in Alaska, also known as "the bridge to nowhere" has suddenly become a central theme of late in the Presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain. The funny thing about it is that neither politician actually had a hand in the original project.

Talk of the bridge has been spurred by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's assertion that she said "No" to the bridge and told Congress that "...if we want a bridge we'll build it ourselves." That's where the battle begins anew.

The backstory is that the bridge in question was used by McCain in 2005 as a symbol of wasteful spending on earmarks. Earmarks are federal funds targeted for use at the state level that are usually slipped into larger bills. As a result many earmarks get passed without having any connection to the legislation in a particular bill.

As the NY Times reports it via a story published on 12/17/2005 titled Two Bridges To Nowhere Tumble Down in Congress, "Congressional Republicans decided Wednesday to take a legislative wrecking ball to two Alaskan bridge projects that had demolished the party's reputation for fiscal austerity." So the funding for the project was actually killed by Congress long before Gov. Palin took office in December of 2006, or was it?

The same NY Times story goes on to state that, "The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose." So the bridge project was still very much alive even after Congress had supposedly "killed" it.

The project and funding was still on the table when Governor Palin took office in December of 2006. The previous Governor had, in fact, received the earmark and set aside $113 million for the project. The word is that statements made during Gov. Palin's candidacy for Governor of Alaska indicated that she supported building the Gravina Island Bridge. An Op Ed article in the Juneau Empire dated 10/29/06 states that, "Ketchikan will support Palin because of her support of the Gravina bridge." This indicates a good possibility that at one time Gov. Palin supported the project.

But something happened between October 2006 and early 2007 after Gov. Palin took office. A letter to the Editor of the Juneau Empire dated 02/15/07 states, "Charles Fedullo, Gov. Sarah Palin's press secretary, said there is no money in Palin's capital budget for the project at this time. Palin has common sense, that's why." Later in the year another story on the Gravina Island Bridge indicates, "In September, Palin ended work on the Gravina project, acknowledging that the state no longer had a way to pay for a project that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars."

]]> So there are four relevant facts in this case that are indisputable.

Fact 1: At some level Governor Palin showed support for the bridge project while she was running in the race for Governor of Alaska.

Fact 2: Congress made the money for the Gravina Island Bridge available to Alaska, although it didn't have to be used for that bridge.

Fact 3: The State of Alaska already had the federal funds in hand when Gov. Palin took office.

Fact 4: Governor Palin put a stop to the bridge project and appropriated the funds for more reasonable uses.

In September of 2007 the Alaska Daily News ran a story titled State Abandons Ketchikan Bridge To Nowhere that acknowledges the fact that Gov. Palin put a stop to the project and states, "She directed the state transportation department to find the most "fiscally responsible" alternative for access to the airport." That same story also reaffirms the NY Times story mentioned earlier in this article by stating that, "Congress stripped the earmark - or stipulation - that the money be used for the airport, but still sent the money to the state for any use it deemed appropriate."

Fast forward to today and the Barack Obama campaign is taking great issue with Gov. Palin's statements indicating that she put a stop to the project. Barack Obama was quoted today as saying, "I mean you can't just make stuff up. You can't just recreate yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself. The American people aren't stupid." Senator Obama was talking about Gov. Palin's stance on the bridge project. The Obama campaign is taking a huge risk in making this stand.

Governor Palin never said that she never supported the bridge. Governor Palin said that she put a stop to the project. And some have been saying that Congress killed the project. But the quotes from the New York Times and the Alaska Daily News prove without a doubt that there was money provided by Congress before Governor Palin assumed her duties. The money provided was eventually used on projects that were deemed more "fiscally responsible" for the State of Alaska.

So while Governor Palin should be chastised for speaking with a bit too much bravado on the subject given her early stance on the project, she did indeed realize that this effort was a waste of money and put a stop to it. And since Gov. Palin's party, the Alaska Republicans, were behind the bridge all along, she actually went against her own party to stop the project. Those two facts indicate that Gov. Palin is both a reformer and a fiscal conservative as she claims to be.

Hopefully the whole truth on this will come out. If it does then Senators Obama and Biden may just have serious egg on their faces.

As a footnote, the Alaska Democrats have been caught covering their tracks on this issue. A Democrat sponsored website until recently included information that attributed the ending of the Gravina Island Bridge project to Governor Palin. Strangely enough that page has been removed. But via the magic of Google cached search results I provide a screenshot below.

Who Said It?

2008-09-04T19:53:26Z

“I have a really interesting political point of view, and it’s not always something I say too loud at dinner tables here, but you can’t go from a $2,000-a-night suite at La Mirage to a penitentiary and really understand it and come out a liberal. You can’t. I wouldn’t wish that experience on anyone else, but it was very, very, very educational for me and has informed my proclivities and politics ever since.”

See here.

The Importance Of Domestic Drilling

2008-09-04T16:55:25Z

I've been in the energy industry for the past ten years and I want to let people know how important domestic drilling for oil and natural gas is.

Energy Security Is The Thing

Price isn't the big issue as far as I'm concerned. Energy security is the issue. Consider that even with a massive effort to convert electric power generation and transportation to sources other than fossil fuels, we will still have a considerable need (sorry Al) for fossil fuel powered resources for decades to come. So knowing that we're going to need oil and natural gas I ask this question. Where would you rather get your oil and gas from? Should it be from unstable autocracies like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria and Russia? Or should it be from companies right here at home? You know the answer.

You Can't Trust Them

One day any of these countries could decide to stop trading with the U.S. They would be spiting themselves if they did it but cutting off supply to the U.S. is a very powerful weapon. This could cause the price on world markets to skyrocket overnight. And it is only feasible if these other countries know for sure that we don't have the production capability to make up the difference. It could happen. For this reason alone Congress should authorize more domestic drilling.

Getting Paid Three Times

If the U.S. government did open up offshore areas and ANWR to drilling in order to protect energy security there would also be incredible economic benefits. The people of the U.S. would get paid three times for domestically exploited resources. The oil companies would pay for the land leases, which cost anywhere from $1 to $1.50 (way too low in my opinion) per acre. The oil companies would pay a 12.5% royalty on the money earned from sales of resources that they extract. And the oil and gas companies would pay taxes on their profits. This equation doesn't even take into account the increased number of jobs which lead to increased payroll taxes. Under the current scenario, the U.S. government and various states are taking in a mere fraction of what they could be getting in revenue from oil and gas companies.

Then There's The Environment

American oil and gas companies are held to very high standards with respect to environmental concerns when drilling. The other countries I mentioned don't have nearly the same environmental standards. So those people who say, "No drilling here," are really saying, "Drill somewhere else," which means that they don't care about the negative effects on the environment.

Let's Be Real

This talk of eliminating all fossil fuel consumption within ten years is a complete folly. But even if it wasn't a folly why shouldn't the U.S. ramp up to take advantage of the rising prices for oil and gas in the world markets? And it's not just the U.S. that will benefit. Many other smaller countries that are beholden to the likes of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria and Russia will benefit too. The world will be safer. Our economy will be stronger. And the environment will be much better off. What's wrong with that?

The choice is clear. Drill here, drill now.

Candidates Use Speechwriters?

2008-09-04T14:49:29Z

The buzz from many media pundits after Governor Sarah Palin's successful speech last night was that she didn't right her speech. So the inference is that although the speech was excellent, the ideas and accomplishments weren't really Gov. Palin's because a speechwriter was involved. Could the members of the press who have advocated this position be more silly?

I guess it may be news to the many politicos who cover these campaigns that all Presidential campaigns employ speechwriters. Senator Obama's campaign employs three speechwriters as detailed in a January 20, 2008 article in the New York Times titled What Would Obama Say?

Mr. Favreau, or Favs, as everyone calls him, looks every bit his age, with a baby face and closely shorn stubble. And he leads a team of two other young speechwriters: 26-year-old Adam Frankel, who worked with John F. Kennedy’s adviser and speechwriter Theodore C. Sorensen on his memoirs, and Ben Rhodes, who, at 30, calls himself the “elder statesman” of the group and who helped write the Iraq Study Group report as an assistant to Lee H. Hamilton.