Should Republicans hope for Obama to fail?

That was the big question all weekend after Rush Limbaugh said "I hope he fails". Isn't that being a hypocrite? Didn't Rush and most Republicans say you have to support our President especially when the country is at war? So what's good for them doesn't apply when a Democrat is in power? Conservatives, if they were fair, should be rushing (no pun intended) to Obama's defense, and yet they're silent! Well the headlines and news shows covered the story as "I hope he fails", but what did Limbaugh actually say? He actually wants Obama's policy proposal to fail. If the Government does nothing, that would be far better than adding 825 billion to our headache.
If you believe in smaller government than you have to hope Obama fails, because if he succeeds in passing his proposal, it will hurt the country. Now if he gets it passed and spends the 825 billion only a fool would say I hope that the stimulus package fails, because then you are rooting against America, not Obama. I have no ill will towards Obama. I have voluminous ill will for his proposals. I know the bigger the government, the bigger the problems. They have proven consistently for 200 years they are inept at running anything. From DMV, to medicare, to social security, to their own cafeteria. Which taxpayers had to subsidize. No matter what government takes over, it never goes well. So why would I want them in charge of our healthcare, the auto industry, the banks, our energy etc?

Am I smarter than a Professor at MIT?

No I am not smarter than any M.I.T. Professor. Sadly though being smart doesn’t mean you grasp problems. This morning around 5:15a as I was driving to work I heard Dr Simon Johnson on NPR. He is a very decorated economist and currently a professor at M.I.T. Previously he was a member of the U.S. Securities Exchange commission in the Clinton administration and the Chief Economist for the IMF till August of last year. There’s no way I’m smarter than this guy. However he amazingly has no idea what is currently happening with the economy. I was able to deduce that when he said “The U.S. doesn’t currently have too much debt so we can afford the bad bank program”. This site will scare you if you have no idea how in debt we are. It’s a very fluid situation but it’s safe to say it’s over 10 trillion dollars, while some estimates have us at over 50 trillion. But let’s use the lowest figure. 10 Trillion dollars makes us the most in debt country in the world!

Perhaps Dr Johnson developed his position on percentage of debt compared to our GDP. Then we’re way better off compared to every country in Europe, but still running at about 100 percent. Yes what we make every year is how far we go in debt every year. By a 3rd graders comprehension this can’t be healthy, and can’t be sustained for an extended period.

Dr Johnson and the Obama team are suggesting the reason we’re in this problem is a lack of confidence in the banking industry and by consumers in general. If we can get the banks to lend money and consumers to start spending like they did in years past then companies will start hiring again. That would be true except for one major flaw. We are out of money.

What I mean by that is for years Americans consumed more than they earned. The average American since 2004 spent $1.02 for every dollar they earned. Most did that because they were able to get home equity loans. House prices were rising at record rates, so why not take out some that equity and spend it on trips, clothes, home improvements etc? The government policies of tinkering with the free market drove up home prices, and kept interest rates artificially low. If the Government had not taken an interest in trying to get every American to own a home, there would be less buyers. That would have kept prices stable. Which would have stopped people from getting home equity loans. It also would have slowed the economy to a real rate. Car sales wouldn’t have exploded, Construction wouldn’t have exploded. Computer sales, retail, service industries all would have kept growing at a much slower pace than the explosion that has taken place since around 1995.

The artificial growth of our economy also grew our tax base, and as we know government at any size will spend every penny. Now that our tax base is shrinking local, state and federal government is scrambling to find new ways of taxing us.

Recession is another way of saying our economy is shrinking. It’s shrinking to it’s proper size. Millions of people will lose their jobs. That doesn’t change the fact that we need this recession. The economy will grow again when some of these people who are currently out of work start new businesses. It will take years for us to right ourselves, but we will do it. The worst thing we can do now is try to “stimulate” the economy. This not only stalls true recovery but adds to the problem by adding more debt.

Are you tired of hearing how amazing Obama is?

Yesterday I was at the gym and Forest Whitaker was on Oprah explaining that Barack showed the country it's OK to be passionate with your wife. Because we've never seen a President dance that way with his wife before. I thought "What?". Oprah said that simply because Barack is our President it not only makes her want to be a better person, she is in fact already a better person. I thought "Huh?". For months I've had to listen about what a moron our President was. Only electing Obama could make this country whole and respectable again. Today on NPR they interviewed an English Baroness at the U.N. who said the election of Obama returned America to prominence. These types of statements by "citizens of the world", both here and abroad, have been consistent for about 6 months now. They don't even make sense!

I remember watching Jimmy Carter get uncomfortably freaky with Rosalyn on the dance floor, and many tender moments with all the Presidents and their wives through the years. America has been the prominent country in the world since WWII. If not us, whom? China? Russia? England? Which country was the world looking to the past 8 years? It's like a large part of this country and the world have popped wacky tablets and can't remember what life was really like before Obama!

Then I had a revelation. Of course I have always known it was going to be a big deal that Obama was our first black President. But perhaps it was I who had popped the wacky tablet. No one who reads this was a slave, had a friend who was a slave, or even a parent who was a slave. There might be a few people whose grand parents or great grand parents were slaves. I had a great grandmother who was an American Indian. She was a tad bitter about how her entire village was forced on to a reservation in CT. And while I had sympathy for her and how her life turned out, it never effected mine. Because although my roots are Indian, African, European, Asian, and from all corners of the world, (just like everyone else) I look white. It was easy for me to believe in school in the 70's that I could grow up and do anything I wanted, because I looked like the people doing the big things.

I grew up in a lower middle class town, so I had friends who looked like the rainbow. Friends with names like Esdars Chisolm, & Freddie Diaz were less likely to believe they could achieve anything they dreamed of, because no one who looked like them had ever done it before. Since the 70's we've had numerous minorities rise to very high positions in all walks of life. Robert Johnson started BET, Oprah became a household name & billionaire, Richard Parsons became CEO of Time Warner and then Citigroup. The CEO's of Aetna, McDonald's, Merril Lynch, Xerox, American Express to name some biggies, are all minorities. Colin Powel was not only a 4 star General but became Secretary of State, and was replaced by Condoleeza Rice. Minority Governors, Senators, Congress people, and mayors of major city's. Business, politics, sports, entertainment, military it seemed like all the doors have swung wide open. America had transformed itself in to the country where you truly were judged by the content of your character. But a lot of those changes came in the last 20 years. They had heard all they could stand about George Washinton Carver and his damn peanuts! All of the other famous minority leaders were pretty much Civil rights oriented, but not a whole lot of Mexican Governors, or Black CEO's in the 70's or before. So anyone over 30, who is a minority, has a whole different perspective on opportunity than a white man. They've seen the changes in their lifetime, but wondered how real is it. A couple of politicians, and a handful of CEO's is a start, but will it last? Now their glass ceiling has been shattered. The most powerful man in the world is a minority. Will minorities still miss out on jobs because of the color of their skin. Never again! Just kidding. Of course they will. Is there now reverse discrimination against white men? Absolutely. The playing field will never be level till we get to heaven, but as a society we're getting better every day. So if "citizens of the world" who have been prejudiced against most of their lives want to celebrate this enormous occasion for a few years, I guess we should all just sit back and let them go nuts. Telling them they're being irrational certainly isn't going to help anything. And if my great grandmother was alive and an American Indian became President I'm sure she'd take a break from being ticked that her tribe didn't get a casino, (yeah if she'd only been a Mohegan I'd be rich!) and go crazy for the next few years.

To our leaders in Washington this doesn't mean you rubber stamp Obama's socialist movement. Fight it tooth & nail! We can ill afford to have a government, irregardless of who is the President, running our business's for us. And that's exactly Obama's plan, with the very unassuming pleasant sounding names of "stimulus", "job creation", & "bailout". Their real names are "state run", "communist" & "Marxism". History is clear that whenever any government from any nation starts running any business it always turns out bad. Government can't create jobs without running the business. Government can't stimulate the economy by flooding it with freshly printed money. And it can't bail us out with money it doesn't have.

An open letter to Time magazine

Dear Editors of Time magazine,
When you publish op ed pieces it's very important to have the facts checked. Your Jan 19th 2009 print edition features an opinion piece filled with misleading facts written by Jeffery Sachs of Columbia University. The cornerstone of Mr Sachs article is that Americans are taxed at 18% of GDP and Europeans are taxed at 28% of GDP. This tax difference began in the 1970's. And now the Europeans enjoy better health care, the elimination of poverty, and improved educations, because of their increased tax burden. Unfortunately the facts are in opposition to Mr Sachs case. Starting with health care. If 30 plus years ago the European health care began to improve, then their life expectancy should have as well.
However the CIA World factbook has life expectancy for for the U.S. and most European country's at 78, with Poland is laging at 75.

As for education a European compilation lists 11 of the top 15 universities in the world in the US including state schools like Penn State, Cal Tech and others. Because school districts are run at local levels we can't address anything other than college results. But the fact is if you want the best education in the world, you come to America.

As for poverty, it doubled between 1970 and 1990 in the United Kingdom. Currently 20% are considered "very poor". The European term for poverty. The US is at 12.5% and has been for years. Not that anyone should be happy with 12.5% of Americans being in poverty, but the facts bear out that the exact opposite is true from what Mr Sachs argued. Europeans increased tax burden has not improved their region but weakened it in comparison to the United States. So again the facts tell a different story.

In France 10,000 people die each year because of their socialized medicine. And they're boasting that it's only 10,000 dead per year. Another half million suffer severe adverse effects from things like confusion of the patients name. When we hear about someone getting the wrong leg amputated or something sad because of misreading names we are saddened but understand that the people responsible will have a penalty from fines to prison. A story in todays London Times shows there's 130,000 casses a year of doctors doing wrong procedures on patients. In Europe there is no punishment because you can't sue the government, and with medical people underpaid and overworked by the government accidents are going to happen. Our country and systems aren't perfect. But if we're going to debate the merits of ideas, then it's only fair to present the facts of history as well.

Is this really how you heal a country?

AP reports today that Michigan Democrat John Conyers has introduced legislation to form a committee to see if anyone in the Bush administration broke the law while working on national security. I'm assuming here that Sen Conyers feels like the world is outraged by our torture of inmates, and in order to regain our respectability we must prosecute those who have besmirched our good name.

Sen Conyers should be reminded of a few things. John I hope you're reading this. First, the election of Obama has already cleared the American people with the "citizens of the world". Second, 47% of the country voted against Obama so despite the chorus of glee from the left, almost half the country isn't for this administration, and a lot of us believe the 44th administration will be one of the most dangerous to our long term health in this country. You can't argue that we're wrong, anymore than we could argue that you were wrong with Bush. It's an opinion. So if you really want to start trying to build some unity, the last thing you do is say we're going after the administration that was twice elected and served 8 years. I don't care if Bush's approval rating was as low as the Houses (oh did you forget that Bush still has an approval rating more than twice that of you and your pals on the hill?) it's never a unifying thing to go after Presidents. Finally, let's stop pointing fingers. We could still be pointing at shady things about Obama that were getting traction just before the election but thankfully the majority of our side has let it go. Both of us are saddled with kook fringes, that we can't be held responsible for. So anyone who starts ranting about illegal campaign contributions, Bill Ayers, stolen speeches, Jeremiah Wright, ties to dirty politics in Chicago, etc we consider them our kook right. It'll be back in 2012 and open for discussion then, but for now it should sit quietly.
So Sen Conyers, put your legislation away. Tuesday will be a huge day in DC. Go to the parties, live it up, and let Obama start leading you and your boys. That is the best thing you can do for yourself, your party, and the country.

What is the definition of Communism

According to Webster the definition is : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. In all of recorded history Communism has never "worked". Meaning instead of some people lowering their standard of life so that everyone else can raise their level, so that all citizens share a comfortable lifestyle. Not for a lack of trying! François-Noël Babeuf lead a socialist revolution in France in the late 1700's, and before he was executed said; "Society must be made to operate in such a way that it eradicates once and for all the desire of a man to become richer, or wiser, or more powerful than others". Since then wonderful intentioned people as diverse as Susan B Anthony to John Lennon have pushed for socialist/communist governments. Currently China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, & Vietnam have government for the common good. And some of the most deplorable living situations in the civilized world. The Soviet Union was suffering under communism till 1990. As bad as things are currently in Russia, their citizens see a way of improving their lives through Capitalism. When they strive harder to improve their lives, the entire country benefits from increased production.

So knowing that it has been attempted numerous times and failed every time, any one who would propose anything like it again would be insane. Because insanity is trying the same thing over and over expecting a different result. I'm sorry to announce that President elect Obama is apparently insane. George Stephanopoulos blogs that in his interview with Obama that will air tomorrow: I asked the president-elect, "At the end of the day, are you really talking about over the course of your presidency some kind of grand bargain? That you have tax reform, healthcare reform, entitlement reform including Social Security and Medicare, where everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something, accept change for the greater good?" Obama said "Yes". Again, when you ask human beings to sacrifice for the greater good, we all suffer. We must all contact our Reps to let them know that we don't want to Socialist or Communist reform.

Reintroducing Milton Friedman

I received a call from an old friend today and as with most of conversations they either turn to Christ (my favorite subject) or politics (my 2nd favorite). This one ended up in the latter, and at some point I brought up Milton Friedman. My friend is around 30 and it dawned on me that a lot of young conservatives may not be familiar with the brilliance of Friedman.

He was an economist who rose to national fame in the 60's and 70's. He was a supporter of the New Deal till he challenged his own theories, and his conclusions shocked him. That Government can't manage the economy, because people will know what they're doing and adjust their habits to neutralize the goal. That there will always be a rate of unemployment so it only harms the rest of the country to try and create jobs for the 5% or so who don't want them. He then created his own theory called Monetarism. His theory predicted in the 60's an effect that our government deficit spending would create in the 70's called stagflation. That's when the economy becomes stagnant but inflation rises. Other economists laughed at him, but his model was shockingly accurate. In 1976 he won the Nobel prize for his theory and work.

His true value to us is his ability to break down complex issues so we all can understand. Here he is on the Phil Donahue show in the 70's. This 2 minute clip was the inspiration for the great scene with Michael Douglas in Wall Street.


If you want to learn more from Friedman we're fortunate that he hosted his own show where he taught his principals on public television in the early 80's, and recorded lot's of lectures. There are hours and hours of Friedman material on youtube. I'll leave you this incredible 30 minute interview from the 60's. Great quotes include "I admire the softness of their hearts, but it very often extends to their head as well." & "The problem is they feel like the people need to have Big Brother look out for them, when in fact Big Brother is supposed to be the one being watched by the people".