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) |