Debt Free

Those who feel uncomfortable with unaccountable government officials in control over matters that affect them had better get used to it. Your congress and President are about to secede control of the majority of the planet to unelected, unaccountable internationalists ensconced in the corrupt, bureaucratic morass that is the UN. After experiencing the corruption that was the UN oil for food program in Iraq, or the UN “Peacekeepers” raping women and keeping sex slaves, does any among us feel the least bit comfortable allowing them to be in a position of authority over our nation in any way, shape, or form?

If you can answer yes to this question, perhaps you had better take a good, long look in the mirror. Jack booted thugs in blue armored personnel carriers rumbling through our streets? Perhaps not, but we’ll be losing precisely that control over our destiny that our forefathers fought the redcoats for over 200 years ago. Will we have any say in global events that affect us so greatly? Maybe but a whisper, if we’re fortunate, and toe the line as we’re asked. If we are signatories to this document, our time in the sun will have passed and the U.S. will cease to be the dominant force in the world.

Inasmuch as many would revel in seeing this come to pass, we should remember what we were able to accomplish for the time we held this esteemed position on the world stage. If you feel frustration with your inability to be heard by your elected officials, how will you feel when they are not only unelected, but have no interest in your opinion at all? In fact, there are many around the world, and even inside our borders that are wringing their hands with delight at the mere prospect that the U.S. will be foolish enough to sign the treaty.

For those of you that are unsure how an international treaty could possibly affect them, you should know that such a treaty is the ultimate legal document, superseding even our own Constitution. A treaty is the ultimate abridgement of our rights guaranteed us by the very Constitution, certain provisions of which a treaty would render impotent.  If the prospect of yielding authority to such a legislative body frightens you, as well it should. Stipulations unfavorable to our national interests will have to be obeyed, as unpleasant as the consequences may be.

Taxes will have to be paid, treaty stipulations abided by. The U.S could easily be denied the ability to gather intelligence on foreign powers or terrorist groups that could be a threat to our citizens, either abroad or within our own borders. The UN will be a taxing authority, and yeas they will have authority to collect taxes from you. Even better, they’ll not spend your money building your neighborhood school, improving your roads, or hiring additional police officers for your community. The taxes collected by the UN would be distributed to other countries, and you’ll have no say in how or where your money goes. Will the UN be taking money out of your check or levying property taxes against you? Not yet. They have yet to figure out that angle (when they do, check your pay stub), but they will be collecting taxes from U.S companies, possibly the one your work for.

It’s very disconcerting that so many members of congress are eager to jump on such a dangerous bandwagon. By doing so they are yielding an unprecedented amount of our destiny to foreigners who definitely don’t have our best interests at heart. It seems many in our own government may not either. Write, call and / or email your member of congress at once to voice your opinion about this threat to our national future.

You can contact your senate and congressional members here:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

Posted by debtblog at 07:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In this time of record profits, seen by some as reckless profiteering, that are being generated by said oil and gas companies, this strikes many as a fair way to ease their tax burden by shifting it to someone who can afford it far more than they. A larger question is, in this time of increasing unrest in the Middle East, should we be doing something that could possible increase our dependence on foreign oil? We should be striving for energy independence as fast as our national will can take us there.

Taking money out of the oil and gas companies pockets reduces their budgets for exploration and R&D, something that's going to be sorely needed if we are to obtain any semblance of energy independence. An alternative to eliminating their corporate tax breaks entirely, while retaining the appropriate amount of corporate meddling required to engender voter approval, might involve tax credits for research, alternative energy development, and exploration efforts performed by the energy companies.

Now isn't the time to become more reliant on troubled areas we have little control over. With Iran looming as dark force in the region, causing fear among her neighbors and unrest in the international community, we may need those troops we have overseas to ensure our oil supply. In fact some have postulated that our real reason for being overseas, conveniently in countries on either side of Iran, has little to do with coincidence.

As much as some are loathe to admit it, our very economic foundation rests upon a pool of oil, and cheap oil at that. Everything from your getting to work today (even in that Prius you're so proudly displaying), to the delivery of the beans for your morning latte, the road you traveled on, the plastic in everything you touch (including that cell phone you talk on while driving, much to the frustration of others you share the road with), and yes, the energy you're using to keep your computer going as you read this, is all because of that addictive black goo that pours forth from the ground.

If that tap is to run dry, or even be reduced to a dribble, you can kiss goodbye much of the good life you've enjoyed for so long. If that were to happen at the same time as our credit markets are experiencing a mini catastrophe, well, would everyone please hold on to the handrail.

Posted by debtblog at 01:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Lord knows many have tried. These days President Bush's popularity is at, to put it mildly, pretty low levels. There are many reasons for this, and I'm not going to analyze any of them. He has spent historic amounts of money (Yours!) and expanded many social programs to unprecedented levels. In any case, this hasn't done much to buoy his flagging support, either within the Republican party, or without. Just how much has he spent and what kind of popularity ROI has it garnered him? What about past U.S. Presidents popularity? Have they been able to spend enough, in the right areas, to ensure support of the people? Let's find out.

In FY 2000, the last year of the Clinton administration, the total outlays for the US government amounted to $1,789,216(million). By 2006, this figure had ballooned to $2,655,435(million). Any way you slice it, that's a bunch of money. Where did we manage to spend this cash? Some of it has been on the war on terror, Iraq, and national defense. The national defense portion accounted for about $123B of the increase. National defense spending rose from $294B to $417B in the 6 fiscal years from FY2000 to FY 2006. Where did the other $672B dollars go? Some of the increased government spending went to internal security. The Department of Homeland Security, and the agencies that now comprise it, spent .7% of the federal budget in FY2000. By FY2006, that had increased to 2.6%, a healthy jump, to be sure.

A large portion of the money has gone towards education. In the last year of the Clinton administration, FY2000, federal spending on education amounted to roughly 1.9% of the federal budget. In FY2006, this rose to 3.5%. That's right, as a percentage of the federal budget, federal education spending went up over 80%! In real terms it actually rose even further, because the total budget rose as well.

Another government agency that doles out money to individuals, the Department of Health and Human Services, experienced a similar budget increase. The DSHS (not to be confused with the DHS!) had their budget increase from 21.4% of the federal budget in FY2000, to 23.1% in FY2006. Again, the actual rise was even greater due to an increase in the total budget.

Although Bush increased funding for the Department for the Department of Labor almost 100% in his first term, he's subsequently reduced that back to levels about where they were under the Clinton administration. Under President Bush, spending on health care (except Medicare) has risen from $136B to $173B. Medicare spending jumped from $209B to $283B between FY2001 and FY2006.

Has Bush's spending on social programs amounted to squat in the mind of the public? Apparently not, if his approval ratings are any indication. As he's spent even more on social programs, his approval ratings have declined. It would be interesting to see how they'd be without our little Middle Eastern diversion. Would he be reaping any popularity dividends then? Have past presidents fared any better?

President Clinton had the highest job approval ratings in recent history. When he left office, his rating was 65%. Ronald Regan was just a tick behind, at 64%. Good ole' Ike sits in 3^rd position at 59%. Keep in mind these are their popularity ratings when they left office, not mid-term. How much did they spend on social programs as a percentage of the federal budget, and did that correlate to their popularity rating? LBJ, a known spender, had an approval rating of only 49% when he left office, but like President Bush, was facing an increasingly unpopular war overseas. How much did LBJ spend, really? As a percentage of the budget, his administration only allocated a maximum of 8.4% to the DHHS. Although this seems low in our “We’ve a program for everyone. Come and get it.” times, it is actually 2-1/2 times what it was only few years earlier, under the Kennedy administration. Where did Johnson spend the federal budget? On the military, of course, at a rate of just about twice what the Bush administration is spending now as a percentage of the federal budget.

Looking at the previously stated figures, it's apparent that President Clinton actually spent less on social programs, as percentage of the federal budget, than does President Bush. It sure didn't seem to hurt his job approval ratings. Regan, almost as popular as Clinton when he left office, actually spent far less on social programs than either Clinton or Bush 43, if the funding level of the DHHS is any indication. Under Regan, the DHHS was allocated between 12 and 13.5% of the federal budget, while under Clinton (17% - 21%) and Bush 43 (23% - 23.5%) it was far higher.

Jimmy Carter, the poster child for poor presidents, had an atrocious job approval rating (34%), and with good reason, if the economic indicators of the time and his foreign policy achievements(?) are any guide. Did he spend money on social programs? Not by today's standards he didn't. The Georgian spent an average amount for the times. In reality he only spent about what his predecessors, Nixon and Ford, spent on social programs. His rating was in the dumper because Joe and Joesphene average resented getting 18% mortgages and suffering through double digit inflation. He would have had to buy higher job approval ratings, but economically, he couldn’t deliver, so he delivered the office of the President to Ronald Regan.

It looks like social spending by an administration has little bearing on the President’s job approval rating. Some have spent comparatively large amounts, but the people still felt like they couldn’t get no satisfaction. On the other hand, some spent  a fairly small amount and the folks loved them. Make of it what you will. All figures provided by the OMB.

Posted by debtblog at 05:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, think again my deluded friend! It most definitely will affect you, and not in a positive way, either. Let me state right up front that I think illegal immigration is an extremely serious problem facing our nation, possibly the most serious, and I’m on record, here and elsewhere, as stating such. I am all for “the fence”, cracking down hard on employers that flaunt immigration laws, and toughening the laws to preclude the current illegal alien practice of multiple illegals using the same SSN.

What I’m not in favor of is the implementation of the Employee Eligibility Verification System in its current form. I mean, come on! You’ve got to be kidding me! Every citizen of the United States, even if you’ve lived here for your entire life, will be subject to a requirement that you prove your eligibility to both live here and hold a job. To do so you will be required to submit biometric information that will be included on the new social security / national ID card.

With the new system the Department of Homeland Security will grow into an agency that wields immense power, possibly more than has been accorded any other agency in the history of our nation. As we know the government never makes mistakes, this shouldn’t concern us in the slightest. If you actually hold this view, maybe a head-from-the-sand removal procedure is in order, post haste. Maybe the following aspect of the new legislation will make your little ears perk up, my deluded friend. There is no provision for judicial review on the decisions the DHS makes when using the EEVS.

For those of you that haven’t had your morning Starbucks this morning, I’ll say that again; no provision for judicial review. Think about what that means for just the briefest period time, please. If the government screws up (What, they do that?????), you could be deemed unable to hold any gainful employment, or earn any money whatsoever, when in fact you are an eligible U.S. citizen or resident alien. So beyond the indignity and inconvenience of being forced to prove your right to work in your own country, you may be unable to do so, through no fault of your own, and have no recourse to rectify the situation.

The amendment to the legislation proposed by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) would do just that. It would impose impossible timetables and restrictions on such reviews, effectively rendering them unavailable when needed. He terms his amendment the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act (FILA). I wonder of the athletic clothing manufacturer knows about the acronym? You’ll find my usual practice of inverting the names of most legislation to get the true meaning is definitely applicable here. One more thing; there will be an injunction against suing the federal government to recover lost wages or other legitimate damages incurred when the system makes a mistake (and it most definitely will).

You’ll be required to carry the new biometrically enabled social security card on your person at all times. Any time you change employment, you’ll have to prove your worth all over again. Not to the employer, to the feds. That’s right, to change jobs, you’ll actually need government approval.

I’m sure the government will only be only too happy to relieve you of any possessions they feel you might have obtained while illegally employed. That may not be a provision of the bill yet, but I’m sure it’s entered the peanut sized brain of a legislator somewhere.

Excuse me, I’m not a member of the Libertarian party or some civil rights extremist, and I’m completely against illegal immigration, but this stinks like a feedlot in July. For those you fortunate enough to never have experienced such a stench, believe me, the comparison’s valid. All your personal information collected for the EEVS will be stored in yet another huge, federal database controlled by the DHS to do with as they see fit. I hope that makes you feel like you have more security in your homeland.

In addition, the vast bureaucracy will be growing yet again, as countless federal employees will be added to support the requirements of the measure. So, not only could the proposal cost you money by prohibiting you from working (You’d be relegated to a “No Work” list, similar to the no fly list), it’s sure to vacuum countless tax dollars from your wallet in support of additional federal government expansion. Rest assured it will be a vast expansion indeed. Great, another reason to let those tax cuts expire, and keep more money out of your pocket and into theirs. Not only will the agency grow, it will likely grow far more than needed due to the inefficiencies sure to be present. I’ve been unable so far to find an estimate of the additional employees required to support such an operation, but that’s probably by design.

A far better system, and one that would probably be almost as effective, without the privacy and other negative implications of the EEVS as it is currently proposed, would be one proposed by Seattle radio talk show host Kirby Wilbur. Using something similar to the background check system required when someone attempts to purchase a firearm, SSNs would be checked to be sure they were valid and only issued to, and in use by, one person. That alone would crack down on the number of illegals getting jobs using current practice of multiple individuals using the same SSN. That could be added to the current firearm background check system to check for a criminal record or outstanding visa violations.

This could be implemented much more quickly and cost effectively, without incurring the privacy and other penalties that legitimate citizens would suffer under the currently proposed legislation. It might also be as effective when the inefficiencies sure to be present in the proposed system are factored in. Then again, no price can be too large to have homeland security. Papers please!

Posted by debtblog at 02:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

How else has the world reacted? Well, some of the headlines are abominable. “Iran sees positive signs in U.K. Stance” is a headline brought to us by the Associated Press this morning. My question is: “Why is that even a headline?” That's simply more legitimizing the Iranian position by the AP. A better headline might read “British Royal Marines and Sailors Still Held Captive By Iranian Government”. The British are going to have themselves more of a problem if they don't negotiate from a position of strength. Many individuals in that part of the world will respect nothing less. The British are at their end of their rope, both militarily and economically. They can ill afford to get into a protracted struggle with the Iranians. Unless they want the current situation to be but a prelude to a larger conflict in the region, as Iran flexes her muscles and tries to assume a more dominant position.

On one end of the scale, the Brits could pursue further diplomatic solutions. The Iranians, through their own actions, have swung much of world opinion against them. This bodes well for a future diplomatic solution to the current situation. Can Britain and the rest of the world make the diplomatic solution tough enough to deter future actions of this kind, or other abominations by the Iranians? Time will tell. We can all hope fervently that it does. Iran has their sights set on political domination of the region. That's a powerful motivator, and one they seem bent on achieving. As of this morning, the British had toned down their political rhetoric. That would seem to be taking matters in the wrong direction. Showing weakness here, or acquiescing to the Iranian position in any way, will only bolster the Iranian's resolve to dominate the region, and pave the road to future problems with Iran.

What other options does Britain have available? They could blockade Iran's key coastal oil terminal facilities in the region, until their troops are returned safe and unharmed. This would prevent Iran from selling any crude oil or importing any refined oil. Faced with such tough economic measures, Iran may back down. The show of military strength may also boost the respect with which the Iranians and others in the Arab world view the British, helping to prevent future problems.

The problem is that the British Navy is hardly the huge, world class fighting force it once was, capable of projecting British might to all corners of the globe. Currently the Royal Navy has only about 90 commissioned warships. Of the 90 vessels, 16 are mine countermeasure vessels, 18 are fast coastal patrol boats, 4 are nuclear ballistic missile submarines, and 3 more ships are permanently moored as shore or training facilities. Of the 49 remaining ships, some would have to be used for current missions, such as protecting the home islands. Could the British Navy, with the forces remaining, mount an effective Naval blockade? If they used some air power from land bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe so.

Further up the scale, the British could give the Iranians 36 hours to return their troops safe and unharmed, to U.S. or British soil. If the time table expires without the troops return, all Iranian coastal oil facilities would be completely destroyed. This could easily, safely (for the Brits) and relatively inexpensively be accomplished with missles. The 36 hour period would allow the Iranians to remove all non military personnel from the facilities. If the demand was not met to the letter and in its entirety, missiles would be inbound. The British, once making such a threat, would have little choice but to follow through, lest it lose all respect and credibility.

This approach may well work. If it failed in getting these troops returned, the British destruction of the oil facilities would give the British the respect of the Iranians and others in the Arab world. It may well prevent any future problems. See 1981 for what happens when the Iranians fear retaliation. It could also backfire tremendously, however.

The political and diplomatic good will engendered by the British throughout the current situation could well evaporate if they were to use such a dramatic military situation. The rest of the Arab world could begin to give the Brits tremendous problems, to say nothing of the Russians. The Russians have shown themselves to be constantly taking the side of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on virtually every matter, save the Iranians actually having nuclear warheads at the ready.

Naturally their are two sides to every argument. The question is weather the British are correct, or is it the Iranians? What the Iranians are doing is trying to stage a power play in an attempt to prove they are ready to be the dominant force in the Arab world. Take a look at the gas station outside your window. The situation's not resolved yet.

Posted by debtblog at 01:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by debtblog at 02:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The range issue is obviously a load of total crap. If range was the only issue, Princess Pelosi could wing around the nation, and even back to her home district in total comfort. She could accomplish this while ensconced in the luxury provided by an Air Force C-37A, the military version of that executive uberjet, the Gulfstream G500. Donald Trump swears by those things, you know. If it's luxurious enough for him, you'd think it would be for her. The C-37A has enough range, 6,000 miles, to fly her highness from Washington DC to San Francisco and back without stopping to refuel. So don't try and tell me the larger aircraft request had only to do with the added range offered by a Boeing 757.

The average fuel consumption for a Boeing 757-200 cruising at 37,000 feet is around 1,100 gallons per hour. Pelosi's jet may even consume less because, instead of flying 200 passengers as the commercial version does, she'll be conferring flying privileges on only 20 to 30 people. The spot price of jet fuel is about $1.80 per gallon, so figure about $2,000 per hour for fuel. In 2003 the maintenance costs of a 757-200 ran about $875 / hr. Her highnesses also has a crew of, get this, 15. If they are paid, including benefits, an average of $30/hr, you're looking at another $3,600 a day for aircraft crew costs.

The flight from DC to San Fran is about 2,100 nautical miles. At the 500 knot cruise of a 757, that's about 4 hours, plus a half hour of ground time. So, not including actually purchasing the aircraft, depreciation, or financing charges, Pelosi One costs the American taxpayer about $30,000 for the round trip to San Francisco from DC. That's if the plane sits around waiting for her return. If it has to journey back to DC, then wing its way back to San Francisco to fetch her and her entourage, figure about 60 grand.

What the C-32 does offer, however, is the ability for Pelosi to ferry around a larger planeload of servants, friends, contributors, and supporters than the C-37A. In addition, they'll be enjoying a much more spacious interior, more lavish bar and nicer entertainment system than those poor plebs in the C-37s must make due with. Nothing but the best for those champions of the common man I suppose. Oh, well, it's only your money.

Posted by debtblog at 03:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Part of the appeal of blogs is that they reflect the personal views of their creators. It matters not what those views may be or who they may offend. That too is part of the appeal. There used to be this little piece of legislation you may have heard of called the “Fairness Doctrine” That bit of legalese states that broadcasters must treat issues of public policy or importance in an “honest, equal and balanced manner”.  Although it would seem that would violate the First Amendment, they slid around that bit of prose by reasoning that the airwaves, unlike print media, the airwaves were of a “limited nature”.

Well, take a look at the Internet. That bit of info pipeline that sucks away endless hours of your week could easily be interpreted in much the same way. After all, most people don’t have a broadband modem hardwired into their brains, although I do know some people….. Anyway, you get the point. If certain elements of Congress, mainly Democrats, (those champions of the little guy, correct?) get their way, they’ll use the Fairness Doctrine to require broadcasters to present both sides of an issue. Why is Congressman Dennis Kucinich so insistent on violating our right to free speech in the name of furthering our rights? Why, indeed?

Never mind that everybody has a freakin’ channel changing button on their radios or address window on their browser. But hey, if you can’t beat Limbaugh or Hannity in the marketplace, you can probably get the congress to require the stations carrying them to balance the amount of time they are on the air with shows presenting an opposing viewpoint; too bad for the station owners that those shows have failed to demonstrate economic viability.

In 1986, the DC Court of Appeals ruled that a prior decision under President Regan’s FCC that the Doctrine was a violation of the First Amendment could stand. A year later, the FCC decided that the Doctrine did, in fact violate the First Amendment, and repealed it in the 1987 Syracuse Peace Council decision, paving the way for the huge conservative talk radio industry we know today, among other things. One of those other things happen to be the blogosphere. What if you’re running a conservative Blog, such as Michelle Malkin’s or presenting a Liberally oriented carnival, such as Carnival of the Liberals? Not too balanced, are they? Well, too damned bad, you better broaden your point of view, or turn into Hannity and Colmes.

Initially, the Doctrine would target only broadcast media. You know that it would only be a matter of time, about 10 seconds, before they start looking at blogs as well. If you’ve got a blog, look out! Oh, yes it can happen here. Which of the big bloggers has the resources to challenge this in court, if in fact those powers that be deem that it should return? Those same Democrats that are clamoring for the return of the Doctrine to protect their flank from the conservative radio talk shows would crap their pants if it was used to clamp down on something that they present a one-sided argument on, or one of their lefty blogs. Could this extend to movies as well? Talk about an Inconvenient Truth.

Posted by debtblog at 03:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

The Mayor of Seattle advocates a, make sure you're sitting down, $4.6 billion tunnel as a replacement for the viaduct. That will really increase the public debt. Well, I guess the public coffers will never be debt free anyway. On the plus side, it would beautify the city's waterfront and open up many areas for parks and luxury development, ultimately increasing the city's tax base. On the minus side, the $4.6 billion dollar estimate is a joke. Just ask the citizens of Beantown how fast estimates of a project like this spiral into never never land once the project begins.

You can't get an accurate cost estimate on the substantial remodel of an aging single family residence, so don't try and tell me you can make it happen on an aging freeway viaduct, especially when you propose to bury it right next to a major body of water. Other estimates run as high as $11billion. Seattle could just buy a few nuclear aircraft carriers, complete with air wings, and have the fourth most powerful military on earth. Just in case everyone else in the country thinks this is a State of Washington problem alone, there are Federal dollars involved in the project too, so it affects everyone.

To further complicate matters for residents in the rest of the state, the fine Mayor of the Emerald City proposes to allow them the honor of assisting the city in paying for the project. Sensing that the Washington State's governor's recent demand that the project be put to a public vote may doom him to the less expensive alternative of a replacement viaduct, the Mayor floated a “Tunnel Lite” proposal. This tunnel is actually much less expensive than the original proposal, and that's a step in the right direction. Here's where government really shines. In attempt to pull the proverbial wool right over the taxpayer's eyes, they are claiming, with a straight face, that the new tunnel, which has 4 lanes instead of the original proposal's 6 lanes, will carry as much traffic as the original.

What??? How in the world is that remotely possible, providing everything else is equal? Reduce the size of the conduit 33%, but retain the original capacity. It sounds like they raised the estimate of the average speed that will be maintained in the tunnel and, lo and behold, out popped identical traffic capacity numbers. Never mind that the actual speed in the new, smaller tube will probably be even lower than the original proposal's, actually lowering capacity more than the lane reduction alone would suggest.

This entire viaduct/tunnel fiasco is occurring in a metro area where the governmental powers never seem to be concerned with traffic capacity, and rarely build anything for the future traffic flow. It's like pulling teeth to get any other projects approved that will approve capacity in the most cost effective manner. In many cases, they city, county, and state spend almost as much on environmental studies and mitigation as they do on the actual construction. In California you have much the same situation.

They have to get my “You're Full of Crap and Trying to Take Our Money” award.

In other news, and I'll be the first to admit I don't have all the information here, what the hell is the problem with our Federal Government, the President, and the State of Texas? Now, all you Bush haters out there don't respond with “That's where President Bush is from.” I'm actually referring to the situation regarding the two border patrol agents, Compean and Ramos, who were just convicted of shooting a poor, unarmed illegal alien drug smuggler in the ass while he was fleeing to Mexico.

I'm not a shoot first and ask questions later advocate, and I agree, what the agents did was totally wrong. Here is an area where we should actually spend more money. We should give the agents the additional range time required so that they could have improved their shooting skills, and hit the bastard in the head. That would have saved their fellow border patrol agents, or perhaps someone from the DEA, from having to confront this scumbag at some point in the future. It would also have saved taxpayers from footing the bill for a long, drawn out court proceeding, where the Border Patrol agents were convicted on the word of that solid citizen, the aforementioned illegal alien drug smuggler.

Now that the drug smuggler has been given immunity from prosecution in the smuggling operation that precipitated this whole sorry situation, he's free to return to Mexico. Now he can begin the whole process again, and you can bet he will. He should have just waited until the highway is built to Kansas City, then he could have driven a semi truck full of Mexico's finest up here.

Posted by debtblog at 02:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Iran's front man for the hard-line, religious leaders that really run Iran, el Presidente Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, keeps spouting his revisionist history rhetoric at the Iranian KKK meeting they're calling a “conference” in Tehran. You'd think he might have a point about the Holocaust, except for the millions that lived through it, and hundreds of thousands of American GIs, and other Allied soldiers that saw the Nazi carnage first hand. Oh, maybe they were the ones lying about the whole thing.

No matter the extent of certain Muslim extremists and el Presidente's antisemitism, and their efforts to make it national policy in Iran and elsewhere, their little joke of a conference will, thankfully, fall on deaf ears throughout most of the rest of the world. The fact that they actually had people show up at the thing at all is chilling. Who inhabits this world of ours? Next time maybe we should use the conference schedule for GPS targeting information

Now, imagine the same group of maniacs with a few little fission firecrackers. One would hope they wouldn't be actually insane enough to start lobbing them into neighboring countries or giving them to like minded groups for Eid-ul-Fitr presents. Wait! Rational thought and compassion for their fellow world citizens doesn't enter into their occluded minds. With any luck, there'll be a little Polonium 210 floating around Tehran salad bars during their next little gathering. You know, the whole “do unto others” thing. Enough of that for now.

How does that affect your personal finances? Really not at all. Yet. If however, the nut job actually does get a nuke, the picture may change a bit. In addition, the mere presence of such an intolerant bastard and others like him in the midst of the world's petro reserves can't contribute much to market stability. With every move closer to potential conflict, and every unbalanced utterance by Ahmadinejad or any other “leader”, investors get jumpy. Jumpy is great in Mexican beans, not so good in investors. Markets cherish stability and predictability, not uncertainty. Maybe the world community could help instill a little stability over there. In retrospect, maybe this little gathering was just what they needed to finally stop hitting snooze.

Posted by debtblog at 03:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

J.P. Morgan Chase, the nation’s third largest financial institution, calls Jamie Dimon CEO. Mr. Dimon doesn’t throw too much at political campaigns, but what he does give goes exclusively to Democrats. In 2005 & 2006 he made two Democratic campaign contributions. Both were to Melissa Bean for congress. They totaled $3,900. These were the extent of his political contributions.

On the other hand, Bill Weldon, head of consumer products conglomerate Johnson and Johnson has a penchant for Republican giving. He’s given exclusively to Republican causes the past 4 years (and before). Since 2002, Mr. Weldon has contributed $14,500, spread among the RNC, the Bush presidential campaign and, Mike Furgeson’s (R, NJ) congressional campaign.

As befitting his title of World’s Richest Man, Bill Gates of Microsoft is a huge donor. His political contributions trended Republican, but he really spread it around pretty well to both parties. He donated a little over $25,000 to various Democratic candidates’ campaigns between 2002 and the present. Not wanting to leave Republicans out, he gave a shade over $23,000 to numerous Republican campaigns. So far, a win for the Democrats, but Mr. Gates gave the Republicans the lead by giving liberally (??) to the Republican Joint State Victory Committee, to the tune of $25 K. He also gave a nice sum to his company’s PAC, as is the norm for CEO’s. The Microsoft PAC rated $15,000 from Bill since 2002.

Next time you’re popin’ a Viagra for a swingin’ time with the wife, you should know that it was all made possible by Jeffery Kindler, CEO of Pfizer Corp. Appropriately enough, Kindler is a Democratic donor. With the exception of a $1,000 he gave in 2003 to help Orin Hatch get reelected, he’s given only to the Donkey party. Since his 2003 Hatch contribution, he’s given a little over $10,000 to various Democratic candidates. He also gave, again, to his company’s PAC, although they must not rate very highly with him, as his contribution only amounted to $583.

Another CEO who believes giving is good, George David, United Technologies CEO, spreads it around quite a bit. He even gave more than Bill Gates to various campaigns and committees, but unlike Gates, he trended Republican with his campaign contributions. He donated $22,000 directly to Republican candidate’s campaigns, while giving Democrats and additional $21,000. His largest donations were to PACs and committees, however, with $25,000 going to United technologies PAC and a hefty $50,000 going to the RNC. He must want a few Democrats to remain in Congress however, because he gave a token $1,000 to the Committee for a Democratic Future in 2002.

So there you have it. The latest installment in “How the Hell Do the Big CEOs Think Anyway?” I’ll finish all this up in a later post, hopefully still in time for the mid-term elections.

Posted by debtblog at 01:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

You’d not be surprised to find that Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon-Mobil, gave exclusively to Republican candidates and causes. Well, he did. Tillerson, over the last four years, donated $15,000 to Republican candidates or committees. He slid another 10Gs to the Exxon-Mobil CORP. PAC, which you’d have to believe was heavy on the Republican side of the aisle.

Jeffery Immelt, top dog a General Electric was definitely a Elephant rider, but he was more balanced than Rex. Throughout the last 4 years, Jeff saw fit to shower Republican candidates with a shade over $10,000 in contributions. During the same time period, he slid some the Democrat’s way too, but almost always to Democrat big-wigs. He gave Senator Daschele’s campaign $1,000 in 2004 and Harry Reid another $1,000 in 2003. Also in 2003 he gave Patrick Leahy $1,000. Additional contributions to Democratic candidates totaled $2,250. Where Mr. Immelt really shined, however, was in his generosity toward various PACs, most notably the Bluegrass Committee and the GE PAC. His total giving for all PACs during the period was over $65,000.

I haven’t penetrated the inner workings of the General Motors PAC, so I can’t say what way they may point politically. Rick Wagoner, Chairman of GM must be fan though, as he donated about $25,000 to them between 2002 and the present. His direct contributions were fairly well balanced, but tended to slightly favor Democrats, $6,500 to $6,000 to Republicans. He also gave the RNC $1,000 in 2004.

He must have a special affinity for Max Cleland (D), to whom he gave $1,480. The rest of his contributions however went entirely to Republicans and Republican committees. The “He” in this case is Bob Nardelli, top of the heap at Home Depot.  He’s donated a little over $14,000 to Republican candidates for office since 2002. He gave much larger donations to the RNC, $20,000 in 2004 and $25,000 in 2003.

David Cote, main man at Honeywell Inc., isn’t a huge donor, but what does give directly to candidates campaigns goes exclusively to Republicans. He gave $2,000 to the Bush / Cheney campaign in 2000 and $5,000 to Annie Northrup [R] for congress between 2000 and 2006. As seems to be typical of large business executives, he also donated to his firm’s PAC, with $5,000 donations in both 2003 and 2002.
 

He gave $1,000 to Diane Fienstein in 1999, but hey, nobody’s perfect! That would be Paul Otellini, for the last year CEO of Intel Corp. Other than that, he has made Republican donations, but not many. He donated $2,000 to Orin Hatch’s campaign this May and $1,000 to John Ensign’s campaign in 2004. Other than that, all of Mr. Otellini’s donations and contributions have been to either the Intel PAC or the Technology Network PAC, the combined total of which have been $14,000 over the last four years.

Next up is Sam Palmisano, CEO of computer giant IBM.  He’s another CEO who believes in giving a little to both parties, but making the donations count. On the Democrat side, he gave to Nancy Pelosi ($1,000) and Chuck Schumer ($3,000) from 2002 until the present. To Republican candidates he’s given $5,000 over the same period, including $2,000 to the Bush presidential campaign in late 2003.

There is a trend emerging, but we'll wait and see what the other firm's CEOs tell us in a later post. 

Posted by debtblog at 08:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

To check this out, I examined campaign contributions given by leaders of the Dow Jones Industrial Average component firms. Information was not forthcoming regarding all CEO's or presidents contributions, however what was available turned up some interesting facts. Fist was that most of the corporate CEO's, presidents and other leaders were not so partisan as you might expect. While they tended to give a majority of their political campaign contributions to one party or another, most spread them around. In addition, most corporate leaders gave a significant amount to PACs and other special interest groups, instead of giving all their donations to one party or another.

They gave quite a bit to both parties, and from many states besides their home states. This leads one to a few conclusions.

1. They freely donate to those candidates where important issues can impact their firms. More research should be done on this subject to back up the conclusion.

2. They know where their bread is buttered. If you want to get things done in Washington, you've got to get someone's attention. More often than not, that someone will be from the party in power, but they'll not stay there forever, and the CEO's know that. They've got to be sure the grease doesn't wear off as the congressional makeup changes.
   

Dow Jones Component Company Leaders

Altria Group Inc. (formerly Phillip Morris) CEO – Louis Camilleri
He really spread it around. In the space of 24 months between the end of 2003, and the beginning of 2005, Mr. Camilleri donated liberally to both Democrats and Republicans.

Nov, 2005 Max Baucus (D) $2,500

Oct, 2005 Chuck Hagel [R] $1,000

Sept, 2005 Bill Thomas [R] $2,500

June 2005 Trent Lott [R] $1,000

May, 2005 Sue Myrick [R] $1,000

Oct, 2004 Altria Group PAC $5,000

July, 2004 Federal Victory Fund $2,000

May, 2004 Every Republican Is Crucial PAC $2,000

Mar, 2004 Bill Jennings (D) $2,000

Chris Shays [R] $1,000

Feb, 2004 Chuck Schumer (D) $1,000

Volunteer PAC $600

Jan, 2004 Mike McIntyre (D) $2,000

Dec, 2003 Steny Hoyer (D) $2,000

Eric Cantor [R] $2,000

Roy Blunt [R] $2,000

John Spratt (D) $2,000

Davis Thomas [R] $2,000

Ron Lewis [R] $2,000

Mr. Camilleri's donations trended Republican, but he also gave significant amounts to Democratic campaigns.

Martin Sullivan, CEO of insurance giant AIG, is a somewhat different matter. Between Mar of 2003 and 2006 he donated almost exclusively to Republican candidates, with the exception of multiple donations to Democrat Thomas Carper from Delaware, totaling $2,000. His total donations for the period were just over $21,000.

Ken Chenault, CEO of American Express, was almost exactly the opposite of Mr. Sullivan. Between 2006 and 2002, his donations were almost exclusively to Democratic candidates with the exception of $2,000 to Rick Santorum and $1,000 to Peter King, both Republicans. He also gave $25,000 to the American Express PAC during this time. His total donations to candidate's campaigns from 2002 – 2006 totaled $24,000.

Ed Whitacre of AT&T must not be the giving type, or he camouflages his donations well. He gave a single donation, $1,000 to Republican candidate for Congress, Mike McCaul in 2004.

Tractor maker James Owen, of Caterpillar Inc. is an exclusive Republican donor. Between 2003 and 2006, he gave a total of $7,000 to Republican candidates, and a further $1,000 to the RNC. He also slid a grand to the Cat Employees Ass'n. PAC.

Charles Prince, CEO of Citigroup was another equal opportunity political donor. Between 2003 and 2006 he gave substantial donations to candidates from both parties, with an edge to the Democrat candidates, but more contributions to Republican organizations. The total donations were the same to both political parties. He contributed $2,000 to the Bush presidential campaign in June of 2003, but that followed a Kerry contribution of an equal amount in May of the same year. From 2003 -2006, he gave $10,000 to Republican congressional candidates while donating $15,000 to Democrats. The CitiGroup PAC was given a little over $8,000. The largest single beneficiary of his largess, however, were the Senatoral committees both parties. Both the RSC and DSC, benefited to the tune of $15,000. The RNC got an additional $5,000.

Long time Coca-Cola CEO E. Neville Isdell donated almost exclusively to the Coca Cola Nonpartisan Committee for Good Government. To they extent they are either for good government, or non partisan, I have no idea. His only direct political contributions were $2,000 to Democrats in the mid '90s.

Charles Holliday, CEO of DuPont, tended more toward the Republican side of the isle, but gave to both parties candidates. He donated $3,400 directly to Republican candidates and $4,000 to Democratic ones. When it came to Party Committee giving however, he was exclusively Republican, dropping a total of $5,500 in the laps of the RNC and Republican State Committee of Delaware.

In a following post, I'll examine more Dow CEO's political tendencies.

Posted by debtblog at 02:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

When will the Bush administration learn that such barbaric practices can not be allowed to continue? We can not, as a nation, continue to sanction such unethical treatment of those that are incarcerated at the military base commonly referred to as “Gitmo”. Why do those in this regime fail to understand that such treatment will only engender hard feelings among our Muslim neighbors? The detainees, often held for years without trial, in many cases only because they happened to be herding goats in a region rife with conflict, carrying only a Kalashnikov for personal protection, have done little to deserve this obscene treatment.

Why must we continue to foist our morays on such innocents? Why must we, the United States of America, for God's sake, put these detainees in such an untenable position? How can we call ourselves a nation when we allow our government to set forth before the detainees such bounty as to cause them to consume, on average, 4,200 calories each and every day? Do we not realize the harm that may befall them if such temptations continue to be dangled before them? The detainees, to protest such inhumane treatment, are on hunger strikes.

Posted by debtblog at 01:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the “Strange Statistic of the Day” department, one only needs to take a look at the breakdown of U.S. congressional districts on the basis of married with children vs. single/divorced with no kids in the household. In a startling affirmation of the value differences displayed by Democrats and Republicans, 49 of the 50 congressional districts with the highest percentages of married households with children living at home are represented by Republicans. Of the 50 congressional districts with the lowest percentages of the same, 48 are represented by Democrats!

What does it all mean? On the surface, it might appear that the party of family values is really what it says. It could also indicate that young, single people are more impressionable, have less life experience, and are more idealistic, especially with other people's money. (Leave aside for just a second that the current, Republican controlled administration spends money like a group of lottery-winning frat boys in a celebrity whorehouse) They may have been swayed by the Democratic message(????) of the day and younger, more charismatic Democratic congressional members. After all, of the 34 members of the U.S. House of Representatives over the age of 70, the majority, nineteen, are Republicans. Younger, single Americans may have a bit of trouble relating to those of such advanced age.

It may also be influenced in part by the fact that there are more single Democrats in congress than single Republicans, and people tend to choose those to represent them who are closer to their own image. In the 107^th Congress, the last for which I could find figures (without actually doing a ton of work on my own), there were 66 single members in the House. Of the 66 singles, 24 rode elephants, while the remaining 42 pranced around on braying asses.

Demographics in the respective states also indicate some reasons for the split. New York, most definitely a “blue” state, has the highest percentage of unmarried residents, fifty percent. The town with the highest percentage of unmarried people living together, Patterson NJ, is likewise from a blue region. San Francisco, Ft. Lauderdale, and Seattle had the highest percentages of unmarried, same sex couples shacking up. Again, deeply blue metro areas all. Seattle and San Francisco have the lowest number of children of any major U.S. metro area. They are also two of the most liberal cities you could ever find, and count a Democratic majority as their Congressional representation. Seattle even has more dogs than children.

As more people with kids decide it's better to raise their children in an area with a bit of open space, a soccer field or two, and a 4 bedroom house on 8,500 sq ft, rather than a two bedroom condo in a high rise for for their $399,000, those with children are fleeing America's largest cities. This trend engenders much hand wringing, especially among the NEA and big city school districts, who see every child leaving the city as another $5K that got away. As more schools close every day in cities throughout America, it becomes apparent that many just don't get it among the liberal elites that tend to govern most of the larger cities throughout our land. Most families with children don't have a great desire to be packed together like sardines. And so, the trend will continue, despite all the social engineering those in positions of power can muster. But that's a story for another day.

Posted by debtblog at 01:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The American public should recognize that, no matter the apparent inaccuracies or political agenda of an editorial or program, the content owner may distribute, publish, or air it as they see fit. If a content owner can be pressured into changing the content, for any reason, by members of our ruling bodies, all should know that we have effectively experienced governmental censorship. The very idea of governmental censorship in any form should be so distasteful to the American public as to cause a severe reaction and not be tolerated. Instead, it seems that too many among us are more concerned with the message and less with the reality that, when our governmental leaders can pressure legitimate content owners to alter or withhold that content, we've lost one of our core freedoms.

Chuck, Deb, Dick and Harry, when you put forth such admonishing statements such as “We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon. “ you might just as well add “because we can make it really tough for you in the future” to the end. Such thinly veiled threats are just the type of persuasion that those in office doubtlessly engage in on a daily basis, but have no place when they affect our Constitutional rights.

In this great country our citizens have the liberty to put forth any ideas or accounting of events they may wish, and air them on any size stage they may desire. If others disagree with the aforementioned ideas or their portrayal, they are free to produce their own ideological programming or account of any event in question. They may produce and air advertising and editorial material contradicting the previous accounting of the events. They may blog, or have others do so, a litany of the reasons why the editorial, program or literature is inaccurate, slanted or complete garbage. Hell, they can even, as private citizens, sue the content developers if they feel they were personally misrepresented, slandered, or defamed.

What they cannot, and should not do is apply pressure, using the weight of their U.S. Senatorial office, for the developers and producers to change the content, or in any way alter the distribution plans for any content. If they, or any other governmental officials can achieve this, then we've all lost. The big bloggers are accumulating a greater audience and more influence every day, and many are extremely influential already. When might the day come that their reach and influence rivals or eclipses that of the traditional media? When it does, they too may become the targets of such governmental abuses.

Posted by debtblog at 01:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, it's probably not a great idea to go about salting the Iranian landscape with GBU-28s, cluster bombs, and such when we could use massive diplomatic and economic sanctions to achieve the same ends. Can we really achieve those ends with diplomatic and economic sanctions, however? Without the help of the Chinese and Russians, is it really possible to levy effective sanctions on the Iranians? Chinese – Iran trade breaks records every year. Up from $5 billion in 2003, over $10 billion dollars worth of goods changed hands between Beijing and Tehran in 2005. This, and China's newfound thirst for oil, is a powerful incentive for this relationship to continue unabated. China has continued to oppose economic sanctions on Iran, and we probably can't count on help from the Chinese any time soon.

Russia, on the other hand, while continuing to oppose sanctions against Tehran, has actually experienced a decrease in trade with their neighbors to the south in the past year. They are still an important trading partner to Moscow, and baring blatant aggression on the part of the Iranians, support of sanctions by the Russians is probably not in the cards at this time.

What of U.S. trade with Iran? Are we in a position to withhold anything in the name of economic sanctions? From almost nothing in the mid 1980's (understandably), U.S. exports to Iran grew to over $700 million in 1992. We imported virtually nothing, and thus had a healthy trade surplus. Over the next few years, our exports to Iran nearly stopped completely. We sank to a low of under $10 million in 2001. Some people spend more than that every year on cars and vacations. Our imports, however, slowly grew from almost nothing to the point when, in 2005, the U.S. imported almost $175 million worth of goods from Iran. Very small by world trade standards, but considering the steady growth, it sounds like we are not applying too many sanctions on Iranian export industries ourselves.

Note that during the same time period, Iran decided not to return the favor, and bought virtually nothing from U.S. businesses. So we're applying sanctions by denying U.S. companies the Iranian market, while simultaneously increasing our imports of Iranian goods. If we really wanted to apply a bit of pressure, shouldn't we be refusing to send any money to Iran? Close down all U.S. purchases of Iranian goods. We've bought no oil from Iran since 1991, but there are plenty of other willing takers of Iranian oil. In addition, their exports of non-petro products has been steadily increasing, to the point where last year it hit $12B. So, it seems that not only is our paltry $175 million very small percentage of their economy, we're getting negligible support from the rest of the world on the whole sanctions idea.

It might be concluded that Ahmadinejad is just suffering from a bout of short man's disease. Maybe he's just a nationalistic, religious zealot that would rather Israel be turned into a billiard table of fine Atomsite (with the U.S. not too far behind). He's said as much, and I'm not putting any words into his mouth. Whatever his true motivations, it would be prudent to learn from the past. When dealing with such leaders, cut them no slack. Giving a dictator room didn't work 70 years ago, and didn't work 20 years ago, and it won't work now. We need to increase the pressure, but with the help from the rest of the world community. They've got to stop feigning indignation at the Iranian nuclear ambition while continuing to cultivate stronger trade relationships. You know who you are, Germany ($5.67 billion or 14.4% of exports to Iran), Italy (7.5%) and France (6.2%). Get off your ass and help, or do you remember nothing of the events that happened last time the shit hit the fan? Such short memories. Iran won't stop blustering, exporting terror, and pushing the envelope on it's nuclear problem unless we stop them.

Posted by debtblog at 01:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The whole thing actually got started when Farid Ghadry, head of the Reform Party of Syria, wrote a quick little ditty on the Media Line web site claiming that the U.S. State department take the night of the 22nd seriously. Why? Because that's the Night of the Sira’a and Miira'aj on the Islamic calender. The night Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven from the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on a Bourak. After a little jaunt through heaven and hell, he made a graceful touchdown at Mecca.

What Ahmadinajead proposed is that, as an answer to the uranium question, he'd deliver a light in the sky over the site of Mohammed's ascension. He picked the date of his response, August 22^nd, to coincide with it. So he may be proposing a commemoration, but he really wants to lead the west, and the rest of the Arab world, down his little, predetermined path that culminates in his supreme control over all things in the region. If it takes a little fission demonstration, oh well.

His neighbors in the region should be even more afraid than those in the west, as his goal is subjugation of the whole peninsula, with some of the surrounding areas thrown in for good measure. He'll have the oil, demand for which isn't likely to ebb any time soon. Ahmadinajead is thus ensured a revenue source for years to come. China, whose demand for petro products is climbing, according to a CBO report, between 3.5% and 5.8% annually for the foreseeable future, will contribute mightily to those revenues. A major fly in the world's ointment is precisely this Chinese demand for oil and other petro products. Their ballooning economy depends on an unobstructed flow of crude from, among other places, Iran. Not wanting to let their economic engine misfire, they'll do what's necessary to ensure that flow.

So what we may be looking at in the not too distant future, is a shift in the economic and political order of things. A strange partnership of China and Iran, in bed together like two sex crazed teenagers that aren't really too enamored of one another, but are too physically attracted to each other to stop. For the Chinese, their insatiable demand for oil was initiated by the burgeoning development caused by their shift to becoming the world's producer. Who are they producing for? Well, the U.S. of course.

That is the conundrum facing the U.S. We are flat on our backs with the Chinese as well. Our demand for cheap goods has a long history, but as price pressures on marketers becomes ever stronger, and China's production capacity has become more sophisticated, the flow of Chinese goods through Bentonville, among other places, has reached epic proportions. American consumers are addicted to inexpensive Chinese products like a drug, and are unlikely to switch to Methadone any time soon. As the quality of Chinese goods improves, they continue to tighten their hold on American consumers.

So here's where we may be in a few years. Ahmadinajead, having made good on his promise to eliminate that thorn in his side, Israel, now runs the Middle East. The U.S., having grown into a left-leaning nation unwilling to fight for anything because someone might get hurt, now kowtows to His Nuclearness. China, having assumed the role of the world's preeminent economic and military power (using money they obtained from U.S. consumers), happily slurps up the Middle Eastern oil provided by Iran, courtesy of the Iranian Confederation of States, consisting of old Saudi Arabia, old Iraq, and old Kuwait (we're not going back there again). Syria, having no real oil, is Iran's buffer state to the west. Ahmadinajead uses his power to quell Sunni rebellion throughout the region, in a manner similar to Sadam's oppression of the Shia.

It is indeed fortunate that different attitudes existed in the U.S. 70 years ago, lest we be speaking Deutsch today. In today's political climate, we may never make the difficult choices necessary to be victorious against a powerful enemy. The tools and strategies we used to emerge on the side of victory in the Second World War would be eschewed by many on the left, and thus our defeat of evil in that time would be very much in doubt, much as it is today. Moral equivalence renders all life equally valuable, thus you cannot take life, when necessary, to ensure your survival.

To those on the far west side of the political spectrum, peace means only the absence of war, not the liberty necessary for a true peace. If Ahmadinajead continues his posturing, and the rest of the world allows him to negotiate his way into a nuclear arsenal, we can only hope someone ultimately steps up to the plate who can stop him. The only other alternative, if he continues to emulate Hitler in the 1930's, is to hope he too has his own Barbarossa, with similar results. If that fails, Ahmadinajead backed Muslim extremists could make our world a rather rough place.

Posted by debtblog at 12:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The only time Hezbollah and their supporters deviate from their victorious rhetoric is when they take advantage of an opportunity to declare themselves victims. Their cry of victimhood is a weak attempt to engender sympathy that is, unfortunately, all too often successful. After all, those on the left throughout the world love to be portrayed as supporting the victim.

According to S.M. Hassan of the Iran Daily, Israel “has seriously eroded the 100-year-old accomplishment of humanity which prohibits use of force for solving international disputes.” Mr. Hassan seriously overstates humanity's accomplishments, especially the radical Muslim contribution to resolving our differences, as they seem to turn to violence as a first resort. Apparently the irony of his prose escapes him, as groups backed by Iran contribute mightily to using force when resolving disputes. It could, however, be argued that these disputes are not truly international, because all parties concerned are not truly nations. Or, possibly, these folks just like to blow things up, like your drunk brother-in-law at a 4th of July party. Observing their behavior for the previous decades could easily lead one to that conclusion. In any case, most unbiased observers would have trouble determining that radical Muslims have turned their backs on the use of force to resolve their differences, however unreasonable these differences may be.

With deference to the esteemed Mr. Hassan, the track record of the radical Muslim community indicates only that they will continue to kill everyone in their path. Since they exclude nearly everyone from their definition of innocent, their own harangue to their followers and actions throughout the world demonstrate that no one is safe. They endeavor to exterminate anyone with the slightest difference of opinion or any unfortunates who occupy land the radicals deem to have some tenuous claim on. The Imams in Britain whip their followers into a frenzy, urging them to use whatever means necessary to achieve their goals. Unfortunately, the Brits have too often let such inflammatory diatribes go unpunished.

When statements from Muslim political leaders and clerics are often indistinguishable from those uttered by Hitler 70 years ago, one wonders why so many of the world's liberal journalists, leaders and entertainers have trouble supporting efforts to rid the world of this menace, preferring instead to negotiate. Negotiation with those who do not respect you or your positions is impossible and should be avoided. It's a waste of time for all concerned. Interviews such as Mike Wallace's of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad serve only to advance the cause of the Muslim radicals. He might have given similarly glowing reports while speaking with Adolf, had he been interviewing world leaders in 1934.

Numerous cease fires have been perpetrated throughout the middle east for decades. They have accomplished little, save the opportunity for both sides to regroup and rearm. This one will prove no different. Next time the Hezbollites will use longer range missiles. It's ironic that when Israel destroys Lebanese buildings and causes loss of Lebanese life as collateral damage from aimed fire there is a great hue and cry from the world community. When, however, the Katusha rocket, a weapon that has no possibility of being aimed at anything other than a general area, causes the deaths of Israelis, many in the world say little or nothing. Sadly, it's not over yet.

Posted by debtblog at 02:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

You are proposing a secure retirement for every American. This is a laudable goal, to be sure. Why then, not release us from the shackles of a Social Security System that has delivered such underwhelming performance? Why pick the American worker’s pocket for the 6.2% demanded by the decrepit, old vestige of the Great Depression and truly deliver something new? In early 2000, a bipartisan commission charged with investigating the agency found a “lack of management accountability” and an agency with "fragmented and uncoordinated administrative arrangement” that rendered the application and appeals process too slow. It’s time for a change. Why must the Democrats continue to champion the old dog? Put it down, and soon.

As noted, you have proposed retirement plans. Will these replace or supplement Social Security? Why have you fought changing the existing system on the grounds that the stock market and other private markets are too volatile and unreliable, yet now you are proposing automatic 401(k) participation? I’m sure you’re aware the funds in most 401(k) plans are invested in just the type of equity and debt instruments you’ve deemed too risky for the average American. Why the change now? It’s about time the Democrats have come around, if, in fact, they have.

Enough about the Bush Administration’s “Tax breaks for the wealthy” already. That repetitive cry has been echoing through the halls of the DNC for years now. The fact is, the wealthy pay most of the taxes, and if you are going to cut taxes, that is where most of the opportunity lies. In 2004, the top 1% of income tax payers paid over 37% of the total federal income tax burden. In the American Dream Initiative, you indicate that Bush has given “special tax breaks to the privileged few” and increased the burden on the middle class. If memory serves, the middle and lower classes got a tax break too. Those in the lowest tax bracket got a 33% tax rate reduction. The next lowest bracket, containing much of the middle class so often quoted in political rhetoric, pays only 53% of their previous rate. In addition, the child tax credit was doubled.

Helping those bound for institutions of higher learning is a vital goal as well. Without a highly educated workforce, we’ve no chance against the Chinese and Indians lapping at our heels. We need scientists and engineers to perform the research that will make sure the products and technologies of tomorrow are developed on our shores. We don’t need so many studying majors such as law and ethnic history studies. Those so educated develop nothing. If the Initiative is to further stimulate the economy (which has been improving very nicely, thank you!), it must provide strong incentives for the study of technical, scientific and mathematics disciplines. You note, correctly, that the cost of higher education has outpaced the ability of many to provide it. How about taking that $1,000 and putting it toward education? It would seem to be $4B better spent each year.

It appears the focus on CEO pay is an excellent attempt to drive a wedge between those at the top and those a bit further down the socio-economic ladder. A tried and true DNC tactic, trotted out once again for all to see. A CEO’s job at most firms is to increase profits and maximize stock price. The increase in stock price will maximize shareholder value. Guess who the shareholders are? Right, they’re the investors in the 401(k) and retirement plans you now seem to be open to considering. Most public companies today have a high percentage of institutional ownership. GE for example, has 56.5% institutional ownership, Microsoft has 57.3% and large institutions claim 51.4% of Ford Motor Co. Public companies already list CEO compensation, if the investor deems it important. With the dawn of the Internet, this type of information is at your fingertips. If the shareholders of a corporation feel they should provide their CEO with a foolishly inflated compensation package, that’s really their business, not the DNC’s. In any case, the SEC released updated rules today requiring more complete displosure regarding an executives total compensation, including stock options.

Posted by debtblog at 07:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Although it moved steadily earlier for almost a decade, the COGD has been trending later since the late 1990's. Last year's Cost of Government Day was, appropriately enough, July 4^th. The main culprit is government spending that keeps going up like some sick express elevator. Didn't the Elephants used to mean smaller, leaner government and lower government spending? I know we're fighting a war, but come on! Combined spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan actions only comprise about .8% of the GDP. All of the increase can't be logically blamed on them.

Although they claim to be keeping a lid on government spending, the Republicans can only claim this in the context of spending as a percentage of GDP, although this is showing signs of improvement lately. Growth in discretionary government spending was only about 1% last year, according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Contrary to what the Donks would have you believe, the economy is actually fairly robust, and has been recovering nicely over the last couple of years. The strong recovery has led to a rise in GDP, and thus, tax revenues. This tax revenue occurs despite, and to some extent is fueled by, the cuts in the tax rate implemented by President Bush.

The budget deficit was $521 billion for 2004. This was 3.6% of the GDP. So, although Congress and the Bush Administration have been spending money with the enthusiasm of a frat boy in a beer garden, the deficit as a percentage of the GDP has actually been decreasing of late. Watch out if the economy takes a turn for the worse, as could be the case if the trouble in the middle east grows more serious. That would cause tax revenues to plummet and deficits to soar. Time to do some praying for the situation to improve over there.

Although the cost of the federal government makes up the lion's share of the COGD, state and local governments contribute as well. They contribute 40 days or so the the calender position of the day. Washington State and its most populous county, King County are notoriously expensive governmentally, never finding a regulation they don't like. That's a major component of the state's placement so deep into July. With a little luck, some restraint, and possibly some real creative governing, maybe we could pull an about face and move the COGD into June. It'd be something to shoot for.

Posted by debtblog at 10:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

The Dragon Skin body armor is so named because it is constructed of interlocking ceramic composite discs. The scale effect is similar to the construction of reptile skin. The ballistic performance, light weight and flexibility offered by these vests is quite revolutionary, according to those in a position to know. In addition to the superb ballistic performance of the vests, the vests wrap around the body to offer protection from the side, as well as the front and back. In tests, this product has proved effective against multiple strikes from rounds up to, and including .308 (7.62 x 51mm) at close ranges. It even stops high velocity, armor piercing rounds fired from the same type 7.62mm weapons fielded by enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

During a labor dispute involving U.S. Army combat engineers disposing of land mines (they wear these vests, you know), testimony in a Florida district court pointed to quality problems with the interceptor vests. The U.S. Army Times newspaper obtained memos from the U.S.M.C. Said that there were "major quality assurance deficiencies within Point Blank.".

According to DefenseReview.com “Pinnacle Armor SOV-2000 (Level III/III+) and SOV-3000 (Level IV) Dragon Skin body armor appears to be significantly superior in every combat-relevant way to U.S. Army PEO Soldier's and U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center (NSC)/Soldier Systems Center's Interceptor Body Armor “ DefenseReview.com's conclusion regarding the performance of Dragon Skin vs. the official, body armor of the U.S. Military? “There's simply no way anyone who has seen the data that we saw could come to any other conclusion other than Dragon Skin is vastly superior to Interceptor Body Armor. It's not even close.”

On April, 30^th, 2006 the History Channel show Mail Call tested the Dragon Skin ballistic vest and gave its performance rave reviews. Admittedly, that's not an approved testing laboratory, but it's just another piece of evidence regarding the Dragon Skin vest.

At Military.com, they report that, regarding the Dragon Skin body armor, “It is good enough body armor that nine American generals in the middle east are wearing it in place of the standard "Interceptor OTV" armor issued to the troops they command. “ I guess what's good for the goose isn't quite good enough for the gander this time.

SWAT teams throughout the country choose Dragon Skin time and again to protect their forces from flying bullets, even though they are significantly more expensive than the Interceptor vests. In Fresno, where the Dragon Skin vests are made, the SWAT team ordered 26 of the vests for team members.

A feature of the Interceptor is that it can deteriorate in sunlight and high temperatures. HUH?? This stuff is being issued to soldiers serving in one of the hottest desert environments in the world. There's sun there too. WTF is our military thinking? We know what the generals in Afghanistan are thinking, because they voted with their dollars to use different body armor. I think most people reading this would do the same.

To make matters worse, it appears that David Brooks, head of DHB Enterprises, makers of Interceptor armor, may not be the greatest corporate citizen. He's currently being sued by investors in U.S. District Court for events surrounding his cashing out $185 million in company stock immediately before the stock took a nose dive, losing about 70% of its value in 2004. It's claimed he may have violated Federal securities laws. It isn't the first time he's been in hot water with authorities, either. A decade ago, he and his brother were fined over $400,000 by the SEC.

The military has classified results of recent Dragon Skin tests. Thank God there are other tests that are not classified showing the efficacy of the the product. I guess that they don't want to be taken to task for issuing our troops less than the best. We'll just sweep these results under the carpet, eh?

As a further slap in the face to our troops in the field, a story from the AP states that “Soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear body armor other than the protective gear issued by the military, Army officials said Thursday “ in addition, the story goes on to say that "We're very concerned that people are spending their hard-earned money on something that doesn't provide the level of protection that the Army requires people to wear. So they're, frankly, wasting their money on substandard stuff," said Col. Thomas Spoehr, director of material for the Army. Sadly, he doesn't see the irony here regarding his own purchases.

It looks like, in a large part, it comes down to dollar cost. A set of Dragon Skin armor costs the U.S. government about $5Gs, while the official issue Interceptor armor runs about 20% of that. You'd think in an area like body armor, a premium would be placed on the product's effectiveness. Why not just remove one F-22 from the Air Force budget and buy all the troops the Dragon Skin armor, even the Air Force personnel? With something this important, there are no second chances, at least for the poor field personnel trapped in sub-standard protective vests. So what is the true cost, really? If you're one of the poor saps caught in an Interceptor vest when some a-hole plugs you with a couple rounds of 7.62 x 39AP at close range, the true cost is likely the ultimate one.

Posted by debtblog at 02:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to an article in today's Washington Post here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071101534.html

Mexico's President Elect, Felipe Calderón, wants increased Canadian and U.S. development efforts in Mexico. Increased development in our neighbor to the south is all well and good, but in lieu of stepped up enforcement of immigration statutes and more traditional illegal immigration prevention efforts? Not for my money. Several factors must be addressed and their risks mitigated before increased development in Mexico will be a viable solution to the Mark Spitz invitational that occurs at our southern border every day.

First and foremost, the level of endemic corruption in Mexico must be dealt with. As in so many countries, corruption in Mexico is the way to get things done. Mexico has elevated corruption to the stereotypical. This must be curbed or else development funds and investment will be diverted to less productive and more nefarious destinations. Mexico must be ruled by the law, not the law enforcers.

Next would be at least a small measure of assistance in decreasing illegal immigration emanating from south of the border instead of the outright assistance, or in many cases, tacit approval, with a wink and a smile, the issue receives today. Come on, please, for too many years it's been the same story. “We're doing all we can.” If that's the truth, Mexico is truly an impotent embarrassment to itself.

If these issues can be addressed in Mexico, additional development efforts, can, indeed help to stem the flow to the promised land. Mexico has the hard working, talented people and natural resources to have a booming economy. If such an economy was forthcoming, we would have both a powerful trading partner and a much better neighbor.

Note: This does not mean we need an superhighway from Mexico to Kansas, allowing Mexican trucks to race across our (by then almost nonexistent) southern border chock full of Chinese cargo. If plans of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of the Department of Commerce come to pass, and they are very well on the way, construction begins next year. Once completed, Mexican trucks will travel unimpeded from the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas to a Mexican customs office in the new Kansas City SmartPort. It'll be like our own little EU, right here in North America. Maybe we can all use the Peso as our unified currency to really become a close knit economic unit.

In case anyone is balking at the security implications of such an arrangement, fear not, everything will be securely checked by the infallible, new electronic “SENTRI” system. Don't worry, nothing can get through. That says nothing of the security Although we'll lose thousands of high paying longshoreman jobs in our ports, think of all the new Mexican customs office positions we'll have in Kansas.

It would also be just a bit beneficial if American firms couldn't hire illegals with impunity. Kudos to Colorado for it's latest efforts to curb this process. Now that a new immigration bill is burning up his desk, hopefully Gov. Bill Owens will sign it and the citizens of Colorado can stop footing the bill for so many social services provided to illegals at the expense of their tax dollars.

Posted by debtblog at 02:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

H-1B. Nothing is quite so sure to provoke feelings of rage and disgust among American technology workers than those three innocent letters. Why are our tech workers so incensed over three little letters? Well, in the aforementioned combination, they represent a visa that allows highly skilled foreign workers to come to the U.S. to fill high tech jobs that, ostensibly, American firms can't find workers for. Try telling that to the 100,000 network engineers, software developers, computer scientists and electrical engineers that are unemployed in this country. What the industries mean is that they can't find workers to fill those positions at severely depressed labor rates. A strong argument could be made that they could actually find plenty of qualified Americans to occupy the jobs in question.

After the H-1B visa cap was lowered from 110,000 to 65,000 for 2004, the sector's unemployment fell from 208,000 to 116,000 in nine key areas, according to the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). To make this figure even more dramatic, that decrease occurred in only two fiscal quarters. Some of this can be attributed to the sector's continuing recovery after the tech bust at the beginning of the decade, but the fact remains that there are plenty of Americans who would be happy to take these high paying jobs, if offered the chance. It is further evidenced that in 2005, an additional 65,000 technology jobs were added.

According to the GAO report on H-1B visas issued in 2003, “From March 2001 to March 2003, unemployment among highly educated individuals increased by about 400,000, resulting in 1.2 million of these individuals being unemployed. In particular, employment substantially decreased within information technology (IT) occupations, for which employers often requested H-1B workers.” The whole H-1B visa fiasco just doesn't pass the smell test at all.

As successful as the decrease in the number of H-1B visas has been to providing Americans with high paying technology jobs, the Senate caved to pressure form the high tech industry, and voted to increase the number of H-1Bs up to 115,000 as part of the immigration reform package. This is an excellent example of great lobbyists in action. The technology industry, although late to the lobbyist party, has really proved to be a quick study on how to get things done inside the beltway. Look here, Congress, we need to stem the flood of illegals across our borders as part of immigration reform, not encourage more foreign high tech workers to come here and compete for American jobs at a reduced rate.

In addition to not incentivizing U.S. companies to hire foreign workers, the U.S. must fight even harder to maintain it's competitive advantage in the world economy. As countries such as China and India develop increasing industrial and technological sophistication, this is going to be even more difficult. To further this goal, we need to reward research and development efforts conducted by U.S. firms on U.S. soil. As such, congress should make the 10% R&D tax credit permanent. This credit has been in place since 1981, but requires congress to reauthorize it every so often, or it will expire. Now is hardly the time to inhibit the research required for American companies to develop the new technologies that will sustain our economy in the future.

Innovation made this country the economic powerhouse that it is today and we need to ensure that we retain the position as the world's innovator. American industry needs great basic research as the foundation for developing the future generation of technologies and products that will power our industrial base in the future. So many different world changing innovations have come from basic research in the U.S. They include the transistor, the integrated circuit, the laser, the computer mouse, nuclear reactors, digital computers, the defibrillator, genetic engineering, the Internet (no, it wasn't Al Gore, either), Kevlar, the LCD display, the LED, frozen foods, email, MRI, fluorescent lights, the pacemaker, TV remote control, Teflon, video games, DLP imaging chips, and laser vision correction.

This is just a partial list of the life changing innovations created by U.S. firms through basic research conducted in the last 75 years. If we want this string to continue, we need to get off our collective asses and get our house in order. We need a focused plan to further our R&D efforts, and develop what will enable such dramatic success to continue. The world is not standing still, and our future economic success depends on nothing less.

Posted by debtblog at 04:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

What!!! Who wouldn't want to promote equity and fairness? In this case, no U.S. citizen that's not interested in giving a huge chunk of our (already overburdened) Social Security budget to Mexican citizens, that's who. One problem lies in the fact that there are far more Mexican workers working here, both legally and illegally, than the reverse. In addition, there is a huge economic disparity between our two countries. This agreement lets illegal Mexican immigrants working here qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits when they retire, either here, or in Mexico. If you're not good and pissed off enough yet, this next item might get you a bit more riled up. The illegal immigrants that are potentially getting these benefits can now qualify for them with only 6 quarters of work, vs. 40 quarters before the agreement was signed. Oh, and their spouses and dependents are eligible for benefits too. Wouldn't want to leave anyone out in the cold, you know.

To be fair, we already have such totalization agreements with 20 other countries, including England, South Korea, Canada and Germany. Why is the same type of agreement with Mexico such an outrage? For one thing, we don't have many Germans or Koreans wading across the Rio Grande to pick lettuce. The same can't be said for citizens from our neighbor to the south. Another key difference with the Mexican agreement is that Mexicans make up a far greater proportion of our illegal immigrant population than citizens from any other country.

Will this agreement cost us anything? What do you think? According to official Social Security Administration estimates, we'll spend an extra $650 million by 2050. Naturally, these estimates were provided by the agency that cooked up the whole scheme, so you may take them with a grain of salt. Here's why. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, the oversight office of the federal government, The SSA's numbers fail to account for illegal Mexican immigrants that will be eligible for benefits. To make the numbers even more suspect, they make no allowance for the fact that, once details of this gold mine come to light, Mexicans will come racing over the borders in even greater numbers than they do now.

Are there any good things at all to come from this agreement? Sure, there are. About 3,000 U.S. workers will save their employers about $140 million in Mexican Social Security taxes in the first years after the agreement takes effect. Wowee!! It's lookin' better all the time!

About the only good news is that this agreement hasn't taken effect yet. After the Bush Administration submits the agreement to Congress, there will be a 60 day window, after which the agreement becomes binding. Congress must adopt a counter agreement to deny the totalization agreement or you can kiss goodbye the meager Social Security benefits you stand to get at this point. Contact your congressional representative before it's too late.

Posted by debtblog at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This is simply poppycock. Kofi Annan not withstanding, other delegates were much more forthcoming. Stated the Indonesian representative “We believe that no armed group outside of the State should be allowed to bear weapons. We also believe that regulating civilian possession of Small Arms/Light Weapons will enhance our efforts to prevent its misuse. In our view, the issue of ammunition should also be addressed in the context of the Program of Action because in the absence of ammunition, small arms and light weapons pose no danger.” Similar sentiments were voiced by other nations such as Australia, Brazil and Britain, although without the clearcut sense of purpose that the Indonesians displayed. Brazil attempted to ban private firearms ownership last year, but failed.

Conference chairman Prasad Kariyawasam stated 'Contrary to what people say, especially in (the United States), this conference and program of action is not aiming to ban individual use of firearms if they are held legally,'. The problem is that this Protocol would enable any future U.S. President to term the Protocol an agreement, rather than a treaty. This future president now could bypass the 2/3 majority currently required for passage of legislation requiring U.S. citizens to be bound by its constraints. Presto! Now firearms in the U.S. would not be held legally, and thus qualify as illegal and be subject to the U.N. Mandate.

In theory, our constitution could not be circumvented by such an agreement, however, it would render the 2^nd Amendment perilously close to abolition by an international body. It would be another step in the U.N., rather than your legally elected representative, with global control over one aspect of your life. You may not care about the 2^nd Amendment. In fact, you may agree, in principle, with those gathered on our soil, as we speak, discussing the your civil and constitutional rights. You may, in fact, dislike and fear private firearm ownership. You may believe, as do those in so many other nations, that firearms ownership is the province of the military and police, not private citizens.

You may feel all of those things. However, if you examine the big picture, you will come to the realization your personal feelings vis-a-vis the 2^nd Amendment are missing the broader issue. The issue is weather or not we, as U.S. citizens, want unelected representatives of other nations deciding our fate in any measure. Maybe you feel it would be more appropriate, in this day and age, if we had a single governing body for the entire globe. There are many today who echo these sentiments.

You should reflect for a while on who you would be entrusting your future to. Many of these nations don't have core beliefs in any way close to those of our citizens. They have never had our freedoms, and they certainly do not have a cherished document guaranteeing them. Many of these countries sanction, either officially, or through callous disregard, such things as honor killings, female mutilation, torture, and a lack of private property rights or just rule of law. Do we want nations with such a value system having a hand in deciding the future direction of our great nation? I say not. There are too many diverse belief systems in the world to force conformity to a single governing body that attempts to adequately represent all the world's citizens. You may not give a whit about your second Amendment rights. You may actually hope they are taken away. Be careful what you wish for. The next right you lose to an unelected, international body may be one you do care about.

Posted by debtblog at 01:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

These are not driven by poverty and socio-economic status. They are not propelled by a desire to obtain just treatment for them and those of their faith. They are motivated purely by the need to dominate the minds of all of humanity, once again ironic, as it could be argued they are, themselves, inhuman. They have a long history of using violence to both promote their causes and achieve their agendas. This will only cease to exist, if they, themselves, do likewise. We are not going back to life as it was in the tenth century. The Islamofacists need to face that reality and contribute to society, rather than trying to destroy it.

How does this affect you in your daily life and the desire for financial security? It contributes to uncertainty. Uncertainty is the enemy of markets world wide. If you have any holdings that are influenced by happenings overseas, keep a sharp eye on the news as it pertains to international events. The reality is that, you, as an individual, can do little to combat the scourge of fundamentalist terrorists. Given that is the case, it’s best to just hang on to a bit of rage over their behavior and the fact they want you dead simply for what you believe. Just keep your house in order and persevere in your daily life.

Posted by debtblog at 02:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The flight of currency from the U.S. initiated by illegal immigrants is almost unfathomable. Mexico, a country with copious oil reserves, exports about 1.8 million barrels a day. The huge sum of money this infuses into the Mexican economy pales by comparison to the estimated $10 billion (PEW Hispanic Center estimate) annually sent back to Mexico in 2003 alone. In addition, it's estimated that the net drain on US social and health services costs the US taxpayers over $200 each.

We've got a prison population problem in the U.S. as well. Some of this is caused by immigrant crime, much of it is caused by good, old fashioned, home grown crime committed by U.S. citizens. Over 2 million people now call some prison in the U.S. home. This huge number was caused, to some extent by mandatory minimum sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, causing violent criminals to be excused so they can fit in the drug offenders. That's a story for another day, however. The bottom line, however, is that our penal system is overtaxed, and something needs to be done about it.

We have too many illegals here and too many people in prison. Many in our agricultural community claim illegals are an intregal part of our economy, allowing food to be brought to market at competitive prices. They claim that they illegal immigrants allow them to get the produce from the fields at labor rates that American workers shun. Well, let's give the illegal immigrants one less reason to hop the fence. Remove the economic incentive for their trip across the Arizona desert.

We should use our prison population to harvest our crops. They could supplement the efforts of legal immigrant farmworkers. Growers would pay them on a piecework basis, so that they would pay a comparable rate to what they are paying now. The convicts would probably be far less efficient than the immigrant workers, but we have so many of them, it wouldn't matter. Their pay would go back to the state and be used to offset the cost the cost of their incarceration. They'd get in an honest day's work, the state's taxpayers would benefit, and the growers would get their crops from the fields at prices similar to what they pay now. Who knows if, when the economics of the system were examined, such a system would really bear fruit, but it would be worth investigating.

Posted by debtblog at 01:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

It has been suggested by several California gubernatorial candidates that we keep the troops off the border to allow their use in state emergencies. Well guess what? That is how they are being deployed. If there was a natural disaster, they could be rapidly redeployed. The endless flow of illegal (excuse me, undocumented) aliens across the borders of our southern states and the corresponding drain on state resources that it creates, threatens the educational, law enforcement and health care resources in our southern border states. President Bush's amnesty/guest worker program won't help the situation, nor will installing watering stations for those wayward immigrants lost in the desert. Why don't we just fill those watering stations with Perrier? We shouldn't let those setting out on their journey suffer. Only the best for our visitors, at taxpayer expense, of course.

We also need to stop the whole policy of granting automatic citizenship to those children born here of illegal parents. If they are children of legal immigrants, I'm all for it. We should, however, promptly end the practice of allowing illegals to stream across the border for the express purpose of having a child born in the U.S. It's a loophole we need to close now.

While I'm on my rant, I think Fox exhibits extreme hypocrisy when he denies legal Mexican citizens many jobs, while simultaneously allowing/encouraging illegals to come here from his country to find work. Obviously it's fine for us poor slobs here in the U.S.

Posted by debtblog at 02:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We’re spending a huge amount giving money to corrupt foreign governments who steal it, rather than give it to the proper programs in their countries. U.S. foreign aid spending topped $16 billion in 2003. Many say we should give even more, taking into account the size of our GDP. Maybe so, but I think we should give nothing to the tin hat dictators who use the money to buy a new villa in the mountains or the latest Maybach limo with gold trim. Let them rot in hell, not condemn us to a debt ridden future.

I know there are often things we need in these countries that benefit our national interests(?), and we need to give the money to buy off these two bit thugs, but we’re just getting totally out of hand. If we were to get the money to the right places and demand that, in exchange for their new diamond encrusted Lamborghini, the leaders of these third world countries would actually engage in some economic development, this money would be well spent. As it is, we're flushing much of it down the crapper. If we made sure these countries had a just rule of law, and the people had real property rights, maybe something could be accomplished to enrich the common citizens, not just the fake generals with the shiny medals and the harem.

We need to get handle on our situation soon before our dollar lags behind Canada’s and we’re the butt of their jokes for a change. If the Euro’s worth $2.00 U.S. one day, where will we find ourselves? Take a look at one of many countries throughout the world that have been thought of as second tier powers. If we don’t want to join them, we better get it together. Soon.

Posted by debtblog at 01:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Ken, why don’t you go tell it to all the people you completely scammed out of their security, while leaving yourself enough to squander an astounding $70 million on your defense. Good thing you sold all your stock to lock in some profits, while simultaneously telling other folks to buy more. It’s people like you that make people hate people like you. Big business in this country gets a bad enough rap already, without those of your ilk damaging it’s reputation even further. Way to go, Ace!

This is a prime example of why you don't, no matter how fantastic of a company you might think you work for,  put all your retirement eggs in the company basket.

Posted by debtblog at 06:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hey asshole! They weren't trying to get gold from you. They were trying to offer you an equitable solution to your power generation needs so you'd stop your incessant whining about wanting a peaceful nuclear program. We know you want to be just like India and Pakistan, and have a bomb of your own. You feel weak, inadequate and not in control of your own destiny without one. Plus, it would be so much easier to eliminate Israel if you could just nuke 'em.

China and Russia have stated that they'd not support military action against Iran, even in light of the latest statements from Немногая tyrant. You'd think Russia and China might be a bit more concerned about the latest turn of events. After all, whatever ballistic delivery system Iran may be likely to acquire in the coming years won't reach anyone in the US, Mexico, or Canada, but it sure would be a short hop to anywhere in the middle east, Europe or south eastern Russia.

Iran holds the third largest proven oil reserves in the world, with over 125 billion barrels. I'm sure that if military action is ever undertaken against Tehran, there will be endless hand wringing, and all the “No Blood for Oil” signs will come out of the closets once again. The fact is that while Sadam may not have had a nuclear program that could produce a bomb, Iran has stated that they will have the capability to enrich uranium, no matter what anyone else may think about it. This is the most technologically difficult portion of creating a nuclear weapon. If they manage to stockpile enriched uranium, a bomb may not be too far behind.

In light of President Ahmadinejad's past statements regarding the elimination of Israel and other troubling proclamations from the leader, military action may become, at some point, unavoidable. We never want military action to become a standard instrument of foreign policy, yet we can't afford to pull another Chamberlain either.

I've met many Iranians, and to a person they've all been some of the nicest, most hospitable people I've ever met. None of them, however, have actually been in Iran. Maybe President Ahmadinejad should take a cue from those Iranians who've left and change his attitude before it gets a whole lot of folks into a spot of trouble. $5.00 a gallon anyone?

Posted by debtblog at 01:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

$5 Billion is a ton of money, no matter how you slice it. The Mr. Olympia Guv, Ahnold, The Terminator, is proposing to use much of the unexpected windfall to pay down Kaliforneya's mammoth state debt. What a novel proposal! Of course, the Dems in the Cali state legislature are shuddering at the prospect at actually retiring some debt. The good Guv has indicated he'll spend a huge percentage of the $5 bil to bolster the state's education budget. Predictably, that's not enough for the teacher's union controlled legislature. They want even more.

I'm a huge proponent of education spending, up to the point where it gives the students maximum benefit. After a while however, you can reach the point of diminishing returns. Just look at DC. They have the highest per student education funding and one of the worst educational systems in the nation. Support education. We can't have a vibrant society or economy without it, but don't continue to saddle future generations with oppressive debt that threatens their future.

Where did all this extra cash come from, you may ask? Amazingly enough, not from raising taxes, but because the state's economy actually grew! California's state and local tax burden fell from ranking 9^th in the year 2000 to 15^th today. The people of the good state, as might be predicted, responded by spending that money in their state and local economies at such a rate that it caused them to expand. Lo and behold, the economy grew to such an extent that the state pocketed more green. It's pretty simple, really. A smaller piece of a much bigger pie works out to more than a bigger piece of a smaller pie. Of course, Kali still has one of the worst business tax pictures anywhere in the nation, causing business to flee to neighboring states. At $193 per capita for state and local corporate income taxes collected, California ranks number 7 in the nation. Stop the madness.

Posted by debtblog at 02:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Bolivia, that South American nation made famous in the '80's for it's contribution toward satiating  Americans' lust for that flaky, yellow/white product of the coca plant, is trying its best to follow Venezuela down the path to communisim. While making alot of noise about getting screwed by foriegn nations taking oil and gas profits out of Bolivia, Bolivian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (try to say that 10 times real fast) pissed off the Spanish, Italians and Brazilians by nationalizing Bolivia's oil and gas fileds.

How did that piss off the aforementioned nations, you may ask? Well, they all had companies producing petro products in Bolivian fields. da Silva claimed they've been raping his nation for years by extracting precious petro products while providing Boliva with insufficient compensation. A major flaw in his theory is that Bolivia had neither the resources or expertise to develop it's own petro resources. Without the assistance of these foriegn companies, all that oil and gas would still be in the ground. Bolivia privatized it's oil and gas industry in 1996, and has since attracted over $3 billion in private investment. Nice ploy, Bolivia. First, privatize everything to attract outside investment and get the ball rolling. Next, totally screw all the investors you attracted by taking your bat and ball and going home, after the foriegners payed to build the staduim.

How does this affect you? Why should you care? Outside of the fact that it further complicates the oil and gas market, possibly leading to even high fuel prices (especially if you live in Brazil or Italy), it illustrates how you need to keep aneye on the political situations in countries where you have investments, lest they become worth less or worthless through national decree. If your portfolio, IRA or 401K includes any foriegn equities, keep a close eye on not only the markets, but the political situation in the appropriate countries. Oh, and it would be wise to steer clear of the Chavez, Castro, da Silva triumvirate as well. 

Posted by debtblog at 01:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)