So we were told for much of the previous eight years. Dissent for the sake of dissent is not "patriotic." Dissent based on reasons and rationale is a responsibility. Our Government is out of control, but we have elected it.
No, the people of the 6th District did not vote for Obama, nor Pelosi, nor Murtha, nor Reid, but we did vote for Bart Gordon who is supporting their every whim, like a whipped dog. When I first considered running for his seat, I expected there would be little to differentiate my positions, our positions from his.
I had hope that the Blue Dog Democrats would provide the rational resistance to many of the things promised on the campaign trail last year. Instead, I have found nothing but disappointment in his voting record. I'm sure if I searched thoroughly enough, I could find something, and I should. I'm told he's a nice guy and he certainly seems to be.
I've been quiet lately, mainly because there is little positive to say. I'm truly concerned for the direction this government is headed. Our Congress, at the behest of the President has quadrupled the deficit, with the full support of Our Elected Congressman.
They are cutting the Defense Budget at the same time that we're paying $328,000 for an Air Force photo op that struck fear in the people of New York. And the President laughed about it.
While more is being asked of Our Troops, their numbers and pay raises and bonuses are being cut with the backing of Our Elected Politician, at the behest of Obama, Pelosi, Frank, and Murtha. In the upcoming year, more of our Troops will be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan than at any time in the last 8 years. Troops are being deployed straight to Afghanistan from Baghdad.
Within hours of North Korean Missile tests, Weapon Systems were cut from the Army, Air Force and Navy, including the Marines. North Korea even now threatens war if even the weak measures suggested are taken against them. 28,500 US Troops in South Korea are now potentially in harm's way against a Million Man Nuclear armed Army of North Korea.
General McKiernan's career has been ended with an excuse of "we needed a new face." It appears to be a purely political decision.
Partisan slogans are resulting in stubbornly shutting down a piece of ground that has done nothing wrong. The Terrorists detained at Guantanamo are the worst of the worst. No torture ever occurred there. It is and has been run in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The terrorists are not Americans. They have no Constitutional Rights.
The terrorists at Gitmo are combatants, not just common criminals. They are war criminals, but the Geneva Conventions allows them to be held until the end of hostilities, without trial. They may be tried for war crimes and if found guilty held beyond the end of hostilities. But if found "not guilty," they can be returned to Gitmo, as per the Geneva Conventions.
Moreover, in this time of economic hardship, in these times of record deficits, it is fiscally irresponsible to close Gitmo and build a new one somewhere else, costing billions of dollars more, when it done for nothing more than political sloganeering.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Racist Shame
We were told we were "racist" for opposing Obama. Now we are being told we are "racist" for opposing his nominee for the Supreme Court. NO, we are NOT. No person should be hired or fired or promoted or elected or selected based on their skin color or sex.
Justice Sotomayor is the wrong person for the job, period. She is on the record as saying the Judicial Branch "Makes policy" in complete contradiction to the US Constitution. In the same video, she recognizes that she should not admit that publically.
In the same week, that the Supreme Court of California decided that the Constitution of California is Constitutional (Proposition 8), the President of the United States has nominated for Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States a person that believes that feelings rather than law should be the basis of rulings and evidently has no concept of the very Constitution she is supposed to be basing her rulings on.
Every candidate should be judged based on their merits. Every candidate should be selected based on their merits and record. Every candidate should be elected based on their positions.
There should be no special rules based on skin color nor sex. It should not be easier or harder because one has darker or lighter skin. An applicant should not be denied for someone less qualified because of such standards. And yet, that was precisely how she decided the case of St.Louis Firefighter promotions.
I would urge the Senate to be colorblind in voting against this nominee. I would urge them to have the intestinal fortitude to clearly state that they will not be shamed into blindly accepting every candidate based on the argument that it's "racist" to oppose a minority.
It is a disservice and racist to continually tell whole segments of our population that they can't learn, that they can't compete, that they need special rules and laws to attain the same standings as their neighbors.
Justice Sotomayor is the wrong person for the job, period. She is on the record as saying the Judicial Branch "Makes policy" in complete contradiction to the US Constitution. In the same video, she recognizes that she should not admit that publically.
In the same week, that the Supreme Court of California decided that the Constitution of California is Constitutional (Proposition 8), the President of the United States has nominated for Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States a person that believes that feelings rather than law should be the basis of rulings and evidently has no concept of the very Constitution she is supposed to be basing her rulings on.
Every candidate should be judged based on their merits. Every candidate should be selected based on their merits and record. Every candidate should be elected based on their positions.
There should be no special rules based on skin color nor sex. It should not be easier or harder because one has darker or lighter skin. An applicant should not be denied for someone less qualified because of such standards. And yet, that was precisely how she decided the case of St.Louis Firefighter promotions.
I would urge the Senate to be colorblind in voting against this nominee. I would urge them to have the intestinal fortitude to clearly state that they will not be shamed into blindly accepting every candidate based on the argument that it's "racist" to oppose a minority.
It is a disservice and racist to continually tell whole segments of our population that they can't learn, that they can't compete, that they need special rules and laws to attain the same standings as their neighbors.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The Way Forward
Some have asked what they can do to help. Some have expressed a wish that I was running in their district. Some have pointed out that a successful campaign needs a campaign warchest, a large one considering the opponent.
Until an expert on Campaign Finance steps up, I will not be asking for, nor accepting donations to the campaign. That is why there is no method of donating to the campaign. But dollars are only a means to presenting the message. The biggest political campaign warchest does not ensure Victory at the ballot box.
But as Bart Gordon so aptly demonstrates, that money comes with strings. His loyalty is to those that have contributed to his continued presence in Washington, not to the people of the 6th District, not to the people of Tennessee, and not to the Nation.
What can you do? Spread the word. Send this page to your neighbor. Follow me on Twitter: TnNTaylor. RT my tweets when you find them interesting. Email the articles of this page to your fellow Tennesseans, with the link. Comment on what you find interesting. Ask questions about concepts if my words are unclear.
Elections are won by who receives the most votes, not who has the most money. If it were about money, I'd not stand a chance. Money is simply the tool to get the message out. The internet allows you to have more power than do the Corporations that have bought Gordon.
It doesn't matter if the people you know agree with your positions, with my positions, with our positions or not, send them a link. Allow them a voice and a place to make their case. There is no harm in hearing the words of those that oppose me. On the contrary, I have actively fought to preserve them that right.
Hypothetically, a campaign could be victorious without any money spent. I'm not sure I'd wish to try that, but I do know I will not be able to outspend Bart Gordon. As we move forward, we'll identify more ways to help put a Common Sense Citizen in Congress, but first and foremost, spread the word.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
Until an expert on Campaign Finance steps up, I will not be asking for, nor accepting donations to the campaign. That is why there is no method of donating to the campaign. But dollars are only a means to presenting the message. The biggest political campaign warchest does not ensure Victory at the ballot box.
But as Bart Gordon so aptly demonstrates, that money comes with strings. His loyalty is to those that have contributed to his continued presence in Washington, not to the people of the 6th District, not to the people of Tennessee, and not to the Nation.
What can you do? Spread the word. Send this page to your neighbor. Follow me on Twitter: TnNTaylor. RT my tweets when you find them interesting. Email the articles of this page to your fellow Tennesseans, with the link. Comment on what you find interesting. Ask questions about concepts if my words are unclear.
Elections are won by who receives the most votes, not who has the most money. If it were about money, I'd not stand a chance. Money is simply the tool to get the message out. The internet allows you to have more power than do the Corporations that have bought Gordon.
It doesn't matter if the people you know agree with your positions, with my positions, with our positions or not, send them a link. Allow them a voice and a place to make their case. There is no harm in hearing the words of those that oppose me. On the contrary, I have actively fought to preserve them that right.
Hypothetically, a campaign could be victorious without any money spent. I'm not sure I'd wish to try that, but I do know I will not be able to outspend Bart Gordon. As we move forward, we'll identify more ways to help put a Common Sense Citizen in Congress, but first and foremost, spread the word.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
Saturday, April 11, 2009
US Navy And Taxed Out of Shipping
Sometimes, it's the unnoted things in a news story that provide the most insight. Sometimes timing of an event provides the greatest irony. Four solitary pirates have tested the world's superpower and the new leader. Twenty great Americans demonstrated resolve and valor. One ship's captain has gone above and beyond.
And Vice President Biden's prophecy is on the verge of being proven, again. When tested, President Obama has consistently fallen short. But he cannot continue on a course of economic and military destruction without the willing approval of Congress.
And Congress cannot rubber stamp the wrong headed policies of the executive without the Whipped Blue Dogs, including our very own Representative Gordon, who only seems to represent earmarks and Washington insiders.
The US Navy has already been cut in half, primarily in the 90's. The New Administration aims to cut it even more. Reprehensible Barney Frank called for the cuts in October. Reprehensible Murtha called for the cuts this year. The 2010 DoD budget proposal from the Administration hides the cuts by adding the costs of Our Current Conflicts to the regular budget without increasing the actual budget. It is an $87+ Billion cut in defense spending from its own 2009 proposal.
And Vice President Biden's prophecy is on the verge of being proven, again. When tested, President Obama has consistently fallen short. But he cannot continue on a course of economic and military destruction without the willing approval of Congress.
And Congress cannot rubber stamp the wrong headed policies of the executive without the Whipped Blue Dogs, including our very own Representative Gordon, who only seems to represent earmarks and Washington insiders.
The US Navy has already been cut in half, primarily in the 90's. The New Administration aims to cut it even more. Reprehensible Barney Frank called for the cuts in October. Reprehensible Murtha called for the cuts this year. The 2010 DoD budget proposal from the Administration hides the cuts by adding the costs of Our Current Conflicts to the regular budget without increasing the actual budget. It is an $87+ Billion cut in defense spending from its own 2009 proposal.
Instead of spending money Constitutionally on the Common Defense of the States, the Administration is funding ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and buying US Corporations. The Whipped Blue Dogs are following the whims of Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and Obama.
But this is only part of the story. They are calling for higher taxes on investors, smokers, corporations, and employers. And this too has a tie to the piracy of the Maersk Alabama. With the first case of piracy against a US Flagged vessel in two centuries, we also see the results of increased tax and regulations on one of our traditionally strongest industries:
"There are fewer than 200 U.S.-flagged vessels in international waters, said Larry Howard, chair of the Global Business and Transportation Department at UNY Maritime College in New York. " AP, APR 08, 2009 US Aid Ship Fights off Pirates
The only US Flagged vessels on the high seas today are US Navy Vessels and those required by US Government contract to be US Flagged. Taxes and Regulations have made it simply too expensive for shipping companies to hoist our Flag. Instead, shipping companies flag their ships in places like Kuwait and Liberia, which collect the fees and regulate more sensibly or not at all while providing no protection of their own.
When the US Government continues to increase taxes on our employers, they will continue to move overseas, continue to lay off Our Workers, and more of our great industries will be lost to foreign nations. We must send a Common Sense Citizen to represent Tennesseans in 2010.
While David Evans has correctly called on Representative Gordon to return the money the US Government paid for Gordon's personal European Vacation (or demonstrate it was official business), I am focused on the Billions and Trillions of dollars the Whipped Blue Dogs are wasting of Our money.
While General Evans is concerned with the personal largesse of our opponent, I am concerned with Representative Gordons willingness to undercut Our National Defense in a time of Two Wars and even greater threat than we have seen since 1990.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
Friday, March 27, 2009
Behavior Control Through Taxation
I've spoken out against the immorality, illegality, and unconstitutional retroactive taxation blackmail of the AIG (now AIU) executives. I've clarified that it is not illegal but immoral that they accept those bonuses. Senator Dodd and Timothy Geitner were directly responsible for the legislation that allowed the bonuses, in the CEO Bailout Bill sold to us by then Senator Obama and rammed down our throats by Representative Gordon, Frank, & Pelosi.
But the 90% tax Representative Gordon voted to exact on the political embarrassment is only one such attempt to legislate behavior through taxation. It's perhaps the most obvious, but its far from the oldest.
It has long been the practice of Congress and State Legislators to put special taxes on cigarettes. Regardless of how you feel about smoking, it is legal and it is a personal decision. In the early days of this special tax, it was designed to alter behavior. When politicians realized that smokers are addicts, they began to see it as a cash cow. Recently, they increased the cigarette tax by, not to, $8.00 a carton. The government now makes more money off the tobacco industry than do the manufacturers.
Adding to this, the State of Tennessee is imposing "minimum" prices on cigarettes as of April 1st.
The 111th Congress is considering the implementation of the Chicago Politician's special tax on energy. What is the result of such programs, including the desired result of decreased energy usage? Increased energy costs and higher energy bills.
Not convinced? Pull out your most recent water bill and electric bill and compare both the price per unit and the base service charge to a 2007 bill. Compare your usage of these services as well. Many of you will find that you pay more for less service now. Utilities must achieve a certain amount of gross profit to cover the costs and they are monopolies, necessary monopolies, but monopolies nonetheless.
Many Representatives were even calling for a tax hike of 50 cents/gallon on gasoline during the $4/gallon days of last summer. With our gas tax dollars already being swindled from the upkeep of our roads, this tax was not designed to provide better roads, but make it economically unfeasible for you to drive as much as you currently do.
And despite all of this taxation, the government continues to be in centuries old debt and racking up record deficits. The 111th Congress, including our Representative Gordon plans to increase the federal debt in their short two years than did the previous 5 Congresses.
The Whipped Blue Dogs are voting exactly as Speaker Pelosi of California Idealism tells them to vote. It appears as if they are trying to bankrupt Our Nation.
The entire tax code is designed to alter behaviors, with credits for what politicians deem good behavior and penalties for what they deem bad behavior. And yet in the midst of this, Congress is considering increasing the taxes paid on charitable donations. This is mind-boggling and the conclusions that can be drawn from it are not very flattering.
It is indeed time for a new tea party. Taxes, penalty by taxation, and behavior control by taxation are out of control. We pay more now in taxes, in real dollars, in inflation adjusted dollars, in percentage of income, than did our Founding Fathers when they threw off the chains of Britain.
It may be time for Nationwide Recall Petitions of Congress. This Congress is out of control, under the whip of Pelosi. The Blue Dogs, our last hope for rational legislation, have been whipped into submission by fringe elements of a once great party that abandoned the people.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
But the 90% tax Representative Gordon voted to exact on the political embarrassment is only one such attempt to legislate behavior through taxation. It's perhaps the most obvious, but its far from the oldest.
It has long been the practice of Congress and State Legislators to put special taxes on cigarettes. Regardless of how you feel about smoking, it is legal and it is a personal decision. In the early days of this special tax, it was designed to alter behavior. When politicians realized that smokers are addicts, they began to see it as a cash cow. Recently, they increased the cigarette tax by, not to, $8.00 a carton. The government now makes more money off the tobacco industry than do the manufacturers.
Adding to this, the State of Tennessee is imposing "minimum" prices on cigarettes as of April 1st.
The 111th Congress is considering the implementation of the Chicago Politician's special tax on energy. What is the result of such programs, including the desired result of decreased energy usage? Increased energy costs and higher energy bills.
Not convinced? Pull out your most recent water bill and electric bill and compare both the price per unit and the base service charge to a 2007 bill. Compare your usage of these services as well. Many of you will find that you pay more for less service now. Utilities must achieve a certain amount of gross profit to cover the costs and they are monopolies, necessary monopolies, but monopolies nonetheless.
Many Representatives were even calling for a tax hike of 50 cents/gallon on gasoline during the $4/gallon days of last summer. With our gas tax dollars already being swindled from the upkeep of our roads, this tax was not designed to provide better roads, but make it economically unfeasible for you to drive as much as you currently do.
And despite all of this taxation, the government continues to be in centuries old debt and racking up record deficits. The 111th Congress, including our Representative Gordon plans to increase the federal debt in their short two years than did the previous 5 Congresses.
The Whipped Blue Dogs are voting exactly as Speaker Pelosi of California Idealism tells them to vote. It appears as if they are trying to bankrupt Our Nation.
The entire tax code is designed to alter behaviors, with credits for what politicians deem good behavior and penalties for what they deem bad behavior. And yet in the midst of this, Congress is considering increasing the taxes paid on charitable donations. This is mind-boggling and the conclusions that can be drawn from it are not very flattering.
It is indeed time for a new tea party. Taxes, penalty by taxation, and behavior control by taxation are out of control. We pay more now in taxes, in real dollars, in inflation adjusted dollars, in percentage of income, than did our Founding Fathers when they threw off the chains of Britain.
It may be time for Nationwide Recall Petitions of Congress. This Congress is out of control, under the whip of Pelosi. The Blue Dogs, our last hope for rational legislation, have been whipped into submission by fringe elements of a once great party that abandoned the people.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
"Toxic Assets"
The media, markets, and Congress are abuzz with "Toxic Assets." They're also attempting to rename this "legacy loans." It simply sounds better when you're talking about using taxpayer money to "buy it."
But what exactly are we talking about with "toxic assets?" Those are the predatory loans made by the greedy to the greedy based on unrealistic rises in real estate values. These are the loans that should never have been made. These are the risks that corporations took in a belief that they would make astounding profits, that failed.
Simply, they are bad loans, foreclosed loans on real estate not worth the borrowed amount.
Your "representatives" think that you, the taxpayer, should pay 2005 inflated prices in order to get the banks out of the trouble they got themselves in. It will have the marketed effect, the banks will be better off. Their stock prices will go up. It will benefit the corporate constituencies of our elected officials.
This comes at a cost to you, the taxpayer. It is wrong. Capitalism is a system of personal and professional responsibility. It allows individual choice and freedom. It rewards good decisions and holds each responsible for bad decisions.
An underlying but unstated right of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Capitalism is the right to be wrong and to let the world know that you are wrong. If you decide to pay $100,000 for a 2010 Ford Mustang believing you can sell it to your neighbor for $150,000, your friends may tell you you're out of your mind. But that is your money and your decision to make.
If the neighbor pays the $150,000 for it, we'll shake our heads in disbelief, but if you end up selling it to him for $50,000, it is not our responsibility to make up the difference. And that is what Congress is doing. They're making us pay the difference in the losses of banks.
To be a bit more accurate, it would be like a single person bidding and purchasing an entire estate at auction regardless of bid price, selling everything that could make a profit and then coming to their neighbor and expecting them to pay the price bid for the items not worth the price he paid at bid. Now imagine that it was the richest man in town that did that and exacted the losses on every worker in town.
It is not right. It is not Constitutional. It is not moral. It is not capitalism. It is not the American way.
These corporations took the risks. They got greedy. And they got burned. It is NOT the responsibility of the taxpayer, i.e waiters, factory workers, and Soldiers to pay for the bad risks that the corporations made.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
But what exactly are we talking about with "toxic assets?" Those are the predatory loans made by the greedy to the greedy based on unrealistic rises in real estate values. These are the loans that should never have been made. These are the risks that corporations took in a belief that they would make astounding profits, that failed.
Simply, they are bad loans, foreclosed loans on real estate not worth the borrowed amount.
Your "representatives" think that you, the taxpayer, should pay 2005 inflated prices in order to get the banks out of the trouble they got themselves in. It will have the marketed effect, the banks will be better off. Their stock prices will go up. It will benefit the corporate constituencies of our elected officials.
This comes at a cost to you, the taxpayer. It is wrong. Capitalism is a system of personal and professional responsibility. It allows individual choice and freedom. It rewards good decisions and holds each responsible for bad decisions.
An underlying but unstated right of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Capitalism is the right to be wrong and to let the world know that you are wrong. If you decide to pay $100,000 for a 2010 Ford Mustang believing you can sell it to your neighbor for $150,000, your friends may tell you you're out of your mind. But that is your money and your decision to make.
If the neighbor pays the $150,000 for it, we'll shake our heads in disbelief, but if you end up selling it to him for $50,000, it is not our responsibility to make up the difference. And that is what Congress is doing. They're making us pay the difference in the losses of banks.
To be a bit more accurate, it would be like a single person bidding and purchasing an entire estate at auction regardless of bid price, selling everything that could make a profit and then coming to their neighbor and expecting them to pay the price bid for the items not worth the price he paid at bid. Now imagine that it was the richest man in town that did that and exacted the losses on every worker in town.
It is not right. It is not Constitutional. It is not moral. It is not capitalism. It is not the American way.
These corporations took the risks. They got greedy. And they got burned. It is NOT the responsibility of the taxpayer, i.e waiters, factory workers, and Soldiers to pay for the bad risks that the corporations made.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
The Blackmail Worked
The government, led by the US House of Representatives, has learned the tactics of the Mafia: Blackmail. Even as activists and capitalists are setting up tours of the homes of AIG executives for angry mobs, Government Lawyers are offering to keep the names quiet of those that return the money, with a clear implication that those that retain the money will be made public.
The Government has made the executives "a deal they can't refuse." When Chris Dodd (Senator-CT) & Timothy Geitner (Treasury Secretary) finally admitted that they had personally had a hand in the language of the CEO Bailout Bill allowing the bonuses, the House of Representatives had their back. The House, believing themselves to be riding a tide of populism, voted for a 90% tax on Specific Individuals.
While such a targeted tax on money earned prior to the legislation would not likely pass the Constitutionality test in the court system, the cost of legal representation (lawyers) would have cost more than the new government employees had earned.
It is now being reported (CNBC) that most if not all of the US executives that received a bonus have "voluntarily" returned it. Most of the remaining executives keeping the bonuses are foreign residents, i.e. not subject to the targeted tax of the US House of Representatives.
Was all of this hoopla, was this blackmail by the government worth the $50 Million returned or even the $165 Million paid in bonuses? Or was this simply something to divert our attention from the fact that Congress paid out $700 Billion to their CEO Constituencies from the pockets of the common worker? Even if all of it is returned, that's still $699.8 Billion paid out of OUR pockets.
At what cost did these executives return the money? The check came with their resignation. In the midst of turmoil at the now Government owned AIG, now AIU (they changed the name), the top managers have decided to walk out. For some, we might say "good riddance." For others, their knowledge, expertise, and experience with the problem itself may mean, we need them. We simply don't know anything about who was there, who was paid a bonus for what, and hence who left.
Those that left were targeted because of their earnings, not their performance, which may or may not be tied to their performance (should be). If the bonuses worked the way they should have, they would have been paid to those that did the most to keep the corporation in the black. But we don't know, do we?
There is a bit of good news in this: Corporations have learned that Government is not a good business partner. The entire affair has been more akin to an Organized Crime operation than what I expect of government. Several Corporations were forced into the "deal they could not refuse." Once in, they found themselves bullied by politicians that have a record of losing money.
But there is a winner in all of this: Warren Buffett, a major contributor to the Obama campaign. Buffett, through his corporation, Berkshire-Hathaway, is known for his market prowess. Even as Congress first began considering the CEO Bailout Bill, Buffett expressed a wish that he could get in on just 10% of it. Meanwhile, he had $50,000,000,000 sitting on the sidelines, waiting for just the right moment to jump in.
And as the financials market plummetted with the acts and talk of Congress, he found his mark. It wasn't the "toxic assets" and failing banks that Representative Frank and Representative Gordon were forcing the American taxpayer to buy. It was the best of breed, Goldman-Sachs, that had to be co-erced into the bailout that he bought into.
We don't know when exactly he bought in, but on November 3, 2008, GS was selling at $89.09/share and on November 20th at $52.00/share. As of March 23, 2009, it is selling at $111.93/share. That's a gain of 25% to 115% gain in less than 6 months on a stock still considered undervalued by the very system that Obama supporter, Warren Buffett uses.
Warren Buffett is an astute investor and one of the richest men in the world. Many people shook their heads when he so forcefully backed both Hillary and Obama last year in the campaign. Who would have thought then that the tens of thousands he personally donated would earn him literally billions of dollars? Should there be a targeted tax on his earnings? Will there be politicians riding a tide of populism to call for it? NO.
As immoral as it is to back a political candidate for personal profit, it is not illegal. Though it may be satisfying to "tax the rich," to "stick it to the man," to forcefully recover those profits through targeted taxation, it is not Constitutional. It is not legal, nor should it be.
But there is more to this story. Goldman-Sachs, which was bullied into accepting taxpayer money it didn't want, has realized that Tony Soprano would be a better business partner than the US Congress. They didn't want the money. They didn't need the money. And they are working on ways to get rid of the dirty money as quickly as they can.
Goldman-Sachs is looking around at the strings and demands being made on others. Perhaps, they will also pick up the best and brightest from AIG executives, even as they rid themselves of the strings tied to government money.
And a final note on AIG, which is now 80% owned by the US Taxpayer. It is no longer named AIG. It is paying large amounts of (taxpayer) money to change its name to AIU, though many are preferring a more appropriate name IOU, for the failing US Government owned company.
Meanwhile, the US Department of Treasury, parent of the IRS, has grown to a prominence and to power, previously unknown in this Nation.
And I cannot help but find poetic justice in Code Pink having turned on Barney Frank and other of their allies that used them in the anti-Iraq campaign.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
The Government has made the executives "a deal they can't refuse." When Chris Dodd (Senator-CT) & Timothy Geitner (Treasury Secretary) finally admitted that they had personally had a hand in the language of the CEO Bailout Bill allowing the bonuses, the House of Representatives had their back. The House, believing themselves to be riding a tide of populism, voted for a 90% tax on Specific Individuals.
While such a targeted tax on money earned prior to the legislation would not likely pass the Constitutionality test in the court system, the cost of legal representation (lawyers) would have cost more than the new government employees had earned.
It is now being reported (CNBC) that most if not all of the US executives that received a bonus have "voluntarily" returned it. Most of the remaining executives keeping the bonuses are foreign residents, i.e. not subject to the targeted tax of the US House of Representatives.
Was all of this hoopla, was this blackmail by the government worth the $50 Million returned or even the $165 Million paid in bonuses? Or was this simply something to divert our attention from the fact that Congress paid out $700 Billion to their CEO Constituencies from the pockets of the common worker? Even if all of it is returned, that's still $699.8 Billion paid out of OUR pockets.
At what cost did these executives return the money? The check came with their resignation. In the midst of turmoil at the now Government owned AIG, now AIU (they changed the name), the top managers have decided to walk out. For some, we might say "good riddance." For others, their knowledge, expertise, and experience with the problem itself may mean, we need them. We simply don't know anything about who was there, who was paid a bonus for what, and hence who left.
Those that left were targeted because of their earnings, not their performance, which may or may not be tied to their performance (should be). If the bonuses worked the way they should have, they would have been paid to those that did the most to keep the corporation in the black. But we don't know, do we?
There is a bit of good news in this: Corporations have learned that Government is not a good business partner. The entire affair has been more akin to an Organized Crime operation than what I expect of government. Several Corporations were forced into the "deal they could not refuse." Once in, they found themselves bullied by politicians that have a record of losing money.
But there is a winner in all of this: Warren Buffett, a major contributor to the Obama campaign. Buffett, through his corporation, Berkshire-Hathaway, is known for his market prowess. Even as Congress first began considering the CEO Bailout Bill, Buffett expressed a wish that he could get in on just 10% of it. Meanwhile, he had $50,000,000,000 sitting on the sidelines, waiting for just the right moment to jump in.
And as the financials market plummetted with the acts and talk of Congress, he found his mark. It wasn't the "toxic assets" and failing banks that Representative Frank and Representative Gordon were forcing the American taxpayer to buy. It was the best of breed, Goldman-Sachs, that had to be co-erced into the bailout that he bought into.
We don't know when exactly he bought in, but on November 3, 2008, GS was selling at $89.09/share and on November 20th at $52.00/share. As of March 23, 2009, it is selling at $111.93/share. That's a gain of 25% to 115% gain in less than 6 months on a stock still considered undervalued by the very system that Obama supporter, Warren Buffett uses.
Warren Buffett is an astute investor and one of the richest men in the world. Many people shook their heads when he so forcefully backed both Hillary and Obama last year in the campaign. Who would have thought then that the tens of thousands he personally donated would earn him literally billions of dollars? Should there be a targeted tax on his earnings? Will there be politicians riding a tide of populism to call for it? NO.
As immoral as it is to back a political candidate for personal profit, it is not illegal. Though it may be satisfying to "tax the rich," to "stick it to the man," to forcefully recover those profits through targeted taxation, it is not Constitutional. It is not legal, nor should it be.
But there is more to this story. Goldman-Sachs, which was bullied into accepting taxpayer money it didn't want, has realized that Tony Soprano would be a better business partner than the US Congress. They didn't want the money. They didn't need the money. And they are working on ways to get rid of the dirty money as quickly as they can.
Goldman-Sachs is looking around at the strings and demands being made on others. Perhaps, they will also pick up the best and brightest from AIG executives, even as they rid themselves of the strings tied to government money.
And a final note on AIG, which is now 80% owned by the US Taxpayer. It is no longer named AIG. It is paying large amounts of (taxpayer) money to change its name to AIU, though many are preferring a more appropriate name IOU, for the failing US Government owned company.
Meanwhile, the US Department of Treasury, parent of the IRS, has grown to a prominence and to power, previously unknown in this Nation.
And I cannot help but find poetic justice in Code Pink having turned on Barney Frank and other of their allies that used them in the anti-Iraq campaign.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
Monday, March 23, 2009
The 8th Amendment -
As with other rights, it is fashionable to only quote part of it. We often hear activists quote the "no cruel and unusual punishment" clause.
There is little outcry over excessive bail because we usually hear about it when a serial killer is being tried. We don't want him running the streets during his trial, so we aren't all that sympathetic. The answer? No Bail in such a case.
Meanwhile, fringe elements of the world try to argue that all kinds of things are "cruel and unusual punishment." Those things allowed by law in 1790 were clearly not "cruel and unusual" according to the writers of the Bill of Rights, including capital punishment, including the holding of prisoners of war.
"Cruel & Unusual" would be being "drawn and quartered" as was the practice in England. It would include being "racked." It does not mean that prisoners have a right to cable and the internet. They don't.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
But how often do we hear of multi-million dollar bail being imposed? And Congress has recently voted to impose a 90% tax on certain members of certain corporations, which amounts to excessive fines.Amendment VIII
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
There is little outcry over excessive bail because we usually hear about it when a serial killer is being tried. We don't want him running the streets during his trial, so we aren't all that sympathetic. The answer? No Bail in such a case.
Meanwhile, fringe elements of the world try to argue that all kinds of things are "cruel and unusual punishment." Those things allowed by law in 1790 were clearly not "cruel and unusual" according to the writers of the Bill of Rights, including capital punishment, including the holding of prisoners of war.
"Cruel & Unusual" would be being "drawn and quartered" as was the practice in England. It would include being "racked." It does not mean that prisoners have a right to cable and the internet. They don't.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Common Goals
It is early in the 2010 campaign, but already at least one challenger has joined the fight. Should we end up on the ballot together, opposed to each other, it may come down to names and parties, of which I have only the former and none of the latter. I stand steadfast, independent of all parties, sworn only to the values and ethics taught me by my Tennessee Father and reinforced by decades of military service.
When two Veterans meet, stories will follow, and yesterday, two Veterans met. The stories we shared did not stop with Desert Storm, and they barely touched on the terrain of Afghanistan. They stepped back to the Civil War, when our ancestors and relatives likely stood face to face in battle and shoulder to shoulder against brothers, fighting the bloodiest war in Our Nation’s History. Our lives have paralleled as have the lives of our ancestors.
And General Dave Evans is an astute gentleman, and clearly a worthy adversary. He’s an observant man who recognizes not only the symbols but knows the meanings behind them.
We share not only similar backgrounds, but similar positions. He holds the Constitution and Bill of Rights dear. And why wouldn’t he? We’ve spent much of our adult lives defending them.
He understands the Pelosi-Reid-Obama alliance cannot withstand opposition of the real Democratic party of Jackson. He understands that our current whipped “Blue Dogs” are supporting Pelosi and Murtha and Barney Frank and that without that support, the elitists would fail.
Our parents were Democrats. Our fore-fathers were Democrats. But today’s DNC is not the party of our forefathers. It is not the party of our fathers.
We both stand on principle. It comes not only from our ancestral roots of Middle Tennessee but from Army Values. He is as concerned with Congressional largesse of Congress as am I, even if he has focused more pointedly at different aspects of it.
But there are also differences. Minor differences, really, but they are there. He was a Voluntarily Enlisted Private in the Marine Corps in 1968, during the hot period of the Viet Nam War. I was a Voluntarily Enlisted Private in the Army in the Cold War. I arrived in Germany at a time when we were still considered the “trip-wire,” there only to slow the Soviet hordes long enough for reinforcements to arrive and push them back over our bodies.
He chose the path of a Commissioned Officer (and a Gentleman, by an act of Congress), and I maintained the path of a Non-Commissioned Officer. (“I work for a living!”). He has more respect for General Shinseki than do I. (I have none, nor must I demonstrate any, anymore.) After Desert Storm, he went to Bosnia. I trained until I was sent to Afghanistan, grateful not to be sent to Bosnia.
He has a good 20 years on me, which still makes me more experienced than when Gore gave the district to Gordon. Both General Evans and I have more in common with Andrew Jackson than does Gore or Gordon, but Jackson and Evans were both Generals and I avoided the Officer rolls.
I’m thinking he was appalled to realize that Tennessee Tax Dollars are being used by Planned Parenthood to fund abortion. I doubt he knew that Bart Gordon had voted for it. Then again, I didn’t know that our Representative had taken a trip to Europe on our dime.
I’d venture to say I’m more internet savvy than is he. I have little doubt he is more politically astute than am I. It is amazing we haven’t crossed paths before. We’re certain to cross paths many times in the future. I know I’ll need to be well prepared for the debates, particularly if his attention is not diverted by Gordon’s presence. I’ll be sure to invite lots of cameras. Bart always seems to be where the cameras are.
In the meantime, the choice between General Evans and myself is likely to rest on personality, on style, rather than substance. When I face Bart Gordon, it will be all substance. It is a choice for the good citizens of Middle Tennessee to make. It is time for YOU to weigh in. And you can tell us now, that you know, or you can tell us that you need to see more of us.
But one thing is certain, neither Dave Evans nor myself are career politicians. Neither Evans or myself will continue the 6th District vote for Obama. Neither Evans nor myself will give Pelosi the free rubberstamp that does Gordon.
This is not an endorsement of Evans, but it is recognition of our Common Goals. It is recognition that he is a worthy opponent, a gentleman with Tennessee Values, rather than the panderer to Washington Insiders that we have now.
I’m a bit more rough around the edges. I did take off the John Deere hat before I met him and his wonderful wife and I dressed up in a polo shirt while he dressed down in suit jacket.
He has a party behind him, and I do not.You can contact me TNTaylorFor-TN6th2010 @ yahoo.comLet me know your thoughts. Are we ready to send Common Sense to Washington? Are we ready to ask Rep Gordon to enjoy retirement? What are the issues you want addressed?TNTaylor©2008, TNT, all rights reserved.
When two Veterans meet, stories will follow, and yesterday, two Veterans met. The stories we shared did not stop with Desert Storm, and they barely touched on the terrain of Afghanistan. They stepped back to the Civil War, when our ancestors and relatives likely stood face to face in battle and shoulder to shoulder against brothers, fighting the bloodiest war in Our Nation’s History. Our lives have paralleled as have the lives of our ancestors.
And General Dave Evans is an astute gentleman, and clearly a worthy adversary. He’s an observant man who recognizes not only the symbols but knows the meanings behind them.
We share not only similar backgrounds, but similar positions. He holds the Constitution and Bill of Rights dear. And why wouldn’t he? We’ve spent much of our adult lives defending them.
He understands the Pelosi-Reid-Obama alliance cannot withstand opposition of the real Democratic party of Jackson. He understands that our current whipped “Blue Dogs” are supporting Pelosi and Murtha and Barney Frank and that without that support, the elitists would fail.
Our parents were Democrats. Our fore-fathers were Democrats. But today’s DNC is not the party of our forefathers. It is not the party of our fathers.
We both stand on principle. It comes not only from our ancestral roots of Middle Tennessee but from Army Values. He is as concerned with Congressional largesse of Congress as am I, even if he has focused more pointedly at different aspects of it.
But there are also differences. Minor differences, really, but they are there. He was a Voluntarily Enlisted Private in the Marine Corps in 1968, during the hot period of the Viet Nam War. I was a Voluntarily Enlisted Private in the Army in the Cold War. I arrived in Germany at a time when we were still considered the “trip-wire,” there only to slow the Soviet hordes long enough for reinforcements to arrive and push them back over our bodies.
He chose the path of a Commissioned Officer (and a Gentleman, by an act of Congress), and I maintained the path of a Non-Commissioned Officer. (“I work for a living!”). He has more respect for General Shinseki than do I. (I have none, nor must I demonstrate any, anymore.) After Desert Storm, he went to Bosnia. I trained until I was sent to Afghanistan, grateful not to be sent to Bosnia.
He has a good 20 years on me, which still makes me more experienced than when Gore gave the district to Gordon. Both General Evans and I have more in common with Andrew Jackson than does Gore or Gordon, but Jackson and Evans were both Generals and I avoided the Officer rolls.
I’m thinking he was appalled to realize that Tennessee Tax Dollars are being used by Planned Parenthood to fund abortion. I doubt he knew that Bart Gordon had voted for it. Then again, I didn’t know that our Representative had taken a trip to Europe on our dime.
I’d venture to say I’m more internet savvy than is he. I have little doubt he is more politically astute than am I. It is amazing we haven’t crossed paths before. We’re certain to cross paths many times in the future. I know I’ll need to be well prepared for the debates, particularly if his attention is not diverted by Gordon’s presence. I’ll be sure to invite lots of cameras. Bart always seems to be where the cameras are.
In the meantime, the choice between General Evans and myself is likely to rest on personality, on style, rather than substance. When I face Bart Gordon, it will be all substance. It is a choice for the good citizens of Middle Tennessee to make. It is time for YOU to weigh in. And you can tell us now, that you know, or you can tell us that you need to see more of us.
But one thing is certain, neither Dave Evans nor myself are career politicians. Neither Evans or myself will continue the 6th District vote for Obama. Neither Evans nor myself will give Pelosi the free rubberstamp that does Gordon.
This is not an endorsement of Evans, but it is recognition of our Common Goals. It is recognition that he is a worthy opponent, a gentleman with Tennessee Values, rather than the panderer to Washington Insiders that we have now.
I’m a bit more rough around the edges. I did take off the John Deere hat before I met him and his wonderful wife and I dressed up in a polo shirt while he dressed down in suit jacket.
He has a party behind him, and I do not.You can contact me TNTaylorFor-TN6th2010 @ yahoo.comLet me know your thoughts. Are we ready to send Common Sense to Washington? Are we ready to ask Rep Gordon to enjoy retirement? What are the issues you want addressed?TNTaylor©2008, TNT, all rights reserved.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Tea Parties & Challengers
There is a movement afoot: Tea Parties of "The Patriotic Resistance" of Grassfire.org.
It is calling for "Idea based resistance" to the drastic changes occuring in the new federal government. On April 15th, they will hold events in Nashville, Knoxville, and Cookeville as well as many other locations across the Nation.
A challenger to Bart Gordon for the Representative of the 6th District seat has joined the Tennessee chapter of the organization, as of last night. David L. Evans is a Citizen-Soldier from Wartrace, TN and has declared his 2010 campaign for Congress.
We welcome Mr Evans to the debate and look forward to exploring the positions with him.
We hope that the organization will not be mischaracterized but recognize the name alone is sufficient for the media to do so. The following statement is important and is found below the profiles of the leadership of the organization:
Welcome to the debate Mr. Evans.
It is calling for "Idea based resistance" to the drastic changes occuring in the new federal government. On April 15th, they will hold events in Nashville, Knoxville, and Cookeville as well as many other locations across the Nation.
A challenger to Bart Gordon for the Representative of the 6th District seat has joined the Tennessee chapter of the organization, as of last night. David L. Evans is a Citizen-Soldier from Wartrace, TN and has declared his 2010 campaign for Congress.
We welcome Mr Evans to the debate and look forward to exploring the positions with him.
We hope that the organization will not be mischaracterized but recognize the name alone is sufficient for the media to do so. The following statement is important and is found below the profiles of the leadership of the organization:
"I affirm that ResistNet is for principled, patriotic resistance to Barack
Obama's ideology and agenda and is not a forum for personal attacks, lewd or
profane language, or militancy against Barack Obama or others. " TN Resistnet Phil Dedrick
Welcome to the debate Mr. Evans.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The 7th Amendment - Trial By Jury
Because Our Forefathers recognized that absolute power bred elitism and elitism bred arrogance, and arrogance bred contempt for the common man:
"Common Law" simply means that if a court has previously found that owning a firearm is your right, then your judge must find the same in your case.
But not only does this provide for the right of the accused to be tried by a jury, it also sets "common law" as the precedence. And that is the reason why lawyers argue about cases of old, where a ruling was made in the favor of their argument.Amendment VII
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. "
"Common Law" simply means that if a court has previously found that owning a firearm is your right, then your judge must find the same in your case.
Stealing Veteran Benefits
The Obama Administration is stubbornly pressing forward with a call to force Veterans to pay for their earned and promised VA Health benefits. General Shinseki is backing him in this theft. This was announced at the same time that the Secretary of State traveled to the Middle East to give $900 Million to Hamas, a terrorist surrogate of Iran.
Will the Blue Dog Democrats finally bite the hand that whips them? Will Representative Gordon finally demonstrate some backbone against the Chicago Political Machine?
Will the Blue Dog Democrats finally bite the hand that whips them? Will Representative Gordon finally demonstrate some backbone against the Chicago Political Machine?
Outright Lies
Larry Summers:
I guess he thinks people won't notice that the Government increased the Cigarette Tax by $8.00 a carton.
I guess he wasn't listening when Charles Schumer threatened to take by force the Bonuses of AIG, if they didn't give it back willingly, due to threat of force. Frankly, it sounds the same as a common thug, mugging someone downtown Washington DC. "Give it to me, or I'll take it."
Clarity again: It's morally wrong for those executives to take the bonuses. It's contractually obligated they be given those bonuses. It's not in the least bit illegal for them to keep them.
It's not constitutional for Congress to have forced the Taxpayer to buy AIG. It is reprehensible that they did not read their own legalese before they forced us into that $700 Billion in debt (+interest).
Schumer, Obama, Gordon, Cooper, Cohen all voted for the $700 Billion CEO Bailout bill, the same one they're now complaining about.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
"There are no tax increases this year." Obama Adminstration, Larry Summers, CNBC 3/17/2009
I guess he thinks people won't notice that the Government increased the Cigarette Tax by $8.00 a carton.
I guess he wasn't listening when Charles Schumer threatened to take by force the Bonuses of AIG, if they didn't give it back willingly, due to threat of force. Frankly, it sounds the same as a common thug, mugging someone downtown Washington DC. "Give it to me, or I'll take it."
Clarity again: It's morally wrong for those executives to take the bonuses. It's contractually obligated they be given those bonuses. It's not in the least bit illegal for them to keep them.
It's not constitutional for Congress to have forced the Taxpayer to buy AIG. It is reprehensible that they did not read their own legalese before they forced us into that $700 Billion in debt (+interest).
Schumer, Obama, Gordon, Cooper, Cohen all voted for the $700 Billion CEO Bailout bill, the same one they're now complaining about.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
Monday, March 16, 2009
Is It Malfeasance or Ignorance?
Our Congressmen seem outraged that the Executives of AIG and others are receiving bonuses while presiding over losses. Our Congress has resided over 200 years of losses, 200 years of debt. Why do they continue to get pay raises?
Our Congressman, along with every other member of his party from this state, short of Lincoln Davis, plus the Representative from Chattanooga voted for the CEO Bailout Bill. Marsha Blackburn led the minority party of our state, minus Zach Wamp in opposition to the CEO Bailout Bill, championed by then Senator Obama and supported by his opposition to the Presidency.
They tried to sell it to us as an "emergency" requiring "immediate action." They didn't have time to read the 700+/- pages of legalese and we have to wonder who had time to write it. But why now are they surprised that so much is being spent in Executive Bonuses? Perhaps because they didn't read what they voted for? Or perhaps because they knew it benefitted their campaign paying constiuencies?
We had little choice in the election of 2008. The press didn't cover the positions of Chris Baker. There is unlikely to be much coverage of the 2010 nominees for a while.
It didn't take long for the Common Sense Citizens of Tennessee to voice opposition to the CEO Bailout Bill. I withheld opinion until I could see the bill, but it didn't take but a few sections to realize we were being sold down the river. So why, did OUR Representative vote for it? Why was it that he bucked the views of the people of our district and why did he not realize it did not stop the largesse of CEO's and Executives?
Does he believe we have such short memories? Does he believe he can gloss over his support of the CEO Bailout Bill, the UAW Bailout Bill, and the Debt Stimulus Bill? Does he think that we will forget that he has voted FOR quadrupling the deficit in less than 12 months?
But let's be clear: It's not illegal for the executives to take the bonuses promised them. It is immoral for them to take the bonuses. It is not illegal for them to enjoy lavish retreats while contributing to the political campaigns of those voting for their bailouts. It is immoral.
It is not illegal to vote for earmarks, all 9,000 of them but it is irresponsible to do so. It is time to send a Common Sense Citizen to Congress. It is time to send a nice guy to pasture. It is time for Our Representative to Endorse a true representative of the People of Middle Tennessee. It is time for the follower of Gore to be replaced with a follower of Andrew Jackson. It is time for us to realize that the whipped Blue Dogs are not the Democrats of our forefathers.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
Our Congressman, along with every other member of his party from this state, short of Lincoln Davis, plus the Representative from Chattanooga voted for the CEO Bailout Bill. Marsha Blackburn led the minority party of our state, minus Zach Wamp in opposition to the CEO Bailout Bill, championed by then Senator Obama and supported by his opposition to the Presidency.
They tried to sell it to us as an "emergency" requiring "immediate action." They didn't have time to read the 700+/- pages of legalese and we have to wonder who had time to write it. But why now are they surprised that so much is being spent in Executive Bonuses? Perhaps because they didn't read what they voted for? Or perhaps because they knew it benefitted their campaign paying constiuencies?
We had little choice in the election of 2008. The press didn't cover the positions of Chris Baker. There is unlikely to be much coverage of the 2010 nominees for a while.
It didn't take long for the Common Sense Citizens of Tennessee to voice opposition to the CEO Bailout Bill. I withheld opinion until I could see the bill, but it didn't take but a few sections to realize we were being sold down the river. So why, did OUR Representative vote for it? Why was it that he bucked the views of the people of our district and why did he not realize it did not stop the largesse of CEO's and Executives?
Does he believe we have such short memories? Does he believe he can gloss over his support of the CEO Bailout Bill, the UAW Bailout Bill, and the Debt Stimulus Bill? Does he think that we will forget that he has voted FOR quadrupling the deficit in less than 12 months?
But let's be clear: It's not illegal for the executives to take the bonuses promised them. It is immoral for them to take the bonuses. It is not illegal for them to enjoy lavish retreats while contributing to the political campaigns of those voting for their bailouts. It is immoral.
It is not illegal to vote for earmarks, all 9,000 of them but it is irresponsible to do so. It is time to send a Common Sense Citizen to Congress. It is time to send a nice guy to pasture. It is time for Our Representative to Endorse a true representative of the People of Middle Tennessee. It is time for the follower of Gore to be replaced with a follower of Andrew Jackson. It is time for us to realize that the whipped Blue Dogs are not the Democrats of our forefathers.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Who Should We Trust With OUR Money & OUR Future?
Politicians continue to tell us that those "evil CEO's" have bankrupted their companies and sent the economy off the cliff. To a certain extent, they have a point. Simple greed has led to poor decision making by people as diverse as individuals to corporations. But the economic downturn is global, not local.
Some things are within the scope of an individual's responsibility and other things are not. A person who takes out a 105% loan (as Obama proposes to offer through the US Government) should be astute enough to know that they can't sell that house for the amount they owe on it.
A person with an income of $36,000/year should know that they cannot pay back a loan with a monthly payment of $3,000/month.
A CEO has the job of ensuring a corporation does what it can to make money. Sometimes, conditions outside his control, like an economic downturn or Congressional interference in those policies, will negatively impact his ability to do so. Other times, it is purely on his head that the corporation does not make money for its investors.
But, when one has failed to live up to their financial obligations and responsibilities, the last place that they should go to for advice is someone with a worse record on financial responsibility. When Citibank (and others) lost money in the short term, Congress's record of 200 years of financial irresponsibility at the very time they are accelerating gross irresponsibility is the wrong place to look for advice.
Sure, it sounds nice to hear that we will soon get "free health care" but nothing is free. The Government is one of the least efficient organizations in the Nation. Congress mismanages nearly everything they touch.
CEO's should not be getting multi-million dollar bonuses for loosing money, but Congress should not be the one to change that: Shareholders should be. When Congress becomes the board of Corporations, we will see greater mismanagement, not less.
And we already see the first nationalization of a bank, in earnest: Citibank is now up to 36% government owned. In fact, just two years ago, it would have taken half of the CEO Bailout bill to buy Citibank alone, but now, the $700 Billion CEO Bailout Bill could purchase more than 75 CitiBanks, outright.
We must send a Common Sense Citizen to Congress.
Some things are within the scope of an individual's responsibility and other things are not. A person who takes out a 105% loan (as Obama proposes to offer through the US Government) should be astute enough to know that they can't sell that house for the amount they owe on it.
A person with an income of $36,000/year should know that they cannot pay back a loan with a monthly payment of $3,000/month.
A CEO has the job of ensuring a corporation does what it can to make money. Sometimes, conditions outside his control, like an economic downturn or Congressional interference in those policies, will negatively impact his ability to do so. Other times, it is purely on his head that the corporation does not make money for its investors.
But, when one has failed to live up to their financial obligations and responsibilities, the last place that they should go to for advice is someone with a worse record on financial responsibility. When Citibank (and others) lost money in the short term, Congress's record of 200 years of financial irresponsibility at the very time they are accelerating gross irresponsibility is the wrong place to look for advice.
Sure, it sounds nice to hear that we will soon get "free health care" but nothing is free. The Government is one of the least efficient organizations in the Nation. Congress mismanages nearly everything they touch.
CEO's should not be getting multi-million dollar bonuses for loosing money, but Congress should not be the one to change that: Shareholders should be. When Congress becomes the board of Corporations, we will see greater mismanagement, not less.
And we already see the first nationalization of a bank, in earnest: Citibank is now up to 36% government owned. In fact, just two years ago, it would have taken half of the CEO Bailout bill to buy Citibank alone, but now, the $700 Billion CEO Bailout Bill could purchase more than 75 CitiBanks, outright.
We must send a Common Sense Citizen to Congress.
2010 Obama Budget
The 2010 Budget Request is out and we'll again have a chance to see if our Representative is a Blue Dog or Whipped Dog. Over the last few months, even before the election, our politicians have been throwing around the term "trillion" more than most Americans drop dimes. More rational members of the debate have attempted to provide an idea of what a trillion is.
The accumulated National Debt through 2008 was $10.2 Trillion, reflecting more than 200 years of deficit spending. The original 2009 budget called for a record deficit of $407 Billion deficit. Obama is pushing it another $1.75 Trillion higher in 2009 and that's based on tax revenues expected from pre-recession 2008. Before he begins passing supplemental spending bills and with the expectation of 2008 tax revenues (which are shrinking with our paychecks), he has asked for another $1.25 Trillion of deficit in 2010.
In just his first 3 months, Obama will have increased our national debt by 30% of what it took us 200+ years to accumulate.
The Whipped Blue Dogs continue to rubberstamp every whim of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Obama. The Whipped Blue Dogs continue to obey their masters from California, Washington, and New York. The Whipped Blue Dogs continue to ignore their electorate in favor of their CEO Constituents.
The Budget Request must be voted down. We simply cannot afford it. We must set priorities. And the priorities of this budget are simply backwards.
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton goes to the Middle East to announce a $900 Million giveaway to Gaza, i.e. Hamas, Obama was announcing that Our Troops will not get the pay raise they are scheduled to get. Why are we giving money to terrorists while cutting the pay raises of our Troops? Why is our Representative on board with that?
But the Budget Obama has proposed does not simply increase the deficit in 2010, it adds more deficit to this years. Obama has complained that he inherited the deficit, but the fact is he voted for it. He threw his weight behind the $700 Billion CEO Bailout, which was 100% deficit spending. He threw his weight behind the $17 Billion UAW Bailout which resulted in the Big 3 not purchasing parts from Tennessee suppliers. He forced down our throats the $800+ Billion Debt Stimulus Package. He did this with the full support of our Congressman.
As a result, he is now asking for more deficit spending. He has asked for a deficit of $1.75 Trillion in 2009. He didn't inherit it. He voted for it. He forced it on us. And Representative Gordon has voted for every thing he was told to vote for by Corrupt Chicago Politicians and the Far Left California Speaker of the House. My "hope" that Rep Gordon would lead against the radical left wing of his party has been dashed.
The "change" is that the Blue Dogs have been whipped into line.
We are at War, whether Americans feel it or not, whether Obama and Congress acknowledge it or not. This is not the time to be cutting the defense budget. This is not the time to be giving money to Hamas while cutting the raises of Our Troops.
We are in an economic downturn and every American feels it. This is not the time to be frivolously spending money we don't have. This is not the time to be increasing taxes on employers and decreasing the incentive for the rich to give to charities. This is not the time to be cutting Medicare benefits, earned by our retirees to fund Nationalized Health Insurance. And these are the things that Obama has proposed and Congressman Gordon is on board with.
Obama has claimed he will cut the deficit in half. The 2008 budget deficit was the previous record of $455 Billion. Obama predicts (based on 3.2% growth next year and 4% growth thereafter which we have no indication will come) a $581 Billion dollar deficit in 2012. That would be a record deficit, if it weren't for the fact that he and Congressman Gordon were implementing quarterly deficits in 2009 and 2010 that supercede the record annual deficits of all years prior.
In fact, if Obama's rosy outlook of growth occurs, despite no indications it will, he will have increased the National Debt by more than 50% in just his first term, with the Blue Dog's Support.
Meanwhile, he has also laid out his plan for Iraq, a 36 month withdrawal. See War On Terror News for the details. Troop Levels in Iraq will remain pretty steady into 2010 with 35,000 to 50,000 Troops, falsely labeled "non-combat" into 2011, but his budget calls for only $50 Billion to support those Troops in 2011 compared to $130 Billion in 2010. And that money is for both Iraq and Afghanistan Operations. Surely, Our Congressman, with his two years of Reserve Service understands that Our Troops deserve more support while they defend Our Nation against Terrorists.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
The accumulated National Debt through 2008 was $10.2 Trillion, reflecting more than 200 years of deficit spending. The original 2009 budget called for a record deficit of $407 Billion deficit. Obama is pushing it another $1.75 Trillion higher in 2009 and that's based on tax revenues expected from pre-recession 2008. Before he begins passing supplemental spending bills and with the expectation of 2008 tax revenues (which are shrinking with our paychecks), he has asked for another $1.25 Trillion of deficit in 2010.
In just his first 3 months, Obama will have increased our national debt by 30% of what it took us 200+ years to accumulate.
The Whipped Blue Dogs continue to rubberstamp every whim of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Obama. The Whipped Blue Dogs continue to obey their masters from California, Washington, and New York. The Whipped Blue Dogs continue to ignore their electorate in favor of their CEO Constituents.
The Budget Request must be voted down. We simply cannot afford it. We must set priorities. And the priorities of this budget are simply backwards.
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton goes to the Middle East to announce a $900 Million giveaway to Gaza, i.e. Hamas, Obama was announcing that Our Troops will not get the pay raise they are scheduled to get. Why are we giving money to terrorists while cutting the pay raises of our Troops? Why is our Representative on board with that?
But the Budget Obama has proposed does not simply increase the deficit in 2010, it adds more deficit to this years. Obama has complained that he inherited the deficit, but the fact is he voted for it. He threw his weight behind the $700 Billion CEO Bailout, which was 100% deficit spending. He threw his weight behind the $17 Billion UAW Bailout which resulted in the Big 3 not purchasing parts from Tennessee suppliers. He forced down our throats the $800+ Billion Debt Stimulus Package. He did this with the full support of our Congressman.
As a result, he is now asking for more deficit spending. He has asked for a deficit of $1.75 Trillion in 2009. He didn't inherit it. He voted for it. He forced it on us. And Representative Gordon has voted for every thing he was told to vote for by Corrupt Chicago Politicians and the Far Left California Speaker of the House. My "hope" that Rep Gordon would lead against the radical left wing of his party has been dashed.
The "change" is that the Blue Dogs have been whipped into line.
We are at War, whether Americans feel it or not, whether Obama and Congress acknowledge it or not. This is not the time to be cutting the defense budget. This is not the time to be giving money to Hamas while cutting the raises of Our Troops.
We are in an economic downturn and every American feels it. This is not the time to be frivolously spending money we don't have. This is not the time to be increasing taxes on employers and decreasing the incentive for the rich to give to charities. This is not the time to be cutting Medicare benefits, earned by our retirees to fund Nationalized Health Insurance. And these are the things that Obama has proposed and Congressman Gordon is on board with.
Obama has claimed he will cut the deficit in half. The 2008 budget deficit was the previous record of $455 Billion. Obama predicts (based on 3.2% growth next year and 4% growth thereafter which we have no indication will come) a $581 Billion dollar deficit in 2012. That would be a record deficit, if it weren't for the fact that he and Congressman Gordon were implementing quarterly deficits in 2009 and 2010 that supercede the record annual deficits of all years prior.
In fact, if Obama's rosy outlook of growth occurs, despite no indications it will, he will have increased the National Debt by more than 50% in just his first term, with the Blue Dog's Support.
Meanwhile, he has also laid out his plan for Iraq, a 36 month withdrawal. See War On Terror News for the details. Troop Levels in Iraq will remain pretty steady into 2010 with 35,000 to 50,000 Troops, falsely labeled "non-combat" into 2011, but his budget calls for only $50 Billion to support those Troops in 2011 compared to $130 Billion in 2010. And that money is for both Iraq and Afghanistan Operations. Surely, Our Congressman, with his two years of Reserve Service understands that Our Troops deserve more support while they defend Our Nation against Terrorists.
Tennessee Taylor©2009, TNT, all rights reserved
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
CEO Bailout: Congress Extracts Their Pound of Flesh
Today, 11 FEB 2009, Congress is interrogating the Banking Industry. It is being broadcast live on CNBC and is quite telling of the lack of quality of politicians we have sent to Washington.
The CEO Bailout (TARP) should never have happened in the manner it did. It was a key point in assessing the Campaign to send a Common Sense Citizen to represent the 6th District. Representative Gordon voted for the bill and there was little choice in who to replace him with. The only other person on the ballot in 2008 had received virtually no press in the media.
Things to consider in this are that Banks did not have opportunity to "opt out" of the hostile takeover by Government. I opposed the CEO Bailout privately from the beginning, from the point we discovered the details the House of Representatives first voted on. The Senate only made it worse.
The US Congress decided to force banks to hand over Preferred Shares of their Corporations and take money in return. Preferrred Shares pay dividends but afford no voting rights, no decision making capacity.
Today, one Congressman (I didn't recognize him) demanded that the Common Shareholders of the banks be paid NO dividends until TARP money is returned. Common Shareholders are Americans that have invested their money in the the Corporations. They are the ones taking the risks, the ones that have paid for voting rights, and who have been hurt most in the banking industry downturn.
When Congress demands shareholders be short changed by a lack of dividends, they are removing the money that Retirees count on for their month to month income.
For Congress to chastise any organization for operating in the red, for spending more than they make is pure hypocrisy. The US Government has operated on Debt since Andrew Jackson was President. And while not all debt is bad debt, this Congress and its predecessor have implemented and continue to implement the greatest increase in the history of Our Nation.
The same Congressmen chastising the Banking Industry for a few bad quarters have voted for two quarters of deficits larger than any year EVER in our history. The same Congressmen that demanded banks loan money to unqualified individuals in the 90's and early days of this Century are now demanding to know why more money has not been lent and why those earlier loans went bust.
In the interests of full disclosure, I own common stock in a bank, Regions Financial and previously owned stock in Bank of America. My opinions as a shareholder differ from my opinions as a taxpayer. As a taxpayer, I'm appalled that I was forced into debt by Congress so they could create an Investment firm. As a shareholder, I expect the CEO's salary to reflect his success or failure. I believe in the Lee Iacocca model: if you lose money, you don't get paid as the CEO.
I sold my BoA stock because they were going down the wrong road in my opinion. I neither had as much as did the Clintons, nor did I time the market as perfectly as did they.
As a shareholder, I want banks to act appropriately, to make decisions that will make money and to do so morally. If a corporation is a good corporate citizen, it will make more money. If it treats its employees, its customers, and its suppliers right, it will be successful. Greedy companies will lose in the long run.
I don't want the US Congress running corporations. Their job is to set the rules by which companies run, not to run them. The US Congress has an abysmal record of running things, particularly when it comes to money.
But today, Congress is teaching their Corporate Constituents a lesson: all things come with a price. The banks may not have had opportunity to reject Federal money, but that money came with strings and a bear hug while politicians put that long dagger in the backs of the Banking System.
And Congress has really broke one off in the Banking Industry. They first forced the money (borrowed in your name) on the banks. Then they set penalties if it is returned before three years is up. Now they are demanding billions in dividends be given the Government while at the same time demanding that Roths, IRA's, and Investors be shortchanged of their dividends. Like any other bully, major shareholder, the US Congress is demanding their way.
Unfortunately, Congress is full of lawyers, not businessmen. This is not the time to be selling jets. It's a time to be buying jets from those hurting for cash. Just as the best deals are from those in dire straights by those that have planned for them, so too is now a good time to be getting good deals on jets, construction equipment, and cars.
Meanwhile, the Senate has announced the finalization of the Debt Stimulus bill. I'm proud to say our two Senators voted against it. The Debt Stimulus bill adds another record amount of debt to our Nation. More debt than either of the two quarters of debt, each of which would have been an annual record on its own. I doubt Our Representative, a whipped "Blue Dog Democrat" will vote against it this time, given his record of voting for it previously.
The CEO Bailout (TARP) should never have happened in the manner it did. It was a key point in assessing the Campaign to send a Common Sense Citizen to represent the 6th District. Representative Gordon voted for the bill and there was little choice in who to replace him with. The only other person on the ballot in 2008 had received virtually no press in the media.
Things to consider in this are that Banks did not have opportunity to "opt out" of the hostile takeover by Government. I opposed the CEO Bailout privately from the beginning, from the point we discovered the details the House of Representatives first voted on. The Senate only made it worse.
The US Congress decided to force banks to hand over Preferred Shares of their Corporations and take money in return. Preferrred Shares pay dividends but afford no voting rights, no decision making capacity.
Today, one Congressman (I didn't recognize him) demanded that the Common Shareholders of the banks be paid NO dividends until TARP money is returned. Common Shareholders are Americans that have invested their money in the the Corporations. They are the ones taking the risks, the ones that have paid for voting rights, and who have been hurt most in the banking industry downturn.
When Congress demands shareholders be short changed by a lack of dividends, they are removing the money that Retirees count on for their month to month income.
For Congress to chastise any organization for operating in the red, for spending more than they make is pure hypocrisy. The US Government has operated on Debt since Andrew Jackson was President. And while not all debt is bad debt, this Congress and its predecessor have implemented and continue to implement the greatest increase in the history of Our Nation.
The same Congressmen chastising the Banking Industry for a few bad quarters have voted for two quarters of deficits larger than any year EVER in our history. The same Congressmen that demanded banks loan money to unqualified individuals in the 90's and early days of this Century are now demanding to know why more money has not been lent and why those earlier loans went bust.
In the interests of full disclosure, I own common stock in a bank, Regions Financial and previously owned stock in Bank of America. My opinions as a shareholder differ from my opinions as a taxpayer. As a taxpayer, I'm appalled that I was forced into debt by Congress so they could create an Investment firm. As a shareholder, I expect the CEO's salary to reflect his success or failure. I believe in the Lee Iacocca model: if you lose money, you don't get paid as the CEO.
I sold my BoA stock because they were going down the wrong road in my opinion. I neither had as much as did the Clintons, nor did I time the market as perfectly as did they.
As a shareholder, I want banks to act appropriately, to make decisions that will make money and to do so morally. If a corporation is a good corporate citizen, it will make more money. If it treats its employees, its customers, and its suppliers right, it will be successful. Greedy companies will lose in the long run.
I don't want the US Congress running corporations. Their job is to set the rules by which companies run, not to run them. The US Congress has an abysmal record of running things, particularly when it comes to money.
But today, Congress is teaching their Corporate Constituents a lesson: all things come with a price. The banks may not have had opportunity to reject Federal money, but that money came with strings and a bear hug while politicians put that long dagger in the backs of the Banking System.
And Congress has really broke one off in the Banking Industry. They first forced the money (borrowed in your name) on the banks. Then they set penalties if it is returned before three years is up. Now they are demanding billions in dividends be given the Government while at the same time demanding that Roths, IRA's, and Investors be shortchanged of their dividends. Like any other bully, major shareholder, the US Congress is demanding their way.
Unfortunately, Congress is full of lawyers, not businessmen. This is not the time to be selling jets. It's a time to be buying jets from those hurting for cash. Just as the best deals are from those in dire straights by those that have planned for them, so too is now a good time to be getting good deals on jets, construction equipment, and cars.
Meanwhile, the Senate has announced the finalization of the Debt Stimulus bill. I'm proud to say our two Senators voted against it. The Debt Stimulus bill adds another record amount of debt to our Nation. More debt than either of the two quarters of debt, each of which would have been an annual record on its own. I doubt Our Representative, a whipped "Blue Dog Democrat" will vote against it this time, given his record of voting for it previously.
TNTaylor©2009, TennesseeTaylor, all rights reserved.
Friday, February 6, 2009
How Would You Spend YOUR Money?
Let's consider for a second the sheer size of the Debt Stimulus Bill, which purports to "stimulate the economy." At current, it is $939 Billion as compared with expected tax revenue of $2.7 Trillion which has already been appropriated for spending, and it doubles the amount we have already added to the deficit in 2009, in two quarters, each of which would have been a record deficit.
When one considers that the Debt Stimulus Bill would spend 1/3rd of all tax revenues and that only 1/2 of tax revenues are actually apparent on our pay stubs, we can more accurately identify what this means to your finances by looking at your 2008 W2.
This bill is nearly equal with ALL Social Security tax revenue, 1/2 of which is seen on your paystub. If you look at your paystub, double the amount withheld, that is your portion of the Debt Stimulus Bill.
It is also equivalent to more than 75% of all Federal Income Withholding taxes. Look at your paystub and imagine what you could do with that amount of money in your wallet. That is how much debt, Representative Gordon is voting to add to your bill.
Now, if you are going to go into debt by that much, do you want that money spent on dogparks, condoms, AmTrak, and a new power plant for Consolidated Edison in Illinois, or would you spend it on something that would be more beneficial to you.
And if 145 Million Americans had that much more money in their wallets to spend on what mattered most to them. That would certainly stimulate the economy and ease their financial woes. The US Congress has the power to put that money in your wallet by the end of the month. The US Congress could simply reduce all Federal payroll taxes by 75%, costing less money to the Federal Government while more positively effecting your bottom line and not paying all the bureacratic middlemen in the process.
If, on the other hand, they wished to collect the money and then redistribute it to you after paying those middlemen, look back at the W2, and imagine a check for 1/3rd of what you paid in last year, rather than 75% of it. Regardless of whether Congress spends your money on Condoms, Dog Parks, Bureaucrats, or simply doesn't collect if from you, it will cost you the same amount in debt, but it costs more for the monolithic monopoly to process that money than to "allow" you to keep it in the first place.
TNTaylor©2009, TennesseeTaylor, all rights reserved.
When one considers that the Debt Stimulus Bill would spend 1/3rd of all tax revenues and that only 1/2 of tax revenues are actually apparent on our pay stubs, we can more accurately identify what this means to your finances by looking at your 2008 W2.
This bill is nearly equal with ALL Social Security tax revenue, 1/2 of which is seen on your paystub. If you look at your paystub, double the amount withheld, that is your portion of the Debt Stimulus Bill.
It is also equivalent to more than 75% of all Federal Income Withholding taxes. Look at your paystub and imagine what you could do with that amount of money in your wallet. That is how much debt, Representative Gordon is voting to add to your bill.
Now, if you are going to go into debt by that much, do you want that money spent on dogparks, condoms, AmTrak, and a new power plant for Consolidated Edison in Illinois, or would you spend it on something that would be more beneficial to you.
And if 145 Million Americans had that much more money in their wallets to spend on what mattered most to them. That would certainly stimulate the economy and ease their financial woes. The US Congress has the power to put that money in your wallet by the end of the month. The US Congress could simply reduce all Federal payroll taxes by 75%, costing less money to the Federal Government while more positively effecting your bottom line and not paying all the bureacratic middlemen in the process.
If, on the other hand, they wished to collect the money and then redistribute it to you after paying those middlemen, look back at the W2, and imagine a check for 1/3rd of what you paid in last year, rather than 75% of it. Regardless of whether Congress spends your money on Condoms, Dog Parks, Bureaucrats, or simply doesn't collect if from you, it will cost you the same amount in debt, but it costs more for the monolithic monopoly to process that money than to "allow" you to keep it in the first place.
TNTaylor©2009, TennesseeTaylor, all rights reserved.
Success of the Government Monopoly
The United States is a Corporation. The US Constitution are the Articles of Incorporation. The US Congress is Our Board of Directors and the President is the Chief Executive Officer. We, the People, are the shareholders, the owners, and the customers.
But the US Government is also a monopoly. When we don't like the product, we don't have the option of shopping elsewhere. When we don't like the price, we don't have an option of not paying. We do have the option of changing the Board Members and the CEO.
Our Founding Fathers understood these principles and hence designed the Federal Government to have limited power, preferring the State Governments to hold the reins, as each state competed for citizens and responded to the expectations and desires of its citizens, its customers and owners.
Government is a necessary evil. But what is the scope of its purpose? To provide those services which necessarily cannot be provided through any but the combined efforts of the Nations Citizens. To provide for the National Defense and for Foreign Relations.
The Federal Government has no Constitutional Authority to set up dog parks in municipalities nor to open the Treasury to ACORN for "neighborhood stabilization." The Government is not being benevolent when it returns taxpayer money to taxpayers. It is far more efficient to simply not take the taxes than to take the taxes, pay a multitude of money counters, bureacrats, administrators, and politicians, then return what's left over to the victim removed from the fruits of his labors.
There are things which do fall within the scope of responsibility of the Federal Government but buying digital converter boxes from China for a few Americans is not one of them. Buying F22 Raptor Fighters for the US Navy and US Air Force from American Manufacturers to deter a war with China or North Korea is within that scope of responsibility. Buying new Re-Fueling Tankers for the US Air Force and hence employing tens of thousands in Mobile, Alabama is within that scope of responsibility.
TNTaylor©2009, TennesseeTaylor, all rights reserved.
But the US Government is also a monopoly. When we don't like the product, we don't have the option of shopping elsewhere. When we don't like the price, we don't have an option of not paying. We do have the option of changing the Board Members and the CEO.
Our Founding Fathers understood these principles and hence designed the Federal Government to have limited power, preferring the State Governments to hold the reins, as each state competed for citizens and responded to the expectations and desires of its citizens, its customers and owners.
Government is a necessary evil. But what is the scope of its purpose? To provide those services which necessarily cannot be provided through any but the combined efforts of the Nations Citizens. To provide for the National Defense and for Foreign Relations.
The Federal Government has no Constitutional Authority to set up dog parks in municipalities nor to open the Treasury to ACORN for "neighborhood stabilization." The Government is not being benevolent when it returns taxpayer money to taxpayers. It is far more efficient to simply not take the taxes than to take the taxes, pay a multitude of money counters, bureacrats, administrators, and politicians, then return what's left over to the victim removed from the fruits of his labors.
There are things which do fall within the scope of responsibility of the Federal Government but buying digital converter boxes from China for a few Americans is not one of them. Buying F22 Raptor Fighters for the US Navy and US Air Force from American Manufacturers to deter a war with China or North Korea is within that scope of responsibility. Buying new Re-Fueling Tankers for the US Air Force and hence employing tens of thousands in Mobile, Alabama is within that scope of responsibility.
TNTaylor©2009, TennesseeTaylor, all rights reserved.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Taxes For Condoms Or Fighters?
From War On Terror News:
It seems that President Obama and Congress are actually considering throwing 10,000 to 100,000 workers into the unemployment lines by not continuing the funding and acquistion of our National Defense in the form of the F-22 Raptor program. At the same time the Senate is adding Hundreds of Billions in more pork to the Debt Stimulus Bill, in addition to Pelosi's Condom Stimulus stake, they're possibly going to undermine the future defense of our Nation and the economy by ending this program that Aviators and Admirals need. "Ask the Jet-Jockies"
We need the Blue Dog Democrats to join the bi-partisan group which includes even Ted Kennedy in calling for this and all Defense to be funded.
It is near criminal that Our Politicians continue to ignore the will of the people as well as their Constitutional duties to defend this Nation while adding 10-20% to the National Debt in 12 short months, for CEO Bailouts, UAW Bailouts, and Condom Stimulation programs. The Debt Stimulus Bill has become the greatest pork project of the Congressional Record.
But be sure to look around the internet, at what other Veterans are saying and noticing about the new Congress and The Party in Power.
But we are in a time of economic crisis and the far left of the DNC: Frank and
Murtha are calling for cuts in Military Spending to the tune of 25% while the
President himself looks more moderate in his calls for the Joint Chiefs to plan
for cuts of 10%. This sets the stage for current programs to be cut
substantially and has politicians scrambling to ensure the programs in their
states are not cut.
It seems that President Obama and Congress are actually considering throwing 10,000 to 100,000 workers into the unemployment lines by not continuing the funding and acquistion of our National Defense in the form of the F-22 Raptor program. At the same time the Senate is adding Hundreds of Billions in more pork to the Debt Stimulus Bill, in addition to Pelosi's Condom Stimulus stake, they're possibly going to undermine the future defense of our Nation and the economy by ending this program that Aviators and Admirals need. "Ask the Jet-Jockies"
We need the Blue Dog Democrats to join the bi-partisan group which includes even Ted Kennedy in calling for this and all Defense to be funded.
To get the numbers straight from those most committed to saving this program and
send a message to YOUR politicians to get on board with preserving this program, you can visit this site, which has letters ready to send out to all that need to hear from you.
It is near criminal that Our Politicians continue to ignore the will of the people as well as their Constitutional duties to defend this Nation while adding 10-20% to the National Debt in 12 short months, for CEO Bailouts, UAW Bailouts, and Condom Stimulation programs. The Debt Stimulus Bill has become the greatest pork project of the Congressional Record.
But be sure to look around the internet, at what other Veterans are saying and noticing about the new Congress and The Party in Power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
